Hacker News Reader

> Can someone elaborate on how growth is aligned with the general interest?

Empirically, the past 200 years have seen high growth globally, and human well being has improved massively as a result. Life expectancy has skyrocketed, infant death, hunger have gone down to near zero, literacy has gone up, work is much more comfortable, interesting and rewarding, etc. But at a more fundamental level, our material quality of life is that of literal kings. The 1st decile poorest people in the US or Europe have much better living conditions than a king of 500 years ago. We are so lucky to benefit from this, yet we completely forgot that fact. You complain about congestion and advertizing, but with degrowth you would complain about hunger and dying from cold during winter.

>But at a more fundamental level, our material quality of life is that of literal kings.

This cannot be overstated. To wit, a Honda Accord (or equivalent mid-range car of today) is objectively superior to a Rolls Royce from the 90s in terms of amenities, engine power/efficiency, quietness, build quality, safety, etc. The same is true for quality-of-life improvements across a vast swath of consumer goods, and therefore consumer lifestyles.

Without growth, it's unlikely we'd see those improvements manifest. Carefully consider the lifestyle of someone living several decades ago. Would you honestly want to live such a lifestyle yourself? That's where degrowth likely leads. As the article says, "I feel it’s impossible to convince Europeans to act in their self interest. You can’t even convince them to adopt air conditioning in the summer."

> Carefully consider the lifestyle of someone living several decades ago. Would you honestly want to live such a lifestyle yourself?

Sure, I lived it, and it was very pleasant at the time and in many ways better than now in retrospect. e.g. always-on access to infinite content engines like YouTube, TikTok, X, Facebook, etc. is probably a net negative, both for individuals and society. I wouldn't want to go back a century or more and give up air conditioning, dishwashers, washing machines, air travel, electric lights. But a few decades, sure, in a heartbeat.

I agree, 30 years ago a working man doing 40 hours a week in a factory could still support a family on one income and expect to own a house. We hit a peak 30-40 years ago.

I hear this often, but I think this discounts the fact that this was mostly true for the US/Western Europe at a time where they enjoyed unilateral super-powerism as a result of winning WWII. I'm not sure that kind of prosperity is normal (though I hope it could be).

I'm worried the harsh reality for most humans is that life is often not that easy. And if it is, it won't be for long

But there is still enough wealth for all of those houses to exist. That tells me the world is wealthy enough, but it is in the hands of different people

The good thing about YouTube, TikTok, Facebook etc is you don’t have to use them if you don’t like them!

For all the insightful takes about everything under the Sun, Dan's cynicism and skewed view towards "Europe" are shown in this letter.

It's not that all his takes are wrong, it's the exaggeration, the doom and gloom and a somewhat dismissal or some unsolved personal issues he has with "Europeans".

The irony is not lost that Dan acts as smug and dismissal as he accuses Europeans to be.

Regarding the whole "Degrowth" thing: yes Europe has those and they found their gold in Governmental entities and they entertain the rich. But.. that's exactly what happens in the US too and Dan as knowledge as he is should know this was mostly an American academia export, he just needs to talk with some people in the very same colleges he regularly set foot into.

Also, he should take a hint when he says historically liberal societies have fared much better than autocratic ones even if those are very focused and appear to make progress very quickly. Having a few mega-bilionaires directing what the populace do or not do might not be a smart move as it sounds. We'll see when the AI musical chairs stops.

Btw, Europe has been dead and on the brink of destruction for a few centuries by now. And according to experts the EU is about to collapse 3 or 4 times a year - minimum.

Wealth inevitably concentrates in the hands of the elite no matter the economic conditions. There are plenty of failed states where all the wealth ended up in the hands of warlords and dictators.

It’s something that regularly has to be dealt with in societies separately from the economic situation.

Exactly _how_ should society deal with it, and exactly _when_ should society deal with it?

Opinions vary.

There are those who think massive concentration of wealth is not a problem at all and is just a product of healthy capitalism. Tax is theft, and individual property rights are above all else.

There are others who want some kind of communist revolution, where the entire structure of society and property ownership is changed. The workers should benefit from their work as much as the managers.

Personally, I feel like there's a middle ground to hit. We should be able to make changes to our current system in the US without needing anything too radical.

We have some good examples from the last century, such as trust busting, the New Deal, and the Great Society. These programs made major improvements without changing the country's fundamental economic system or growth trajectory.

> trust busting, the New Deal, and the Great Society.

I don't know what sea change it would take for today's GOP to even tepidly support any of these.

An electorate that looks like it will certainly vote them out if they don't change

Believing in growth just means believing that the future will be better than the past.

And believing this, is the single thing keeping the entire world running.

Germany is currently ruining itself because its stagnating economy means that it can not keep up with the rising costs for its pension system and has to increasingly raise more funds from a smaller, population which is seeing little productivity gains.

>Degrowth, on the other hand, would directly reduce those externalities; and, if imposed via progressive taxation, would have further societal benefits via funded programs.

Do you think that Germany will have social benefits at all, when the auto industry collapses. Where is the money coming from?

Economic growth has enabled mass literacy. It has created industrial agriculture, which eliminated hunger for economic reasons in all countries which practice it. Degrowth means turning our back on the single process which caused the greatest increase in human quality of life.

it is prisoners' dilemma

if you grow - you increase total progress (and your influence on it)

but if you degrow - you concentrate your progress into smaller amount of hands, making their life better

seems reminiscent of "left vs right" debate in politics with its "wealth disperse vs wealth squeeze" - but with humans themselves instead

In the vibrant capitalist society envisioned by Joseph Schumpeter, all boats are lifted because better businesses replace incumbents, both improving products for the larger society and continually redistributing wealth. In my view, since 2008 my country (the US) has distanced itself from this policy, instead focusing on protecting incumbents for fear of loss of employment. The unpopular policy of bailouts pursued in 2008-2009 and then again during the pandemic has led to a stagnant, top-heavy economy with most of the disadvantages of capitalism and less and less of the upside.

I don't think degrowth is necessary to solve this problem, although I'm sure it has its merits. But I think growth can still occur without the trend toward oligarchic or feudal society, and in fact a society with a vibrant economy would have more growth than we do today.