Oh, sure. Many things can lead to degrowth, and some could be necesary. What I point out is that degrowth is allwayws a negative side consequence. You do not plan for it, you suffer it (the less, the better).
Economists often speak of “dematerialization” to refer to the natural trend of capitalism to increase GDP by unit of material input, both by increasing efficiency in inputs use and consumption substitution.
You can imagine a future where that people becomes more interested in virtual reality instead of physical consumption. That is a form of “dematerialization” but it cannot be considered degrowth (well, at least if our price indexes were properly constructed, that often is not the case).
But what shall be avoided at all costs, is people celebrating GDP contraction (=somebody’s income contraction).
This is obvious. And, again, the point is that the relationship between GDP and social outcomes after some point breaks down or becomes irrelevant.
Many things can lead to degrowth, and some could be necesary. What I point out is that degrowth is allwayws a negative side consequence. You do not plan for it, you suffer it (the less, the better).
It seems strange to argue in favour of not planning for a negative consequence of something that may be necessary.
Oh, sure. Many things can lead to degrowth, and some could be necesary. What I point out is that degrowth is allwayws a negative side consequence. You do not plan for it, you suffer it (the less, the better).
Economists often speak of “dematerialization” to refer to the natural trend of capitalism to increase GDP by unit of material input, both by increasing efficiency in inputs use and consumption substitution.
You can imagine a future where that people becomes more interested in virtual reality instead of physical consumption. That is a form of “dematerialization” but it cannot be considered degrowth (well, at least if our price indexes were properly constructed, that often is not the case).
But what shall be avoided at all costs, is people celebrating GDP contraction (=somebody’s income contraction).
This is obvious. And, again, the point is that the relationship between GDP and social outcomes after some point breaks down or becomes irrelevant.
It seems strange to argue in favour of not planning for a negative consequence of something that may be necessary.