I had written: > In the end, I think we should see "true" economic growth as being the > growth of technical and scientific knowledge, which allows us to > produce more with our labor.
Eugene Coyle wrote: > Yes, it "allows" us to produce more, but we (i.e. the US economy) won't > produce more unless somebody buys more. right. I didn't say otherwise. >... For the last several > decades, more borrowing has replaced more income as the basis of offsetting > productivity gains. [i.e., offsetting their negative effect on employment] > Credit cards, student loans, easier mortgages, home > improvement loans, six year car loans, etc. have been a desperate and now > failed attempt to keep the buying growing. This sounds like it was a conscious effort by a scheming elite. But I agree that without credit growth, the US economy would have been much more stagnant than it was (all else constant). > Productivity gains kill jobs. all else constant. > So growth needs, and is about, consumption. Growing consumption. But > growing consumption is destroying the environment in multiple dimensions. Growing consumption doesn't _have to_ destroy the environment. The development of "green" products (e.g., the Prius) also involves new consumption while reducing environmental destruction marginally. I would agree that there are strong vested interests in keeping consumer demand rising _without_ fixing the negative environmental impact. > Fish are disappearing, but the "democratization of sushi" expands. ??democratization of susi?? what's that? BTW, I never said that fish weren't being over-fished. > We can prattle all we want about the Genuine Progress Indicator (not that it > isn't a useful discussion tool) but the idea of dematerializing consumption > as a way to save both the economy and the environment at the same time is > utopian. Utopian as in unattainable. technically unattainable? politically unattainable?? > So, what is it? More fiscal and monetary policy to power the treadmill to > the end of the world, or offsetting gains in productivity (whether from > "technical and scientific knowledge" or learning by doing) with shorter > working time? isn't shorter working time an aspect of "dematerializing consumption"? I thought you said that was unattainable. It is a good idea to cut working time/year. Getting there would likely involve a big struggle. If people in China are willing to work 60 hours/week, that makes it hard to cut the work-week here in the US. gotta go. -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
