Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Sally Strange (sallystrange@eldritch.cafe)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 00:48:18 JST Sally Strange

   "Debunking degrowth" or trying to, anyway

   "In the degrowth literature, a caricature of the typical economist is presented as believing in unlimited economic growth, and that growth should be pursued regardless of its environmental impact. This is a straw man. It would be a naïve economist who did not recognise that constraints exist. And economists usually limit their projections to a few decades to come, rather than to the infinite future, in which they supposedly believe in unlimited exponential economic growth. Certainly, there are theoretical economic growth models which portray the possibility of exponential growth into the infinite future, but economists have had enough common sense not to assume stylised theoretical models are the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to public policy."

   Then why, Mr. Tunny, is it so hard to find an economist who can tell us when the economy should stop growing?

   #degrowth #capitalism #Economics

   https://www.cis.org.au/publication/debunking-degrowth/

   • Embed this notice
     Matthew W. Thomas (mwt@econtwitter.net)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 00:48:10 JST Matthew W. Thomas

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • violetmadder
     • Stanley Black-Decker

     @pleaseclap @violetmadder @simon_brooke @SallyStrange anyway, feeding, clothing, and housing everyone without emissions requires some sort of system and plan. The "let's break everything first and figure it out later approach" is no good.

     Once you have a concrete plan, you might discover that your final proposal isn't that different from the policy approach -- just with bigger numbers.

     feld likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Matthew W. Thomas (mwt@econtwitter.net)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 00:48:11 JST Matthew W. Thomas

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • violetmadder
     • Stanley Black-Decker

     @pleaseclap @violetmadder @simon_brooke @SallyStrange from my perspective, the status quo is preserving capital and he advocates taking some of that away. Capital didn't like that.

     I get that you find him too moderate, but he didn't advocate for business-as-usual like effective altruists. He's not on the other side from you. He's just close enough to be in your punching range.

   • Embed this notice
     Stanley Black-Decker (pleaseclap@urbanists.social)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 00:48:12 JST Stanley Black-Decker

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • violetmadder
     • Matthew W. Thomas

     @mwt @violetmadder @simon_brooke @SallyStrange

     "You can't suddenly stop all emissions in one day"

     That's an ideological constraint: the difference climate activists take with the dominant policy approach is that yes, we can just shut down militaries and planes

     Yes, we can change how we live, in ways that diminish state power and destroy capital (while preserving homes, food, and people)

     What Nordhaus is struggling to do is convince people we need to make steep sacrifices to preserve capital

   • Embed this notice
     violetmadder (violetmadder@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 00:48:14 JST violetmadder

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • Stanley Black-Decker

     @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @SallyStrange

     And there's an economist who was given a fucking Nobel Prize after calculating that +4C temperature increase for the planet was economically "ideal".

     So, at this point I consider the entire field-- hell, the world in general-- quite deranged.

   • Embed this notice
     Matthew W. Thomas (mwt@econtwitter.net)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 00:48:14 JST Matthew W. Thomas

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • violetmadder
     • Stanley Black-Decker

     @violetmadder @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @SallyStrange you can't suddenly stop all emissions in one day. So, the question of how you slow them and how much those emissions will raise temperatures is a real question that requires a real answer.

     Nordhaus' 4 degrees proposal involved major emissions reductions that no one followed. If the world followed his proposals, we would be in far better shape than we are now.

   • Embed this notice
     Stanley Black-Decker (pleaseclap@urbanists.social)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 00:48:15 JST Stanley Black-Decker

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke

     @simon_brooke @SallyStrange I think this is basically it

     There are "serious economists", there are politically-motivated economists, and there are bankers and fund managers and financial advisors who call themselves economists in order to give their recommendations credibility

   • Embed this notice
     Simon Brooke (simon_brooke@mastodon.scot)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 00:48:17 JST Simon Brooke

     in reply to

     @SallyStrange furthermore, ANY economist who has not given thought to the consequences for the deep future of the actions they are recommending today, is an illiterate reckless amateur hooligan¹, who should not be allowed out of doors without a straight-jacket and a leper's bell.

     ¹ or 'economist', as they call illiterate reckless amateur hooligans in the kleptocrat-owned media.

   • Embed this notice
     Jack of all trades (jackofalltrades@mas.to)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 03:47:49 JST Jack of all trades

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • HeavenlyPossum
     • violetmadder
     • Stanley Black-Decker
     • Matthew W. Thomas

     @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @violetmadder @mwt

     Alternatively, apply Hanlon's razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. 😉

   • Embed this notice
     phiofx (phiofx@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 03:47:49 JST phiofx

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • HeavenlyPossum
     • violetmadder
     • Jack of all trades
     • Stanley Black-Decker
     • Matthew W. Thomas

     @jackofalltrades @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange@eldritch.cafe @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @violetmadder @mwt stupidity is the stuff of humanity. The challenge is when we cover it up (or worse, exploit it for advantage) when we should be admitting the limits of our knowledge and behave accordingly.

   • Embed this notice
     HeavenlyPossum (heavenlypossum@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 03:47:50 JST HeavenlyPossum

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • violetmadder
     • Stanley Black-Decker
     • Matthew W. Thomas

     @SallyStrange @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @violetmadder @mwt

     In 1991, Nordhaus estimated that some 87% of the US economy is negligibly affected by climate change because activity in those sectors occurs indoors, in artificially heated or cooled buildings.

     Nordhaus’ conclusions bear so little relationship to reality that it’s hard not to conclude that he was attempting to deliberately mislead.

   • Embed this notice
     Matthew W. Thomas (mwt@econtwitter.net)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 03:47:51 JST Matthew W. Thomas

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • violetmadder
     • Stanley Black-Decker

     @violetmadder @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @SallyStrange (btw the target is 3.5°C and people like to round it up, but that's besides the point)

   • Embed this notice
     violetmadder (violetmadder@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 03:47:52 JST violetmadder

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • Stanley Black-Decker
     • Matthew W. Thomas

     @mwt @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @SallyStrange

     Do you have ANY idea what that number actually fucking MEANS?

     Here's a hint: the planet was about 6C cooler during the last Ice Age. You know, when the glaciers stretched all the way from the North Pole to Missouri.

   • Embed this notice
     Matthew W. Thomas (mwt@econtwitter.net)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 03:47:52 JST Matthew W. Thomas

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • violetmadder
     • Stanley Black-Decker

     @violetmadder @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @SallyStrange the alternative to attempting to answer a question is to not attempt to answer the question. This is an important question. So, attempting to answer it is important.

     The model assumes linear costs of climate change (e.g., a 2 degree increase causes twice the damage of a 1 degree increase). This is not correct, but improvements can be (and have been) built off the underlying framework.

     Again, this is all radical compared to actual policy.

   • Embed this notice
     Matthew W. Thomas (mwt@econtwitter.net)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 03:47:53 JST Matthew W. Thomas

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • violetmadder
     • Stanley Black-Decker

     @violetmadder @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @SallyStrange the number is the first attempt at answering this question. It started a literature. He didn't win the Nobel because he answered the question. He won the Nobel because he asked an important question and innovated an approach to solve it. This is an entire literature now.

   • Embed this notice
     violetmadder (violetmadder@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jan-2024 03:47:54 JST violetmadder

     in reply to

     • Simon Brooke
     • Stanley Black-Decker
     • Matthew W. Thomas

     @mwt @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @SallyStrange

     Do you have any idea what 4C would do to this place?