[ohitsdom]

Are you arguing the benefits of a stagnant economy? I don't understand how that could be a good thing. The economy needs to at least match growth of the population, or else that means you have unemployment or lower wages. But if that's what you want just to stick it to the billionaires...

[PythonicAlpha]

Growth and more growth is only needed, because of our interest based money system.

Any gardener can tell you, that unlimited (and exponential) growth is not possible. But economists still believe in it.

Some (very soon) day, all the resources of this planet will be wasted -- and humanity will have destroyed itself -- just because of economic theories and to make billionaires from millionaires.

[avz]

Growth is needed to lift people out of poverty, create jobs and opportunities and support wider range of social projects from infrastructure to space exploration.

The burden we're putting on the resources of this planet is indeed very high and we must work to reduce it. However, GDP growth with shrinking burden on the environment is achievable by generating more value on a smaller environmental footprint (see my other comment, in short: we can increase GDP by growing the relative aggregate value of services, software and products made of recycled materials).

[PythonicAlpha]

That is just capitalistic propaganda that now runs the last decades over the world.

But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.

Today is the situation, that new jobs in underdeveloped countries are at the existence minimum of that country or below -- meaning, those people work their ass of, just to survive and make the big bosses richer. And additionally, the environments of the countries are polluted, resources are depleted ...

All in the name of god money.

[briandh]

> But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.

According to the world bank, the number of people in poverty worldwide declined from about 1.9 billion in 1990 to about 1.2 billion in 2010. That is despite an increase in surveyed population of about 1.4 billion over the same period. ( http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1,0 )

Now, it is possible that economic growth over that period was so enormous that only 1% of it (or less, considering that there are more people in the world besides the very destitute, millionaires, and billionaires) was sufficient for that amazing reduction in poverty.

But it seems unlikely, so I would appreciate a source for the assertion "The 'growth' of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires."

[PythonicAlpha]

I don't know, where you live. But I guess, that you live in a country, where critics of the capitalistic system does not appear in the media.

I don't care, what the world bank says. It is statistics. For example: How do they define "poverty"? By manipulating the definitions, I can prove anything to you.

It is a fact (and in my country, you can see it in the media), that in the developed countries, the rich got far much richer than the other people got.

That maybe some people in lower developed countries are better of now (by the statistics), might be, but their income is so low, that they do not really count against the growth in income in the other countries.

Please, don't tell me about the world bank. I don't trust organisations, that are installed for one main reason: To sell capitalism to the world.

The numbers from independent researchers are different. Read the book from Piketty: http://www.amazon.de/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Pik...

Of course, if you read the right (right-wing) media, they will try to discredit it, but I did not yet read any plausible critic -- only wild tries to protect capitalism from any thinking.

[leccine]

I am arguing that for an average person there is no difference between 3% growth and 15% growth, but for mother Earth there is and I don't care about corporate CEOs (less than 1% of the global population) and the Rokafela bros. Sorry for my ignorance but I think an average person and our planet is more important than few fat bankers and their CEO friends. I know, I am a bad person.

[avz]

Economic growth does not necessarily imply destruction of the environment. The growth rate refers to the rate at which value of products and services in an economy grows. The aggregate environmental footprint may in fact shrink or grow slower than the GDP. I can think of three reasons why there could be a gap between GDP growth and environmental footprint growth:

Services. Most of the value in a modern economy lies in services whose footprint is a lot lower than manufacturing.

Software. Even in manufacturing increasing part of the value comes from non-material components like software and network services.

Recycling. Recycling and downcycling lower environmental footprint by reducing our need for raw materials.

[PythonicAlpha]

That is just a theory. What do we have in practice:

- Some years ago, you could (yourself) exchange the battery of your mobile phone -- today, many mobile phones will be thrown away, when the battery is finished or any other part does not work any more. Todays "highest tech" industries are environmental nightmares. And now they even build tablet PCs that way, that should replace normal computers (see MS Surface).

- A lot more products are just build for fast consumption and recycling is still not in focus of most manufacturers. Instead, the waste from Europe is exported to Africa.

What I say: I am sure, that it would be possible, but with our todays ideology of growth for the sake of more and more profits and less and less regulation, that is just not "compatible".

[sirkneeland]

It's actually more likely that your battery will be properly disposed of today than it was a decade ago. Its being integrated into the phone means it is handled in the entire "decommissioning" of the phone (when you recycle it, trade it in or even throw it away where it is fished out by garbage processing companies who make money by salvaging electronics out of garbage and preventing it from going to landfills.

[PythonicAlpha]

Just theories.

The reality is, that very much (if not most) of our electronics garbage goes to Africa, where it goes to wild garbage dumps and young children are destroying their health by burning the valuable materials out of the garbage without any health or environmental measures.

Even when the phones are decomposed and parts are recycled, we are very far from recycling 100% of electronic gadgets. Maybe you could (with much effort, that is not cost effective) recycle 40% of the materials. The idiotic method of glueing all together makes things even more difficult!

What you tell here, is just science fiction, that is presented as facts from the media to give us better feelings.

I live in a country with very high standards for garbage recycling -- but even here, most of the stuff is either just dumped or burnt, since that is the most cost effective thing -- that is done, of course after the private households took much effort into waste separation -- it is just dumped/burnt together. I know that, because I brought my things separated to official recycling and was advised to dump it together into one big hole.

Don't believe, what media and press tells you, because governments want to shine a bright light on our industries! You are being just brain-washed.

[sirkneeland]

Sorry, but no. I worked for a very large phone company. These are not theories, they are policies and practices.

Telling me the work of me and my colleagues that I witness with my own eyes is "the media" reflects poorly on you.