Brian, Thanks for the PDF, that was exactly what I was looking for. As explicated, the steady-state economy seems quite neat to me. I agree that there might not be any job loss once a steady-state economy was reached, but the transition, it seems to me, will result in some job loss.
For example, consider buildings. I think that heating, cooling, and lighting buildings takes something like 50% of all the electricity used in the US. And the construction sector employs many million Americans. As I understand the steady-state economy, eventually the number of buildings built each year will equal the number destroyed burned, condemned, etc. Im not sure how many buildings get torn down or destroyed every year, but Im sure that its a lot less than the 1.5 million new houses alone that are built every year. So if the construction industry is down-sized drastically, something will have to be found for all of those displaced construction workers. I can see a policy solution to get to steady-state buildings simply require each builder to get a special permit (the right to build a building of X square feet) that would be purchased from the owner of a building that is torn down (This would be done on a brokerage system, to reduce transaction costs). That would ensure that no net additional square footage of buildings is built. It would be an open policy decision whether to allow trading on a local, state-wide, or nation-wide basis. My vote would be for a state- or nation-wide level, that might ease some potential housing pressures, especially if people need to migrate in search of employment opportunities or in response to the effects of climate change. So, I think it would be feasible to create these policy options. What I dont see developing is the political will to force them through. I mean, Oregon had something much much less restrictive (Smart Growth or a kind of zoning regulations) that was declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court. I dont think the average American would take too kindly to the idea that he doesnt have the right to build something on his own land. So I guess that my next question is: what would it take to build political support for a steady-state economy? Matt --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeff hit the nail on the head. We who suggest the > steady state economy > as a policy goal are neither calling for absolute > stasis nor naïve > enough to think such a state may exist on earth. We > are talking about > an equilibrating population and per capita > consumption that, ceteris > paribus, would be generally indicated by > equilibrating GDP (ideally > around the optimum (which we have probably already > exceeded in the > U.S.)). And all in the context of non-material > cultural dynamics. > > Someone else asked what a steady state economy would > look like, what > kinds of institutions it would entail and so forth. > I dont believe > anyone has written a comprehensive conjecture on > that, but myself and > Herman Daly attempted to concisely answer some of > the most commonly > asked questions here: > > http://www.steadystate.org/files/SSE.pdf > > Also, The Wildlife Society will be hosting a > symposium at its annual > conference this year on What is a Steady State > Economy? or something > to that effect. This issue is such an important > topic for the future > of wildlife conservation that there is even a > Working Group for the > Steady State Economy in TWS. (The symposium is > being hosted by the > working group.) > > I think its been a good thread of late and it is > encouraging to hear > of the interest in the ESA about macroeconomic > policy issues. A lot of > what we care about as ecologists and citizens cannot > withstand the > forces of economic growth, and it seems defeatist > and illogical to > think we can do nothing about the policy goal of > economic growth. > > My apologies if I posted this once before but here > is part of a general > strategy to unify the ecological professions on this > issue, with sound > science, such that the environmental community may > have a solid > foundation to stand upon as they take this up with > memberships and then > policy makers: > > http://www.steadystate.org/Foundation-of-a-New-Conservation-Movement.pdf > > Cheers, > > > Brian Czech, Ph.D., President > Center for the Advancement of the Steady State > Economy > SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at: > www.steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html . > EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS? Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
