DeGrowth v. 2.0

DEGROWTH – SHRINKING TO SURVIVE THEN PROSPER

(Ed Note: Thanks to a number of constructive comments here is a better version.)

DeGrowth is a resurgent survival strategy for contemporary civilization:

Step One: The footprint of human consumption must shrink so that most humans — and ALL other species — do not have to perish just so a few humans at the top of the Ziggurat can survive for a while longer in luxury and superabundance.

Step Two: Transition to a Steady State Economy where consumption is in Balance with sustainable and renewable resources. In this way, ALL species have the opportunity to prosper because of the Balance between consumption and regeneration.

At the end of March this year 500 citizens turned up in Barcelona for the Second International Conference on Degrowth (aka, ‘DeGrowth,’ a topology which makes it clear that the focus is on the rate of GROWTH and achieving Balance).

In April a similar gathering was held in Vancouver. DeGrowth is popular in Regions such as the Vancouver New Urban Region (NUR) which is # 4 on the 2010 Mercer Quality of Living Survey Best 50. (The Barcelona NUR is #44 and the Paris NUR is # 34 on the Mercer list.)

The first international conference on DeGrowth was held in Paris in 2008. The Paris conference produced a declaration that defines ‘degrowth’ as “a voluntary transition towards a just, participatory and ecologically sustainable society.” The declaration states that “if humans do not bring global economic activity into line with societal needs, the result will be a process of involuntary and uncontrolled economic decline or collapse.” One may assume this use of ‘collapse’ is the same as ‘THE Collapse’ articulated by Jared Diamond.

From these statements it is clear that DeGrowth is in the enlightened self-interest of ALL humans, not just a few at the top of the Ziggurat.

The Barcelona conference organizers have posted a ‘virtual conference’ that provides links to the visuals from many of the key presentations. The presentations are grounded in science and history. There is data on topics that range from Happiness to the Wealth Gap and from Equity to the History of Steady State Economy. Those familiar with the classical steady state authors, Herman Daily, et. al., as well as with the recent writings of McKibben, Florida, Reich, Diamond and others, will feel right at home. Go to www.degrowth.eu and judge for yourself.

Enterprise Media did not seem interested in covering the Barcelona conference. Information about the conference turns up via Google but there are no obvious links to Enterprise Media coverage. Wikipedia has a detailed summary of ‘degrowth’ and documents why DeGrowth is a ‘resurgent’ survival strategy as opposed to a new strategy.

The OVERARCHING perspective of DeGrowth is that CONSUMPTION cannot exceed the capacity of renewable resources, PERIOD.

Most of the presentations appear to assume that humans are already in OVERSHOOT. OVERSHOOT has been temporarily masked by humans living on exploitation and consumption of Natural Capital. For this reason SHRINKING consumption is the FIRST step on the path to a sustainable trajectory. (The movie “HOME” is a good place to get a graphically powerful overview of this reality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU )

The overall objective of DeGrowth that can be gleaned from the presentations is to peacefully and equitably evolve lower per capita consumption AND lower the number of consumptors through enlightened self-interest including rational population trends via pillow talk – not war, famine or state dictates.

DeGrowth goes far beyond the typical concern for ‘conservation.’ As far as EMR is aware, only ASAP in Charlottesville is addressing these issue in the Commonwealth.

The Bottom Line is that it will not be possible to maintain civilization with great disparity between the per capita wealth of those at the top of the Ziggurat and those at the bottom.

Further, Balance must exist WITHIN every Ziggurat at Community, Region, MegaRegion, Continent and Globe scales.

On the specific topic of “growth”:

DeGrowth advocates would agree with Edward Abbey:

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”

Perpetual growth of consumption is not just impossible, to advocate perpetual growth of consumption is immoral.

Seeking to stimulate growth / consumption and controlling the profit to promote the prosperity of a specific cohort of humans has a long tragic history. That is true whether the cohort is an:

 Ethnic group (Hitler / Aryans)
 Self appointed and / or hereditary ‘leaders’ (North Korea)
 Governance philosophy (communism for example)
 Religious belief (you choose one), or
 Economic system’

No sustained application of ‘growth for the sake of prosperity’ for a special class is even conceivable in a ‘flat’ world with:

 Wide-spread literacy,
 Instant communications / information dissemination, and
 Weapons of mass destruction.

As noted at the outset:

DeGrowth is a ‘resurgent’ survival strategy for contemporary civilization, it is not a new idea.

DeGrowth advocates that the human consumption footprint must SHRINK so that most do not have to perish in order so that for a few to prosper.

DeGrowth advocates transition to a Steady State Economy where consumption matches sustainable and renewable resources so that ALL have the opportunity to prosper, not just a few at the top of the Ziggurat.

The goal of ALL having the opportunity to prosper was the idea of the Founding Fathers in the United States 235 years ago except that:

1. ‘ALL’ did not include slaves of either sex, Females of any class, and most of the males that did not reside at the top of the Ziggurat, and

2. It was assumed (and made nation-state policy by Andrew Jackson) that there existed in the US infinite resources which could be consumed by citizens to achieve their individual health, safety and welfare.

Humans have come a long way, but they have even farther to go to achieve a sustainable trajectory.

The perspective at SYNERGY is that DeGrowth will only succeed when there is a Critical Mass of citizens that understand the need for Fundamental Transformations in settlement patterns, in governance structure and in economic systems. Anything less comprehensive will just lead to disputes akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The SYNERGY perspective is based on a thesis that is 2,300 years old, first articulated by Aristotle:

Human settlement patterns are an organic system. See The Shape of the Future.

The successful evolution of human settlement patterns must be founded on an understanding of organic systems. Action to achieve a sustainable trajectory must start at the smallest scale – the Unit, the Dooryard and the Cluster and proceed up to the Neighborhood, the Village, the Community and the Regional scales. Dictates from ‘the state’ or ‘the nation-state’ down do not work. See TRILO-G: How to Make the World a Better Place One Alpha Community at a Time.

An education strategy that may work would be Study Circles that set Sweden on the path to a sustainable trajectory.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

74 responses to “DeGrowth v. 2.0”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Let's start by degrowing Hollywood and its ilk; then shrink the financial services segment by 40%.

    TMT

  2. Romain Avatar

    More information on Degrowth:
    * http://degrowthpedia.org/
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth

    In Europe the movement continue de "grow"…

    Free Hugs from the basque country (north of Spain)

    Romain (from Deshazkundea.org)

  3. Larry G Avatar

    just FYI. In terms of potential extinction and "de-growth", let's consider something like sea birds in the Gulf Of Mexico.

    As bad as it is and we are going to lose millions of birds, this is not the same as extinction.

    do wind turbines make birds go extinct?

    do cats make birds go extinct?

    No.

    mother nature gives each species to ability to way, way overpopulate …

    in fact, mother nature "expects" a horrendous loss of new born … in virtually every species – does it not?

    birds have way more offspring that will survive.

    Fish lay millions and millions of eggs with the expectation that only a precious few will actually survive to grow up to become adults to breed.

    so what causes extinction?

    in a word – the loss of habitat.

    So.. unless the earth itself turns into something that humans cannot survive then "de-growth" will continue as a fairly natural process where if there are too many caribou or too many "mice" – mass starvation and disease will "thin" the ranks …. but as long as there is habitat.. there will be no extinction.

    so wind turbines will not make birds go extinct unless the turbine is built in a place where only one kind of bird lives because of the uniqueness of the surrounding habitat.

    so my opinion is that we need to understand the difference between extinction and "shrinking to fit the available habitat/resource".

    People DO LIVE without using gallons of gasoline or kilowatts of electricity per day.

    Even if we stopped burning coal tomorrow afternoon – we'd still have nukes and hydro power and the ability to add tremendous (though expensive) expansions of wind, solar and even tidal power.

    so we are not headed for extinction… folks… unless of course global warming turns the world into a Venus twin or some such with surface temperatures of 180 degrees on so.

    Detroit might shrink but if the population of this country continues to grow – then the added population might reallocate to places other than Detroit but I think that's the mistake in thinking about "DeGrowth" to start with.

    As long as the population grows… what will happen?

    Detroit might shrink but Atlanta might gain as much or more than what Detroit lost.

  4. People DO LIVE without using gallons of gasoline or kilowatts of electricity per day.

    People live on $4 a day, too. you call that prospering?

    I could go back to using draft animals instad of diesel tractors, but to get the same work done the animals would use MORE resources and create MORE emissions and the price of products would be higher.

    Explain how anyone prospers under that plan?

    After millions reduce their consumption and many businesses close, where will those millions invest the money they saved?

    RH

  5. Detroit might shrink but Atlanta might gain as much or more than what Detroit lost.

    Agreed. I made a similar comment in response to Jim Bacon's comments on the earlier thread. Detroit people moved to greener pastures.

    RH

  6. I think we need to understand who is expected to do the shrinking and who is expected to prosper.

    RH

  7. Larry G Avatar

    "shrinking" & "prospering"

    virtually the entire continent of Europe uses 1/3 to 1/2 as much energy as we do, has a competitive standard of living and a longer life expectancy.

    In fact 35 other countries pay 1/2 as much as we do for health care and they all live longer.

    so in that context, what does "prosper" actually mean?

  8. virtually the entire continent of Europe uses 1/3 to 1/2 as much energy as we do,

    We have been around on this before. They do NOT use less energy per unit of GDP. They also produce less GDP per person, and therefore whether their standard of living is truly comparable is subject to some debate and some qualitative differences.

    However, it is WRONG to say that those qualitative differences come at no cost, just as it is WRONG to suggest that the qualitative (advantages?) Fauquier county has over Loudoun county come at no cost.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_16.pdf

    The US is now the most energy eficient economy in the world, even though it uses more energy than other countries.

    See Joven's paradox.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One reason they live longer is European countries have effective gun control.

  10. Larry G Avatar

    what 'cost' are you talking about?

    Japan uses less energy per capita and produces MORE per capita GDP – right?

    I call that PROOF that it can be done – not a theory.. like Jevron.. but actually proof.

    per capita:

    GDP Energy use
    France 32,800 4518.4
    Germany 34,100 4203.1
    Japan 32,600 4040.4
    US 46,400 7794.8

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

    so we use TWICE as much energy but only generate 1/3 more production?

    How does Jevron explain that?

    These four countries have equivalent standards of living and they live longer than us so what is our advantage that we gain by using twice as much energy per capita?

    My bigger point here is that we could "shrink" our per capita use … we know that is is fact….

    what would we lose if we did that?

  11. Larry G Avatar

    re: gun control?

    let's see how many folks out of 300+ million do we lose to guns?

    what is the percentage?

    one tenth of one percent?

    if we subtract that number out.. we end up with comparable life expectancies?

  12. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    Thank you for carrying the ball here.

    What you say is right on target.

    EMR has several shorter-term irons in the fire and must leave this Perspective for the time being.

    EMR

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, isn't energy/per unit of production (say GDP)/per capita more important than energy/per capita? I suspect that there are some remote tribes that consume very little energy, but reducing production to those levels would be a disaster for most people.

    I support increases in energy efficiency, but fear that, under any legislation that would pass this Congress, more money would be made trading credits (and manipulating markets) than in increasing energy efficiency.

    Increasing production per unit of energy consumed increases economic benefits to virtually everyone. Increasing the price of energy decreases economic benefits for virtually everyone. I predict Congress can cause the latter only.

    TMT

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Japan uses less energy per capita and produces MORE per capita GDP – right?"

    According to the latest information I have, not any more.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Per capita those coutries use less, and they also produce less, therefore they have less GDP to enjoy, and use MORE energy per unit of GDP to do so.

    Those are the facts as we know them, although maybe someone has some other (valid) statistical interpretation. As it is there are some real quirks in the data because Europe imports mainly finished oil products where the US refines its own. That means that a lot of European Energy consumption is actually attributed to Quwait and such places wich have VERY high consumption.

    All of which leaves aside the Question EMR raises, which is whether that GDP production and consumption is necessary or desriable.

    So, right now we have 10 to 30% unemployment depending on who is counting and how. What will our unemployment be if we cut consumption by and additional 30 to 40%?

    If I revert to working my fields with draft anaimals, then surely I will be "more employed" than I ma now, and I will use less (fossil fuel) energy, but I will also produce less, and you would have a hard time convincing me that I still had an equivalent lifestyle, let alone that I would live longer.

    If we all cut consumption we would presumably save a lot of money, but where would we invest it with so much production shut down?

    RH

  16. so we use TWICE as much energy but only generate 1/3 more production?

    How does Jevron explain that?

    That is what Jevon DOES explain. you could save 5% on energy and create enough price difference to increase your sales by 20%. Net result is more energy use, even at a more efficient rate of use.

    Nothing says the increases are linear.

    RH

  17. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I assume the gun control comment was something of a joke.

    Re: Energy use and GDP – I would assume that the US is a less efficient user of energy at the margin since energy costs less in the US. Where energy is expensive the cost of energy "prices you out of the market" for products produced on the global stage. This is one of the things I find odd about the current debate in America. There is sometimes an unspoken sense that energy should be expensive, that energy is bad. Energy isn't bad, pollution is bad. And expensive energy is a problem, not a solution.

    There are certain states in the US where electricity is generated with no significant carbon emissions. They use a combination of hydro and nuke. Should we try to increase the cost of energy in those states?

    Comparing GDP and energy use is a false comparison. The comparison should be between GDP and harmful pollution.

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Gun deaths primarily hit young people and distort the life expectancy. It is only one factor in life expectancy.

  19. "what 'cost' are you talking about?"

    I have pointed out before that Loudoun residents Earn more per Capita and Own more assessed property per Capita than Fauquier residents.

    At one time they were nearly the same, so the difference is the COST of thirty years of conservation policy in Fauquier county.

    By analogy I am arguing the same situation exists in Europe. Then, since they earn less and own less they are more dependent on government for supporting their retirement, and for paying higher unemployment costs.

  20. "Comparing GDP and energy use is a false comparison. The comparison should be between GDP and harmful pollution."

    Not really, the comparison has to be equivalent. In one case you pay for your electricity cost in yoour bill, and you pay for part of the air cleanup in your bill, but part of your cost is for the damage you sustain form the harmful pollution that still escapes, and part of your cost is for government monitoring and control.

    Renewables tend to be diffuse and "low quality" energy so there is a high capital and maintenance cost, along with a high "embedded energy" cost, but the result is that all of the air cleaning and damage costs associated with coal are incorported in the cost of renwables in other ways: either way you pay for clean air and also whatever the other external costs are: bird stikes, desert habitat degradation, higher food costs due to biofuels, etc.

    And of course all those renewables will also have goverment monitoring and compliance costs.

    Therefore you wind up with Total Cost = Production Cost + External Costs + Government Costs for any given amount of energy production, no matter the source.

    The "Prodution Cost" term includes the Production Benefits (as negative costs) and therefore this equation considers BOTH GDP and Harmful pollution.

    For example there is a cost in making soap, and a benefit to having it. There is some pollution caused in Making soap and part of that pollution is captured in the production process. All of that adds up to Production Cost.

    The External Cost is whatever damage occurs wich is not part of the production cost. There will always be externalities, no matter the source of power.

    Unless you have Perfect Government Control which even Groveton will admit is difficult and expensive to achieve. Failing that, you will have more or less problems in capturing pollution at the source or cleaning up after it later. But you don't get perfect monitoring without infinite expenditures.

    RH

  21. I would assume that the US is a less efficient user of energy at the margin since energy costs less in the US.

    Energy is a global commodity and its price is more or less the same everywhere. Europeans pay more because of high taxes, which go in the "Government Cost" part of my equation.

    I'm not sure I understand the part about "at the margin". At the margin, each new unit of efficiency costs more than the last one. Since we are more efficient than they are (produce more GDP per unit of energy), then the last bit of enery we use costs more than what they pay for actual energy.

    And, because we make more stuff and use more energy we also spend a lot more to get efficiency and a lot more on conservation. It takes a good economy to support a high level of efficiency, to pay for conservation, and to have a good environment.

    I know, I didn't get it either the first time it was explained to me. The ide that we pay more for electricity because we use it more efficiently caused a brain tilt.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    All firearm deaths in 2000 — that is, both homicides and suicides — reduced life expectancy in the US by an average of 103.6 days.

  23. Energy isn't bad, pollution is bad. And expensive energy is a problem, not a solution.

    The cost of energy is the lowest available cost of energy, and that is pretty much a commodity price.

    If you aepaying for expensiveenergy it is probably because you are paying one price for anergy and an additional price for clean air.

    In that regard expesive "energy" is part of the solution, it is only that we are not doing the accounting properly. We are putting clean air costs in the energy account.

    RH

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I applaud the mission but I have little hope for its success. If you are familiar with Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons concept, that is where we are and I don’t see people abandoning their practices in sufficient numbers to have an effect, although environmental awareness is certainly in my view at an all-time high.

  25. Larry G Avatar

    TMT – I don't disagree with your premise..

    my point was/is that GDP is not in lockstep with energy use and that efficiencies are possible and still maintain a GDP sufficient for a prosperous population – depending on what metrics you use to define "prosperous".

  26. Larry G Avatar

    so are the Europeans and Asians more efficient users of energy?

    or is the US a more efficient user of energy.

    let's see some convincing numbers.

  27. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "All firearm deaths in 2000 — that is, both homicides and suicides — reduced life expectancy in the US by an average of 103.6 days.".

    Lies, damned lies and statistics.

    For this factoid to have much meaning vis-a-vis other countries …

    First, you have to subtract any gun deaths in the other countries…

    Second, you have to subtract murders and suicides by means other than guns unless you believe that the gun was cause. In other words, murdering your neighbor Alexandria, Va with a pistol may just be a different way of getting to the same point as murdering your neighbor in Alexandria, Egypt with a knife.

    Regardless of whether the murder was committed with a knife or a gun the neighbor's life expectancy (and the average life expectancy in the country) was reduced.

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The data is from an actuarial study and the life expectancy difference is only for firearm deaths.

    European death rates. From firearms is only one % of the US rate and the Japanese rate is one tenth that of Europe.

  29. my point was/is that GDP is not in lockstep with energy use and that efficiencies are possible and still maintain a GDP sufficient for a prosperous population – depending on what metrics you use to define "prosperous".

    GDP may not be in lockstep with energy use but it is next to impossible to accomplish anything worthwhile without using energy. The easy efficiencies have already been taken, and each additional increment costs more than the last.

    However, you are correct in suggesting that there are various metrics for "prosperous", which is what I meant when I think we need to understand who is expected to do the shrinking and who is expected to prosper. The question is also implied by TMT's first comment in which he makes a suggestions as to who to shrink first.

    Which is not exactly like what the Paris conference described as a "voluntary transition".

    RH

  30. Larry G Avatar

    a lot of the target migration areas look a lot like where the biggest mortgage meltdowns occurred, eh?

  31. Ooops.

    I may have to eat my hat.

    "The EIA released new energy data last Friday showing that the U.S. had the most energy-efficient economy in history last year, based on the amount of energy consumed to produce each real dollar of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)."

    That could be read two ways. I now believe it means the most energy efficint US Economy in history, not necessarily the most energy efficient Global economy.

    My apologies for not having perfect recall.

    RH

  32. "a lot of the target migration areas look a lot like where the biggest mortgage meltdowns occurred, eh?"

    Maybe, what I saw was a lot of low income people moving from southern Californa and Arizona to Spotsy and Fauquier.

    Migrant or illegal workers, maybe?

    RH

  33. Also se wealthy people moving from Fairfax to southern Florida.

    You can also see that Detroit did not so much DeGrow as it did pack up and migrate.

    RH

  34. Larry G Avatar

    I thought you said that you could not gain GDP from efficiency?

  35. Don't understand the question.

    You "gain" GDP by doing work (using energy).
    Efficiency means you get more product for the same work or the same product for less work. (if thats what you call gaining GDP through efficiency)

    Generally that means you profit more from the product and make more of it, even if you can now sell it at a lower price. Therefore, despite the gain in efficiency you use more energy, not less. And the new lower price partially offsets the gain in GDP.

    I'm not going around the circle with you where you deliberately misunderstand and restate for the sake of obfuscation.

    Like I said before, DeGrowth may be a noble idea, but I do not know of any way it can work without causing the collapse it is supposed to prevent.

    RH

  36. GDP is a lousy measure anyway.

    This oil spill may bring billions in outside money to the US, thereby improving our baance of payments.

    And, Cleaning up the oil spill may cost a lot more than the value of the fishing and tourism it is temporarily replacing. And, if you believe the president EVERYONE who loses out is going to be made whole (whether they are working or not) AND the mess is going to be cleaned up. Once the well is fixed, BP will sell a lot of oil.

    Overall, it could be a huge BOOST to GDP. How perverted is that?

    RH

  37. Larry G Avatar

    there is no guarantee that you'll sell more of something just because you've found a way to make it with less energy.

    The result could be a higher profit and/or a lower price but not necessarily a higher demand.

    you won't for instance, sell more houses or cars just because you've found a way to build them more efficiently.

  38. Larry G Avatar

    re: " Overall, it could be a huge BOOST to GDP. How perverted is that?"

    not any more than deciding you want to build 100,000 more Humvees or require stricter pollution equipment… right?

    In both cases.. more jobs are created… i.e. higher productivity?

    of course this assumes that there is money "parked" somewhere not being used for productive endeavors…

  39. "there is no guarantee that you'll sell more of something just because you've found a way to make it with less energy."

    Generally, if you lower the price you will sell more.

    Not always, but generally.

    You could just pocket the energy savings and sell the same number of units at the same Price, but generally you will make more by selling more more at a slightly lower price, until the price gets TOO much lower.

    RH

  40. Larry G Avatar

    people are not going to buy 3 refrigerators to replace the one… but what they do buy – can make a difference if energy use.

    Same thing with many products that are already meeting demand.

    People are not generally going to buy more 2 liter cokes if they find a more efficient way to make them… you can only drink so much of the stuff.

    ditto with LEED buildings.

    people are not going buy 2 buildings if they only need one but if the one they do buy uses less energy then their expenses verses production costs for whatever business occurs in that building will be reduced.

    Cars that get 40 mpg verses cars that get 25… people only buy one… not two…just because the gas mileage is better.

  41. "not any more than deciding you want to build 100,000 more Humvees"

    I don't see the analogy at all, and I don't agree. Cleaning up a mess that should never have happened can't count as a good thing, but it does.

    You build a humvee, you have done something. You pick up trash by the road you have only undone something and nothing new is created. Still counts as GDP though.

    RH

  42. "people are not going to buy 3 refrigerators to replace the one… "

    No but three people will buy where maybe only two would have at the higher price.

    Remember we are talking about the energy cost to PRODUCE the reefers, not to run them.

  43. Larry G Avatar

    what's the value of a humvee or a ballistic missile submarine or a city park or a new govt building?

    are any of them something that will, in turn, be "productive"?

    If you pay billions of dollars to build new bag houses to capture mercury and SO2.. even a you have added to GDP… have you increase the capacity of the economy?

  44. Larry G Avatar

    people only buy refrigerators when the one they own dies…

    so making them more efficiently does not mean you'll sell more of them… especially if you save 10 dollars on the assembly line and have to pay 10 more in transportation costs.

    both of the costs counts as increases in GDP -no?

  45. "People are not generally going to buy more 2 liter cokes if they find a more efficient way to make them… you can only drink so much of the stuff."

    But people who would not buy at the higher price will buy at the lower price.

    Consider an Indian who has to walk mile through shantytown to get a bucket of filthy Water. For a hundred rupees, he still won't buy it even if you could get it to him, it is just too much money.

    But for 20 rupees, he might. And he'l sit on the stoop with that bright shiny bottle and pretty soon all his neighbors are jealous.

    Some of them will hire out to carry boxes of coke through the barrio, just so they can sit on the stoop across from the Shavranikhas and be as good as them, sowing off their Coke.

    Next thing you know you have a million new customers, and some of them are recycling coke bottles.

    RH

  46. "If you pay billions of dollars to build new bag houses to capture mercury and SO2.. even a you have added to GDP… have you increase the capacity of the economy?"

    If you haven't then there was no point in building the bag house to begin with. The argument for putting the bag house up was to prevent lung diseases etc to improve peoples lives so THEY could be more productive.

    Under DEGRowth you don't WANT people to be productive, so you could just save the oney on the baghouse.

    ???

    RH

  47. "people only buy refrigerators when the one they own dies…"

    What about the people that don't own one? Suddenly a lower price makes it possible.

    Someone wants one with the ice in the door so they get rid of their old one and it gets sold at the second hand shop – to someone who otherise could not afford one.

    That's how I bought my first appliances.

    RH

  48. Larry G Avatar

    you're talking about a few cents which may well be eaten up by higher profits at the manufacturer, distributer or retail level…

    The energy reductions may be in response to other escalating costs like transportation or labor.

    People who buy a fuel efficient car don't drive it more .. they may well be planning on using the saved money for other things.. like more insulation for the attic or a more or a more efficient (but more expensive) heat pump…

    it does not automatically lead to higher consumption.

    If that were true – then the energy use/GDP numbers would be linear.

  49. Larry G Avatar

    more productivity will buy you more/better health care and education and law enforcement.

    The more you save on consumptive things.. the more you have to spend on other things that you don't have enough of.

    Someone may use the money to get a better education that gets them a better job.

    They can use the extra money to put insulated windows in their home then afford a home entertainment system from the savings…

  50. "Cars that get 40 mpg verses cars that get 25… people only buy one… not two…just because the gas mileage is better."

    You are changing and obfuscating again. We are talking about cost to build, not to operate.

    They wont buy a 40 mpg car if it costs $3000 more: that was the problem with the Prius. But if you figure out ow to build the Prius more efficiently so it costs the same as the Yarus, then it makes more sense for some (more) people.

    Each one will only buy one, for a while. But I soon bought a second one and retired the (perfectly good but now) more inferior third car at a low price that some poor person can afford. Whatever I got for it, reduces the price of the new Prius to me. The result is that more cars DO get sold.

    Besides, not everyone is the tightwad you are.

    RH

  51. Larry G Avatar

    " What about the people that don't own one? Suddenly a lower price makes it possible."

    that would be a very niche market as most folks have one.

    Some folks buy used ones from the folks that buy newer ones but few people sit around not having one waiting for the price to drop 10 bucks.

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "If that were true – then the energy use/GDP numbers would be linear."

    Why would they be? For some products a small change in energy use makes a huge change in product price, glass for example.

    But Margaret could save 80% on her grow lights and it would not change the price of her flowers, because it is a small input overall.

    On the other hand, she has to compete with flowers from Columbia, so a slightly more efficient airplane is a huge boost to the flower price of her competitors.

  53. Larry G Avatar

    one would presume if you find a way to save energy producing a car that both the Prius and the Yarus would benefit from the advance.

    You're not going to shave hundreds of dollars off the cost of a car from energy efficiencies at least not on a single annual basis….

    it's not going to make a difference in how many cars are sold in any given year.

  54. Larry G Avatar

    " Each one will only buy one, for a while. But I soon bought a second one and retired the (perfectly good but now) more inferior third car at a low price that some poor person can afford. Whatever I got for it, reduces the price of the new Prius to me. The result is that more cars DO get sold."

    that's not borne out by the sales numbers guy.

    most people are not going to let 49 dollars ( that come from energy productive savings) be the sole deciding factor for them in choosing one car over another – but even more importantly – not be the factor that determines whether they buy or not.

    ditto for "poor" people.

    they don't depend on the "supply" that comes from new car buyers 'retiring' perfectly good cars.

    By the way. If you PARK a perfectly good car and you buy another – you have increased the GDP even though you parked one of the cars…

    If you bought TWO tractors and only used the old one very seldom.. then you have contributed to a higher GDP even though you are not anywhere near doubling your own output.

  55. Larry G Avatar

    " On the other hand, she has to compete with flowers from Columbia, so a slightly more efficient airplane is a huge boost to the flower price of her competitors. "

    do you think the price to transport flowers varies by the efficiency of the plane?

  56. "that would be a very niche market as most folks have one."

    You need to get out more.

    I loaned a $200 reffer to a middle class faily because theirs crapped out and they were strapped at the time and could not afford the real replacement.

    Something to do with health care, I think.

    There are hundreds of thousands of those stories, where a small price difference opens a whole new niche.

    When a cell phone was $8000, I didn't buy one. The cell phone manufacurors are making a lot more money today.

    Of course, if we don't WANT all those people consuming stuff— we ust convine them all to give them up for the greater good, enlightened self interest and all that……

    RH

  57. "you have increased the GDP even though you parked one of the cars…"

    But not as much as if someone else USES that car.

    What is your point, anyway? You still don't believe Jevon's is right? Look around, we make everythig better and cheaper and we sell a lot more of them.

    http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalog_directory.html

    Just look at what stuff used to cost.

    RH

  58. Larry G Avatar

    " loaned a $200 reffer to a middle class faily because theirs crapped out and they were strapped at the time and could not afford the real replacement."

    no matter how efficiently a new one was produced because the impact of the price difference between a more efficient manufacturing process and a less efficient one – relative to the total price of the unit is not going to be the determining factor in a purchase.

    things like cars and refrigerators, air conditioning units, etc.. people don't buy MORE of them just because they've gotten cheaper for the most part.

    I'm watching a 10-15 year old TV that still works fine and will not replace it even though the price of new ones has dropped significantly and the new ones have far fewer parts to fail…

    We have two CRT TVs.. and won't be replacing them until they break.

  59. Larry G Avatar

    " But not as much as if someone else USES that car.

    What is your point, anyway? "

    it's the same point as the Humvee that sits unused most of the time in a National Guard parking lot.

    The GDP of the country went up when we produced them but they sit unused the majority of the time.

    People buy stained glass windows for a church and it increases the GDP but that glass does not produce anything.

    An airliner on the other hand – produces income… it increased the GDP when it was produced and it generates GDP when used.

    the point is that when we produce things – we increase the GDP but in doing that …we don't necessarily gain some fungible value from it.

    in other words.. we can produce totally worthless things that still count as GDP…

    or.. another way of looking at it.. is that some things have no value to some people while other things do to others.

    A $100K Cadillac won't get you to the opera any better than a Ford Fusion will yet the Caddy counts as 5 times more GDP.

  60. Lets try to summarize so we don;t go round and round.

    1) One kind of efficiency is efficiency in manufacture, which generally translates to lower prices and competititve advantage leading to ore sales (or sometimes just more profit,as you point out).

    2) Another kind is efficiency of the product itself, which leads to a different kind of competitive advantage and a different kind of behavior.

    3) Energy efficiency is not the only thing that matters, sometimes economic efficieny requires the use of MORE energy, not less.

    4) There is no reason to believe that energy efficiency and GDP are linearly related, however it is next to impossible to produce anything without using some energy.

    Energy efficiency, in particular, has an exponential cost shape, such that each increment of energy savings is more expensive to get out than the last one. The cost of energy itself is nonlinear over time so there is no reason to expect a linear relation ship between Energy use and GDP, even though they are closely linked.

    4) Our history is that we produce more stuff, more efficiently, and sell it at lower prices – yet we use more energy overall. Jevon's paradox holds, over all.

    It may be a delayed effect. As you point out, some people like you and I still watch TVs with switches and actual mechanical dials. But we are not everyone, and there are thousands of perfectly good reasons for other people to dispose of perfectly good stuff and upgrade to new.

    To the extent that new stuff is cheaper or more efficient, that acts as an additional incentive, which despite what you say, does drive (some) demand.

  61. My limited understanding of advanced math says to me that

    BTU's/GDP * GDP/Person = BTU's/Person.

    WE generally use GDP/Person as a rough measure of prosperity. If European BTU/Person is lower than ours it it MUST BE because their GDP per person is is lower, since we KNOW that their BTU/GDP is not lower.

    To the casual observer, European lifestyles may appear to be similar to ours, but the metrics say otherwise. If you go live with them for a while you will find that their economies and their lifestyles, and their daily choices are much more constrained than ours. They also work less, although France just RAISED its retirement age from 60 to 62.

    I suggest that the idea they enjoy similar prosperity to ours needs a little closer look. They have higher taxes and therefore less to spend stuff on. But since their taxes are not so much spent on giant global defense systems, more of their taxes are returned as government services and early retirement.

    It is precisely the analysis of what constitutes prosperity that has to be addressd in the idea of "Shrink to Prosper".

    A shrimp boat operator might very well be maing more money now as an oil skimmer: I still have a problem seeing that as a legitimate boost to GDP, but that is how it will be counted.

    In fact, just this morning there was discussion on the radio of the risk of driving BP to bankruptcy. The argument went that it would be better to keep BP alive and producing and alive and paying for cleanup.

    This is an argument I previously made about the 40 plus companies driven into bankrupcy by asbestos, and for which I was roundly trounced here.

    RH

  62. Although I see some problems in how we calculate and use GDP, I reject the idea that something like stained glass for churches is a problem, just be cause the stained glass itself does not then "do" anything to FURTHER increase GDP.

    Your other arguments like the Yaris and Prius example are also specious. Those vehicles have different technology, different purposes or missions and differnt price points.

    What makes economic or efficiency sense for one buyer would not for another. While you won't NECESSARLY drive a more efficient vehicle more, you would not probably buy a Prius to drive only 50 miles a week. And the more efficient vehicle gives you the OPTION of driving more. I still put most things I need on a list for the trip to town, but sometimes it is expedient to just jump in the Prius and go: something I would not do with the truck.

    I understand your examples but I see them as partial pictures that obscure a larger reality.
    We are now facing an economic slowdown that is minor compared to what Shrink to Prosper envisions, and the result of this minor slowdown is a hue and cry for more production and more consumption. France is raising its retirement age to make people more “productive”. Noble as it is, I don’t see the Shrink to Prosper idea as credible or possible.

    RH

  63. Do you think the price to transport flowers varies by the efficiency of the plane?

    Yes, I know it does, because my ife buys flowers from columbia AND competes with them.

    RH

  64. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    LarryG and RH must both be some species of bird. No matter what they write all I can read is "cheap, cheap, cheap".

    "I'm watching a 10-15 year old TV that still works fine and will not replace it even though the price of new ones has dropped significantly and the new ones have far fewer parts to fail…".

    "A $100K Cadillac won't get you to the opera any better than a Ford Fusion will…".

    Blow the cobwebs off your wallets boys. Splurge a little. Get some cheese on that burger. Sprinkles on that cone. Yeah, it costs a little more but you're worth it. And the dairy farms and sprinkle factories will thank you.

    As an aside – if anybody "sees" Jim Bacon lurking around cyberspace please ask him to reply to my e-mails. The blogger invite he sent me has expired and I have a raft of Tea Party, right wing, fringe oriented, anti-Obama rhetoric ready to spew!!

  65. Z
    Sorry. I did not have time to respond. I was busy braiding new shoe laces.

  66. If I was not paying twice what I cost the county then maybe I would not be so cheap. Or if I was not required to farm.

  67. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Ahhhh …. He'll, Hydra – I'll take you and LartyG out or cheeseburgers and ice cream cones with sprinkles. On me. Just tell me where pin Faquiero Cpunty we an find such deicacpies.

  68. Larry G Avatar

    things are pretty quiet over here lately….

  69. Well, I think the best hamburgers are at Joe's Pizza in Marshll, strangely enough. Tender and sered simply on a kaiser roll with lettuce.

    But you'll have to walk down the street to the antique store to get ice cream. good Garbers icecream out of Front royal, and I think they even have sprinkles.

    But at Ashby Glen last night we had vanilla ice cream with fresh blueberries out of the garden, and drizzled over with Chambourd blueberry liquor. Absolute melt in your mouth magic.

    The farm does have its moments.

    RH

  70. Pretty quiet around here.

    I guess so.

    Read a recent article in the real astate section about a plnned community on the Fairfax loudoun Potomac border. The residents said they almost never travel East anymore. Most things they need are now in theri community and most other things are a short drive away. Sure sounds like DeGrowth.

    Then there was the article about Tysons where they said they pursued huge densities around the Metro stations but gave that up for a more realistic plan. Interesting comment in that article about how the Fairfax comprehensive plan was a constantly changing document, too.

    Might have something to do with working with what you have to work with at the time you have it available.

    RH

  71. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Degrowth (in French: décroissance[1], in Italian: decrescita) is a political, economic, and social movement based on environmentalist, anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist ideas

    Wikipedia..

    Well, gee. Anti-consumer and anti-capitalist pretty means they are against everyone except the Communist Hindu Ascetic who claims not to have eaten for the past ten years.

    I wonder what DeGrowthers live on, especially the retired ones.

    RH

Leave a Reply