Economical growth is taking and taking

Discussion in 'Economics' started by callmeput, May 30, 2004.

  1. Do you think that a world where there were a limit of how much a person could own would work?

    No one is allowed to own more than let´s say $500 000. The rest is put in a basket and shared with everyone on this planet.

    No one will become happier if he has $476397659375 instead of $55462. And in fact the money is doing more good for an economy if spread out.

    Why would not that work???? No one has to starve. No one has to die in wars just so we can get cheap energy (Read Iraq and Afghanistan)
  2. Banjo


    It will never work because it doesn't address human nature.
  3. Perhaps you are right. But having more and more does not make anyone healthier and happier. On the contrary really.

    I believe we must look more inside - The spiritual path perhaps :)

    I guess we get easily addicted to the "having this and that".
  4. Of course our economical growth will slow down. But i see no problem with that.

    We don´t need a bigger tv. We don´t need a faster car.

    We need medicine sometimes. But is it just big money that makes gifted minds research and develop cures for different diseases?

    Capitalism is a symptom of our disease called ego i believe. It is not more natural than anything else.

  5. In general, I don't have a problem with a slower economy. I certainly don't buy into the idea that having this or having that really makes a big difference in your life.

    Where I do have a problem, unfortunately, is that a lot of the time it's not our asbolute levels of wealth, rather our relative levels of wealth that matter. It's not our economy being frozen at 2004 level, or even at 1960 level, that bothers me (and vast majority of other people), it's to see your neighboring countries catching up to you and overtaking you that is, from a human perspective, hard to swallow.
  6. You don't see problem but others do : they would lose power :D

    Georges Orwell's 1984

    " From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process -- by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute -- the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

    But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction -- indeed, in some sense was the destruction -- of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals.

    Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare. "
  7. Modern illustration from the story of Mike Milken from the mouth of Sir James Goldsmith one of those who belongs to the super riches sphere : :

    "Sir James Goldsmith, who has been both a client and an opponent of Milken's, saw the conflict proceeding from the threat to TAKE POWER AWAY FROM THOSE WHO HAD HELD IT. "I don't know whether or not Mike Milken realized at the time that he had found a way of financing an immense revolution in America, but now he has witnessed the full power of the establishment triangle: big business, big unions and big government." He then added, " As I European, I witnessed the same alliance trying to avoid change and neutralizing those responsible for it."

  8. " it's to see your neighboring countries catching up to you and overtaking you that is, from a human perspective, hard to swallow."

    I agree that it´s hard if only Usa or a single country would be the only one to initiate a more human economy. It would be like saying - "come and eat our food and steal our cars".

    But what if globaly?

    Thanks for the library link Harry. Wise words

    This is interesting
  9. Bullsh!t I would be much happier with $476397659375. :D
  10. Really? :) I think it´s an illusion

    We all want that big chocolate cake in the window. But when we ate it it feels empty again.
    So we go chasing more chocolate..
    #10     May 30, 2004