Re: economic growth versus steady state, There is a big problem with getting from where we are (catastrophic EXPONENTIAL economic growth) to where some of us would like to be (Steady state, dynamic flux around some mean value, call it what you will).
The problem is that there is nobody anywhere in the world who can envision a practical, politically feasible, and equitable version of where we want to be. I have read Daly and others on this subject, adn their major weakness always revolves around the policies that will give us steady state. Its not their fault though. The problem is that we all have a vested interest in seeing growth continue. Yes folks, growth is not just a sop for politicians and the opiate of uber capitalists. Surpluses generated by growth are what pays for roads, social services, and other infrastructure of civilization. Growht is what pays for your pension (if you have one) and it provides dividends on your investments so that you can retire. Growht is what pays for foreign aid, even though that is only a pitifully small part of our bloated GDPs. And of course the alternative to growth is stagnation courtesy of the multiplier effect. Loosely speaking (economists, please correct me), due to the fact that money circulates in the economy, an additional dollar of investment translates into several additional dollars of consumer and other spending. Thus the net effect of spending an additional dollar is disproportionately translated through the economy (positive feedback?). Unfortunately, it can work in reverse. If you choose not to buy that one dollar pack of gum (or that shiny new SUV or a cell phone or a second helping of dessert for that matter), the effect of money withdrawn from the economy can ripple through it, reducing aggregate demand disproportionately to the original withdrawal. A positive feedback with very negative consequences :( So how do we get off this treadmill. Beats me...... Andy
