The 19th-Century Family Fortunes Funding Degrowth

Re:The 19th-Century Family Fortunes Funding Degrowth by sobellian on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @07:42PM (#49265996)

It's nice to be wealthy, but growth is happening for everyone. But as an overarching point, you appear to be arguing against a strawman. No one as far as I can tell in this thread is arguing for the status quo, especially regarding climate policy. They're just arguing against the notion that humanity's lot can be improved by nuking the economy in order to save the climate.

I understand that it is a lot more boring to discuss measured market interventions than eating the rich (incidentally, how will eating the rich solve the environmental problems of urbanization?). But it will be a lot more productive assuming one's starting goal is truly the environment rather than eating the rich.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The 19th-Century Family Fortunes Funding Degrowth by newspaper1 on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @08:06PM (#49266202)

I mean those charts don’t pass the sniff test. Being healthy (or sick for that matter!) was basically free, now it costs over a thousand dollars a month in insurance. A huge chunk of most people’s income.

Same with housing (and education): https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-american-income-vs-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The 19th-Century Family Fortunes Funding Degrowth by sobellian on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @08:27PM (#49266340)

Is it fair to say that you're more interested in discussing wealth inequality than environmental policy?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The 19th-Century Family Fortunes Funding Degrowth by newspaper1 on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @08:38PM (#49266415)

Degrowth touches both subjects. Billionaires for instance are top polluters. Leveling resource distribution would prevent that.

[ Parent | on HN ]