Reverse economic growth
Mar 5, 2010 9:29:54 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2010 9:29:54 GMT
All of us have been raised, I think, in the concept that economies should constantly expand. An economy in decline is never a good thing, because it means fewer jobs, more unemployment and a general downward spiral to hell.
However, a very vocal minority of economists has appeared calling for reverse economic growth (décroissance in French). They say that the developed economies are pretty much fully developed and that to continue to consume for the sake of consuming is madness. It increases pollution and depletes the resources of the planet. We should just “take a break” while the rest of the planet catches up and offer our assistance to help them develop in a more responsible way.
People do not need to constantly change cars, computers, televisions, mobile phones, houses and many other things if they are correctly built and maintained in the first place. The whole economy could adjust little by little to this new situation. Fewer sales of equipment would mean fewer jobs – or fewer hours of work. Fewer hours of work would mean lower salaries, but people would not have the same expenses, because they wouldn’t be buying so much crap.
It’s really hard to imagine “less” being better than” more”, but maybe we have all been indoctrinated to pollute and waste to fill the pockets of the captains of industry.
Would things really decline, though? With people consuming less and having reliable products, and working fewer hours, they would have more leisure time. While the 35-hour work week in France has not been considered an unqualified success even by its supporters, there have been some undeniable benefits for the economy. The leisure industries have developed more, from cinemas and handicraft classes to fitness clubs. The travel industry has created countless 3 and 4-day products, whereas before, they had to work with the concept of either just weekends or full weeks. And France has the highest birthrate in Europe now – it even passed Ireland last year.
This new leisure time created quite a few jobs for the unemployed, so there was a certain economic development where it was needed, while pressure was taken off other sectors.
Naturally there is no way for reverse economic growth to work in the world as it currently is. There is too much competition among the countries, too many needs elsewhere around the globe, too much industrial and technical interconnection of the world economy. Any country that would try to unhook from the system as it is would be swept away.
Personally, I think that there are some aspects of the idea that could be used here and there. Lots of tiny changes in the way we live would build up to a more visible effect little by little, the way bicycles are slowly but surely gaining ground on motor vehicles, or organic agriculture is beginning to offset the frenzy of industrial overproduction of crops.
Does anybody have any thoughts on the subject?
However, a very vocal minority of economists has appeared calling for reverse economic growth (décroissance in French). They say that the developed economies are pretty much fully developed and that to continue to consume for the sake of consuming is madness. It increases pollution and depletes the resources of the planet. We should just “take a break” while the rest of the planet catches up and offer our assistance to help them develop in a more responsible way.
People do not need to constantly change cars, computers, televisions, mobile phones, houses and many other things if they are correctly built and maintained in the first place. The whole economy could adjust little by little to this new situation. Fewer sales of equipment would mean fewer jobs – or fewer hours of work. Fewer hours of work would mean lower salaries, but people would not have the same expenses, because they wouldn’t be buying so much crap.
It’s really hard to imagine “less” being better than” more”, but maybe we have all been indoctrinated to pollute and waste to fill the pockets of the captains of industry.
Would things really decline, though? With people consuming less and having reliable products, and working fewer hours, they would have more leisure time. While the 35-hour work week in France has not been considered an unqualified success even by its supporters, there have been some undeniable benefits for the economy. The leisure industries have developed more, from cinemas and handicraft classes to fitness clubs. The travel industry has created countless 3 and 4-day products, whereas before, they had to work with the concept of either just weekends or full weeks. And France has the highest birthrate in Europe now – it even passed Ireland last year.
This new leisure time created quite a few jobs for the unemployed, so there was a certain economic development where it was needed, while pressure was taken off other sectors.
Naturally there is no way for reverse economic growth to work in the world as it currently is. There is too much competition among the countries, too many needs elsewhere around the globe, too much industrial and technical interconnection of the world economy. Any country that would try to unhook from the system as it is would be swept away.
Personally, I think that there are some aspects of the idea that could be used here and there. Lots of tiny changes in the way we live would build up to a more visible effect little by little, the way bicycles are slowly but surely gaining ground on motor vehicles, or organic agriculture is beginning to offset the frenzy of industrial overproduction of crops.
Does anybody have any thoughts on the subject?