Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Growth Is The Problem

The problem I have with so called liberal economists like Paul Krugman is not that he's wrong about his prescriptions for what would solve our economic problems. Yeah, austerity in the US should be expected to reduce economic growth, cause a lot of suffering, and increase unemployment, just as it has in Europe. He's not wrong that preparation for an alien invasion would boost our economy even if it was later discovered that the invasion threat was a hoax. He's not wrong to suggest that the new I-Phone 5 could boost our economy by causing people to discard perfectly good phones.

Where he's wrong is that he doesn't recognize that his solutions allow us to continue down this unsustainable path. Capitalism needs ever expanding consumption. Krugman knows that the problem is lack of demand. So when consumers already have all the products they would ever need you have to contrive wants so that people will continue to consume more. Break windows. Throw away phones. Prepare for a war against a non-existent threat. Dig some ditches and re-fill them. This is what Capitalism requires.

What Americans don't recognize is that they are already fantastically rich. I found a really well written piece describing our riches, particularly relative to even the wealthiest people of the past, right here. If you are reading this blog post you are probably among the richest people in the world today. In fact you are way richer than most people that have ever lived. How is it that we don't live like we are rich? Instead we work and work for decades filling our homes with junk that we don't want and don't use? How many of us can actually fit 2 cars in our 2 car garages? I can with a lot of effort if I pile boxes full of crap high and to the side. At the moment I can't get 2 cars in, because I have too much stuff that I don't use in there.

Chris Hedges has a good piece on this topic here. Also a good interview on Democracy Now here. We are committing suicide by growing our economy when it is not really necessary for our happiness. It's only necessary because our system is Capitalist. It will not go on forever. It will either end with a massive economic collapse and unimaginable suffering or we will change the system drastically on our own terms.

23 comments:

Paul said...

Jon -

I can with a lot of effort if I pile boxes full of crap high and to the side. At the moment I can't get 2 cars in, because I have too much stuff that I don't use in there.

May I suggest you donate some of this stuff?

Paul said...

Also -

Where he's wrong is that he doesn't recognize that his solutions allow us to continue down this unsustainable path. Capitalism needs ever expanding consumption. Krugman knows that the problem is lack of demand. So when consumers already have all the products they would ever need you have to contrive wants so that people will continue to consume more. Break windows. Throw away phones. Prepare for a war against a non-existent threat. Dig some ditches and re-fill them. This is what Capitalism requires.

This is perhaps one (other) area where we differ.

Food, water, shelter I think are really the only things we "need". Everything is a want. Though economically speaking perhaps there isn't a difference - or so a long time ago an econ professor told the class.

W/ the list of things you describe I don't have any problems with any of it. Including that preparing for war for non-existent threat (the alien invasion). Note - I am quite willing to spend the money that would otherwise be spent on preparing for non-existing threats on other things (healthcare, etc).

I do not mean to suggest that we should proceed w/o taking into consideration the ramifications and negative consequences i.e. environment, etc).

Perhaps I am (too) optimistic that we can do both - economic expansion and do it "ethically" (or socially consciously may be a better description)

I also don't think the following premise to be true
Capitalism needs ever expanding consumption

Though perhaps I am being a bit too pedantic :-)

Jon said...

Yeah, I have been donating like crazy.

I do not mean to suggest that we should proceed w/o taking into consideration the ramifications and negative consequences i.e. environment, etc).

Well, that's the main problem (there are others but this is the major one). 40% of the arctic is gone. The solution is to rush in to the new waters and clean them out of larger fish. In the interview Hedges talks about that and the massive destruction that has been done in the Appalachian mountains. It's even worse in places like Brazil, Ecuador, China. We are committing suicide as a species not because we have unmet needs. It's because super rich people who already have more than they need have to have more.

If we could fill our houses with useless junk and prepare for alien invasions without environmental consequences then yeah, at that point you could make the case that it's not so bad. Not sure I'd agree because it's still problematic in other ways. But setting that discussion aside, the environmental destruction is huge.

Jon said...

BTW, I understand that many people in the world have unmet needs. What I'm saying is that the environmental destruction being done is not done in order to meet their needs, but to make the presently rich even more rich.

Examinator said...

Paul,
Ahhh but to those who most need it? say the homeless Africans and else where. The victims (collateral damage) of US policy, US sponsored wars (arm sales) in order to facilitate Corporate greed to supply more consumption? Um like Iran (the shar), Indonesia, Israel, Iraq and that's one only letter do I need more?

Examinator said...

Paul,
Are you aware of where all the E waste goes and the damage it causes environmentally and health wise to the 3rd world poor who try to make a living from it?

Examinator said...

Jon
If you really want to have night mares look up the Pacific Gyre ...and what man has achieved in the last 40 or so years.
Preview: is it where the ocean currents meet and all our ocean discarded floating plastics end up. It is the largest human creation in the world it can be seen from space and covers a greater area than Texas...the effects on wild life is terrifying.
All this is because of consumerism and marketing to facilitate consumerism.It is terrifying to consider that all this is but a part of the hidden use of petrochemicals (oil)

Examinator said...

Paul,
Regarding your economics lecturer's perspective.
consider this
Sir David Atenborough the CEO of BBC who saw in Color TV in UK, turned wild life presenter and environmentalist
rightly said " that anyone who believes in unlimited growth in a finite world is either a fool or an economist" I'd add or both.
Also consider Maslow's hierarchy of NEEDS end the implications of them...THE HUMAN ELEMENT... the wild card that invalidates much of economic theory.

Jon said...

Yeah, I'm aware of that collection of plastic and other trash in the Pacific. Scary.

I know a person that I tried to convince to keep using his present phone rather than discarding it because he was due for an upgrade. The phone plans here frustrate me because they encourage people to throw out perfectly good stuff. Well this person said it wasn't a problem because the phone is recycled. Someone else gets to use it. I wondered if that was true. I think I saw somewhere that it's like you said. Poor people strip these phones for useful materials, and it's done in a hazardous way. Do you have any details on that?

Chad said...

http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/patch.html

"The “garbage patch,” as referred to in the media, is an area of marine debris concentration in the North Pacific Ocean. The name “garbage patch” has led many to believe that this area is a large and continuous patch of easily visible marine debris items such as bottles and other litter—akin to a literal blanket of trash that should be visible with satellite or aerial photographs. This is simply not true. While litter items can be found in this area, along with other debris such as derelict fishing nets, much of the debris mentioned in the media these days refers to small bits of floatable plastic debris. These plastic pieces are quite small and not immediately evident to the naked eye. For more information on this type of debris visit our page on plastics."

It doesn't sound like NOAA is as concern as you apparently are.

Jon said...

Chad, any update on your election forecast? I heard Obama was out raising Romney again, which I would think would seal this thing for Obama. Elections are just bought.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Examinator said...

Chad,
Thanks for that...one I missed!
To clarify the Gyer is the size of Texas and can be seen from space from tire to time these patches form huge rafts of floating rubbish mainly plastics. There were pictures on a BBC? doco of a boat steaming around it and the captain saying that rafts of 8-10k wide were not that unusual.

Notwithstanding, it would appear my bad prose over stated it.
As for the wildlife catastrophe it causes that is indisputable... to many species the bags etc appear as jellyfish to the wildlife (their natural food) with species threatening consequences. and pollution of our food chain. Some fish today have so much carcinogens compounds in them governments are warning about eating too much of them can be life threatening. With those whose primary source of protien is fish how brilliant do you have to be to figure out whole communities/nations maybe (are?) at risk.
The other point I made was the commonly held myopic idea that if we ran out of oil all we'd suffer would be gas for vehicles and cooling/ power. Sadly that isn't true ...look around you and look at the number of items that are made from petro chemicals from wrapping to medicines and building materials etc. no more The whole civilization would collapse.
We're using it up as though there's no tomorrow.
..recycling is minimal ...because it's too expensive( there are lower fruit for profit).
What isn't considered is that as oil goes up so do petrochemicals as do the 'disposable wrappings/casings etc'.
What the business tycoons don't think about that oil is a finite resource. By the time it's expensive enough to make it profitable to recycle the raw material will be all but exhausted.
(because it's finite)
NOAA isn't concerned about the consequences it isn't their focus.

Examinator said...

Chad,
Browse this doco article for a feel of the problem.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3583576.htm
BTW the lack of evidence doesn't mean the that it doesn't exist.
One can reasonably sure that this doco's findings would/could be repeated on any coast line in the world.

Paul said...

Ex -

Ahhh but to those who most need it? say the homeless Africans and else where. The victims (collateral damage) of US policy, US sponsored wars (arm sales) in order to facilitate Corporate greed to supply more consumption? Um like Iran (the shar), Indonesia, Israel, Iraq and that's one only letter do I need more?

I am not sure, actually, what you are saying. But so that you know, though I hesitantly supported the Afghan war and think its end is long overdue I have *always* been an adamant opponent of the Iraq war. In conversations long ago, I just assumed that they had them, and still argued against the Iraq war. Further and I say this tentatively because I am not enough of a history buff that since WW2 the only legitimate war the US has been involved in was Afghan (initially).

Are you aware of where all the E waste goes and the damage it causes environmentally and health wise to the 3rd world poor who try to make a living from it?

Have I ever suggested that we ought to not concern ourselves with externalities? Quite the opposite, I think.

w/ regards to

Regarding your economics lecturer's perspective.
consider this
Sir David Atenborough the CEO of BBC who saw in Color TV in UK, turned wild life presenter and environmentalist
rightly said " that anyone who believes in unlimited growth in a finite world is either a fool or an economist" I'd add or both.
Also consider Maslow's hierarchy of NEEDS end the implications of them...THE HUMAN ELEMENT... the wild card that invalidates much of economic theory.


??? I said that my professor long ago had effectively stated that from an economics perspective there are not meaningful distinction between a want and a need. I have no quibbles w/ what Sir Atenborough. What I don't understand is the implication, and perhaps I misread you, that thinking that there is no distinction between a want and a need leads to believing in unlimited growth. That is a non-sequitur. Again assuming I don't misread your intent.

Going by reading many of your (recent) posts I think that our world views are actually quite similar.

Paul said...

Reread what I wrote in last post. there are some minor grammatical issues but I think what I am trying to say came across as intended.

Examinator said...

Jon,
These are just a few from my Data base
but you'll get the drift.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/green-technology/news-what-its-be-waist-deep-electronic-waste

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/03/07/1864945.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/02/25/computer-waste.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358450/The-gangs-dumping-recycling-Third-World-All-effort-separating-rubbish-waste-time.

htmlhttp://www1.american.edu/TED/oauwaste.htm

Examinator said...

Paul,
Yes we do share similar views. No there was no criticism intended.
Certainly not personal implications rather just adding different factors to the mix of the discussion.

If I do have a bee in my bonnet it is that people (in general) tend to make sweeping conclusions from the most narrow of facts...instant (pocket) solutions to complex (convoluted) issues.

In the context of the criticism of the consumerist model that over powers capitalism and conservatism (sic?) world today. The key issue is as you say to be far more cognisant of the difference between want and need WHEN PURCHASING, avoiding the 'gee wiz/ fashionable factor.
Simply passing on the result of our corrupted decisions...is avoiding our responsibility for over consuming.

Inherent in that is that there is a dark side to donating consumerist products too... it encourages the problem in the first place, Consumerism (wanton consumption of finite resources) rather than NEEDism.
If one follows the donation process through to actually buys (the charities prefer money) the items you would be shocked to know how few real needy people are the actual consumers of the 'charity' stores. my firm was employed to catch parasitic businesses and wives of the same, volunteering in these shops as spotters. Knowing that a donated product is worth a lot but keep stoom in order to buy it at ridiculously low prices or act as a spotter. the product is then put on sale on ebay, garage sale or their own shops at their true price. One woman we caught borrowed her maid's car to do 'charity' so no one would suspect what she was up to. We also sprung an interstate second hand dealer and their accomplices who knew in advance in winter of a large number of leather Jackets that were donated and priced for the poor being bought on job lot price by a dealer. denying the poor who had been waiting for them to come in.

Even when I was donating to charity a woman who I had seen (see the above actions) turned up as we were waiting for the charity truck to arrive and demanded we sell them to her and she would give a check to the charity... I said no. 10 minutes later another car stopped and offered to buy a table with a sob story (I recognised him too). When I challenged him he abused me and sped off.
Finally, all consumerist goods eventually either finish up in land fill or sent in bulk to 3rd world countries to be recycled by the mega poor. Bangalore and Vietnam recycle ships and the pollution/ injuries are extraordinary.
It is better/ more efficient to give the money you would have spent on to "appropriate" charities.
The massive BS the right/ corporatists/ latter day capitalists want us to believe is that consumerism is the only way other than 'their deliberately misinterpreted version of Left/ socialist/ libertarian/communism'. The truth is far from that choice of only two options.

Chad said...

JC,

For the election, going exactly to Hoyle IMO. For Liberals it is all hands on deck, polls with a disproportioned amount of Democracts making up the percentages just to try and show Obama in the lead as long as possible, Obama on TV every other night, calling on Jay Z and Beyonce for millions, man stream media planning overhear to attack Romney every chance they get, but I am sticking by my prediction that the election will not be close this year. Romney will win the general by 6 points plus. Romney is leading amoung Independents by 14 points in many of these polls when you roll back the covers - even the lefty polls among likely voters - that is a big number.

Lots to go here of course including the debates and BHO has a mess on his hands which he is fumbling in the Mid-East and a severely slowing economy. Things on my end have been the slowest that it has been in 3 years, lots of layoffs pending and biz levels way down across the board, but hey Ber-Yank me is printing more money so yeeeeaaaaahhhhhh. Its about the right time he did his part to try and help BHO. Funny that BHO is saying biz is getting better, but the Feds actions say otherwise.

BHO will stay on TV, he'll continue choosing to be on Jay Leno to fund raise instead of doing his job so he'll keep up in fund raiser I am sure.

I am still waiting for the poll showing the vote breakdown by employment type.

Chad said...

JC,

Besides - these same polls are showing that Repubs are likely to take over the Senate and keep the House so if BHO drums up enough votes from the parasite class to win the election, he's agenda will pretty much be stopped anyhow.

BTW - already have ordered the I Phone 5 for both me and my wife - love technology and new gadgets - love it. We just recently got a third I Pad as well since our son is in Kindegarten now. The oldest one (version 1) is his to assist in his learning and to play with it as well.

We can unlock vehicles, adjust the thermostat, see who's at the front door, change the TV and much more from any of our devices and I can't get enough.

Chad said...

Apologies in advance for the Parasite class reference - that was bad form and uncalled for.

I should have said - if he drums up enough supporters from his target group of individulas currently working as government employees, students or the gainfully unemployed group along with the fact that he will get 95% of the black vote, entertainment vote - he could win for sure.

I get it - one vote for one person, but it stinks to think that the great majority of producers who actually finance this mess are turning into the minority.

Just like your opinion here about the fact that there is an end to how much new stuff that can be made, bought and sold - there is a tipping point where the producers will no longer be able to support the non producers (generalization). As important as teachers are in this world - they are not worth $71K average in Chicago when the community around them earn only $36K average especially when you evaluate the test scores, lack of success coming out of that area.

So apologies for my unkind classification - its not their fault.

Chad said...

Ex - In reference to the Gyer situation, I truly was not making light of the actual problem just wanted to send you what I had read in the past about that when looking it up.

I will however take issue with your statement. "BTW the lack of evidence doesn't mean the that it doesn't exist". That arguement could easily be made for any of the discussions that we enjoy.

Examinator said...

Chad,
The problem I have is that I read so much and so often...when I comment it's often from memory of things I've read in the past and find it again is often rather difficult if not time consuming.
My bookmarks runs in to several screens and one entire page is divided up into sciences (some 600+ references) in addition I keep several relational data bases on specific topics some business related some science the rest facts I might refer too. Oh yes I have several on line specific 'academic' periodicals like "nature", 'new scientist' 'scientific America' and industry specific like Neuroscience,Psychology, medicine archaeology, security and technology.
Even the Dewey reference system to them all still means research is a lengthy business.
It a bit like my hard copy book library is into 800's.
To be honest, now that I'm semi retired many are not read as carefully as they were, unless I'm researching. I don't usually admit to this as people often categorise me as either a Smartie or a total nerd... I am neither. just an examinator ant...always examining and pondering.

Examinator said...


Chad
[ "BTW the lack of evidence doesn't mean the that it doesn't exist". That argument could easily be made for any of the discussions that we enjoy.]
ABSOLUTELY (the irony intended)
Welcome to my world, one in which absolutes bother me simply because they indicate lack of research, context and or sufficient thought (often prejudice, galloping wanton myopia self-interest).