[rbrtl]

I think you know OP didn't mean those:

> Except medical advances and science, I'd be all willing to trade ALL the economic "growth"

I don't understand if you're making a larger point or not, but the "first world" is the focus of the discussion of whether or not growth economics is harmful. It worked fantastically well for the first world for many years, possibly even the 200 year scale that the commenter above challenged. The issues have arisen in the last 50 years (opinion incoming) and particularly since the US, and UK embraced the Trickle Down model that Reagan pulled over the American people's eyes.

Western Civilisation spent some 600 years taking their freedoms from those who held them down -- the politically, and economically, elite. In 8 years President Reagan convinced the American people that these overlords no longer needed to be held account for taking the bulk of the wealth of the masses for themselves, on a promise that it would come back to them, and that this was a required measure to encourage growth of the economy as a whole.

This was a bald-faced lie, wealth-capture and the chasm of wealth inequality was at an all time low in the developed world circa 1970, the last 50 years have served only to restore the land- and robber-barons to their political city on a hill.

They used the oldest tools in the despots handbook to achieve this: propaganda and agents provocateurs.

Today it is easier than ever for the political class to deploy these weapons against their citizens (whom, by the way, should be their peers in a democracy), and to obfuscate the use of these tools from those worst affected.

[virgilp]

Oh, but if we take that view - it's basically "rich and healthy is better than poor and sick". D'uh, of course I'd give up all the bad things if I could get more good things in return, who wouldn't?

I think the view that one president screwed you over is a bit myopic... It didn't happen in US, it happened all across the developed world. That shows it's a systemic thing - caused not by some policy, but by global forces. Those millions that came out of poverty did it pretty much at the expense of the western middle class (and yes, this was enabled & encouraged by the rich - who benefited from it; that much is true). It's not just a few people that got richer - many millions got richer. It's just that those millions are not in the developed world.

[edit]PS. I wonder if OP didn't add the "except" after my message... I don't remember seeing it initially (though it's entirely possible that I didn't pay close attention).

[thu2111]

Problem is that view is contradictory.

In the absence of discovering a natural resource bounty, GDP (economic) growth comes from two sources:

1. More people working harder.

2. Better technology.

If you exclude "medical advances and science" you're basically excluding (2) which means the only source of growth is (1). More people working harder. Saying the world can only get better by increasing the number of hours we work is dystopian and doesn't make sense to wish for.

Ultimately, all progress comes through technology.

[rbrtl]

I have no idea where this contradiction is coming from. OP explicitly stated that they would maintain, keep, hold on to, medical advances and science growth... They would trade _other_ growth such as land values, asset inflation etc. to undo the harm done.

And just because I was perusing this earlier today: the UK Government's plan for the future /is/ to have people work for longer[1].

I agree with you. Make no mistake in that. Denying that those who push growth economics seek only to further their own interests, not those of humanity, is a curious and dangerous position in the face of the evidence. This graph[2] shows that since deregulation they have increased their relative gain, at the expense of those worse off. It would be trivial to show that these same people made their money by eroding the welfare of everyone else, environmentally and economically.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/19...

[ClumsyPilot]

Not at all, there are huge efficiencies to be gained from societal change. You could double Russian GDP just by dealing with corruption.

Besides crime, there is- Education, computer literacy, drug problems, etc. Huge swathes of Africa lacks even basic sanitation, many people in US don't have healthcare, the list is endless.

Lastly, there is a difference between science and industry. Case in point: we have the technology for genetic engineering of humans, but we aren't doing that. It could probably increase GDP too.

[zemvpferreira]

That's a big claim you're making. Can't economic growth (AKA inflation) come about from rising asset prices such as houses?

It seems to me that conflating humanity's progress and economic growth is exactly where our problems start.

[thu2111]

This is a pretty common confusion. Economic growth is a growth in what economists call "wealth" (the goods and services around us that add up to our modern lifestyle). The closest approximate metric for this is real-terms GDP, i.e. the value of all goods and services sold added up and then adjusted for inflation. It's not about raw prices, which are distorted by government money creation (these days normally called quantitative easing but it goes via many names).

Progress and wealth creation actually occur when prices fall, not when they rise, even though it may not feel like it if you happen to be the owner of a fixed asset whose price is falling i.e. a house. In a static system if money is printed via the issuance of loans, and that causes house prices to rise whilst the prices of everything else remain stable, then all that's doing is reallocating wealth from non-home owners to homeowners and banks. But it's not actually increasing wealth.

For wealth to increase everyone would need to find it easier to buy things, and the only way to do that is for things to become cheaper in real terms. For instance the smartphone industry has created enormous wealth in the past 20 years. Smartphones got massively cheaper so everyone can have one, and they got massively better. This is what economists mean by wealth creation.

[raducu]

How is a rise in house prices helping the nobler parts of the economy? People spend considerable more of their income on mortgages or rents, leaving a lot less for other less fixed and shorter lived assets. I'd be 1000% satisfied with a 50' house and valuation, leaving me to spend my money on travel, charity, high-tech or just work less, do stuff that really interests me; or spend a lot more on education. How is the education bubble helping the progress of humanity?

I'd be extremely happy with the education + costs of 50 years ago, or just online education -- I'm not talking about content, but delivery and costs.

It boggles my mind that people don't see it for what it is -- the feudal lords are back and they take a lot more of your production just so you stay alive.

They are not helping humanity(except for some benevolent ones) progress, they 99% help themselves.

[zemvpferreira]

Sorry if the language wasn’t clear but that is the point I was trying to make: when we use economic growth as a measure of improving quality of life for people, it ceases to be a good measure.