thanks. That makes sense. On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:51 AM, ehrbar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jim wrote: > >> As usual, we have to be clear what _kind_ of "economic growth" is bad. > > Here is a quote from p. 46 of the UK Prosperity without Growth report > http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=914 > (URL forwarded to the pen-l on April 15 by Sandwichman): > >> Put in its simplest form the 'dilemma of growth' can now be stated in >> terms of two propositions: >> >> o Growth is unsustainable -- at least in its current form. Burgeoning >> resource consumption and rising environmental costs are compounding >> profound disparities in social wellbeing >> >> o 'De-growth' is unstable -- at least under present conditions. >> Declining consumer demand leads to rising unemployment, falling >> competitiveness and a spiral of recession. >> >> This dilemma looks at first like an impossibility theorem for a >> lasting prosperity. But it cannot be avoided and has to be taken >> seriously. The failure to do so is the single biggest threat to >> sustainability that we face. > > It would be interesting to see what lessons, if any, can be drawn > from this report for the formulation of Waxman-Markey. > > I will respond to Carrol in a separate email. > > Hans. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
-- Jim Devine / "If heart-aches were commercials, we'd all be on TV." -- John Prine _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
