• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Rorschach said:
If you conceptually break from the fact that economic growth as defined by increasing GDP is how we measure if we are advancing as a species then you can look at progress in any number of different ways.

However, in this conversation, we are talking about economic growth. Degrowth as a concept is way more nuanced than just no more growth. It is growth in certain industries in certain economies that need it, and a reduction in other areas and economies. Badly named maybe but don't judge a book...

edit:
If anyone is interested in this crazy degrowth thing then there's a whole pile of recent articles in this thread on it
https://twitter.com/x/status/1592816423805812736
Click to expand...

Not wishing to be a killjoy, is there much new with such a theory? Coal experienced ‘degrowth’, ironically during Thatcher presumably? And many other industries have fallen by the wayside (‘de-grown’) as we advance.

GDP is just a basic figure used to total up a nation's economic activity. If we became the world leader in selling solar panels and our GDP grew, would that be bad? The UK's GDP noticeably increased when the spice girls were at their global peak. We can question the value of their input to the human race (!!!) but are sales of music a detriment?

It seems like a form of Marxist argument mixed with environmentalism. But I’d argue we need growth of new fresh areas of human activity, and capitalism probably will play a crucial role innovating and driving efficiency. Efficiency is the bedfellow of sustainability. The waste in centralised Marxist economies was woeful. We can certainly take from Marxist principles, but surely we should be focusing on *the growth of modern sustainable human activity* not degrowth.
 
Last edited:
Rorschach said:
That is certainly a large part of it. The relentless pursuit of profit for the few has us primed from birth into believing that having more stuff will somehow fill some gaping hole in our lives. We've bought fully into every story capitalism has told us, and now it threatens our very existence. We either face the problem or we will continue on our death spiral.
Click to expand...
100%.
It's a sea change in a mentality/psychology of the general populace that needs to happen.
Appealing to captains of industry to shift their focus is a fruitless task, they've too much to lose. And if they have the attention of political ears, an even harder task. They will only change when their market demands it and the masses defect, or government's get genuinely tough (haha).

The problem is the timing could be bad, with the advent of the internet, and in particular, social media, no-one can agree on anything, and are so time consumed with what is coming thru their screen, they barely notice, or consider the big picture you describe.

I'm pretty certain it could all implode around them and in 1m years time they'll be discovering fossilised humans with a smartphone in their hands.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
Not wishing to be a killjoy, is there much new with such a theory? Coal experienced ‘degrowth’ ironically during Thatcher presumably? And many other industries have fallen by the wayside (‘de-gown’) as we advance.

GDP is just a basic figurer used to total up a nations economic activity. If we became the world leader in selling solar panels and our GDP grew, would that be a bad thing? The UKs GDP was noticeably increased when the spice girls were at their global peak. We can question the value of their input to the human race (!!!) but are sales of music of determinant?

It seems like a form of Marxist argument mixed with environmentalism. But I’d argue we need growth of new fresh areas of human activity, and capitalism probably will play a crucial role innovating and driving efficiency. Efficiency is the bedfellow of sustainability. The waste in centralised Marxist economies was woeful. We can certainly take from Marxist principles, but surely we should be focusing on *the growth of modern sustainable human activity* not degrowth.
Click to expand...
I couldn't tell you if the concept is new, the 70s maybe, but there is no doubt that the case it makes is all the more pressing. We've doubled the amount of poison in the atmosphere since Thatcher was around. Your examples are a little suprious and are really making arguments for degrowth, not against it. Fewer coal plants and more solar panel plants is an example of prioritising the right economic activity.

As for GDP it is a measure of destruction as much as creation. Bobby Kennedy puts it best "Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. " That whole speech is worth a read. He could have been one of the greats.

I better do some work.
 
Last edited:
UK net migration hit 504,000 in the year to June - the highest figure ever recorded, The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates.

Wasn't this the one area Brexit was supposed to address? The one thing Remoaners couldn't really come back on? Seems not.
 
Rorschach said:
I couldn't tell you if the concept is new but there is no doubt that the case it makes is all the more pressing. We've doubled the amount of poison in the atmosphere since Thatcher was around. Your examples are a little suprious and are really making arguments for degrowth, not against it. Fewer coal plants and more solar panel plants is an example of prioritising the right economic activity.

As for GDP it is a measure of destruction as much as creation. Bobby Kennedy puts it best "Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. "

I better do some work.
Click to expand...

If you think a stat - in this case a total of a nations economic activity - can provide any deeper poetic or human value, then it was you who was maybe misled? I don't believe anyone would suggest GPD has any claim on anything related to these things. It is what it is - a measure. It's like decrying a thermometer giving a reading. It is just a measure no more.

The reason I am flagging this up is that I want environmentalism to succeed. It won't via degrowth. What is suprious is not my examples (unless you can outline why) but a concept that relies on going backward. The EV you drive would not exist with degrowth. The efficiencies we require do not occur in planned Marxist-like economies. Yet we see poor people in economically 'liberal' societies use entrepreneurial instinct to recycle materials, and make the most from little resources. Pragmatically, advancement will never come from going backward. Just look at the failed planned economies in the USSR where consumerism was shunned. It's just not realistic. Especially when we have brilliant companies innovating and developing technologies to build a sustainable future. These entities are growing (why wouldn't we want them to!) and will leave dirty technologies in their wake.

We can learn a lot from communism as it existed and Marx's ideas, but it doesn't seem like people are really appreciative of the positives and negatives of this approach to human consumption.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
SpurMeUp said:
If you think a stat - in this case a total of a nations economic activity - can provide any deeper poetic of human value, then it was you who was maybe misled? I don't believe anyone would suggest GPD has any claim on anything related to these things. It is what it is - a measure. It's like decrying a thermometer giving a reading. It is just a measure no more.

The reason I am flagging this up is that I want environmentalism to succeed. It won't via degrowth. What is suprious is not my examples (unless you can outline why) but a concept that relies on going backward. The EV you drive would not exist with degrowth. The efficiencies we require do not occur in planned Marxist-like economies. Yet we see poor people in economically 'liberal' societies use entrepreneurial instinct to recycle materials, and make the most from little resources. Pragmatically, advancement will never come from going backward. Just look at the failed planned economies in the USSR where consumerism was shunned. It's just not realistic. Especially when we have brilliant companies innovating and developing technologies to build a sustainable future. These entities are growing (why wouldn't we want them to!) and will leave dirty technologies in their wake.

We can learn a lot from communism as it existed and Marx's ideas, but it doesn't seem like people are really appreciative of the positives and negatives of this approach to human consumption.
Click to expand...
You are missing my point and indeed what Kennedy is saying. GDP is what it is, and measures what it measures, but it is a poor measurement to judge a country's well-being.
 
SpurMeUp said:
UK net migration hit 504,000 in the year to June - the highest figure ever recorded, The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates.

Wasn't this the one area Brexit was supposed to address? The one thing Remoaners couldn't really come back on? Seems not.
Click to expand...

It's a massive concern 281,000 students. Which depending on what they are paying/studying and how they support themselves could be good or bad.
 
Lilbaz said:
It's a massive concern 281,000 students. Which depending on what they are paying/studying and how they support themselves could be good or bad.
Click to expand...

They pay between £16-22k per year in fees, plus their own sustenance. They basically play a big role in subsidising all UK students. EU students have also recently been recategorised from home to overseas, so are paying more/contributing to these 'immigration' numbers now too.

Basically this is a very good thing. It's madness they include students in immigration figures. No one seems to know why it still (ever did) happens.
 
Gutter Boy said:
They pay between £16-22k per year in fees, plus their own sustenance. They basically play a big role in subsidising all UK students. EU students have also recently been recategorised from home to overseas, so are paying more/contributing to these 'immigration' numbers now too.

Basically this is a very good thing. It's madness they include students in immigration figures. No one seems to know why it still (ever did) happens.
Click to expand...
It is anything but madness, Students still consume public services. Remember also that they also include the students leaving the UK in the net migration numbers.

What was mad was that after we had given a good education (many in Science and Tech) to many of these overseas students we didn't let them remain in the country to work. Though I believe that has changed in recent times (which is a great thing IMO).
 
Finney Is Back said:
It is anything but madness, Students still consume public services. Remember also that they also include the students leaving the UK in the net migration numbers.

What was mad was that after we had given a good education (many in Science and Tech) to many of these overseas students we didn't let them remain in the country to work. Though I believe that has changed in recent times (which is a great thing IMO).
Click to expand...

But if there's always say 250,000 of them - 1/3rd graduate and leave every year and 1/3rd new 1st years start. It just seems a bit pointless and puts them in the firing line of the far right
 
Finney Is Back said:
It is anything but madness, Students still consume public services. Remember also that they also include the students leaving the UK in the net migration numbers.

What was mad was that after we had given a good education (many in Science and Tech) to many of these overseas students we didn't let them remain in the country to work. Though I believe that has changed in recent times (which is a great thing IMO).
Click to expand...
I’ve worked with loads of people who are from our old colony’s and can’t get sponsored to get visas here by companies because of the admin agro, yet they studied here and paid a fortune to be educated here… bonkers
 
Gutter Boy said:
But if there's always say 250,000 of them - 1/3rd graduate and leave every year and 1/3rd new 1st years start. It just seems a bit pointless and puts them in the firing line of the far right
Click to expand...
There isn't always 250,000 of them.... The numbers have gone up quite significantly in recent years. Also 1/3rd don't just graduate and leave, overseas students with degrees from UK Universities are now (finally!) allowed to stay and work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back