What's with your obsession with growth? You must realise that we can't escape our problems by growing when a lot of them are a result of that growth. Surely even the most gung ho of capitalists must have an inkling that growth of itself is not an answer to everything. That it delivers costs as well as benefits, and these costs are, ironically, growing, and some of them are permanent. As the costs build up, it should be obvious that the sort of growth that our monopoly capitalist exploitative and environmentally destructive system has been delivering will in the end lead to collapse.
The great burst of growth from the industrial revolution until about the 1990s was on the back of coal then oil and gas. Without that, it would not have happened. The energy cost of energy fell dramatically from the late 18th to the late 20th centuries, but has since risen quite sharply. The downsides of this growth - the pollution, impact on nature, vast waste dumping, climate effects - are rising steeply and surpassing the ability of the earth to deal with. The world has filled up with us and our stuff yet we still act as if it is a limitless resource. Infinitely renewable. It isn't.
Since the 1970s the GPI has not risen, despite the world GDP doubling. We don't need growth, we need development - i.e. improvements for the mass of humanity rather than an ever increasing concentration of "wealth" and the accompanying concentration of political power around the interests of the wealthy. The uncontrolled greed of the billionaires and the unconstrained power of finance are growing exponentially. That is all the growth we will see - a cancerous, diseased growth that is killing the planet we depend on for life. So, please, move on from this 1970s thinking. This is 2026 and we need answers that are based on where we are now, not some fantasy from 50 years ago. Face up to the truth. Growth is over, its now about how to maintain a sustainable lifestyle for everyone within the capacity of the planet to support life.
I know economists and financiers don't get this - they don't seem to grasp the fundamentals of thermodynamics, or of ecology. But, stop with the delusional thinking. Please!
In a nutshell, GDP includes costs as well as benefits - so the cost of cleaning up an oil spill counts towards GDP, similarly the cost of mental health treatment from stress and so on. The deterioration of the environment (or of societal wellbeing) is not accounted for, nor is unpaid work (such as household or volunteering). It also excludes the “informal” and illegal sectors - like the drug trade, or cash in hand work. There is also no measure of inequality (aka distribution) in GDP. So a per capita GDP can be highly misleading as the income and wealth is not evenly shared.
GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) tries to include costs, deterioration, “invisible” sectors and inequality to give a more rounded picture. This requires a certain amount of subjectivity, compared to GDP, but at least tries to offer some measure of how the “growth” of th economy is affecting people. Are they better off or worse off - not just financially, but in quality of life? There are other measures that try to do this - SPI (Social Progress Indicator); HDI (Human Development Index); Better Life Index, and so on. They are more complex and more subjective, and generally not so easy to compare across countries. GDP is easy, but highly misleading.
Q: High growth under Thatcher, but wasn't some/a lot of that due to North Sea Oil?
I'm a catastrophist though, with increasing fascism, AI and climate breakdown a perfect storm is coming and probably quite soon. UK should invest heavily in infrastructure to provide food (more dams, drainage, farmer support) plus green power sources and more guns/drones. They will do some of that but not enough to make a significant difference.
I believe I have objected to the term growth before – primarily in arguments with degrowthers, but also here on this blog. What exactly is it one wants to grow (or not)? Money, because this is what growth usually is measured in? But money is uninteresting, the important thing is what one gets out of it, and who gets something out of it.
I am sure that a lot of desired changes would result in growth. For example if big chunks of the bullshit workers, à la Graeber, would be transferred into useful jobs. But the growth counted in money wouldnt be the thing, but the usefulness would. Other desired reforms would perhaps lead to diminshed growth, for example the reduced uses of raw materials à la Mazzucato & Perez. But so what?
There is actually a few things about growth that is absolutely pernicious. According to Richard Layard, happiness depends most of all on having friends and relatives. Now, a big part of growth politics after say 1960 has consisted in annihilating old industrial towns ad forcing people there to move, to "more profitable" things. Their loss of happiness due to loss of friends is monumental but can't be measured.
I think the mistake economists do is to consider all kinds of production as the same thing, and can be changed into each other seamlessly. Fundamentaly, says the economist, a shoeshine boy in Lima is the same thing as Apple, an "enterprise", and follow the same laws and having the same consequences. I think that is a most pernicious oversimplification, if not falseness. It means a lot WHAT you do.
This is very interesting. Still working my way through the links. Productivity can sometimes be very mysterious; I think a lot of people aren’t sure what is meant when it’s discussed. One question I have is when a company like Fan Duels or even Microsoft makes a lot of money because of IP or network effects are they considered productive just because they’re very profitable, regardless of the social harm and associated costs, or even just the subscription costs in the case of Microsoft? If they use the wealth they generate to invest in other businesses does that make them more productive? If they use that wealth to buy political influence to prevent competition or disruption by new technology, does that make them less productive?
This analysis completely misses that the transformation we must prioritise is to a truly zero emissions circular economy, and that trying to deliver unsustainable infinite growth will actually ultimately reduce prosperity.
*Giles Wilkes is right to say (pdf) that raising growth “will often involve hurting some interests to further others.”*
This sounds like a riff on Schumpeter's 'Creative destruction'. The focus on growth can't be neutral as a productivity gain usually means that more is done with less. Worse: (Or, better?) it could also mean a churn of workers in the enhanced activity. This is surely the possible lesson from AI. Only re-skilled workers will be able to access the new activity.
What's with your obsession with growth? You must realise that we can't escape our problems by growing when a lot of them are a result of that growth. Surely even the most gung ho of capitalists must have an inkling that growth of itself is not an answer to everything. That it delivers costs as well as benefits, and these costs are, ironically, growing, and some of them are permanent. As the costs build up, it should be obvious that the sort of growth that our monopoly capitalist exploitative and environmentally destructive system has been delivering will in the end lead to collapse.
The great burst of growth from the industrial revolution until about the 1990s was on the back of coal then oil and gas. Without that, it would not have happened. The energy cost of energy fell dramatically from the late 18th to the late 20th centuries, but has since risen quite sharply. The downsides of this growth - the pollution, impact on nature, vast waste dumping, climate effects - are rising steeply and surpassing the ability of the earth to deal with. The world has filled up with us and our stuff yet we still act as if it is a limitless resource. Infinitely renewable. It isn't.
Since the 1970s the GPI has not risen, despite the world GDP doubling. We don't need growth, we need development - i.e. improvements for the mass of humanity rather than an ever increasing concentration of "wealth" and the accompanying concentration of political power around the interests of the wealthy. The uncontrolled greed of the billionaires and the unconstrained power of finance are growing exponentially. That is all the growth we will see - a cancerous, diseased growth that is killing the planet we depend on for life. So, please, move on from this 1970s thinking. This is 2026 and we need answers that are based on where we are now, not some fantasy from 50 years ago. Face up to the truth. Growth is over, its now about how to maintain a sustainable lifestyle for everyone within the capacity of the planet to support life.
I know economists and financiers don't get this - they don't seem to grasp the fundamentals of thermodynamics, or of ecology. But, stop with the delusional thinking. Please!
It would be useful to define GPI, which I understand stands for General Progress Indicator. How is this even measured, exactly?
In a nutshell, GDP includes costs as well as benefits - so the cost of cleaning up an oil spill counts towards GDP, similarly the cost of mental health treatment from stress and so on. The deterioration of the environment (or of societal wellbeing) is not accounted for, nor is unpaid work (such as household or volunteering). It also excludes the “informal” and illegal sectors - like the drug trade, or cash in hand work. There is also no measure of inequality (aka distribution) in GDP. So a per capita GDP can be highly misleading as the income and wealth is not evenly shared.
GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) tries to include costs, deterioration, “invisible” sectors and inequality to give a more rounded picture. This requires a certain amount of subjectivity, compared to GDP, but at least tries to offer some measure of how the “growth” of th economy is affecting people. Are they better off or worse off - not just financially, but in quality of life? There are other measures that try to do this - SPI (Social Progress Indicator); HDI (Human Development Index); Better Life Index, and so on. They are more complex and more subjective, and generally not so easy to compare across countries. GDP is easy, but highly misleading.
Very helpful analysis.
Q: High growth under Thatcher, but wasn't some/a lot of that due to North Sea Oil?
I'm a catastrophist though, with increasing fascism, AI and climate breakdown a perfect storm is coming and probably quite soon. UK should invest heavily in infrastructure to provide food (more dams, drainage, farmer support) plus green power sources and more guns/drones. They will do some of that but not enough to make a significant difference.
Thank you for this dressing-down!
I believe I have objected to the term growth before – primarily in arguments with degrowthers, but also here on this blog. What exactly is it one wants to grow (or not)? Money, because this is what growth usually is measured in? But money is uninteresting, the important thing is what one gets out of it, and who gets something out of it.
I am sure that a lot of desired changes would result in growth. For example if big chunks of the bullshit workers, à la Graeber, would be transferred into useful jobs. But the growth counted in money wouldnt be the thing, but the usefulness would. Other desired reforms would perhaps lead to diminshed growth, for example the reduced uses of raw materials à la Mazzucato & Perez. But so what?
There is actually a few things about growth that is absolutely pernicious. According to Richard Layard, happiness depends most of all on having friends and relatives. Now, a big part of growth politics after say 1960 has consisted in annihilating old industrial towns ad forcing people there to move, to "more profitable" things. Their loss of happiness due to loss of friends is monumental but can't be measured.
I think the mistake economists do is to consider all kinds of production as the same thing, and can be changed into each other seamlessly. Fundamentaly, says the economist, a shoeshine boy in Lima is the same thing as Apple, an "enterprise", and follow the same laws and having the same consequences. I think that is a most pernicious oversimplification, if not falseness. It means a lot WHAT you do.
This is very interesting. Still working my way through the links. Productivity can sometimes be very mysterious; I think a lot of people aren’t sure what is meant when it’s discussed. One question I have is when a company like Fan Duels or even Microsoft makes a lot of money because of IP or network effects are they considered productive just because they’re very profitable, regardless of the social harm and associated costs, or even just the subscription costs in the case of Microsoft? If they use the wealth they generate to invest in other businesses does that make them more productive? If they use that wealth to buy political influence to prevent competition or disruption by new technology, does that make them less productive?
This analysis completely misses that the transformation we must prioritise is to a truly zero emissions circular economy, and that trying to deliver unsustainable infinite growth will actually ultimately reduce prosperity.
*Giles Wilkes is right to say (pdf) that raising growth “will often involve hurting some interests to further others.”*
This sounds like a riff on Schumpeter's 'Creative destruction'. The focus on growth can't be neutral as a productivity gain usually means that more is done with less. Worse: (Or, better?) it could also mean a churn of workers in the enhanced activity. This is surely the possible lesson from AI. Only re-skilled workers will be able to access the new activity.