@@alezrandom4146 we can both state this is a good qoute and acknowledge Ghandi was a flawed figure idk why you believe some people deserve to be absolved from criticisms, he was no more of man than you and I
@@alezrandom4146 Little people will always abuse great men. The more abuse one gets, the bigger he is. And every knowledgeable person knows Gandhi was even bigger than the big people in world history. His successes and mistakes have been from supreme ethical considerations, which makes his life transcendental.
Note that GDP growth is often measured in percentages comparing this year to the last: 10% growth means this years' GDP was 10% bigger than last year. So we are not only chasing eternal growth, but eternal exponential growth! Growing the economy by 2% now requires much more actual resources than it did fifty years ago. It is getting harder and harder to sustain the growth levels we've gotten used to, but that doesn't mean we're falling back.
@@FierceGDYT The percentage of growth isn’t exponential, but the raw numbers are. 10% of 100 is 10. 10% of 110 is 11. 10% of 121 is 12.1. 10% of 133.1 is 13.3. 10% of 146.4 is 14.6. Those numbers aren’t growing linearly, they’re growing exponentially.
Ehhh, I'm not so sure. True, it means that as things progress, we'll need a new way of measuring things. But measurements ALWAYS start out bad and get progressively better as we know more about what we're looking at. That's just the progression of time.
This is just how natural systems behave by default. A new gene emerging in evolution that is better than the previous one will grow exponentially in abundance. A new species emerging on a continent will grow exponentially and so will any organism if the conditions are right. If I invent something that improves the life for other people rather than just myself I also contributed to exponential growth. The only thing that stops exponential growth in nature is death.
This video basically said nothing concrete. It was just the same idealistic rhetoric of moving beyond chasing economic growth that we've heard for decades, and yet it hasn't happened partly because they rarely come with any concrete detailed proposals for how that would work - and this video was no different! It even used the same tired old cliche of the cancer metaphor. Also telling that it was sponsored by the WEF, that elite club that has the power to pursue this grand goal, and yet is curiously unwilling to actually do it.
Elite/corporate greed comes at the cost of human, animal, and plant life. Hopefully, we can stand up and not be continually bullied/oppressed/deceived by the rich/wealthy/powerful few before it's too late...
Less growth = less wealth for everyone. Since the elites hoard resorces, it probably means the poor bear the brunt of the hardship. We need growth. New technology that allows us to create more products while using less resources. We need to fight only unsustainable growth.
Now I have a question the amount of money someone has is the amount of leverage they have over society right ? A wealth gap is necessary for the wealthy to keep in power as this is where their power comes from correct ? 🤔 At the root an economy is transactional so the gap is almost always wanted by the wealthy 🤔
@@besknighter such “hopelessness”wouldn’t be cultivated if the amount of suffering this planet and its people are enduring was not becoming increasingly palpable - suffering fueled almost single-handedly by greed. But I don’t see it as a hopelessness. I see it as a grand motivation driven by empathy for others and care for the future of this world. Whatever the motivation inspires, however, is up to each individual.
I totally agree with her conclusion. Balance is always important for everything such as work, food, sleep, relationships with others and so on. I’m gonna always remember this theme for my whole life.
I just don't have that much hope for big countries changing to this strategy. No one would dare stop growing because they would be overtaken by the ones who keep growing, thus losing economic and political power. In other words, all major countries would need to make a collective decision, and I just can't see how the US, Russia, China, Indonesia, Japan, the UK, Germany and India could ever agree unanimously to stop growing.
This video basically said nothing concrete. It was just the same idealistic rhetoric of moving beyond chasing economic growth that we've heard for decades, and yet it hasn't happened partly because they rarely come with any concrete detailed proposals for how that would work - and this video was no different! It even used the same tired old cliche of the cancer metaphor. Also telling that it was sponsored by the WEF, that elite club that has the power to pursue this grand goal, and yet is curiously unwilling to actually do it.
I invest with Mrs KATHERNANN too, she charges a 20%commission on profit made after every trading session which is fair compare to the effort she put in to make huge profits.
I think people easily fail to realize just how amazing of a planet we live on. We tend to take everything we've experienced for granted because it's easy, and it can be quite hard to imagine a world where we actively care for thing we so heavily rely on. It's not like there's an Earth 2.0, so we might as well make it as homey as we can while we're here.
Yeh...it's so good of all the wef folk's to be so caring for us all and advise (nudge) us what is best for all... especially them. We all have to save the fuel for them to fly around the world in their private jets to give us the advice we need...thanks tedx (wef propaganda unit)
I've really come to love Ted-Ed. I discovered it several years ago when tutoring someone in K-12 - the intended audience for these videos. But, they are great for adults too! I just sent out its recent overview of schizophrenia, and certainly will send this one around - it captures Kate Raworth's Donut Economy in 5 minutes as well or better than her longer lectures and many white papers discussing this pariticular concept. Well done Ted-Ed, keep up the great work!
Is it the intended audience? This video doesn't feel like it is intended to be watched by any one type of person. I've seen media meant to be consumed for kids, educational and not, and it is. . . not great. This feels different. It doesn't take any assumptions about the intelligence or retention of the person watching. It sets out to give vital information along with beautiful artwork that visually backs up what they are talking about.
This is the reason Why I love Ted- ed.❤ They always try to answer such interesting questions! I am trying the same as well in my channel. Hope I will match their level some day!
Год назад
No they don't try ti answer the question. They state the problems, and that's it.
They (as part of a bigger picture) actually create the problems. TedEd, is just another bs propaganda unit pushing the "huge problems" (notably humans) in order to cause the reaction and then the solution, which funnily enough never works out! Do we actually want the future generations to live in a perpetual state of fear the same as the past and present generation's...🤔
This single video is the best thing I've seen on economics. It echoes so many thoughts that I hadn't found ways to express; growth isn't necessarily advancement, growth isn't necessarily development, and more importantly, welfare should come first before any new phase is explored.
I learned about the doughnut from an Australian documentary called 2040: it tells us about what we need to do to make the people of 2040 live a good life, and what their life will be like in the ideal situation if we work more for the planet and less for ourselves.
I thank you so dearly for spreading these messages on such a large platform, I hope as you this more and more, it can lead to people to dig deeper into these kinda subjects.
Actually I had the same thoughts. The more people understand the economy, the more we can start questioning what is and exploring the possibility of what could be with our economic systems
Wow. A deep sense of hope (the actual realistic kind of suggestion that fundamentally humans have the intuition to get ourselves out of this capitalist mess) for the first time in a significant portion of my young life. Thank you greatly.
Is this a good time to buy stocks/crypto in the Europe? I know everyone is saying stocks are at a discount and all, but just how long will It take for us to recover, obviously there are strategies to manoeuvre in this present market but these strategies doesn't come common to the average folk, or am I better off putting my money elsewhere.
@Rose Allen I agree, that's the more reason I prefer my day to day investment decisions being guided by an inv-coach, seeing that their entire skillset is built around short & long term holdings for profit realisation, coupled with the exclusive analysis they possess, it's near impossible to not out-perform. I've been investing with a coach literally for 4years, and have accrued approx. $1.4m in net-profits thus far.
@Rose Allen I am guided by ASHLEY AIRAGAHI I found her on a CNBC interview where she was featured and reached out to her. She has since provided entry and exit points on the securities I focus on. You can look her up online if you care supervision.
I am intrigued by how this not only changes growth, but decline. Currently doing less in any area causes tremors throughout the system, threatens other areas, causes everyone to prepare for bad times. So say, a bottled water company has to always hope to sell more bottles of water, produce more to sell, even if that produces waste. But this doughnut approach allows us to recognize that maybe things will slacken, but we're still in the ideal range. So that bottled water company could produce less - say because they're switching from plastic bottles to reusable aluminum, at a smaller scale - but it's not damaging to the economy, no one panics, and the environment is better cared for.
I feel this is a very individualistic concept that can be used to bring environmental concious behaviour and on the contrary, for countries to understand and adopt, it will need a bottom up approach which is completely opposite of one size fits all approach.
@@leoelliondeux I recently noticed something in guardians of the galaxy. When they introduce gamora in the prison, on the left corner it says "Last surviving member of the Zehoberei people", which implies that after halving the population, the planet died off, and it wasn't the utopia he described. Or maybe something else conveniently killed them, but I doubt that.
A closed-minded, pessimistic video. I hope nobody confuses it with economics. Of course the GDP can grow continuously 📈, just look at what AI is bringing to global productivity.
Economists and governments using GDP as a standard for the entire country without realizing it doesn't take into account the welfare of citizens or the environment, kinda reminds me of how social security numbers are LITERALLY used for everything essential when they should really only be used for retirement benefits.
I always understood this aspiration for growht not only as doing things bigger, but also doing them better. Like for example, monitors. They used to be so big and expensive before, now they are better, slimmer and cheaper and there's more of them for everybody
That is the natural growth. But most nowadays companies can’t always work like that. Imagine a big monitor’s company. They’re trying to innovate and need, let’s say, five years to create that new great thing. Can they stay five years without launching a new monitor? Probably not. They need to grow in profits to increase their investors profits and keep their market alive. So most of the time they are struggling to be bigger not better. Only a few can have the luxury to invest in being better.
I've always wondered independently how there can be this unrealistic expectation of growth forever. In a finite world, there will come a point where there's no more goods and services needed. There must be a peak...right?
although resources are finite, needs (including what you want as a "need") are not. so there is always a push to produce something else. If for instance, everybody had all their basic needs met, and we had all the resources to satisfy them all the time, they quickly would try to satisfy wants (Like owning a yatch, or the new iphone, or etc). so even in this ideal world where everybody has what they need, there would be pressure to make more. And although resources on earth are finite, we don't actually have access to all of them at once. Let's say that we need metal for instance. As we ran out of it, the cost of making things out of metal rises. And 2 things happens. First, there is a push for alternatives, and second, there is a push to invest on more expensive, previously non viable ways to extract metal from deeper veins. So although the economy of metal made products would probably shrink, the economy of tools to extract ore, or alternatives would increase, and thus you may still experience some growth. And thats "On earth". Besides, in math there are multiple ways to make functions that are constantly growing, but constrained between a value (I.E: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 +1/16.... always increases, but it's limit would be 2) so there could be a peak, and we could be constantly growing towards it, but never reach it (Of course at some point the growth would be negligible, but it is technically still growing)
as long as population grow economy needs to grow or otherwise we will all become poorer, if you care about environment and resources maybe you should mention the root cause of problem instead of leftist propaganda and identity politics.
The economy is growing and we are all getting poorer except for a handful at the very top. Doughnut economics is about providing enough for everyone while restoring balance to our environment rather benefiting just a few who are hoarding the worlds financial and natural wealth
The problem is that society needs to change that way of thinking now, and pragmatically speaking i really doubt that the big companies are willing to completely rethink their form of doing bussiness. With no real change from the private sector this world is faded to disaster and i'm really pessimist about it.
When we produce too much food the government burn down fields. When we use too much energy we get adjusted crises. The reality, the only truth is that we either got or we don't have.
And how would you implement this in companies and economies? Currently most companies survive based on having more growth than the opposition. Since the more money you have the more you can improve and compete in the market.
True. In a growthless economy, one man's growth is another's loss. So we are stuck with either no advancement in technology or advancement at the cost of another's bankruptcy
I think give the full interview a go: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X6lC-7BIWts.html We do doughnut economy in many places, raising families comes in circles for example. More and more people choose companies not because they are biggest but also because they stand for a better idea or better conduct. We need to do more of that. We don't need 100 new billionaires on top of cut throat companies whose employees don't sleep, this will make only very very few people happy, but creating 100 billion worth of goods and services for people currently in the 'hole' will bring so much opportunity for the world.
@@katarinajanoskova I am very convinced laws would change the moment it's to late and not a moment before. And by to late I mean when major cities start to be abandoned because of to many crisis like economically and climate wise.
That's not right. Companies survive when their income is greater than their expenses, that is, they have profits, and you do not need to be the apex predator of the market to make a profit; companies share different percentages of the market and when they have profit they can expand and innovate, they only disappear when their costs exceed their income.
"Of all tyrannies, one sincerely exercised for the good of it's victims might be the most opressive. It would be preferable to live under robber barons than omnipotent moral busybodies. The Baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, their cupidity might be sated. But those who torment us for our own good will torment us with no end, for they do so with the approval of their own consciences". C.S. Lewis.
The theory mixes degrowth and MMT into a pot or "doughnut", that's it. Note, Kate Rawoth doesn't actually present any mathematical model just emotional allusions to cancer (although admittedly, this is a youtube video). Her points like "GDP doesn't factor in "communities or the enviroment" but it kinda already does. Property value is usually associated with the quality of the community, for example, if it has parks nearby, or good schools or its safe. Moreover, Rawoth talks about the lack of decoupling GDP from C02 emissions, but that's already happening. The C02 output of developed economies has been consistently declining whilst GDP has been growing. "We need to radically reduce our use of Earth's resources" This would have to include austerity measures, not just for rich countries, but also developing and poor nations whose economies are dependant on trading resources, like oil. Nowhere does Kate present a model beyond a picture. She doesn't present how she wants to convince developing nations to stop consuming resources beyond moral panic.
Yep, this is moronic and doesn't propose anything new... really sad to think so many people think this video is profound, stopping economic growth also means stopping research and development and how does she expect to convince governments to handicap themselves by limiting growth, when the majority of countries haven't figured out proper healthcare access
@@cool.guy. The biggest issue is that no major economies, especially major developing economies, would accept this proposal. What do we do if everyone agrees but China or the US or India simply refused and chose to pursue maximising growth? Invade or sanction their economies? Activists like Rawoth don't have an answer.
@@cool.guy. how does stopping economic growth=stopping innovation? Stopping economic growth would just mean that we've reached market saturation. Frankly, a good chunk of industries have reached that point. Now, they're trying to create value out of nothing. From creating artificial shortages with oil and natural gas, creating paygates by that car company that charged users $100/month so they could drive faster, to creating products with planned obsolesence so they could keep selling it. Endless growth is a delusion
wow this came so close to having even one useful suggestion and then just ended before identifying even one idea that could be used . Its like saying we should end war without giving any idea how to do that !
Honestly, to end war you would have to modify the human genome itself, humans love to kill eachother, and we should stop war exactly because we are good at killing eachother
What do you mean? The solution is extremely simple. Countries just need to stop growing and be content with that. It's not like it's hard to do that if you just make the decision. The hard part is getting EVERY country to agree to it. Maybe that was also what you were getting at.
@@woltews What a thoughtful and constructive comment, filled with well worded arguments. I am sorry I just have no counterarguments as your own are bulletproof. Really shows the sheer magnitude of your intelligence.
@@bobthegoat7090 the main point I was making is that although you guessed at a solution they presented non . You are guessing at what a solution might be but they presented nothing other than a general idea of what might be nice . As someone who grew up around Cambodian refugees in the late 70s and early 80s the solution I gave you is not without president from the real world . Sadly as the people who created the video presented no solution we are left to only guess at what have been the idea they had in mind .. A thought on your idea is if one nation decided to abandon no growth it will quickly rise to the point of being able to dominate all others who do not completely give up on growth and may impose its will on the others by the fact they face a limiton it dos not face .
there's no doubt crypto investment is the key to future wealth, So happy to announce that I have gained financial freedom by investing in digital currency. Now I know that multi creation of various streams of income is the ideal Principle for financial sustainability.
The fluctuations of the market only affect those that hodl coins, but traders makes money on both sides, when it's bearish they go short when it's bullish they go long... The best strategy to use in trading crypto is to trade with a professional, like Fergus waylen he understand the market quite well, that way maximum profits are guaranteed.
I'm honestly surprised that this name is being mentioned here, I stumbled upon one of his clients testimony last two months in CNBC world news and decided to try him out...I'm Expecting my third cashout in 2days
Oh I remember him, Mr Waylen, a brilliant market enthusiast with new strategies. I signed up on his platform some months back, it has been productive for me
I'm new to stock market /Crypto and would like to invest but I've go no idea on how to make good profits. Pls what's the best approach you'd recommend?
How would this proposed economic model measure the inner and outer rings? Is this model saying we (humans as a whole) have reached the outer ring already? Because the number of people continues to grow (by our choice) and even if we spread the world's wealth equally, i don't think there is enough to sustain our desired lifestyle. Lastly, how does this model account for human ingenuity and innovation? The invention of the smartphone has produced more goods and services than say dishwashers but produced far less pollution.
As much as I understand the idea that too much greed as a side-effect of growth IS a problem, I do not see a solution in this video. It just touches on a popular/woke theme. Growth does not have negative side-effects only - if correctly applied it reduces wealth loss by inflation (from which society does profit) Wealth distribution (mentioned in the video) is not a problem of growth, but of corruption! Growth does work if applied correctly, meaning that we pursue growth by technological means while we use limited resources wisely. If used unwisely, greed+corruption leads to the mentioned problems as spreading inquality or environmental problems - not growth per se.
Nonsense. By the time developing nations get to the standards where there is equity and basic needs are covered for all, they will have to consume a huge amount of reasourse to do so fuel growth the most, they consume far more steel, concrete and keep opening coal power plants as they are cheap and they have the difficult choice of raising the standards of living or slow growth, keep more people in poverty for now & provide worse health care to save reasourses. Can they morally do that to their citizens? Is it the developed nations responsibility to help them go green, I think so, but we then have to keep growing to afford it as we are all running budget deficits and have been for a long time. Europe is actively trying the most out of any other continent to to combat climate change as we are more able to afford it, but also need to grow to invest in our continent bringing the poorer eastern countries up to a healthy standard of free healthcare and adequet social housing and income support etc for our own citizens, so we also need to grow and keep growing to be able to also help the developing nations decarbonise. Maybe this is a message for the americans, but not the rest of the world.
So basically we need balance which is something that probably everyone already is aware of.... But the question is HOW DO WE ACHIEVE A SUSTAINABLE STATE OF BALANCE?
We could start by not constantly trying to screw each other over. Stop speculation on essential needs like food and housing. Stop the quasi-colonialism of large corporations like Nestlé. Educate. Grant equal rights to women everywhere. Stop heroizing billionaires. Rethink (or rather demolish) intellectual property. Separate income from work, at least to some extent.
The free-to-play video game model, essentially. Necessities would be guaranteed; superfluous amenities, entertainment, and other such non-necessities would still require payment.
@@rafetizer How would you keep a continuous workflow from every person? If needs are satiated, then more permanent wants like a computer that has access to the internet will be enough to massively decrease a person's work output.
You know I think one of the main problems is that humans work for themselves, not to better humanity, but to make money so they can live a comfortable life. Humans just aren't righteous enough to actually create a donut economy, there will always be people who want more and more and more. I never really understood why rich people just want more money, they've got enough money to live a relaxing life and could basically retire right then and there...but they just want more money for some reason
The narrator is Kate Raworth. If you like this TED-Ed, you may like her book Doughnut Economics. I had to read it for school and I thought it was brilliant!
@@mikevalera9550 I think you misunderstood me. I'm talking about just the narration and music. The actual video was good but no where near my fav haha.
It is possible to achieve growth without damaging the environment. The oversimplification of growth = environment degradation, presented here is a very dangerous and wrong ideal that greatly undermines the struggle to preserve our planet. Many in developing countries are saying they need to damage the environment because their economies haven't grown yet to the rich country levels and that the currently rich countries grew that way. This makes it an ethical necessity to keep damaging the environment since you can't ask poor nations to keep their populations impoverished to preserve the planet while suffering from the fact that the citizens of rich nations have already damaged the planet. We must accept that the world population is still growing and most of the world population is struggling too much to care for the environment. The way forward should be by focusing on making our growth environmentally sustainable.
It's easy for people that come from developed countries to judge how certain civilization must use their natural resources But for the most of the country that not yet developed , it's their only chance to be developed to keep up with other nations to be developed one...but unfortunately for them when they try to develop their country people that never know their struggle and suffering.lecture them tomstopmehat they're doing because they damaging the nature, they get sanctions, they get embargo, they get isolated from international community Then they think everyone want to annihilated them so they go into defense mode try to protect their freedom amd sovereignty with anything they can
I deeply disagree with her conclusion. Humanity is nowhere near the limit of our potential. Our quest for progress and the betterment of our species SHOULD be eternal. The minute we stop because some people decide "this is good enough", we condemn our future.
According to the 1972 MIT study "Limits to Growth", we are within decades of reaching complete catabolic collapse due to having grown beyond what our planet can sustain. The study has been redone several times, with the methodologies and variables being updated due to better knowledge being acquired in the previous decades since the last, and they keep forecasting that shortly after 2040, we're all screwed.
I like Ted ed and the language is pretty but I get tired of economic critiques that avoid the real material motivations that move our economy. This isn’t a populace misunderstanding the concept of “growth” it’s a small percentage of the population given enormous power to endlessly extract resources at the expense of a poor labor class. We need to be specific about the colonial forces in Europe and the US etc that require exploitation to maintain their expected quality of life. To be vague now in days is dangerous.
It's not just the wealthy that want more, it's everyone wanting more clothes or more toys, things that we don't really need. Look up what it takes to just make one t-shirt and then decide if you're wanting more than you need. I'm just as guilty but trying to change.
I don't think the ozone layer is that big of a problem now. I'm fairly sure that has been fixed. Search it up if you want more info. I absolutely loved this video, her voice is so good and they way she talks, passionate and smart.
Good point and a desirable goal, but firstly how will we know that we have exceeded our 'growth period' (there could be more discoveries and technologies which will seem vital to the people of the future) and secondly how will we transition the economy? Welfare states need constant growth to accommodate its citizens.
Why do you think welfare states need constant growth to accomodate it's citizens? They don't if citizens would be satisfied with a slightly slower growth in welfare. We might not be able to use more resources, but we could develop the art of doing more with less. Essentially just focusing on getting more efficient.
@@bobthegoat7090 growth-based economics is based on growing ever-more efficient. The largest way to create growth is through increasing output by decreasing the amount of input needed for each unit of output. Degrowth (what this video is parroting) is based on rejecting that, and saying that we should just be content with stagnation.
@@crymmt6329 But surely no one will have a problem with growing more efficient, if it does not affect input negatively. Of course, the main fact is that we should be content with 0% growth, but surely even people that support degrowth will be okay with an action that only increases efficiency. Let's say we have archived 0% growth and everything is sustainably run. In this imaginary world, we have a power plant that produces 1 GW of energy. Surely, everyone will agree it is a good thing if we can somehow produce 1.5 GWh if we found a more efficient way to use the resource that the plant uses?
@@ruthevans1490 Perhaps. But the way I see it, people flying from New York to London will keep flying, and all the "not too much" part will be left to us.
Well,this was a waste of time. The economy doesn't work like the human body. That balance CAN'T happen!Value is created but also lost constantly.If the economy stops growing,it will start shrinking!
The thing is, though, we solved the ozone layer problem--we can actually fix problems. And overall, things are getting much better for people, thanks to economic growth. It's the richest countries that invest the most in renewables, and it's the rich countries that can better manage national parks.... Growth does not necessarily come into conflict with nature.
Truly disappointing to see TED parroting this complete nonsense. Degrowth, especially as our human population continues to grow, will result in drastic reductions to the standard of living of billions of people. Dealing with modern issues, such as climate change, in no way shape or form requires degrowth, and the suggestion that growth-based economics is fundementally incapable of addressing the issue is willfully misleading from an educational source such as TED Ed. This entire series has been an enormous stain on an otherwise excellent educational channel.
"....and the hole in the ozone layer and the extinction of the species.. Hang on! we are ignoring our planet... literally *undermining* the *life-supporting systems* on which we depend." Left me pondering! _How well-balanced depiction of the essence of the word "balance" is brought to limelight via the doughnut theory!_ Conveys a lot. #LoveTed_Ed
Not to diminish this brilliant author's work, but what she preaches is actually something that used to be common sense. If we look into the history of human thoughts, we can see different versions of this wisdom across many cultures. It only seem to be novel because what we call Economics today, is but a thinly veiled, sophisticated elaboration of colonialism.
To solve this problem of the lack of resources we actually need to replace our resources acquiring source from a single planet(earth) to the outer space planets and asteroids, earth has limited resources but on outer space there are planets with unestimated resources enough to sustained the economic growth for thousands years.
Unfortunately not only are we reducing our resources but we also are destroying what of them is left, due to the greed for national progress, without regard to others (and even to ourselves in a longer run). What we need is a international body which has respect for those living in other nations and are less well-off than ourselves, one who willing shares its opportunites without damaging them beyond the way nature can recover by itself.
we're centuries far from having the technological capacity to mine on extraterrestrial bodies, let alone the logistical capacity of transporting tons of raw materials back here. it's better at the moment to just focus on what we have here.
Sadly, we treat our planet as an obese Americans sick from junk food. We seek pills to cure the issue, but don't seek to change the lifestyle. Especially since subscribing pills makes more money than stop profiting from the victims.
What a terrible video! I haven’t heard something so incredibly and obviously wrong maybe ever. God, this has the ability to actively hurt humanity very much.
There is a quote atributed to naturalist David Atenborough: "People who believe in infinte growth are either fools or economist." And this quote is quite a few decades old. I don't see the future with "Donut Economy" but "Tree Economy": a economy can grow very VERY big, just like a tree, BUT as it grows it must develop fruits (money) that come down to the ground (the rest of us) to make other & more trees grow.
Despite the U.S economy being as big as it ever was. The standard of living have remained stagnant or declining. 40 years ago you could work full time and afford rent and extra expenses. Today, you can't even afford rent working full-time at minimum wage jobs.
this is the first time anyone has compared economic growth to a malignant tumor, and it makes so damn much sense to me! but can we please declare greed as a mental illness NOW???
What's the difference between greed and ambition? Who made you king? It's only because your ancestors were greedy that your even alive today. Lack of ambition is not a virtue.
It’s incorrect to think that economic growth means using more, which is not always the case. Economic growth also means using our resources more efficiently We need economic growth and innovation to create technologies like direct air capture to reduce our carbon footprint Economic growth and ecological preservation are not mutually exclusive
How to create a better economy Step 1 remove lobbying Step 2 remove corrupt politicians that make laws that affect the economy Step 3 stop monopolies like apple and google
I think that first bit is the most crucial and serious part. People bash me for suggesting more regulations but it's actually what enables free, competitive environments. It combats monopolies, legal loopholes, and corruption.
There was a lot of good idea there but nothing solid into what should the world governments do to transition into sustainability. A lot of laws would have to change because private companies are kinda legally required, otherwise you'll get sued, into make as much money as possible. That there is a huge reason why they try to endlessly grow. I really wish most companies, and specially the ones that consume too many resources and mistreat their employees, would change to employee owned companies with limits in their output but can it happen?
So instead of shared growth and stimulating innovation to address climate issues, you’d rather have shared poverty and limited growth which will stifle any hope of innovation. Brilliant.
The first step we need to take is to acknowledge that the economy is not only bad, but in such a state that it needs to either be completely overhauled or replaced. This means figuring out the issues and then eradicating said issues. We must then focus on moving away from profits and instead move back to making sure everyone can thrive under it, because at the end of the day, the economy is only successful when the people can thrive in it and not how high the profits are.
