Re:Economics Needs a Post-Crash Revolution
by scythe on Sunday October 27, 2019 @12:08PM
(#21370584)
>but you've ignored another possibility: lower cost of living such that 17.3k per annum is plenty of money to live on.
No, that's also growth. A lower "cost" of living requires some reconfiguration of "stuff" in the world so that it provides more utility, i.e., more "value", than it does currently, which we understand to be an increase because it is not currently providing that amount of utility -- i.e., providing for living. That would mean that the total amount of "value" has grown, even if we refer to it using smaller amounts of currency.
I think some people interpret "growth" to mean growth in physical things, like energy consumption or the amount of railroads, but growth also includes psychological variables like satisfaction and physiological variables like health. The world absolutely needs growth. You can't get around that by rewording the question.
Re:Economics Needs a Post-Crash Revolution
by mdorazio on Sunday October 27, 2019 @03:39PM
(#21371879)
Ok, I thought we were talking about economics and thus economic growth. If you want to get into intangible things like general well-being then it's a different discussion entirely.
No, that's also growth. A lower "cost" of living requires some reconfiguration of "stuff" in the world so that it provides more utility, i.e., more "value", than it does currently, which we understand to be an increase because it is not currently providing that amount of utility -- i.e., providing for living. That would mean that the total amount of "value" has grown, even if we refer to it using smaller amounts of currency.
I think some people interpret "growth" to mean growth in physical things, like energy consumption or the amount of railroads, but growth also includes psychological variables like satisfaction and physiological variables like health. The world absolutely needs growth. You can't get around that by rewording the question.