overseas manufacturing in developing countries

and are

yeah but nobody else thinks they aren't, so they can go thumb themselves

workers reacted by forming trade unions, often in the face of extreme hostility from factory owners and their friends in positions of political power

Funnily enough, trade unions still face extreme hostility from factory owners and their friends in positions of political power... in 2012... in the UK

I sorta get at this logical endpoint a lot when I think about this stuff but coming off what I said I think are the big two moral q's (destitute poverty, climate change) there's a question about whether we should be 'economically efficient consumers' (possibly helps the most amount of people?), 'better consumers' (buy only from 'nice factories', helps certain people more) or 'not consumers at all' (the bad environmental effects from consumption matter more than helping people in china)

the answer is def 'consume less' but oh hey look the iphone 4s talks to you

usual problem of utilitarian ethics tho isn't it? if you only had a computer and a clear view of the future you could calculate the answer precisely but

destitute poverty and climate change/sustainability are two good places to draw firm lines, agreed, i think sustainability points towards answers in the questions you raise too? maybe?

sorta, but sustainability is still 'picking sides' (the environmental side > helping people in china) and there's a huge gap between living a nearly-emissions-free lifestyle (an a question about how many people could feasibly do it, and what we'd be giving up, etc.) and making some half-hearted gestures towards sustainability.

economic sustainability, lower profits for greater stability, etc

ah

i think i've written an exam answer on it 7 years ago please don't ask me to start dredging tho

I mean ultimately the need for gdp growth is more of a cultural thing than a 'requirement' for a market economy. would everyone here be happy making the same amount of money for the rest of their lives?

if prices continued to fall due to increased efficiencies ya sure

*claps hands, shooes away servants*

as long as the prices of everything stay the same!

exactly

fuck prices 'staying the same' some of the people in this economy are paid to invent eg kindles

also no growth probably will make it harder to find a cure for every disease in the world ever, and the iphone 6 will never come out, just saying

on the league table of lifestyle we're all sitting happy in the top division let's be honest

nah i don't believe that capitalist expansion is the only driver for invention

regulate the price of new technology and ruthlessly cull outdated industries

xp can you tie 'no growth' to 'no scientific discoveries' tho iatee?

xp what nv said

invention almost by definition would create growth

lots of new shit only becomes really expensive after venture capitalists pay the penniless inventor $$$$$$ for a cut

xp

again i don't see why? invention tied to markets yeah but

to be precise, i'm not advocating a lack of growth by never inventing anything new of allowing for technological shift, it's growth through little more than inflation of unchanging assets that gets you into the deep shit, right?

because somebody buying medicine that they couldn't buy yesterday increases the gdp! I mean it's hard to do this math in an imaginary socialist world but if we're talking about a slow-growth market economy...

xp

they're not buying the old medicine they used to buy though

just different medicine

and yes there's high lead-in times and developmental costs for new medicines, but the price of that type of product in first world markets tends towards the obscene due to nothing more than the economic/social agreement that allows it to be

also I think a lot of the health-related discoveries pre-capitalism were, in the historical perspective, 'the low hanging fruit'

I mean it's hard to do this math in an imaginary socialist world but if we're talking about a slow-growth market economy...

this is the heart of what i'm nagging at. it seems quite possible that the big concerns you raise - destitution and environmental destruction - just cannot be fixed by the kind of market economies we have now

(e.g. 'don't rub feces on sword wounds')

xpost

the economic/social agreement that allows it to be

The consensus that w/o high profits to reward long-term investments and counter the possibility that your drug ends up useless or getting banned, new drugs wouldn't be developed?

yes, essentially?

this is the heart of what i'm nagging at. it seems quite possible that the big concerns you raise - destitution and environmental destruction - just cannot be fixed by the kind of market economies we have now

I think they can w/ heavy global market-based environmental regulation - emissions markets etc.

you could have a university model, where knowledge is pursued for the sake of knowledge

xp

okay, but what about the human impact of increasingly scarce finite resources e.g. oil?

just cannot be fixed by the kind of market economies we have now

We will have growth as long as there are more ppl on the planet when you leave as there were when you came in. The question to me, therefore, is, "Are we a plague for life on theis planet?" If there's any hope that we're not, does it mean we must live considerably less comfortable lives than we do now? Is there any other system than the market that's more likely to provide us with the means, such as new growing techniques or new energy sources, to continue to thrive here on Earth?

everybody moves to big cities, that's always been my answer xp

xxp arguably allocating scarce resources is what market economies are best at.

i dunno if i buy this tho: I think they can w/ heavy global market-based environmental regulation - emissions markets etc.

do you not buy that it will happen in time or that it will work? cause I agree w/ the first half.

We will have growth as long as there are more ppl on the planet when you leave as there were when you came in.

'growth' for the purposes of this discussion being, iiuic, the economic kind (say a nominal global gdp or w/e) this relies on a number of assumptions that aren't necessarily imperative and binding constraints

e.g. oil?

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/unlocking-seaweeds-next-gen-crude-sugar/

darragh, population growth does feed economic growth alongside increases in productivity

once the wind/wave energy dudes get their shit together i'll be living in the new oman, motherfuckers

darragh, population growth does feed economic growth alongside increases in productivity

per capita increases in efficiency, increased asset efficiency through technology, etc- lots of ways in which growth isn't tied to a per capita figure (well, it is but not in a constant straight-line curve)

do you not buy that it will happen in time or that it will work? cause I agree w/ the first half.

yeah, first half. if we had the political will to set and enforce limits, emission markets would be great. i am possibly too defeatist.

My point, though, is that I'm far more sanguine about us finding new awesome shit than I am about feeding 10 billion ppl or dealing with the environmental effects of 7 billion zipping around in their seaweed-ethanol powered vehicles.

this is basically where my thinking has been stuck for years:

"emission markets would be great ... but we'll never do them."

"countries should enforce reasonable standards for wages, hours and benefits. but we'll inevitably be undercut by developing nations and really, how do you even lecture them when so many people are living on $1/day."

halp.