Degrowth: Is it time to live better with less? | CNBC Explains
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июл 2024
- The degrowth movement is seeking to directly challenge a central plank of global economic policy - that more is always better. Instead, to avoid future crises, advocates of degrowth say it is time to embrace a model that prioritizes social and ecological wellbeing. CNBC’s Sam Meredith explains.
-----
Subscribe to us on RUclips: cnb.cx/2wuoARM
Subscribe to CNBC International TV on RUclips: cnb.cx/2NGytpz
Like our Facebook page:
/ cnbcinternational
Follow us on Instagram:
/ cnbcinternational
Follow us on Twitter:
/ cnbci
#CNBC #GDP #Degrowth
I think if people change their way of consumption and stop unwanted consumption, companies will only produce what is needed
By why should it be the responsibility of the individual to make that change? Companies that need to make profit to satisfy their investors are pressured to sell people anything they can and if it's not needed the company will use advertisment to make people think it is needed. We need some more governing actions then rely on the individuals decision.
@@danielgaebele7593 Agree... Iam not saying about consumption, but unwanted consumption which is not needed at that time amd impulse control by individuals...
But what is necessary, think before buying anything unwanted
@@danielgaebele7593 again can't blame the businesses, Because they employ people, pay taxes on which goverment funds various projects
@@krishnarajpalghat4473 Although I wouldn't use paying the employees and paying taxes as something good companies that do, since (most) don't pay well. I agree, you can't blame an entity that's just trying to work in the system. But I think you can blame the system, no?
@@danielgaebele7593 yes man if the government take it seriously and promote sustainable business models 😉
Degrowth is, as the video suggest, hugely misrepresented and misunderstood because for decade we’ve been told the only solution is growth. Many comments here suggest degrowth is just another name for a recession or depression. These are things caused by too much growth causing bubbles that the economy has to correct through recessions. We get them regularly. Degrowth is different because it focuses on wellbeing and the planet and is managed. We need to change our mindsets and learn to live on enough rather than forever chasing ever increasing wealth. We are very capable of doing this, but it won’t be via capitalism.
growth-based economies are mostly an invention of 19th and 20th century
100% on point. And we are no just capable but it's so easy to do. This system is design to make it difficult if it just stop trying, huge advances can be made. We produce 5 time the food needed for everyone, we have homes enought and tech to built better ones for everyone, stopping planned obsolescence itself would decrease consumption in a massive way.
i would say it's well understood, and deeply irrational. the point is to internalize negative externalities like carbon emissions and resulting climate change. provided your GDP measures account for that, GDP is indeed the right goal. and capitalism is the optimal economic model, provided you have taxes with negative or neutral deadweight loss and a generous UBI.
@@ClayShentrup the problem for capitalism is that growth cannot be (absolutely not relatively) decoupled from carbon emissions at the speed necessary to avoid catastrophic global warming. And it is likely impossible to decouple growth from material use. GDP is a measure of the financial scale of the economy, as a poor measure at that. Wellbeing of people and the planet is the goal so we should focus on these.
@@ClayShentrupI'm not sure about UBI, but I can agree with the rest. Capitalism, at its core, is the optimal system.
You shouldn't be mistaken sustainable growth with lack of growth.
There is no such thing as 'sustainable growth' in the global north.
@@englishbest Why not?
@@XOPOIIIO In a nutshell: Because of the so-called 'rebound effect'. Any technology that increases efficiency and productivity also contributes to more material use and waste. For example: If we switch from ICE cars to EV's we still need an increasing amount of fossil-fuel based infrastructure because all the fancy and huge electric cars need new roads, parking spaces and other facilities. Here are all the details and facts: www.degrowth.info/en/2016/03/once-again-supposed-evidence-for-decoupling-emissions-from-growth-is-not-what-it-seems/
@@englishbest And why EV's need more roads than ordinary cars?
@@XOPOIIIO At some point EV's will be less expensive than ICE cars so more people will be able to afford one which means we'll even more car infrastructure than we already have. That's only one example that shows how the rebound effect works.
All the silly (and terrible) things our business owners, lawmakers, and elites do for the sake of seeing numbers on a spreadsheet go up... Not only is it not "worth it," continued growth is making our lives worse every day. Decoupling ourselves from GDP-driven policy is the best thing we could do and I'd happily accept 'degrowth' as outlined in this report.
Sounds deflationary, and you'd have to abandon capitalism entirely. Which that may be what it takes, but calling it 'degrowth capitalism' is completely wrong, it'd be entirely different than capitalism.
Many people would suffer, starve and die. And ot won't be the already wealthy ones.
Yes, we need to abandon capitalism. But not just move to say socialism or communism. Go for a new kind of economics. Look up “doughnut economics”.
Who called it “degrowth capitalism” though? Of course this would require abandoning major tenets of capitalism which is something the degrowth community is aware of.
Capitalism isn't just about economic growth, it's just the effect of classical economics. There is such a thing as a free market economy that practices moderation
A capitalism can abandon the assumption of perpetual growth. The new capitalism will need to do so or perish.
Bhutan Has used Gross National Happiness as a guide to grow their economy.
For the last 15-20 years, it has increased is income per capital from US$155 per annum to US$3000 per annum.
Yet despite being squeezed between 2 huge and aggressive neighbours- China and India, it is able to stay true to itself and keep its environment pristine.
Bhutan is not perfect. It is NOT the happiest country in the world. But by focusing on GNH, Bhutan’s society asks itself the right questions - what is the right balance for us as a people. What do we value? Are we truly better off?
Yep, I agree. i read The Limits to Growth. And the proposal for degrowth of capital, pollution, etc. is well documented to be a sound pathway for genuinely sustainable human living on the planet.
A more honest video than I expected from CNBC. In contrast to some comments. Degrowth does not equal a recession. It might seem that way, but if we're being honest, we are consuming way more resources than we can afford. Let's take today as a snapshot. Growth in the so-called first world stops, but we still consume as always. And the rest of the world catches up to comparative consumption. In fact, May 10 2019 was marked as the day humanity would have exhausted the year's resources if everyone lived like the EU. That's 2.8 Earths. If we look at that alone, we have to face the reality that everyone consuming more and more is not only unsustainable, but also a sure way to drive humanity to the brink if not over.
Green growth will fall short in limiting this. Because it is still growth. More "sustainable" because it takes less resources to achieve the same figures of growth, but that is not enough on a finite Earth. The fact that we BURN fossil fuels already indicates that there is an end. Because we can't regrow them. Renewables are the way to go then, even if their production still takes a considerable amount of resources to reach a point where we can actually rely on them.
In short, Degrowth is not about giving up, but a mentality shift. We don't need new graphics cards and iPhones every year or two. We don't need five new outfits each year because last year's are "old." And we certainly don't need to fly across half of the world for 600 bucks for a vacation. I'm no saint ecologically, I know that. The hours I spend at a laptop each day ensure that. And I know that we will have to deal with the monopolies and oligarchies capitalism has bred before we can start this endeavor in earnest. But we have to start now. We are already 49 years late. Or 24, if we take the Kyoto Protocol.
If we have an endless growth in our bodies, we try to combat it by first decreasing the size before removing it. Why are some thinking that endless growth outside of it is good?
Much respect for you... Facts
It's recession for the ultra-rich and business as usual for everyone else.
@@ten_tego_teges u summarized it well😂. True. Because average guy like me, I still plan on using the same car for another 20yrs, same house size and almost everything else,... Lol
@@mugumyapaultheafricannomad9488 I mean, that's one thing, but even a more consumerist lifestyle is absolutely nothing compared to sb flying private jets around the globe and owning a yacht on every sea.
But of course there's the issue of doing things the inefficient way, cause "that growths the economy". Like cars are crazy inefficient, but we use them due to the car lobby. I don't plan on getting one till I have kids and even then I would share it with my wife. But I live in Europe and cities aren't suburban wastelands that stall you at every step.
That's called responsible consumption. And it only addresses a small part of humanity. It has negligible impact currently. Yes, responsible consumption is needed. But in terms of addressing climate change and resources shortage nuclear energy is orders of magnitude more impactful.
Simon Kuznets, one of the early progenitors of the ideas that lead to GDP warned directly against its use as a metric for any economy, and John Maynard Keynes, who formalized what we now know as GDP, did so for the purposes of fighting WW2, not for the purposes of providing for a human-focused economy in peacetime. He never intended it to be the baseline metric against which all progress is measured. The fact that GDP was ever adopted by the nations of the world is perhaps one of the greatest follies of the 20th century, and its continued use is perhaps one of the greatest follies of the 21st.
Millenials and Gen Z are kind of already doing this. They appreciate experiences over consuming things. If we want to tackle climate change then well need to grow at least somewhat to find more sustainable products.
Are you sure these "experiences" produce less CO2/plastic waste? They might not take it home but their servers may bin just as much as before. Certainly were aren't producing less overall by any means
I don't see the progress as the biggest generation hits middle age. Demanding that everything be provided to you the minute you want from a cell phone does not cut environmental footprint or leave you with the financial resources to live a good productive life. It just pushes tons of crap onto someone else's balance sheet. Any "experience" that involves air travel blows past my GenX environmental footprint. And then there is bitcoin, horrendous waste of energy for gambling.
What I see in younger generations is high priority for CO2 reduction, but a sad willingness to fall for lip-service and consumption to have something to brag or blog about.
Also thw move towards minimalism, decluttering, and downsizing. When fashion houses choose to burn excess product rather than donate or sell at a discount and when America is brokering trade deals on the basis of poorer nations allowing us to dump our trash on their land, you know we are overproducing product. And it's not even that producing less would lead to fewer jobs, just fewer unnecessary jobs. We desperately need cyber security professionals, nurses, people who can revamp America's health care system so it doesn't become the leading cause of bankruptcy, and build better infrastructure. It's still insane to me that at the start of the pandemic lockdown, farmers were told to destroy their crops because there was no one to buy it; meanwhile food insecurity and the number of families reliant on food banks in America spiked.
There is so much work to be done but workers are routed to useless roles like customer service that do little else than make retailers wealthier.
@@skyak4493 Boomers and Gen X are the problem. Strauss Howe Generational Theory.
It definitely is the time to live better with less or being very sensitive to resources{Reuse, Recycle}
Absolutely
You can’t live better with less. We need less people but more ressources for everyone and everyone living in low density environments
If Developed countries are to scale back their consumption, then who will buy goods & services from developing countries ? Inherent conflict in the basic hypothesis.
Material consumption is not the sole foundation of welfare. Aside from the basics most 'things' make people less happy.
@@shawn8847 Lol. Then go read the original document of De-growth which focuses on scaling back consumption and living with less.
@@ingvar1996 And, how exactly will developing and poor countries will get the required money to fulfil the basics of their citizens ?
@@ankur.mahajan This will differ per country. I think for the implementation of a consumption tax in the west for non-necessities would be an idea. Developing nations will not be taxed by this burden until they reach a certain development level. Production all around the world as a result will be focused on quality over quantity and on services.
@@ingvar1996 i beg to differ. Shopping is beyond the basic but it makes people happy, not less happy as you said.
I wish this idea goes widespread. I believe many of us sick of living in an endless race. Living as mere workforce pushed by economic ambition while forgetting how to just live and be happy
You were born to toil in order to survive, reproduce and then die. That's the reality of life. There is no utopia of "just living" unless you were born privileged and wealthy.
@@riccardoriganti838 well, it's not about your lifestyle, it's about the planet and every human on it being able to survive. If your lifestyle makes it impossible for future generations to have a life, then you may need to overthink your "way of living".
No one should left behind!
did you intentionally forget the "be" :D
The path of degrowth won't be taken voluntarily, i think that is just too idealistic. Individuals are egoistic, that's a pitty but the truth.
Key problem, which leads to the never ending need to grow, is the inflationary monetary system. A capped and rather deflationary money supply would lead to higher quality products and less consumerism as it favors saving. Degrowth through the back door. Do we already have such a solution?
Wow, 200 IQ comment. Wasn't expecting that in these parts.
So how does degrowth work?
if MEDCs provides Universical Basic Income and job guarantee, where does the job comes from ? Probably jobs comes from people who pursue their Entrepreneurial journey ? thats still capitalism.
they will put you in a camp with guaranteed housing and guaranteed jobs breaking big rocks into little ones, and digging trenches and then filling them in again. sometimes the guaranteed food will arrive in the mess hall, sometimes not.
@@JinKee where does the food comes from and who build the houses ? and where to get raw materials for building houses? (hint: Capitalism). If gov were to create those things, oops taxes ?
No disrespect, im not trying to roast you or some sort XD, it's just doesn't make sense to me. Counter the argument if you could, cuz i wanted to learn more tbh
@@chrishung7582 the answer is slave labour - the true meaning of "human capital" for the last ten thousand years.
"More than enough resources to safe good life for everyone" - the idea didn't gain prominence in 1970-s, actually it was expressed my Marx and "implemented" by bolshevik revolution in 1917.
looking for ways to make easy earnings ???,well heres your solution
rvn>fp>
Thats what i was just thinking
It is a nice idea - I have been to rich countries and seen extreme poverty oddly. UK is fifth richest country in the world you would not believe it if you lived in UK. That is because brits do not like to show their wealth as in France it is considered inconsiderate, draws attention and jealousy. Only country that is rich and everyone does well that I have experienced is Switzerland - their democracy is unusual they use direct democracy - they have rich but the poorest still have a better quality of life than most middle classes around the world. Considering the population guides government policy not politicians it runs extremely well. Whenever I say this people answer tax haven, its not a tax haven if you are Swiss, there are now many tax havens better for hiding money and if Swiss try to hide their own money they can lose their right to be Swiss. It is assumed if you have hidden millions abroad you can move there instead. Bit mad but it works ......
I think there was a great concept of a doughnut-shaped economic model where basically the outer edge was using too many resources that life is out and the inner edge was using too less where people will die from scarcity.. We basically have to maintain a balance in the middle. That along with an efficient market will stem out unnecessary industries in on itself(no intervention required)...Growth is important but we need a balanced approach in my pov
I might agree with the doughnut shaped economy as long as people do not have to live in high urban density environments and having to rely on public transportation
Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics :-)
@@urbanistgodWell, there ARE remote job opportunities. Who's to say there won't be even more in the future? 🙂
Tech growth: yes. Rentier Growth: no.
Good call. It speaks to democratic debate about the kind of growth we want within a bounded ecological, inflationary and energy budget. So qualitative, not quantitative economic policies should be the future.
To all the ones that laugh at this now. Don’t be surprised when you see degrowth being more successful. Especially in handling and preventing crises.
No one is laughing. We are just denying manipulated data by governments that are known for their secrecy. Over 20 “conspiracies” have been declassified. Conspiracy theory is just another word for classified information. Corruption and lies exist believe or not. Grow up. Stop being in your feelings and use logic for once.
@@MrCool144 no government would ever advocate for degrowth. they do not want big businesses having to be shut down or make politicians nit live in mansions. the elite do not want an end to their luxury, they do not want degrowth.
9 months later, still no prospect for degrowth to grow (lol).
If will never work , the more you give people , the majority of them then want more , if you gave everyone a million pounds/ dollars overnight there would be more greed and misery , that’s why it won’t happen, humans by default need to want and dream and ultimately fight for survival
As the video mentioned, rich world such as the US has economies that can provide for adequate standards of living many times over. The problem is with the distribution of wealth and inefficiencies For example, an individually owned automobile is an inefficiency because it sits unused 23 hours of a day and requires burning of fossil fuels to move 2 tons just to move a 200lbs human being. It also enables other inefficiencies such as urban sprawl, which results in home prices sky-rocketing when we run out of space to build. We have 5% of the planet's inhabitants, consume 20-25% of the earth's resources, yet our workers barely pass by.
You lost me vote calling cars inefficient. Public transit is dirty , dangerous and awful
@@garetthewitt9976 "Public transit is dirty , dangerous and awful" I always take a bus to work, and it's clean, convenient, safe, cheaper than driving, and I get 20 minutes of reading done each way, and don't have the stress of fighting traffic or finding parking. In 10 years riding the bus, I've never seen a dangerous or scary situation. Europe has wonderful mass transit because they committed to it, and even in America--where I am--mass transit can be wonderful.
Degrowth was necessary decades ago....but we not only have grown to parts unknown.....we've destroyed the infrastructure...the environment...and eventually ourselves...
Man, that was exactly my thought when I was mature enough to understand climate change and consumerism. We just keep leeching earth's resources for thing that we just don't need. In the presence of capitalism, which needs economies always growing, there is no way we can cut emissions by 2050.
I totally agree with degrowth.
I think we now no longer need to invest in military and weapons arms race.
Ya still sure about that, pal? After what putin did almost a year and a half ago?
@@ronrocker7131 I do still. But there must be a strong mutual agreement between all the nations. There must be also a punishment of some nation breaks agreement then they should be excluded from trade or some kind of embargo.
If there if mutual understanding then sure, but if not then yeah not agree anymore.
The country of Bhutan has tried to enforce happiness and environment over economic growth. Yet, I feel that many young Bhutanese would like to leave Bhutan in search of jobs. I am not from the country of Bhutan, just going by what I learned from the internet
economics is made up, we dont need to survive & can entirely be abolished. you cant do the same with the environment which is much more important than the economy
would be cool if y'all could cite sources a bit clearer
As a rentier, yes, I feel economic growth is essential to my future. Laboring is for the little people.
;)
As a first step, a 4 days working week could be introduced globally. It would not only slow down the economy, but would improve people's work-life balance just by granting one extra day to spend with a family.
And make a doctors appointment. Free healthcare does not mean employers actually allow you time off work to use it
we don't want to slow down the economy, we want to speed it up. the thing we want to slow down is negative externalities, by taxing them.
@@bringhomethebasil8729Nothing is free. Things can only be relatively free, at someone else's expense.
I like the idea about a 4 day workweek and wasting less, but that's about it. Everything else is not realistic.
@@bringhomethebasil8729 Yeah, but no doctor's appointments available because all of the doctors of the world just reduced their schedule by 20% but still have the same number of patients to fit in.
Japan’s DEGROWTH proudly theirs since 1990
5:15 recognized the Detroit skyline right away
looking for ways to make easy earnings ???,well heres your solution
rvn>fp>
Growth shouldn't be treated as an intrinsic good, but as a means to an end, and whether it's good or bad, depends on which end it results in. I know it was assumed when GDP was created that growth is always good, but that's not always true: growth that contributes to climate change without offering substantial benefit that couldn't be acquired in a green way, is bad. Growth that displaces people and violates their rights to a clean source of water, is bad.
Growth is not perfect because nothing is. However, growth has increased the quality of life for billions.
It is only when we are rich that we can give to others. If I have nothing, there is nothing to give away.
Life, human and ecological health and well-being. That is the new wealth to be maximized.
How many packages do you need delivered each day?
Can you really eat that double package of cheese from Costco?
Do you have a fridge in your garage and a freezer in your basement?
Then you need a generator.
Next comes a storage locker.
Lastly, a 350 Ram with a toy hauler.
Do you own the stuff or does it own you?
Makes me think of movie,
"Fierce Creatures ".
One of my favs
Economic growth has made our lives better, we can have better health since there are more than enough vegetables being produced, best healthcare services in any time of human history, better education and the highest economic mobility.
Economy is NOT a zero-sum game! Someone's loss is not somebody else's gain in economics. China now has more Billionaires in any time of its history, that doesn't mean Chinese average citizen have become poorer, instead, 600+ million people in China have risen out of poverty.
Just like how degrowthers say 'oh we didn't take responsibility for suffering on hundreds of millions due to covid economic degrowth', they will not take responsibility when you and hundreds of millions will be starving near death...
This is the truth right here. These people are extremists and nuts who are far too privileged to see that their idea threatens billions of lives via death and standards of living.
How is China's environment at the moment? How much CO2 are they producing? Have you read anything about expected water issues in China within 15-25 years? The CPC has officially published very scary papers on it, which shows even they are shitting themselves
@@riccardoriganti838 it's a stupid idea because most humans are very stupid, and can only understand very simple ideas. Understanding degrowth requires more sophistication than that vast majority are capable. I also think innovation is the only way out, and I am not a doomsday sayer. Sure, many people will suffer and many, many species will disappear. Large tracts of land will require immensely expensive rehabilitation. But humans are too dumb for any other solution, so that is the best we will be able to do.
It's the economic growth that produces social alignement. How degrowth without foment anarchy? That's human nature. We've a really big problem on hands.
Lol this is a dumb uninformed take
@@alexcipriani6003 of course you gonna explain us, right?
This is not something that can be explained in a RUclips comment ....the irony is that kind of the opposite of your statement is true
We sometimes overlook a hidden economic force in these theories - GREED
the economy did not grow substantially for thousand of years, always between 0 and 1%, and it even shrinked at time of war, pandemic... people should consider to stop using the term human nature when they dont have a clue what they talk about. If you think living under a capitalist economy is the acheived state of human life then you should revise your beliefs
Nice video.
Isn’t infinite growth a) impossible and b) necessary on the presumption of infinite population growth? Maybe we need to stabilise our species before we stabilise the economy.
An interesting idea to entertain but implementations won't be easy
Doing the easy thing is a sign you’re doing the wrong thing...
Change is not meant to be easy.
@@jonathandenton6160 true but unfortunately it makes it much lees likely to materialize.
Unnecessary excess leads to unnecessary problems💯💯💯
Has anyone read the Book ' Less Is More' by Jason Hickel. He goes into great depth on How De Growth will save the world. It's an eye opener to say the least. People need to remember that the planet will still be around thousands of years after Humans are extinct.
thank you!
My answer is YES!
Growth is good, consumerism is bad. Growth should be focused on achieving something more than just satisfying primitive wishes.
The assumption that growth is good is wrong. The side effect of growth is climate change and ecosystem loss. Growth is increasingly just about money, not wellbeing and the idea of never ending growth is impossible in a finite world.
@@longnewton1I just mean we shouldn't limit the growth by anything unreasonable. It's reasonable to limit unsustainable growth, and limited resources will limit it naturally. But as far as we can, we should grow.
@@XOPOIIIO Why “should we grow”? This is what we’ve been told for decades - that growth is the solution to everything. It isn’t. It has led to record levels of inequality, anxiety and depression and obesity in richer countries. We consume stuff we don’t need, and instead of aiming to be happy and healthy we aim to get rich. Growth simply cannot go on forever. We are now seeing the limits to growth and we’d better change course quickly because otherwise it will get messy!
@@longnewton1 That is why I said growth is good, not consumption.
@@XOPOIIIO Unfortunately its ultimately consumption that drives economic growth. Without consumers buying what an economy produces there won’t be growth.
Our factory produced 1000 cars last year. This year 800. Great!
Nicely clarified... Thanks for the detail information.
looking for ways to make easy earnings ???,well heres your solution
rvn>fp>
Brilliant workable and practical solution to recover planet earth from destruction
No question that degrowth would reduce emissions. But the pain moving from the current model would be huge. If western consumers buy less, this would include buying less from developing nations, curtailing their hopes of continuing to grow. Saying that developed nations should provide job guarantees, but doing what? Paying how much? And if th economy is contracting sharply, where is the money coming from, as the tax yield would also diminish? As for UBI...
Degrowth doesn't sound right.
I'd rather go for better growth, with a focus on sustainability, social equity, and basic needs.
What if, as is likely, “better growth” won’t do the job? What then?
@@riccardoriganti838 Not sure i understand your point about changing the name. For me, the issue is what we do. And Degrowth, accepting those in richer countries should consume less, is the key.
@@riccardoriganti838 Yes, I agree we need innovation and circular economies, but these things on their own are not enough. We will also need less consumption. Degrowth doesn’t mean no growth, you can grow the parts of the economy that are sustainable and shrink the bits that are more damaging and that we don’t need. And we can have periods of overall growth when needed, balanced by degrowth to avoid overall environmental damage. Growth, even green growth can’t go on forever, the planet and resources on/in it are finite. Even green growth and circular economies will lead to net extraction.
@@riccardoriganti838 As I said, i agree that renewable energy is the way to go. but solar panels, batteries, wind turbines all use resources that are limited. This is far less of a problem if we limit economic growth and accept we all need to consume less - so we don’t need to create more and more renewable energy, using more and more resources.
And yes, in practice regulating economic growth on a world scale will be difficult, but we simply have to try. the alternative won’t be pleasant.
In the history of capitalism it has never been demonstrated that economic growth can be decoupled from natural resource consumption. The correlation between economic growth and the depletion of natural resources is as robust as any you’ll find. If you keep growing exponentially on a finite planet then eventually you’ll overshoot planetary boundaries, which is already happening now. If the global economy keeps growing at 3% a year, as is defined as desirable by the IMF and world bank, then in 24 years it will be twice the size it is now and in 58 years it will be four times what it is now and so on and so on, doubling every 24 years. This would be fine in a world where the planet was growing at the same rate, but it’s not. Unlimited exponential growth isn’t a path to prosperity, it’s a path to ruin. It’s as simple as that.
Read the book, which wrote by Tim Jackson: Prosperity Without Growth.
I remember when they used to call it chattel slavery
Did Grrreta plant a grass ever ??
The digital economy can keep on growing. For example, building, distributing and selling a new app for your smartphone, only requires some electricity. Eventually it will all depend on finding new ways of generating electricity. Also the electronic industry that produces the hardware, can keep on growing. Because as no other industry, this industry continuously manages to provide more powerful toys that require less energy. More fun with less resources.
To a point, but eventually there must come saturation: People only have so much time and attention to monetise.
@@vylbird8014 it's not only about entertainment for the masses. Other industries, also governments and the military, have much more money to spend. And the consumer market will only get saturated when people run out of ideas about what else we can do with this technology. We already replaced a lot of paper by digital information, and replaced business flights by video conferencing, and so much more. But this is only a warming up, there is still so much more that can be replaced.
2:58 Can recognize Chicago !
looking for ways to make easy earnings ???,well heres your solution
rvn>fp>
In the ongoing Capitalist competition between China and USA, no country will ever think of de-growth as a policy option. If one understands the dynamics of this competition, one would know how ridiculous it is to even think that a superpower and a would be superpower would de-growth. US wants to retain the top slot by thwarting Chinese Capital. China wants to snatch the top spot from US by doing the same; promoting Chinese Capital and thwarting US/Western Capital. Economic expansion along with military expansion, Competing for and capturing new markets, retaining existing markets....all this mean increased production through promoting increased consumption (especially the emerging markets).
This is why you need a global non competing cooperating anti-state and degrowth movement of people who are loyal to neither the US or China.
True economic growth isn't making more of the same thing but rather creating more efficient and valuable services or goods.
I thought it was silly to only focus on the economy. There is much mire than just growth.
I think that living better is a far better goal than consuming more and there is something to be gained by redefining "success" by money blown. But just look at this video, they introduce the concept of a better life through reduction, and then the first recommendations they give are railroad construction -the economic equivalent of the H-bomb!
If you want a better life with less economic strain the answers are bicycles, 4 floor buildings, nature friendly land management, high quality long lasting products....
I don't see a problem with railroads, because while they do have an environmental impact this is far more than offset by what they replace: Mostly cars, and some air travel.
@@vylbird8014 Railroads have their place -specifically the efficient transport of heavy goods long distances over land. If you look at the rail that has been built in the past few decades, the majority has been built for political reasons, and the debt costs are far greater than the benefits.
There are even "successful" urban rail projects that are better understood as enablers of inefficient supper high density building. All urban planning should include setting aside the land and right-of-way for mass transit but the public should be far more skeptical about build rail on speculation.
Thanks!
growth is the correct goal, provided you account for externalities.
"Degrowth" lol just call it what it really is, STAGNATION
looking for ways to make easy earnings ???,well heres your solution
I don't think people understand how bad stagnation is.
Not so. Just what the wealthy want you to believe.
Better to “stagnate” within the planetary boundaries than to overshoot and collapse…
@@lenn939 It is possible to decoupling emissions from GDP growth, just takes a lot of money, time and effort which I believe we should do, stagnation is no answer to our problems.
We should strive for economic balance and moderation instead of growth
Such a breath of fresh air! I hope this gets billions of views and spread awareness
@@shawn8847 because he's not an idiot who can't think for himself.
You want a decrease to your power, liberty, health and human rights? Wow.
don't you know when you are being played?
Sure. Except that's not how the human mind works. So good luck with that.
I retired 18 years ago at 45 and have been living with less and less and have been very happy. But virtually all people think it's very strange how I live, can't believe I'm happy. That's with people open to living with less. When you get into developing countries you have most people being superstitious, corrupt, poorly educated...many problems that in no way shape or form would they want less is more.
This is a great thinking, as happiness is way beyond the money. Our concepts about life are not clear as from very early age we just tend to focus on high paying job or business which makes tonnes of paper currency and completely neglect our mental and physical health, our social life with those who we love the most by heart with no expectations of getting anything in return
Unfortunately the only way this will happen is through collapse because then you won’t be able to ignore it.
Capitalism requires growth to provide profits. But what is usually missing from discussions of the harms arising from continuous growth is that GDP is measured in monetary terms, i.e. the total monetary value of what is produced, _not_ in terms of inputs. Growth in value can be facilitated more efficiently by reduction of inputs than by simple increase in output volume. An example is the production of computers with smaller form-factors (usually called "phones"), which use less input materials yet are more valuable than their larger and less efficient predecessors. Also the portion of GDP growth which is service-oriented requires little in material inputs, so the service sector can grow with little impact on the environment. Perhaps most importantly, renewable energy has little impact on the environment, and energy is the primary and ever-growing input in an automated economy.
I always smile when neo-socialists talk about wellbeing... They obviously know what's the best for us...as history proved. Sadly, under their goverment... you can't have a different opinion.
I don't think anyone here is advocating for the abolition of democracy
@planefan082 sure, but the system like that unfortunately wouldn't work with democracy. It itself is against the system, against free trade, freedom of doing business etc... and many people who would disagree would be either punished or unable to privately run company. Where is the freedom here? I absolutely think we should regulate businesses, prefer renewable energy and recycle much more... but this radical movement is just an ideology that even isn't necessarily true. You can separate physical and economic growth. You can earn with services, digital products... not everything is tied to physical resources... moreover, proper regulations. recycling and access to resources from space would solve this and also coexist with economic freedom. Also let's not forget that majority is motivated by profit and companies want to be better than competition. That why living standards has rapidly improved in capitalist countries. As a consumer, companies fight with each other just to get your attention and provide you better product/offer. And then... look at state governed economies, (North Korea for example... ) should I even continue? This is why degrowth is incompatible with economic freedom and wouldn't work long term. Growth is motivator for many. For the majority I would say. This is how human nature works. But it isn't necessarily bad. We just need to find the best way to coexist with environment. It is a challenge of course, but radicalism is not the solution.
Degrowth sounds great! That means we get to work less and have more free time to do what we want. Hallelujah! Being lazy is now a positive characteristic! :)
Hmmm why does this sound like communism?
Because it is. Propaganda. This should be banned like it is in Poland.
The problem I have with degrowth, is that the elites will still live lavishly while the rest of us need to enjoy less. I'm completely against this idea. Other solutions should be developed for combating climate change.
Geothermal energy
No degrowth.... Hundreds of millions of hungry people throughout the world
For a sustainable capitalism ; Capitalism should evolve into Limited Capitalism. Where there is a limit to making money, printing money and creating credit.. Huge monopoly giants monopolies needs to be broken into smaller firms. Antitrust laws have to work.. Like a speed limit. Money making should stop at a point where anything over that needs to be taxed 100% as environment protection tax. This amount can be decided democratically.. This is the only way to control unlimited greed. This would definitely help fix the inequality which in the long run creates major wars.
This explanation of degrowth is way less sanitised than I'd've expected from capitalist media, but it still is sanitised. UBI and job guarantees aren't enough degrowth, because addiction to economic growth and capitalism are intertwined more closely than siblings in rural Alabama. This means that the degrowth movement challenges the core assumptions capitalist economics, and its logical conclusion is the end of capitalism. It's a socialist movement that does away with many of the antiquated, Eurocentric, industrial-era solutions of classic Marxism in favour of a solution that's conceivable in the days of neoliberal capitalist hegemony and imminent climate collapse
We put too much emphasis on having things, yet we have no time.
Degrowth needs to be paired with the slow movement and with cultural choices that focus on quality and durability instead of quantity for the goods we consume, services instead of products.
Imagine we have added one extra rest day to the week and we work 4 and not 5 days a week. Or that we take 1 or 2 hours out of the working day. Imagine that instead of buying new items of clothing every week we have a massage or we go to the theatre every week. Leisure activities providing employment and higher quality of life.
I could definitely agree to that. Say, a 6-7 hour work day, plus using more quality services, instead of just buying things. Still capitalistic, but with a better work-life balance.
The time for that was a few decades ago
This is an absolute nonsense ignoring basic economic forces
The problem is not economic. It's government policy, specifically spending on things government has no business spending money on and now the bills are due. All the rest of the noise is a smoke screen: Capitalism is bad, America is so divided, Guns are the problem, and so on. So why is government the problem? Because they need more money to service our ever growing debt (standing well over 34T). Because of that they need more inflation and higher taxes than ever to cover the interest on existing debt. More tax grabs are coming and much more inflation. This cycle will continue until the government is held responsible for their reckless behavior. For most of the past 75 years government spending as a % of GDP has ranged between 40% and 60%. Then Obama showed up and spending went to 95-100+% during his tenure and since he left it's never been below 100% and is now in the 120-130% range. No administration (not even our congress people) have the political will to correct this behavior because it means stopping to pay for bailouts, entitlement programs, our voluminous and never ending proxy wars (sometimes even outright wars), our police state (HHS and TFA)...and the list goes on and on. Government needs to do what they were always instituted for and really not much more. That is education, infrastructure, border security, and protection from foreign invasions. Instead government has embedded itself into every single industry and knows how to do nothing but grow itself and grow its spending. If left unchecked, they will ruin this country. None of these issues has anything to do with capitalism, it's our elected (and more so our unelected) government officials acting like our money is theirs to do what they want with it.
Degrowth or depopulation..
They want both.
Or collapse. I think I’mma go with degrowth.
2nd option please
More is better... for the fortune 500’s. They refuse to degrow their assets.
Scotland. Iceland and New Zealand. Yeah perhaps. Lol.
Bravo. Well-being is way more important than economic growth. Keir Starmer needs to embrace this concept.
Lomborg is a joke, not a scientist
One thing is certain capitalism must end.
Activist promoting degrowth sitting in AC, eating meat and enjoying all amenities in developed world while 30% of world population couldn't arrange proper food for them.
I couldn't put it better than you just did. Holy crap this is some top tier propaganda right here. People need to go spend some time in these other countries and realize why they haven't pulled it together yet. Zimbabwe slaughtered its white farmers in a fit of racist rage, then saw famine, and begged for the white farmers to return. China is the top polluter in the world, and tramples human rights, but we should live like them right? Look up the levels of Consanguinity amongst people who live this way, its astounding, and inbred governments should not be telling the rest of the world what to do. This is just more propaganda to destroy the west.
LOOK AT THIS PROPAGANDA! Agenda 21 in action with the help of communist China. This is one of the commandments of the Georgia Guidestones. They want to "maintain" human life and limit it to 500 million planet wide. This is marketing communism as ""doing the environment a favor."" Nations whose overpopulated peoples have high levels of consanguinity need to stop telling the west they are bad for their success. Communism says - STOP there's only so much to go around we must live obediently without liberty. Capitalism says - we can organize, plan and produce more to sustain our civilization, so that even the least of us who does nothing can get welfare and still survive. I can agree that CONSUMERISM has problems, but not "growth." Communist nations and third world countries have had THOUSANDS of years and TRILLIONS of tax payer dollars from the west to develop farming and sustained living with rule of law. THEY MURDER US in exchange for that. Us going into poverty won't change that! And you can bet the lawmakers are sitting in air conditioned rooms, eating meat, while they push this crap on us "useless eaters." POLLUTION?! The west is not the problem! China, Africa, India, the middle east (coincidently the nations that still practice indentured servitude and slavery, mind you) THOSE are your overpopulated nations! Zimbabwe murdered its white farmers in a racist genocide and then failed to organize and farm. They saw FAMINE for that. They BEGGED white farmers to return! What fresh Orwellian hell is this! Why is no one calling out the TOP POLLUTER OF THE WORLD, CHINA! In the county of California that tried UBI, where whites make up 13% of the population and are the minority, they were excluded from the UBI. NONE OF THIS IS LOGICAL, ETHICAL, REALISTIC, SUSTAINABLE OR FAIR! Meanwhile the elites will continue living like kings and queens. This to reduce the WORLD to a slave class. Countries who follow these methods see unprecedented declines in human rights and liberty. We need to ban communism like Poland before we are reduced to a third world and have no welfare, no roads, no schools, no science and NOTHING to offer ANYONE on this globe. The scum who orchestrated this video did so in an Air Conditioned room and at red meat with vital protein for dinner.
It is in nature of humans to compete.
Economic growth - is just another form of competition.
Death and survival is also a competition, the foremost and important than economic growth, get your priorities straight!
nobody cares about people. It is all about bussiness
@@CosmicDust7 if the people are gone, with whom will you do your precious business with? Aliens?, Aren't you supposed to be alive to do business? Get your priorities straight!
Actually, from an evolutionary standpoint it’s far more accurate to say that it’s in the nature of humans to cooperate. We aren’t the fastest or the strongest mammal so the ecological niche that our ancestors carved out for themselves is one of cooperation and living in tightly-knit communities. Compared to other animals humans are extraordinarily social and altruistic creatures. The idea that humans are all just driven by greed and selfishness is neoliberal propaganda and simply doesn’t match what we know from evolutionary psychology and biology, anthropology or sociology.
TEAM DE-GROWTH (aka Nature Restoration)!
Ok, but who will pay social security? Because if US grows as projections suppose, yet it is impossible to pay it. Moreover, this idea is just fair if people in rich countries accept the ideia and help poor countries, the problem is that it would cost like 2/3 or more of their economy, if we want a fair world. The economical consequence of that would be live in a small place, like 1/4 of the actual, forget about your car and your travels, stop spend in things like shows or festivals, even science! The world is still very poor, as you can see by the average gdp per capita of every nation, thus the consequences of degrowth would be very bad.
Depopulation > Degrowth.
Yes. High standards of living and life in low density environments> overpopulation
Just need to get the military industrial complex onboard.
looking for ways to make easy earnings ???,well heres your solution
rvn>fp>
In the future reducing it would be good but right now the military's of democratic country's particularly the US military help keep the world stable just from a selfish prospective that dose things like protect the globule chip supply meaning I can still get high quality graphics cards or could pre crypto mining at least and upgrade my PC.
Also helps keep certain shipping paths open for trade helping with complex globule supply chains to keep costs lower and the range of stuff we can buy higher.
Also stabilizing much of the world to make it safe to visit ie for medical tourism or holidays.
Another thing is that If the US scaled back it's military a lot China would try to take it's place as world police and from the little i know of there politics that would most likely actively destabilize the world and be bad for democracy and the world economy.
When more of the world becomes democratic and friendly then I think the military should be reduced and i think that will continue to happen slowly but right now i think it's about the right size.
Slow growth is acceptable degrowth would mean unemployment like in recession.
The thing about exponential growth is that no matter how small the exponent (as long as it’s not negative or 0) it will keep speeding up. If the global economy keeps growing at 3% a year then it will have doubled in 24 years, quadrupled in 48 years, octupled in 72 years and so on and so on.
There must be end to all currency and money
Degrowth is an extinction level event.
"Degrowth is an extinction level event." Actually, failing to shrink the economies and lifestyles of wealthy nations is guaranteed to be an extinction-level event because we are currently overshooting Earth's sustainable carrying capacity by ~75% per years and steadily destroying Earth's ability to support life.
Bro, please degrowth my student and credit card debt first and then we can start talking about my generation slowing down and enjoying life.
What is your degree in?
WELL SAID. That was the start of the plot, to get the younger generation crippled by debt. LOOK AT THIS PROPAGANDA! Agenda 21 in action with the help of communist China. This is one of the commandments of the Georgia Guidestones. They want to "maintain" human life and limit it to 500 million planet wide. This is marketing communism as ""doing the environment a favor."" Nations whose overpopulated peoples have high levels of consanguinity need to stop telling the west they are bad for their success. Communism says - STOP there's only so much to go around we must live obediently without liberty. Capitalism says - we can organize, plan and produce more to sustain our civilization, so that even the least of us who does nothing can get welfare and still survive. I can agree that CONSUMERISM has problems, but not "growth." Communist nations and third world countries have had THOUSANDS of years and TRILLIONS of tax payer dollars from the west to develop farming and sustained living with rule of law. THEY MURDER US in exchange for that. Us going into poverty won't change that! And you can bet the lawmakers are sitting in air conditioned rooms, eating meat, while they push this crap on us "useless eaters." POLLUTION?! The west is not the problem! China, Africa, India, the middle east (coincidently the nations that still practice indentured servitude and slavery, mind you) THOSE are your overpopulated nations! Zimbabwe murdered its white farmers in a racist genocide and then failed to organize and farm. They saw FAMINE for that. They BEGGED white farmers to return! What fresh Orwellian hell is this! Why is no one calling out the TOP POLLUTER OF THE WORLD, CHINA! In the county of California that tried UBI, where whites make up 13% of the population and are the minority, they were excluded from the UBI. NONE OF THIS IS LOGICAL, ETHICAL, REALISTIC, SUSTAINABLE OR FAIR! Meanwhile the elites will continue living like kings and queens. This to reduce the WORLD to a slave class. Countries who follow these methods see unprecedented declines in human rights and liberty. We need to ban communism like Poland before we are reduced to a third world and have no welfare, no roads, no schools, no science and NOTHING to offer ANYONE on this globe. The scum who orchestrated this video did so in an Air Conditioned room and at red meat with vital protein for dinner.
@@duanescot You gonna laugh at me if my degree is not one that you think I should have chosen, in order to avoid debt and be rich, as in it is my fault I am in debt? Or am I just overthinking things here and you actually are open to offer me some good advice?
@@lospaquitos1460 I'm just curious as to what kids are getting degrees in, and yes, lots of us have plenty of life experience to offer in regards to how to best make use of the tools you have to pay down your student loan debt, cause the government will promise to do so, but they never will, you are a debt slave now, just like the rest of us... That was the plan all along...
I think you don't understand just how little wealth millennials and gen z have to begin with.
This is a numbers problem. The simplest and most effective solution is to develop a moral framework that encourages people to have a reasonable number of children. Western nations are averaging 1-2 children per family. Many African nations are averaging 6-7 children. Kids in both nations require the same amount of food and water. If you have 3 or 4 times the population you will require 3 or 4 times the resources. Rather than arguing for western nations to make do with less, you should ask eastern nations to have less children while making due with more. Yes... there it is. The no non-sense solution. Provide more for your population, and with the proper moral code, they will have enough respect for their own flesh and blood not to irresponsibly reproduce. This is a serious issue in communities around the world. Guaranteed welfare fosters the morally corrupt. The moment you hand over your rights to these people, they will promptly devour them, and then you. Then they will continue on self destructing. Your blissful view of the world will vanish forever as a new dark age descends on the world. Don't be so ignorant of the way the world works.
We live in a fantasy constructed by big business, they sent all of real jobs overseas and replaced them with 'desk jobs,' 'the service industry' and 'the gig economy.' And our government let them do it. The bubble is going to burst someday and we'll need American manufacturing once again. Degrowth and autarky are two sides of the same coin, and to secure national sovereignty we are going to need both. Moralising about the 3rd world is very myopic. Consider reading "Bullshit Jobs" and "Manufactured Consent".
If you are looking for a way to help the environment you can use ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees
Great, balanced video!
Sounds good in concept but not practical thanks to human nature
Capitalism as an economic system is only a couple of centuries old so clearly it is possible to organize societies very differently from what we have now
Ah yes the "human nature" which always seems to be whatever the dominating ideology in a given time and place promotes to maintain its own power
Literally nobody has prioritized "growth at any cost". No society has ever tolerated such a philosophy. At least start with a believable premise, CNBC.
Well said. LOOK AT THIS PROPAGANDA! Agenda 21 in action with the help of communist China. This is one of the commandments of the Georgia Guidestones. They want to "maintain" human life and limit it to 500 million planet wide. This is marketing communism as ""doing the environment a favor."" Nations whose overpopulated peoples have high levels of consanguinity need to stop telling the west they are bad for their success. Communism says - STOP there's only so much to go around we must live obediently without liberty. Capitalism says - we can organize, plan and produce more to sustain our civilization, so that even the least of us who does nothing can get welfare and still survive. I can agree that CONSUMERISM has problems, but not "growth." Communist nations and third world countries have had THOUSANDS of years and TRILLIONS of tax payer dollars from the west to develop farming and sustained living with rule of law. THEY MURDER US in exchange for that. Us going into poverty won't change that! And you can bet the lawmakers are sitting in air conditioned rooms, eating meat, while they push this crap on us "useless eaters." POLLUTION?! The west is not the problem! China, Africa, India, the middle east (coincidently the nations that still practice indentured servitude and slavery, mind you) THOSE are your overpopulated nations! Zimbabwe murdered its white farmers in a racist genocide and then failed to organize and farm. They saw FAMINE for that. They BEGGED white farmers to return! What fresh Orwellian hell is this! Why is no one calling out the TOP POLLUTER OF THE WORLD, CHINA! In the county of California that tried UBI, where whites make up 13% of the population and are the minority, they were excluded from the UBI. NONE OF THIS IS LOGICAL, ETHICAL, REALISTIC, SUSTAINABLE OR FAIR! Meanwhile the elites will continue living like kings and queens. This to reduce the WORLD to a slave class. Countries who follow these methods see unprecedented declines in human rights and liberty. We need to ban communism like Poland before we are reduced to a third world and have no welfare, no roads, no schools, no science and NOTHING to offer ANYONE on this globe. The scum who orchestrated this video did so in an Air Conditioned room and at red meat with vital protein for dinner.
Degrowth: Grow health, wellness, quality of life and ecological assets, avoid and reduce pollution and unnecessary consumption. This implies a refocusing on services and a circular economy that re-uses, recycles and extends product life spans for longer in ways that benefit people and planet. Behind that, is a bigger purpose -- living a flourishing, meaningful, beneficial life that recognizes all life and that consumes things as needed, shares and contributes in various, reciprocal ways. Sounds great!
yeah! Have the cake AND eat it too!
that prediction is right, relentless growth at any cost will cause climate change disasters which will kill human civilization.