Hi, I like the idea of a stead-state economy, but I have trouble imaging what it would be like. What country (or administrative region) do you think is closest to achieving it?
I also worry a bit about losing the "development" with the "growth" sensu Daly. I mean, ideally, the economy could continue to "develop" (increasing the value of sum of every good and service every year) without increasing its resource base (use of timber, coal, electricity, agricultural products, etc). Unfortunately, I don't really see a way to get there without some sort of coercion, either regulatory coercion (i.e. setting up a quota system for each resource) or economic coercion (pricing resources much higher to keep the amount used the same every year). I assume that people having been struggling with these ideas and I'd love to hear what you've come up with. Matt --- Jeff Houlahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ashwani and all, I think the critical point that > Brian and Herman and others like them make is that, > while it may be difficult to manage an economy to > achieve steady-state, it is almost certainly > impossible to do when the reigning paradigm is that > growth is good. When every policy or economic > decision is aimed at growing the GNP/GDP it is very > unlikely that we will achieve a steady state. I > think to suggest that steady-state economy implies > 'staying put' creates a straw man - yes, as > individuals, communities, a species we are > inevitably going to change over time. Steady state > implies (I believe, in the context we are talking > here) zero-growth. That doesn't mean 'no change'. > Best. > > Jeff Houlahan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ashwani Vasishth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:58:22 -0700 > Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and > Complexity/Evolution > > At 12:21 AM +0000 4/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > - no politburo required when the democratic rider > is strong enough for the > >capitalist horse. > > > > Respectfully , Brian, that's a rather substantial > caveat to slip in > to the conversation. All evidence that I see from > tracking everyday > politics and policy shows me that democracy is > steadily losing out to > corporate capitalism--every where. Not only does it > no longer matter > that people should get what they want, people often > don't know what > they should want. (And even when they know what > they want and do get > it, it turns out to be connected to all sorts of > things that they > definitely don't want.) Then what is to be done? > > But more importantly, show me the mechanism that > would keep any > economy at an actual "steady state." It seems to me > that we > currently expend huge amounts of effort in > attempting to "keep the > economy on an even keel," but even there, we fail > more often than > not. The idea that we can stay put, in any fashion, > seems to me > completely an unnatural state of affairs, except if > it is taken > metaphorically. (And then it does very little for > us, near as I can > tell.) > > I like Daly et al., and agree with them about the > need to manage for > a different set of objectives than physical or > morphological growth. > I buy the quite meaningful distinction between > growth and > development. But the root reason(s) that an > ecosystem approach is > imperative to the management of life is because the > world is a > dynamical place that, further, can not be singularly > defined. Show > me what specific steps we could take--both as > individuals and as > groups (ontogeny and phylogeny both have standing in > this, yes?)--to > get away from growth and toward a steady state? > > I don't doubt in the least that there are a host of > policies that > would move us toward development and away from > growth (adopting Cobb > et al.s' Genuine Progress Indicators is only one > example), but how > does one stay put, in life, without first needing to > deny both > complexity and evolution? > > By the way, a wonderful history of the idea of > equilibrium in US > social science is: > > Russett, Cynthia E. 1966. The Concept of > Equilibrium in American > Social Thought. New Haven, London: Yale University > Press. > > And on the idea of evolutionary progress, see: > > Nitecki, Matthew H. (ed.). 1988. Evolutionary > Progress. Chicago: > University of Chicago Press. > > Cheers, > - > Ashwani > Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (818) 677-6137 > http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/ > http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth > Matthias Schultz Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology University of Maryland ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
