4:00 Just wanted to note that the reason why German's emmisions decreced was because, instead of producing goods from their own borders, they instead made Asian countries like China and others produce those goods, and then import them back. This is known as "exported emmisions" In the end, the world's emmisions increased along with the GDP, because GHG emmisions and economic growth are *very strongly* correlated.
@TheFastAndThe Dead yeah I know, building loads of solar panels and windmills while use bikes and trains instead of cars, while replacing the remaining cars with electric ones and so on, is indeed a good thing that can separate emmisions from economic growth, but don't be fooled into thinking *all* of the emmision reductions came from- and with good intentions. For example, fracking was banned in Germany, but that simply meant that those companies switched to fracking in other countries where it wasn't illegal Again, if you look at the emmisions compared to economic growth globally, you'll see both rise together, and fall together. It *may* be possible to undo this, but either way, just make sure to remember that climate change is a *global* problem.
Yes and where is green technology made? In China. Developing countries need a carbon deficit in order to help offset global emissions. China is one of the biggest polluters but also a country at the forefront of green technology.
The problem is, only looking at the total value produced doesn't show who's benefitting from those values. Infinite growth doesn't necessarily benefit everyone but the toll on the planet WILL be felt by everyone
There are complex constraints and tradeoffs, including some we don't fully understand. I'd believe a smaller economy that still has more people (or more of its people) employed at a humane level is also better than a bigger economy that doesn't. It's really a humanitarian question, where economy is a crude and often fallible proxy. We shouldn't want a crazy poverty to get a wooden equality -- a humanitarian conscience, if not explicitly God, forbid! But we should want to lift all the boats, including helping them repair their leaks (if this is not done, "a rising tide lifts all boats" is a fallacy).
fools like you say it doesnt benefit everyone, but is there actually that benefits everyone? endless spending into debt puts future generations at a major disadvantage & pushes inflations even higher = disbenefits everyone
I was first introduced to economics in secondary school. I still remember when I first opened the academic book of economics, the first page read, "Wants are unlimited, but the resources are not." I didn't get what it really meant back then, but it is starting to make sense now more than ever.
And the second page tells you the supply and demand curve. The more scarce something is, the higher the price and therefore reduced demand. The result is we get more out of less resources. Like the led bulb.
Infinite growth is possible due to infinite avenues for expansion (not all of them resource-sapping), which is possible due to infinite ideas. For example, if sales for a digital product dry up, I simply spin a new marketing perspective to a new customer-base and boom; my business is experiencing growth & expansion again without much new production, simply due to an exchanging of ideas and perspectives.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no in theory; Yes. but you aren't considering the other factors that cripple your business in the interim; Competitors that are already well-established suppliers to the people in your new target market, inflation, fluctuations in the market. There are only 24 hours in a day; the attention/time of your customers is a finite resource on its own; you cannot just simply market your idea and hope people will buy. Good Ideas die all the time.
As someone who now buys less, I find my economic utility has gone up (I'm happier). In a sense, this means the economy has grown in my individual experience, because my utility is higher. But my contribution to GDP had gone down. It is our perpetual obsession with using GDP that pigeonholes this conversation. We need to appreciate how bad GDP is as a metric. As one example, GDP could imply many people dying could be constructive for the economy, as long as we spent enough money in a hopeless endeavor to try to save those lives. GDP is purely about spend, not outcomes. It mistakes spending for happiness, and that is only partially true some of the time.
Well aren't you privileged?! I can't wait for you to tell people on minimum wage or on a fixed income like a pension fund how lucky they are to be able to cut back on their spending in order to experience some of the contentment that you've discovered by cutting back. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to learn from your experience.
@@MadMulberry My point is that there's value in finding what is "enough" for an individual. Obviously not everyone has enough, while some have so much that it is excessive and not adding to their happiness, as they'd find more happiness through other means. Another thought is, I suspect taking the worst possible interpretation of comments on the internet and being needlessly hostile about it is not a great way to achieve happiness in life.
the guy who came up with the GDP as a system of measurement even STATES that this should not be the only tool to use and to find a different measurement. no one listened. so the question is: what measurement SHOULD we primarily focus on? if we can look at some of the European countries, including Scandinavia as well as Ireland, we can see what their countries value overall. Ireland, in particular, seems like a rather unique example, in which, using the GDP measurement, is laughably low, but the overall happiness seems to be above that GDP (although that should also be taken with grain of salt, given that alcohol addiction is a concern based on anecdotes from Irish celebrities talking about their life growing up, but that's a case-by-case kind of thing).
The best way to describe the present economy is 08' 2.0. Yes stocks are at a discount and things will eventually get better but my monthly living expense is up $3750 from $1600 and I'm left wondering what retirement have in store for me 5years down the line, I'm ill-prepared tbh, my 401k gains are zero-nothing and my stock portfolio?...OH WELL!
The uncertainties accompanying this present market is more reasons I have my daily investment decisions guided by a portfolio-coach seeing that their entire skillset is built around going long and short at the same time, both employing profit-oriented strategy and laying off risk as a hedge against the inevitable downtrends, coupled with the exclusive information/analysis, it's quite impossible not to outperform. Netted over $800k in return on investment, since using a coach for about 2years.
@@EllenAbrex renowned for her proficiency and expertise in the financial market, “Christine Jane Mclean” my financial advisor, holds a broad understanding of portfolio diversification and is recognized as an authority in this domain.
@@HarrietBemish I discovered her, reached out via email, and arranged a call, anticipating her response. My goal is to commence 2023 on a positive financial trajectory.
This is because stock prices factor in expectated growth over the next X years. (Basically a cumulative amount of profit you would expect a company to make in the next 10 years let’s say). When a company stops growing, suddenly that expectation doesn’t look very realistic anymore, so the stock price must then drop.
That's because the value of stocks is how much money you expect to make back from having bought them. If a company isn't growing, then if you buy the stock you can't expect to make more back from selling it later, so the stock itself is less valuable, even if the company is doing fine.
@@TheGregamonster isn't that what dividends are for? A method of sharing profit with shareholders so they earn money on an investment even if the stock price is stable? I'm honestly asking. It's something I don't really understand.
@@KrisRyanStallard it is. Dividends incentivize investing in stable companies. However, most investors are after catching that startup or smaller company that they see has the potential to grow many times over.
The biggest benefit to post growth economy is the fact that products can be developed to perfection, as for today, most products are designed to break down after an estimated time period to force customers to pay more. This is why the right to repair movement is so important as it is taking a step towards post growth economy by making product breakdowns less profitable for the company.
How do you want to achieve this? How are factories can produce products of very good quality for everyone so that they are on time and cheap (because you will not pay 10 times more than now). Quality costs and takes time. And even if they succeed, what then will you close the factories for 20 years because nothing will break?
@@marcelmarceli8238 quality costs money and time, but so does making the same product over and over again because it's a terrible product. producing one product that lasts 50 years instead of 5 that only last 10 years saves money for the consumer and the factory. Just less is earned by the factory essentially.
@@marcelmarceli8238 things will probably cost a more. I would much rather pay $200 for a quality vacuum that won't break down on me in 2 months, or a phone that isn't designed to be useless in 2 years.
@@parkerjohnson4561 it's usually way cheaper for the factory to produce the same item over and over than spend the time to make a long lasting product. This is because the profit margins are baked into the sale. A high quality long lasting product will have prohibitively high price and margins need to be high to recoup the effort needed to make such a good product. A cheap product remade over and over is more accessible to people and is cheaper for the factory to produce per unit. Since per unit sales are always making the company profit, the company will easily be able to afford making more of the same.
When people say about a goal of 0 carbon emission nation, I wonder if they just forget about the supply chains that relocation to or still exist in their foreign nations. Because then the campaign would mostly mean pushing the responsibility of handling climate change to the nations that rely on production and resource extraction industries and are less prosperous, meaning they will be less likely to be able to invest in tech to reduce the emission rate. In a lot of cases, I just find these campaigns very shallow.
But aren't the majority of carbon emissions in the world generated by only a relatively small number of multi-national corporations? And don't these multi-national corporations (which are legally incorporated in first world countries like the US, the UK, China, etc.) control, by every definition of the word, the means of extracting these resources from third world countries like Ethiopia? Therefore, if we could force these corporations to stop wasting resources and spreading pollution, wouldn't that dramatically lower global carbon emissions? If you're wondering how we force corporations to do this then I suggest you read "How To Blow Up a Pipeline", it's like an instruction manual on how to be an eco-terrorist.
it's almost like they exist as a means to create a sense of cultural guilt relief that enables energy and chemical corporations to continue expanding and exploiting the complacency they engineered into said culture for increased profits. Carbon Neutral isn't even a solution. At least 200 million people around the globe need to start living a carbon negative life to have any impact whatsoever on the climate crisis. Everything else that doesn't start with 200 million people rehabilitating 1 billion hectares of land back into carbon reductive complete ecosystems by 2030 is a lie. There is only one solution to the carbon crisis. That's to turn atmospheric carbon into Living soils and the immensely diverse ecosystems they support. And in order to accomplish this without just creating more carbon, each of these 200 million humans and family groups need to harvest solar, and/or thermal/hydroelectric over 6% of that rehabilitated land. This buys us another century of oil, coal, and most importantly, technological growth. 2 steps back to take 10 billion steps forward. It could not be more simple, or politically palatable. Just say the words "Make America Green Again". North America could be home to a primordial forest that stretches from Alaska to Panama supporting uncountable gigatons of carbon rich biomass. The rest of the world will follow that example when confronted with how profitable and truly transformative the process is for all human cultures. Just the United States, around 5 million people, 20 million acres, and 6% solar harvesting coverage is enough to erase the industrial revolution and enable a global industry to form that will grow exponentially, if not infinitely. Bonus: It's simple, any able bodied human being can be taught with pictures how to rehabilitate land and maintain solar energy harvesting equipment. Just pictures. Young children can do it and often quite enjoy participating. Bonus Bonus: It's really cheap. Like within 3 years pays for itself and becomes profitable cheap. And that's just the land use. The rest of the infrastructure is Amazon profitable. It will literally cost billions of dollars less than O to make it happen. Bonus Bonus reach-around Bonus: It creates a new global standard of poverty that elevates the working class to a position of economic participation, and forces corporations to negotiate for competitive wages with their employees because poverty isn't abject anymore. The lowest rung of modern society in the richest country in the world should be, and easily could be, this model of land rehabilitation for gainful income. It's the same crazy hobo's yelling at a dumpster, only they have full stomachs and are yelling about investment trends in clean cloths outside a home full of kids all paid for by their gainful participation in a Carbon Negative "rock bottom" of gainful dignified existence. For literally everyone everywhere. Now that you are fully released, wtf are you prepared to do with this new information?
@@mysteryuser7062 we don't need more energy, and energy consolidation isn't necessary to generate anything but profit. Distributed networks of solar energy harvesting are more than enough to power global energy needs as they are predicted to grow for the next 10,000 years. We do need to develop and thoroughly understand these technologies to overcome unknown future and technological hurdles, but there is not good reason to yolk the entire human population with energy scarcity through consolidated generation and distribution. It's far more sustainable to reverse this model and make harvesting and trading units of energy easier for the smallest traders. And WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY cheaper. You make solar energy tradable like small denominations of currency. We're already doing it in a round about sort of way. What we need to do is globally standardize the practice and build out distributed networks to support it. We can even continue burning fossil fuels to grow those industries, and it's quite frankly going to be required, in order to enable this process because through it a global carbon battery can be created. One that can be scaled up by 2050 to a point where the Carbon Crisis is no longer a Crisis. Sustainable human life needs to begin in the soil human feet walk on and be powered by the sun and basic human effort. There is no technology that can do what needs to be done fast enough. Human hands, the Sun, and Life, those are the tools we have to charge up a carbon battery to store our mistakes as a species. Our continued existence depends entirely on the political will to view Life itself as the most valuable and important infrastructure that can ever exist. Nothing could be easier, or more difficult.
Changes in time allocation illustrate this beautifully. A family in America used to spend multiple hours every week on tasks such as manually washing and hanging laundry (even though they owned fewer clothes), carrying buckets of water, prepping meals and cooking them, etc. There are also a lot of tasks that people even further back in time had to tackle: combing wool, spinning, weaving and stitching to make blankets and clothes, for example. It's amazing how the invention of new technologies changed how we use that time resource; we gained so many hours every week that no longer need to be spent on providing food, potable water, heat and hygiene. If we were content to live at that level now, we could spend 90% of our hours idle. Of course, culture changed and modern industrialized societies view that level of lifestyle to be horrifyingly impoverished. With increasingly efficient conveniences came increasingly acquisitive habits. Apparently we'd rather spend 50hrs a week working multiple jobs to be permanently indebted for objects that didn't even exist a century ago but are now considered basic necessities. We'll need to overcome that if we want a sustainable economy.
That's an interesting take. As an economics student and savvy investor, I recently came to a realisation we are.in the midst of biggest economic/financial bubble ever. And no one know when will.it burst. There's a limit to how much growth there can be. A limit to the amount of debt circulating around. There's so many more things and money floating around than there are people to consume them. The rates of lending have been insane in the last 50 years. Leveraging, options, crypto, and other forms of investments that are frankly quite untangible and therefore misunderstood and underrated by humanity. Even by the professionals. We created a financial untangible world that we don't fully understand, we have estimates and models and math but these things won't hold forever.. they're not always true. But what's the other option? So we go through with it anyways. The US is sitting on mountains of debt. Debt it can never really repay all of its lenders. And its not just them. So are the Chinese. I mean think about it really, how many things are sold and produced in the world (b2b, b2c, etc..) that we don't actually use on a daily basis? How many companies are making more things than they really sell? So much is going to waste. And we value things by money instead of the work and knowledge put into it.. A product is only made because someone worked for it, had the knowledge, learnt to do it over years or months, and had other people help him build it... Yet we don't value that, we value with Ebitda, we value how much money can these products make within the next 5 or howmany years, and that's how much the company is worth. It's INSANE. This won't last forever. Remember that.. And that's not even all of it. But I've written enough lol
It wasn't family that spent so much time washing, drying, ironing, mending clothes - it was the women. A scaled back world will return women to the kitchen.
Well, logically, in this finite world, we should be recycling the less valueable to create more value out of them. For example, the old phones, cars, etc., that has been so outdated or not being used because there's simply not enough people on the planet to use them, can be recycled and the material can be used to create items with higher value. This however raise another question, what is valuable? We humans are very bad at valueing something, and value is a relatively vague concept after all.
You can’t just “recycled” things and just magically make it to create higher values. That’s a famous misconception that people have, sometimes it might takes even more resources and less efficient to do it, sometimes it requires more cost, labor, and energy than just creating the product normally.
@@fos1451 it's true that it may takes more effort, but the point is, the material, when not irreversibly used, can be used again to create something of higher value. The higher value could be because it requires more resources, more complicated, more labour, but the most important thing is, serving it's function with better quality and efficiency.
3 problemes : 1 Most of the time recycling cost a lot of energy, actually more than mining new resources (and mining + refining is already energy intensive process) 2 Lots of materials are simply not recyclable (ones 2 metals or plastics has been mixed you cannot separate them) 3 Recycling always imply a lost of matter which is too much for an INFINITE economic grows.
this is a nonsensical bumper sticker statement. people are poor because they live in under developed countries where humans arnt educated and the economies arnt industrialized.
@@shake6321People are poor because they need to be poor for the rich to profit. How else would the top 1% of the population get so incredibly wealthy, if not by taking other's work?
@@СашаВолков-ф5н this makes zero sense. you have little to no understanding of modern econ, capitalism or the free market. you think the modern economy is akin to the bronze age where some are land lords and others are serfs. the modern economy is built on productivity. some people own that productivity. some people are just workers. but nothing is stopping workers from owning the means of production moreover, if "keeping people poor" made the rich wealthier, then why does any country become richer? yes, in some cases a king or strongman (kim jung un) can simply keep everyone down and own the assets of the country, but in most cases its better for the rich to allow everyone to get wealthier. look at china. as their GDP has grown, so too has the amount of billionaires but there are also less "poor" people now than even 20 years ago. Thus, you need to reject your hypothesis. it makes no sense and isnt backed up by reality.
@@shake6321 Okay. Look at the paragon of free market, the US. Look at the homeless, at those who live paycheck to paycheck, at those who can't spare 400$ in case of a on emergency (An ambulance ride costs about this much). And then look at the billioners and tell me that they earned their money by working.
There was some good moments in this video, but I'm disappointed that whenever infinite growth is discussed, it's merely seen as something abstract that some people want to achieve or just a thing that has its own will. The video never addresses the issue *why* infinite growth is really happening. Surely if there constantly more people on earth and more products/services are created that leads to growth, but ultimately infinite (specifically economic) growth starts from the creation of majority of money (not cash, but zeros and ones) by banks granting loans. As money is created from thin air with interest, it automatically creates a situation where there is constantly more debt than there is actual money to pay off that debt. That leads to a situation where everyone needs to get more money to survive as "the game" basically forces a portion of its players to eventually run out of money.
Thank you, this is what I thought the video would be about....instead it's a bunch of looping thoughts with no start or end. "Turning resources into value=growth".......oh really now...how? From where? Capitalism at it's core is about taking advantage of people. It's a great motivator for ingenuity, but it thrives on theifs. We need a new standard to measure with. Value isn't equal to different individuals. We can say that we have the freedom to choose what we support with the value we earn, but is it really freedom when the choices available are decided by wealth.
Spot on. The monetary system is fundamentally flawed in this way, and very few people understand this. It will ultimately destroy us, or, at best, perpetuate a life of indefinite suffering for most.
have you ever lived through a recession? less growth --> less demand --> less production --> less employment. not a great strategy if you need to work to live...
It's amazing how our entire worldview and philosophies are built around a construct some humans created. The fact that global corporations that are still incredibility profitable are firing people because they missed growth targets is insane. I personally would love to see a world where we put human ingenuity into reworking out views around economy!
What is the purpose of a business, e it a small shop or a big international corporation? It is to make profits, not to offer jobs. A company may be profitable, but still the more efficient a company can be run, the better, than means maximizing production by using less resources, and human capital is a resource. A job is a side effect, not an end of itself. What this video proposes to work around the economy implies that someone, (the government, or whatever) knows what's best for everyone, and that is a fallacy. No body can tell me that Rubik's cubes aren't necessary, at least for me. Our actual economy may not be perfect but is the best we've got.
@@pedromora9927 Sure it's the best we got but doesn't mean we can't stop and take a look around at the game we've constructed for ourselves as humans. None of this matters end of the day. You are correct in saying a corporations function is to create profits but again it's something we as humans invented and defined. If we changed the definition of a corporations success to include a human factor. What kind of world would we live in? I'm sure it would be a world 99% of humans today would hate but if that was all we knew people would probably be appalled at an idea of defining corporations in a manner that celebrates greed.
@@pedromora9927 A corporation isn't just something we defined. It was an emergent property of monetary transactions. We can't just define a corporation to value the human element in an economic system, because in the end due to competition the same as we have now will inevitably emerge again. It is a problem with how humans function, not a problem of definition.
Growth isn't some concept humans created lmao. This isn't "some game we've constructed for ourselves", this is the most basic prerogative of survival; you are delusional. The most basic axiom of survival for any organism in this material universe is the consumption of resources, and the accumulation of these same resources for future consumption; without these resources, organisms cannot sustain themselves. They die off. These are the most basic laws of life. Phenomena such as economic growth simply spawn from this existential axiom.
I'm all for a post growth economy. As an example, in Belfast, a shipyard that could've been used to build polluting yachts for billionaires, was turned into a wind turbine building facility; the jobs were kept, and both the engineers and the shipyard were repurposed in a beneficial way. We need a lot more of this, at every level of our economy.
The specific Example you´re presenting doesnt actually have to do anything with post economic growth...... sure, its helping the environment in a long term view, but still represents economic growth.
so your solution is for the government to just march in and take over your business and turn it into a wind turbine factory? You can't do that in free country, that would be illegal.
Thats in modern Civilitation absolutily right, because what most traditional Economists get Wrong is that Growth comes from labour.. and Capital.. It comes from Fossil energy mostly.. so labour plays out a minimal role, when each one of us uses the equivalent of 100 Energy Slaves today
@@tomschuelke7955 yeah that’s why venezuela and russia and saudi arabia have such robust diverse and strong economies right? All the oil must be doing wonders for them. China must be a nobody on the world stage because they have very little oil. India too. People make value. End of story.
@@jacobjones630 you confuse making money with creatig real wealth and produckts. Sure when you can only think about money, youre right. But theres virtualy nothing in your world as you are used to that would be available without fossil energy.. so energy. Is far mor profound for our economy but money , wich we just made up
@@tomschuelke7955 Money is a social relation. It doesn't feel very made up when it's time to pay bills, or looking at the lives of people with lots of it VS those who have none. This video is about growing GDP, a figure that some people believe is worth letting people die to see it go up. The whole point of the economy and and money and GDP is to meet the wants and needs of society. And considering 90% of people on the planet are Laborers, they should get a say in the way a new economy is organized.
I wish we can have a world where it “Benefits everyone.” But the sad reality is not everyone deserves it. We have lazybones and flat out bad people who abuse the system. They do not deserve equality.
Perhaps most importantly of all; should we listen to the rich elites who run the World Economic Forum, or should our futures be decided by the majority of people who don't attend a yearly conference in the swiss alps?
Your comment has a logical fallacy. You're using the argument from authority as a point to not listen to this video because it's from WEF. What if the WEF said that water is wet? Would that make the points in this video invalid? Secondly, why are you assuming the majority of people want something different? Do you really think the majority of people in the world want to depend on an infinite growth model to support our civilisation? Do you realise that the reason why we have so much money printing and mass immigration is that the governments are working for infinite growth to support an ageing population?
My comment is the exact opposite of the argument from authority. The argument from authority appeals to status to shut down dissent. At no point in my comment did I even suggest that I disagreed with the video. I only said that the WEF shouldn't be the only perspective on the issue, since their interests as a class are far removed from those of most people. Please actually google what it is you're talking about before replying. And no, I don't think most people want/gain from infinite growth. I certainly don't.
@@browk2512 Less growth and way more people die. AI is probably our best opportunity to maintain growth while giving people freedom and making them richer.
Mark what can I do? I have been disabled since 2009 and I am 58 years old at the verge of retirement. My portfoliio of $750k is down to $492k, How can I profit from the present market" , I mean I've heard of people making upto $250k in couple weeks during this crash and I'd like to know how.
Investing without proper guidance can lead to mistakes and losses. I've learned this from my own experience.If you're new to investing or don't have much time, it's best to get advice from an expert.
A lot of folks downplay the role of advlsors until being burnt by their own emotions. I remember couple summers back, after my lengthy divorce, I needed a good boost to help my business stay afloat, hence I researched for licensed advisors and came across someone of utmost qualifications. She's helped grow my reserve notwithstanding inflation, from $275k to $850k.
How can one find a verifiable financial planner? I would not mind looking up the professional that helped you. I will be retiring in two years and I might need some management on my much larger portfolio. Don't want to take any chances.
Svetlana Sarkisian Chowdhury is the licensed fiduciary I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment..
Thank you for this tip. it was easy to find your coach. Did my due diligence on her before scheduling a phone call with her. She seems proficient considering her résumé.
We invented the heat pump. It makes 4 units of heat out of 1 unit of energy. If we switch out all oil- and gas- heaters immediately with heat pumps, we can save 75% of energy needed for heating, drastically cut all CO2 emmissions for building operations - and give consumers more money to spend in the economy.
at a buffet, i personally sneak corndogs into the buffet so others can enjoy them. I hide 6 corndogs in my jacket pockets. it then, is a joy for me to see other patrons of the establishment eat my corndogs thinking they were part of the buffet.
@@fos1451 Why be suspicious of everything? Over the past several decades, median wages have stagnated, but the cost of living has increased. Homelessness is always on the rise. That which you fear (poverty) is the current trajectory's destination. Doing nothing is guaranteed defeat.
@@NawidN That's actually false, the number of people experiencing homelessness and poverty is decreasing every year (with exception for 2019/2020 because of covid). I agree with the median wages being stagnant and cost of living increasing. Again, you can talk about all the problems in the world, what I would love to hear is the solution
There's much less war in present day in proportion to world population. Wars mostly take place in undeveloped and economically unimportant nations, so the war in Ukraine is especially unusual
5:26 Soooo... At the end it's stupidity vs discomfort. Like, you have a gas leak. Would you prefer: A. Continue working so you can eventually buy a new house model that prevents gas leaks entirely B. Stand up from your comfy chair and go fix the pipe
It's terrifying to think that the first and foremost goal of every country is increasing GDP while the planet is dying and future generations will probably suffer from it. Like the only important thing is growth, is money, more and more, better and better each year. When in reality, it's worse. Truly a terrible time to live in, and I don't know if that time when a solution just magically happens would come or not.
@@clipsrus2300 I think the fact that there are people willing to buy a pricier product under the grounds that the product they're buying is in some way more 'eco-friendly' alludes to people like that existing. I mean, spending more to 'opt-into' being a more 'eco-conscious' consumer is a bit like taking a pay cut to save the earth.
It's terrifying to think how little people know about the advancement of green energy all throughout the west. The west already makes a large part of its energy renewable/nuclear, and it's accelerating.
@@Noam_.Menashe But at the same time, the sales of big 4x4 SUVs, the number of flights and the sales of Amazon are increasing at an exponential rate. We aren't exactly heading in the right direction because 1) There still are a lot of people who are climatosceptics or 2) People who do understand our impact on climate, generally think the government will solve all problems without them having to make any single effort of their own. They always think it's up to others to change... and they keep overconsuming all kind of stuff as if nothing happened
I've read and watched many videos and tutorials on this topic, a very important one for our world today, and in 6 minutes for school age kids, you have developed one of the best I have ever seen. Well done.
I think the solution to current dilemma on how economy should evolve should have both idealistic and realistic aspects. "idealism without realism is a mere illusion and Realism without Idealism is a mere object"...
I would go further and say we change completely how we see "growth" and "progress". For example, my definition of growth would be to improve our relationship with nature and life on earth. But that is directly incompatible with economic growth. We have to change our values completely and question that dilemma.
There is more then enough resources and technology on earth for every single individual to have exponentially increased wealth, to barely work, or to not work at all. The fundamental issue is the system of distribution, advances in technology do not lead to increases in wages on the contrary, increases in technology typically results in a decrease of real wages and a decrease in self-sufficiency and independence. As the property of these technologies are owned by few and their intellectual rights are secret and patented, an increased system of production, results in an ever increasing system of inequality. Yet the fundamental mode of production does not change, the capitalistic system is discouraged and hostile towards permanent system of sufficiency. The capitalistic system therefore produces self made shortages, the majority of value destroyed. As in a capitalist mode of production, overproduction is encouraged a fundamental contradiction of value emerges, if everyone was able to live comfortably for a minuscule amount of work, the overall productivity of the capitalist system drastically decreases. As an example take a sandwich shop, the sandwich shop's food is only edible for a single day, at the current price the majority of food can be thrown away and still maintain a profit, and as a shortage in food creates much greater loss then over buying of the product, the shop maintains the system of created scarcity, throwing away large sections of value. The food could theoretically be given at the end of the day, however in such environment sees a decrease in profit, many would choose not buy the food until the end of the day, and decreases the perceived value of the food in the minds of individuals, if it is completely free for certain parts of the day. The same fundamental principle applies to a cut in prices. To maintain ever increasing profits for the capitalist class, workers must have disposable income, yet in the current system encourages paying workers the smallest possible share of earnings. The solution is to produce money sinks, things which every individual requires and increase the prices of these exponentially, in this current environment, the price of the bottom line is contentiously raised and saving is discouraged, if not impossible, thusly in an ever increasing environment of loss of value, spending is encouraged. The solution to this is simple, describe these things which all humans require to live including water, clothing food, and housing, as a human right and produce it for the general population, this would alleviate the fundamental crisis's of the modern era and the industrial basis is present to provide for it. Under capitalism however if these sinks are removed one of the primary reasons for working is removed thereby seeing a large decrease in income and productivity for the capitalist class. Thusly ownership is the safety mechanism of capitalism, people's ancestral land becomes commodified, and sold at an exponential rate. In truth people's livelihood has not increased by a substantial amount since the 1960s, production has increased drastically and wages have stagnated and even substantially fallen amongst the younger generation. Thusly the issue is the underlying system, under the current mode of production, overall increases in living cannot exist.
The problem is that the average unskilled worker doesn't produce much value anymore. Since the increase of productivity is due to technological advancements the productivity is created by the managers and the people directly involved in the technology. So scientists, doctors and technological specialists are the ones who create the most value. The managers also get a larger amount of wealth because they made the decision to employ the technology. Capitalism is the most beneficial and fair system but I agree with you that now it has run into some social problems and more technology will intensify the issue. I believe that capitalism's effectiveness in promoting efficiency and technological development and the benefits of the free market are paramount to the success of our society so we should never get rid of capitalism. I believe that the solution to the socio-economic problems is an increase in welfare and when automation is wide-spread enough, the implementation of UBI. But the people that innovate and make the economy more efficient deserve the wealth they create.
@@urektus69 Fundamentally, unskilled work still produces an incredible amount of value, workers are still required to run machines and ultimately are the primary producers of value. As an example take a individual making shoes, each pair can sell for 30$, and they are able to produce upwards of four shoes per hour. Under this system you would be expecting roughly a 30-60 wage, in accordance with the work required. Yet fundamentally this is incorrect, these workers are often paid less then five or even a dollar a day, yet producing value far greater. The increase in productivity is driven by greater worker knowledge and better system of cohesion from the bottom up. The "solution" you claim however has a fundamental flaw, it does not change the capitalist mode of production, if this system were to be implemented, capitalism would maintained and exist on life support and maintain it's exploitative and ever increasing authoritarian system, a revolution would inevitably occur as the exploitation of this system would be comparable to some of the worse regimes in the 20th and 21st century. Fundamentally you seeing the cracks in capitalism multiply rapidly, as an example Hati, Brazil or Sri Lanka. It has fundamentally caused massive societal violence, and as these fundamental fallacies of the capitalist system emerge, it is enviable that more societal upheaval will occur. "Scientists, Doctors, and Technological Specialists" however do not see any noticeable difference from wages from the working class. The primary wages for these professions in the US is between 50,000$ and 150,000$, an individual of the capitalist class in the US (the upper 1%) own on average tens of millions of dollars, and this is not even the top of the top, these professions do not ultimately see large wage growths from the capitalistic system. Those who are making the value in society are not the capitalist class, on the contrary the capitalist class produces little to no value. If we take those who produce value in an economy, workers and compare them to the capitalist class, the capitalist class produces essentially no definable value as they simply cannot be responsible for production and innovation, and they are not. As an example let's take the physicists of the Quantum and Relative revolutions that upended classical mechanics in the early 20th century. These individuals are responsible for producing untold billions, even trillions of dollars of value, while all these physicists lived comfortably they ultimately never got a fraction of the value they produced, and this is fine. Their contribution to humanity is immeasurable and they understood they did so not for profit but for humanity. Einstein himself understood this which is why he was an ardent socialist throughout his life. This same principle applies today, those innovating the economy are producers of value, they create things,. The capitalist class primary function is the holding of assets. It is impossible for a few group of individuals, most of which barely even work to in any way control the systems of production. The claim that the capitalist class are the producers of value of an economy is a recycling of Reagan trickle down economics, which has been an absolute disaster for wage growth.
Food can never be free, real estates should be free because the bank pays the constructor. The industry pays the bank and we pay for food. we're in no need of overtaxing to increase inflation as demand on more money to pay the taxes.
The entire premise of measuring economy by what gets sold on a market is already flawed from the outset. None of us ordinary people care how much profit is made off the things we use in our everyday lives. I care that I have a home, not that someone made money by renting me a home. I care that I have food, not that the food I eat provides marginal value for agribusiness. The entire conversation around how we should structure our world is wholly dominated by capitalism, and everything is fed through the lens of the profit motive. That's the only reason anyone even considers the question of unlimited growth, rather than the most obvious human question of "how do we get everyone what they need to live a good life?" Unlimited growth is a fantasy of capitalism, bound as it is by a simple, immutable economic truth: the rate of profit declines over time. The technological innovations alluded to in this video do make production more efficient, and therefore give humans more access to resources. But from the perspective of the capitalist, the only thing that matters is *their own* profit. They can make more profit in the short term with new technology, but as that technology permeates the market, the individual capitalist's edge disappears. They need to find new ways to "grow" just to stay abreast of the competition. Hence, "growth" is constantly necessary only for the *capitalist enterprise* to survive. The effects on the environment or the people living under this system are irrelevant in this framework. So yes, we desperately need to reshape our entire productive system. It is fundamentally impossible for the capitalist mode of production to maintain growth without hollowing out the physical and social world in which it operates.
it starts wrong with a magic that makes money come out of nowhere. and only goes on from there, thinking that growing up necessarily means consuming unbridled. It is evident that capitalism is incompatible with sustainability. New ideas will only be new if they are against Profit and big capital
@@bri1085 It's true that Davos is essentially just a place for wealthy people to come together and try to figure out how they can ease the symptoms of capitalism without ending capitalism or losing any of their immense power. Still, while it wouldn't actually solve anything, it would be very cathartic to attend and just scream in their faces about how morally bankrupt they all are.
I really love your voice, it is easier for me to learn English. Hope that you will upload more video about economy. Thank you for your meaningfull channel.
Labor is becoming less a factor in producing value, especially with the rise of new Tech, thus removing dependence on working to survive should be part of the post growth economy.
Imaging technology would fix our problems is fallacious for many reasons. But for me, the big reason is that many issues CAN already be fixed with our current technology. In our current world, technological inventions can already fix many issues. But they're just not doing it since it's not profitable. For instance, we can solve world hunger tomorrow. It would be very expensive, and very difficult but it's not impossible. The only issue is that preventing people from starvation would cost money, and no one would profit. At least not immediately. So it's nonsense to just claim to wait for the next upgrade or new invention since no matter what engineers create, it's not going to solve problems unless someone can make a billion from it.
@@iimm Yeah, it's really a matter of distribution. And the only issue is that it's not profitable to distribute food to the poorest areas. Because they can't afford it.
The part that irks me in this video is that it speaks about only developed countries...We developed countries face the consequences of climate change because of their greed and colonialism. The saddest part is we don't even have luxury thinking about the two solutions mentioned above (sigh)...
Indeed, the first child has done some good and bad things. As the second child, you can use thtat knowledge to do wiser things. Never think that you are "late" or "whatever they want you to think". Having a fresh mind, a fresh way of seing the world and not being use to all that comfort we are dependent on is a strong asset if used well. There is only one planet, and everyone suffers when the planets do, but we also have millions people with ideas and action potentential.
It only really talks about developed countries because most destruction of the environment is because of those countries and they should take the most steps to reduce it now considering they now have pretty good living standards. Developing countries actually need room to grow to create new wealth for their populations (assuming it doesn't all get into the hands of the super rich and oligarchs, anyway...)
@@noahway13 way to miss the entire point, Keith. They said that developed countries, which were built off high carbon emissions and the spoils of colonialism are now in the position to think about “post growth economy”, while the countries they looted and polluted can’t even get basic human needs for all their citizens.
With wealth more distributed everyone would be more sufficient in their wants and needs. When that happens it frees up time for them to pursue more creative endeavours. Within these creative endeavours are bursts of innovative businesses and solutions to our problems. So I believe that the post growth economy is actually disguised as a more effective way to grow our economy.
I'm also a socialist. People should democratically decide their work hours and the direction of the company they're working in without the state or CEOs and their shareholders deciding over their heads.
And who exactly would be in charge of seeing the even distribution of these resources? Shouldn't we allow the free market to decide naturally who gets what resources and how much?
I think how you distribute wealth is more important than how much it is distributed. If everyone gets their basic needs covered with no effort, it will kill most of their incentives to work and contribute to the growth.
@@catdogmousecheese No, because the free market on its own will produce homelessness, sickness and starvation. But things like food, health care and shelter should be independent from the market to the extent that they are guaranteed to all people to a basic degree. Free market will always lead to power consolidation. That's why it needs interference to the extent that everybody's basic rights are met. Homeless people shouldn't exist. Never.
@@FAQUERETERMAX The opposite is the case, though. People with more free time are more happy and more creative and pursue various interests much more easily than when their time is limited by work.
To me, these video and comment section is terrifying. At some point, some organization (managed by a human group; corrupt, with incomplete information and biased) would decide who needs what.
@@بِلَادٱلرَّافِدَيْنبِلَادٱلرَّ Don't asume that someone who think different to you doesn't read. But that is exactly how usually Happens. For example, since the 90's United Nations, had influenced the World Bank to not lend money to countrys if is not to small scale energy proyects (and, sadly they remain poor). Let me recommend you a lecture; Investigate about Thomas Robert Malthus. He thought like in the video (a few hounded years ago... And he was wrong).
Infinite growth doesn't seem viable when the undertaking of creating new values (even intangible value like the cloud, AI, software, etc.) ultimately relies on the consumption of hard, finite resources: humans to build and maintain those new values, food to feed humans, soil and livestock to make the food, lumber too build homes to house humans and infrastructure for those new values, water to quench humans and other livestock to create food, minerals to build computers to enable humans, oil to fuel vehicles for transportation of goods and humans, etc.
Every time we fear of running out of a resource, the price of that resource increases due to supply and demand. This incentives people to use that resource more sparingly, make more efficient use of that resource, find other alternative resources or find more of that resource. There is no end to human ingenuity to overcome the problems we face if the market demands it. The market always finds a way.
@@8is There is one problem. There's one resource that we absolutely need and there's absolutely no way to expand it: land. It's inherently finite. Infinite growth won't be able to cope with that one unless the population stops growing altogether.
@@HappyGick Advancements in transportation increases the land we can use. Just look how cars destroyed the Georgism movement. We also find new ways to make otherwise useless pieces of land valuable (putting solar panels in desserts is an obvious example). Climate change doesn't always help, but the more northern parts of Siberia could be useful to farming in the far future. There is also nothing stopping us from making more use of the land that we already use, which we do by for example making more effective factories on the same land we already have our factories on. If you really want to go down that road, you could also take into consideration the practical infinite amount space we have in our solar system. Regardless of what happens, humanity and its markets will always find a way.
Don't forget what these guys really want : "You will won nothing and be happy". In other world foll you into thinking you have to have them everything you have to save the planet while they become even richier
There has been a wave of violance all over my city: shootings, stores and busses are set on fire, etc. I would like if ted-ed made a video explaining waves of violance, how it spreads and most importantly how can they be stopped.
my bad: "Post-growth can be distinguished from similar concepts and movements (such as degrowth and steady-state economy) in that it seeks to identify and build on what is already working, rather than focusing on what is not.[5] Post-growth advocates try to encourage, connect and further develop already existing ideas, concepts, technologies, systems, initiatives, and actions. In this way, "post-growth" does not specify the answer to the limits-to-growth challenge, as "steady state economics" and "degrowth" attempt to do, but rather, seeks to understand and address this challenge from an evolving complex systems perspective. With this perspective, post-growth deals with all aspects of self and society (such as psychology, human nature, human evolution, cultures, social systems and economies) and the interrelation of all of these aspects. Accordingly, the post-growth concept also advocates solutions that are appropriate with regards to place, time, resource and cultural factors. Therefore, post-growth initiatives take shape in very different ways under different circumstances.[6]"
First of all the most important: ALL WEF members regardless if they act as individuals or as companies should be expropriated. They should give back all their accumulated wealth stolen from ordinary people. Than we can speak about restructuring our economies at a level playing field.
Very well articulated; I wish I had more time for trial and error, but I'll be 56 in October and I need ideas and advice on what investments to make to set myself up for retirement, especially with the looming inflation and recession; my goal is to have a portfolio of at least $500k at the age of 60.
"Who gets to decide what's necessary?" The customer. There's a reason why we say, the customer is always right ... and it's not what most people think.
I mean customers spend billions on things like cigarettes and "alternative medicines", and plenty of other things that are definitely not necessary. The truth is you can't expect every single person to be well informed about every single thing and always make the most utilitarian decisions.
@@FrostedCreations Well yeah. That's why the saying "The customer is always right" refers to consumers in general, rather than specific circumstances. It doesn't mean the customer standing right in front of you has the right to tell you what to do (it certainly doesn't mean they know what's good for them), it means the average consumer knows what they want/need, and it's the job of a business to fulfill that want or need. It's an economic statement, not a policy ... though many businesses and customers alike like to treat it as policy anyway.
World Economic forum is composed of the most powerful companies around the world. They have the power to drastically change the socio-politico-economic system of rich countires, like the USA and even the whole world. But they can't just do that out of nowhere... unless it is for "altruistically saving the planet because this is our last hope". I believe their partnership with TED-Ed on this one is a nudge in getting what they want in the future.
I don't understand why people don't discuss about Circular Economics or 100% Recycling & restricting population growth while discussing climate change, instead of ranting about reducing consumptions & Imposing punishments
Economies grow based on consumption. Consumption is based on population. The last 200 years the human population increased absurdly, and it is now slowing down rapidly. In order to keep economic growth with a stagnant population growth, businesses will need to make the population to consume more. However, money distribution is completely uneven and there is a limit at to how much a person will be able to consume. Added to the resource issue, it is definetly impossible to have eternal economic growth. But the rich and powerful will push to the limits....
The Growth in Population was on it self based on the use of fossile fules. This is what to few people are concious about.. We use each Year about 5 Kubic Kilometers of Oil.. 35 Billion Barrel, each with 159 L of Oi.. and each Barrel Containing the energy a person could deliver in 12 Years of hard labor.. this was the means how we striped away all negativ natural feedbacks that did hold us in Check.. are You aware we use for each Calorie we eat, 10 Calories of fossile fueles? Its not Labor.. ore Population... its Energy that did al this.
I am confident that a carbon negative population is possible and only possible through innovation. For infinite growth we need to be interplanetary because the resources on earth are of course finite. Being able to colonize mars and then other planets are not only important for the sustainment of the human race but instrumental for our growth.
There's an assumption that innovation will increase exponentially as well. It could be that all of the scientific and engineering discoveries and innovations are still in a process of being worked out since the scientific revolution and the industrial revolution (and perhaps even since the invention of agriculture). Who's to say that in 100 or 500 or 1000 years time innovation won't become very slow (or stop?) as the limits of our understanding of the physical world are reached? It's easy to see scientific progress as inevitably coming up with new things in our lifetimes but in the broad sweep of human existence there is surely a hard limit to human understanding of reality and so a hard limit to the innovations that follow from that understanding.
Human technological achievement will probably continue to grow exponentially. Why? I will give you a few reasons. 1) The rising standards of living in the world are increasing the number of people that work in science and engineering. An increase of people allows for much more specialization and more specialization means that human society as a whole can handle more and more complex technology thanks to the division of mental labor. We are seeing an increase in experts in ever more narrow and specific fields of science. 2) AI. In the future it won't be the humans that do most of the scientific and engineering work, it will be artificial intelligences! Artificial intelligence and machine learning applies perfectly to very abstract and data intensive tasks like scientific analysis and discovery and engineering. We have already created many AIs that are capable of generating any image you describe, in any style you want from a text prompt(check out DALL-E 2) What's stopping someone from developing an AI that can design you a skyscraper or a car or any piece of technology? 3)Thanks to the inherent competitiveness in capitalism and the free market, innovation will never end because shareholders want more profit so any obstacle will be overcome due to sheer market pressure
@@urektus69 Getting more researchers and scientists doesn't mean technology will be better. Let just say about math, before Kurt Godel, a lot of mathematicians think there is nothing math can not reach, until Kurt Godel came, ... The same argument can be said about technology, just because we haven't seen the limit today, doesn't mean there is no limit.
@@DangNguyen-jw9fl and yet we are advancing in every field at an ever increasing rate. Also, math is probably the one field where one can safely say that there are an infinite amount of discoveries that can be made. Math is infinite, there are infinite orders of ever increasing complexity so we won't run out of fields to research anytime soon
@@urektus69 more fields => more resources required. Betting on technology will save the earth put us at risk. If technology won't work, we're done for.
@@DangNguyen-jw9fl You just switched to topic quite significantly. Whether more fields needs more resources or not is irrelevant to the point discussed here. There does not seem to be an arbitrary limit of human understanding, and every time throughout history we thought we reached one, we broke through that limit rather easily.
Essa análise pincelou o problema, mas ignorou o maior problema: Dinheiro! Nosso dinheiro é controlado por governos que destroem o valor da economia mais rápido do é criado. Sim, o objetivo da Economia é gerar valor, mas nós deixamos um vazamento ser criado, e ninguém está vendo!!! Acredite ou não, já temos a solução para o problema: BITCOIN! A Economia tem um limite, não vai crescer indefinidamente, mas primeiro precisamos fechar o vazamento! É muito mais simples do que nos dizem.
Idk it feels like the concept of infinite growth doesn't seem like a bad thing now (to people who hope to reap the benefits of said growth at one point) but throw in stress, that climate issue mentioned earlier, a couple of wars, and a country significantly more powerful stealing resources from other countries for years- in a landscape of other ultra powerful countries doing the same to other countries, and it feels like we've cooked up a recipe for disaster. Not only are humans in a race to destroy ourselves, the entire planet itself is revolting against us
the entire planet isn't revolting against us, species have often killed themselves, what sets humans apart is that we usually find a way, when there are more foxes, there are less chickens, but when there are more humans, there are more chickens. We are the only, or at least the best of the few species who can do that.
New technology always solves old problems, but create new problems of their own. And we don't know what new technology will come and what help it will do. We must act today, move away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have damaged environment, as well as give advantage to war mongers
This exactly. Technology does not improve our life quality as a whole, it has not done it since the 60s-70s. It only uses up more resources just to create new problems. We are still dealing with the same problems since 20,000 years ago and all this slavery and colonialism has brought very little help.
The key word here is energy. Energy is the ultimate currency. Economy grow as long as human keep improving in converting energy. You cant create food if the sun is not enough. You cant create things if there is no energy.
Growth is ultimately just to make the rich richer (and impoverishing everyone else). Consider this quote by Jason Hickel: “The chainsaw is a remarkable invention that enables loggers to fell trees, say, ten times faster than they are able to do by hand. But logging companies equipped with chainsaws don’t let their workers finish the job early and take the rest of the day off. They get them to cut down ten times as many trees as before.”
Within a couple of seconds of hearing "post-growth economy", I went from strongly against to skeptical to potentially in favour within seconds. It is potentially essential but certainly hard to time.
The description of "post growth economy" sounds an awful lot like communism. As someone who actually lived in a communist country, I can tell you it simply sucks!
It's the only logical solution, because infinite growth is simply not possible. Somewhere down the line, limits WILL be reached, it's just physics at that point
Infinite growth is not possible, nothing is Infinite. But, you can seem to expand infinitely if you constantly improve the efficiency of how you use your finite resources as well as expanding the pool of available resources (e.g. more advanced extraction techniques, ajd perhaps eventually asteroid mining).
:Degrowth" (of the economy) will occur soon. That is scientific, and we're already seeing signs of it eventually collapsing. Nevermind that I find it wrong that we talk about nature and our planet as nothing more than "resources" for "growth".
@@peterchui1964 'degrowth' will not occur soon, that's pure fantasy. The global economy has been under much greater strain at numerous points throughout history than it is now. The economy will be fine overall.
@@explodingwolfgaming8024 I doubt you are qualified to talk about such a complicated subject (the same goes for me). However, listen to Jean Marc Jancovici (or any expert on the subject). He clearly states that economic growth cannot last due to the literal laws of physics. Our current economic system is likened to an "instability", and is by definition a system that crashes.
Just because we are confined to Earth and its resources at the moment does not mean we will always be. I think some of the assumptions made aren't completely rational. As well as this, the idea of potential output is currently accepted in macroeconomics and infers that economic growth can be sustained over the long term.
Both are actually happening at the same time (it’s will continue). It’s not going to be either or. It might be a competition to see which approach gets the best results. Or a collaboration to see what both approaches bring to the table to solve our overall issues. We might still be able to grow the economy but need to/will restructure the economy and society significantly for the planet and for people. Change is inevitable so I think restructuring will happen. Restructuring is also an opportunity to increase value and innovate. There are also other paths that this video doesn’t highlight. For example we could end up getting a split. A new civilization that will spin off from ours (new planet/live in space/upload itself to the cloud 😂) if we survive long enough.
Or, more realistically, the side which advocates for dramatic change is unable to get anything done since the other side wont collaborate with them, and in the meantime the side which hopes for innovation to solve the issues never gets the magical breakthrough that they hoped for. And in the meantime 99% of the world who doesn't get to make these decisions slowly suffers more and more every day
Zygmunt Bauman tells us that we do not produce goods to satisfy our needs, it produce instead needs to satisfy the income of the world market. I read this in Liquid Modernity.
I used to think that it's unfair how developed countries have a headstart compared to the rest of the world because of their greed and colonialism in the past. But coming from a developing country, I later realized we are at a much better position than developed countries to not repeat what they did and to have a sort of 'clean slate' to build our countries via this "post-growth economy" proposition. But then of course it's easier said than done. There's still so many issues to address.
Post-growth economy sounds like another form of colonialism to me. It's promoted by the world economic forum an incredible elitist organization. You're right that you have a clean slate and don't have to repeat the same mistakes (building coal power plants instead of clean energy like solar, wind, water, or nuclear) while growing your economy. But please don't believe WEF propaganda. Post growth would mean rich countries stay rich and poor countries stay poor. The only reason they are promoting that is so that they can keep investing in fossil fuels and pat themselves on the back that they are solving climate change by preventing poor countries from becoming rich.
@@frankabjh674 wow mate really disproved my argument. You really found out exactly what I said that was wrong and corrected it, you didn't just start insulting me and acting superior. Sarcasm, obviously.
Very simple question, & answer Mr. Gentlemen who is speaking. CAN YOU PERSONALLY GROW FOREVER, if answer is no you are right & if yes UR wrong. Every thing will die, with the distractive power of time.
Economic growth should benefit everyone. Like in a lot of European countries where capitalism is used to generate an immense amount of resources and those resources are then used to pay for social services. Economic growth is good, but I think that it should benefit everyone.
Yeah, it's working really well here in Europe. Double digit inflation, lower incomes, low profits, job creators leaving to the US, literal war... It's a paradise.. A socialist paradise.
@@tomas_marques I agree. My comment was designed to get people to see the value of capitalism who are biased against it. People have biases and so I try to find common ground to change their opinions, I give a little and say that it should all be given away but I take a little in getting people to see the productive value of capitalism and how those societies actually function.
Growing the economy doesn't always require more resources or energy. Sometimes it involves doing more with what you have or using less to make the same. Then those unused resources can be deployed elsewhere. This is particularly true of service economies, which are the majority of what the richest economies are made of.
@@llamingo696 I can proove it does with one simple example. Let's say Toyota sells 100 Corollas for $30,000, it made 3 million in revenues. If the next year it sells 55 Supras at $60,000 instead, it made $3,3 million. Thus, there was an economic growth of $300,000 while 45 less cars were produced. Economic growth is about the value of things, not about how much resources were consumed.
It is really very creative and, honestly, intelligent, the way the video says things in a way such that it sounds like all of the problems can be solved by making rich countries downscale (they even tell you how GER was able to cut emissions and still grow!). How about developing countries just stop destroying the environment and temselves for the sake of getting that foreign money? You ask rich countries to stop developing but never ask other countries to do the same.
we can keep growing for a thousand more lifetimes. to think that every thing comes crashing down in your lifetime is Neo Liberal Religion. it’s the “end times” for Atheists.
remember kids ,what a economy deem to have value is what is profitable but what of the value of things that are unprofitable? like affordable housing, recycling and healthcare for all , those things have value but have no market base solution for.
Sounds too good though it would never even come close to achievable. The %1 will never want to earn less money and have less power as they are mere humans after all, not driven by logic and sense but with hubris and greed. It may look like the general public would want such nice way of living but individually if you ask them, they'd want to have 2 coins rather than 1 coin. Post-Growth Economy is a nice sheet of music which we'll never get to see composed.
It absolutely is achievable. They're called the 1% for a reason - we outnumber them by a lot. The problem is people are propagandized into believing that capitalism is a) a meritocracy, b) sustainable, and c) the "natural" course for humans. None of which are true. Capitalism can be beat and we can create a better system for all.
So well animated. The style, simplicity, transitions and visuals were so smooth and on point, simplifying such a complex subject. I didn't know about degrowth economists. Well done team! Also the comment section here is just gold! ✨
For me personally, An Economy is going to grow so long as there is scientific and creative innovation. Even if scientific innovation stops, creative innovation is going to grow the economy albeit slowly.
if you look at the economy like a single business… the risks of growing too fast, without proper due diligence, can spread resources too thin and crush the business from within. in essence, growth is good when sustainable.
Market thinking has an amazing ability to ignore things, like pollution and resource depletion. These are called "externalities". It also ignores all non-financial values, e.g. unpaid labour like house-keeping and child-raising, and cultural values.
"eternally growing economy is necessary to improve peoples lives" - coming from India which has highest GDP growth yet so many people suffering because all the benefits have gone to a few people while the rest are where they were or worse, I find this very SUS. PS. I myself have lived in the US and i have seen with my own eyes the huge inequality between have and have nots in the worlds "richest" country, where people have to turn to Gofundme to get medical care.
@@clipsrus2300 middle class is still where they were half a decade ago. It is the upper class which has become super rich and a handful of below middle class has tapped the middle class boundary.
Change the economy slowly over time is the solution. Incremental adjustments are easier to do when we aren’t be rushed into it. Waiting for future human ingenuity is just pushing off the problem and may result in us crashing the economy into the problem later with zero plans to come out of it. We should be looking at us finding solutions now as the future ingenuity of past generations, we can’t pass the buck forever.
The problem is we are running out of time. Incremental solutions would have worked if we were on the ball and started these changes back in the 50s when scientists started noticing the problem. However the wealthy decided that those changes would hurt short term profits and so we delayed until we are in the situation we are now. Sure the global north (US, Canada, Europe) will probably be okay and not suffer too many awful catastrophes despite the hardships that will come from natural disasters like fire, drought, floods, and hurricanes but wealthy countries have the money to weather the storm. The real problem is the global south (South America, Africa, Middle East, South East Asia) that lacks the wealth, infrastructure, and diversified economy to sustain themselves. Hundreds of millions to Billions will die, People will starve, water will become scarce, and some regions of the world will become inhospitable to human habitation (droughts, heatwaves, floods, islands sinking beneath the sea) creating the worst refugee crisis the world has ever seen as people from the global south flee the conflicts and famine to the global north. Which will invariably lead to a rise in xenophobia, racism, and hate. Scarce resources and uncertain times make people very fearful of others. We need to transition as fast as possible despite the pains that come with it because otherwise the human cost will be so great that the human population will plummet as a new underclass will need to be created to compensate for the fact the global south would unstable and in turmoil due to the natural disasters and wars. Democracies will fall as dictators rise to fill power vacuums and nuclear war will become increasingly likely as tensions rise over resources. This isn't inevitable as the faster we transition the less likely these things will happen. Lower global temperatures decrease the likelihood of the worst outcomes which we must strive to prevent otherwise human civilization will fall backwards into Authoritarianism as people fight over land, resources, rather than cooperate through trade. Time is running out and we can't rely on innovations to save us. We have the technology now to make the change. The only thing we need is the political will to make the changes. Sure it will hurt but we can mitigate the pain by making everyone (especially the wealthy) pay their fair share for the changes that will ensure peace and prosperity for all. The only problem is that the Dragons of our age don't want to give up their wealth. They would rather live in bunkers or on mars rather than give up a some of their wealth and power to deal with the problems. They could have been a hailed as heroes if they decided to make the changes necessary but for now they are the villains that push for infinite growth and quarterly profits at the expense of everyone else.
@Zaydan Alfariz The GCC is still experiencing record high temperatures and water shortages that make agriculture difficult. Desalination will help their potable water issues for drinking water in cities but rural and agricultural communities will be destroyed. The GCC exploits an impoverished, rural underclass for their wealth and that underclass will flee.
"We have to find a way to benefit for everyone while also taking care of the planet" Hmm i wish there was an economic system that doesn't produce unnecessary trendy things that will go to waste in a short time and end up in the ocean.
Remind me to Soviet command economy during cold war: producing goods just necessary to fulfill demand instead producing lots more to made it cheaper like free-market economy. In theory it will consume less resources as less likely any newly produced goods will not going to waste. The downside is, the number of demand could easily being manipulated by bureaucrats, many goods become scarse (Barely any goods beside the basic one) or took a long time before finally having it (Took few years from order a car to finally owning it) like the Soviet did. Anyway, before we can efficiently use resource for making goods, we need to get rid the habit of making most of disposable stuff like plastic.
@@haikalmiftah2529 they had no idea what they were doing, they produced shoes when people wanted bread. They had crazy demand/supply imbalances. And they wasted way more resources than capitalist west. The issue is that the commanders in command economy are all 100% clueless, they have no idea what's going on, because individual people are never as smart as a market system even if they have 6 degrees in economics they still don't know 1% what the market knows.
@@sten260 That's it, they also known to waste lots of time. Remind me a quote from old Soviet cartoon, roughly translates as "Our dearest time has no enemy greater than a bureaucrat".
We are hitting limits everywhere including in productivity and technology...those 2 things were making labor obsolete anyways by default distorting "the consumer" variable. The model will have to change to meet the new reality.
2:58 the definition of technology and efficiency is that they DON'T generate new demand that uses up MORE resources. If that is the result it 's anti-technology and pure waste and we should punish that.
