5 contrarian questions about the economy
Languishing vs Dormant. High conflict. The problem with umbrage.
Welcome to Ideothetic Flow! A passion project where I share my reflections on being a better person and building a kinder world.
If this resonates, do subscribe so we can stay connected. New post every 2 weeks.
Hi!
Hope that everyone is doing well under the enhanced restrictions. If you need support, or know of anyone else who might need some help, please reach out. Our family has the good fortune of being relatively unscathed, and it is our responsibility to try and help others ease the burden.
I recently finished Less Is More - How Degrowth Will Save The World, by Jason Hickel. (Suggestions for my next book are most welcome!)
I liked it for giving a contrarian lens as to how the existing growth-focused economic model is leading the world towards possible extinction.
I share 5 questions inspired from the book which I try to apply when thinking about the wider world, or my daily life.
Can the economy grow forever?
Our economy is built on a foundation of debt, investment, and leverage. It must constantly expand or it will crash - with disastrous consequences. Each year needs more profits (or taxes) than the last to hold back the snowball of debt or satisfy the demands of investors.
Is perpetual growth optimal? Imagine if you never stopped growing taller. A cell that grows uncontrollably is not productive, it is cancerous.
Growth requires production, which requires extraction. Otherwise we are merely growing the amount of money artificially. The planet’s resources are finite and eventually our extraction will increase to the point we deplete the planet and go extinct.
Do I need to grow constantly too? Must I always be doing more and owning more? Is it ok to be stagnant for some periods of time? Or can I try to be reducing instead?
Does GDP measure progress?
GDP is the most popular measure of growth. Having a single number is easy to manage and optimise. However, obsessing over a single indicator is likely to be too narrow.
GDP alone is a flawed measure of economic health, and an even worse measure of human experience. GDP does not account well for fair distribution of goods, the benefit of public goods like playgrounds or parks, or intangible values like family time, hobbies, or nature.
Do I also use the wrong metrics for my life? Do I have less worth or enjoyment than others because I earn less? Can things be valuable if they do not contribute to income?
Are people rich because they make others poor?
A particularly eye-opening part of the book for me was an account of how the Western economic model was established by artificially creating scarcity.
It recounted how, in historical times, resources on common areas were abundantly available. The common person was not inclined to work too hard, he could get enough to eat from the common land. To “correct” this problem, the nobility used force to turn common land into private property. With access restricted, commoners could no longer grow their own food, and now needed to work for the landowner to earn wages. This same principle was applied overseas too through colonialisation.
This is a big change to the narrative I have been given since young, that we reward the most hardworking and skillful. What if being rich is not really because of these traits, but comes from a willingness to exclude others from resources and make them suffer. Making people poor and desperate gives the ruling classes cheap labour for their benefit. When people speak of using the economy to improve the lives of others, is it genuine? Or are they doing just enough to keep everyone desperate.
I am skeptical about advice to work harder or be more grateful. Is the world actually trying to make me feel I am inadequate, that I need more, so that I can be exploited? Or worse, am I actually the one exploiting, do I cause others to suffer?
Do we try to control nature instead of adapting to it?
Growth based economics sees nature as separate from humanity. Nature is a thing which we can extract resources from for our benefit. We develop technology to tame nature, and bring it under our control so we can extract more from it.
A different relationship is possible. One where we see ourselves as part of nature. Destroy it and we are hurting ourselves too. If we take from it, we must also give back more. When it does not give us what we want, we have to adapt to it rather than force our way through it.
How about my own relationships, do I only think about what I can gain, without making sure I also give back?
Do we need a solution or a change of mindset?
When faced with a problem, the human mind tends to look for some new tool or technology to solve it. Marketing nowadays goes to the extent of trying to identify problems you may not even have noticed, and then offering you a solution for it. We are less likely to ask how we can adapt to the problem, or remove its root cause.
External remedies all come with their own costs. Perhaps we could invent something to freeze the ozone layer and stop climate change. Or we could end up in Snowpiercer.
Any external remedy is only a short term fix if we do not change the way we think. Renewable energy will only let us continue extracting and destroying the planet until the next crisis. A home organising solution will only get messy again unless we reduce the number of things we own. The free time created by the latest productivity tool ends up filled with other meaningless work if we do not change our mindsets around work.
When I meet a problem, can I find a way to remove its cause, rather than a tool to fix the problem? A hot topic now is the need for foreign manpower, is this merely an external solution, avoiding a harder question of how we should structure the economy?
Other thoughts
I’m not languishing, I’m dormant. Austin Kleon
I liked this reframe from languishing to dormant, removing the expectation that we must be flourishing all the time.
How a toxic battle over wolves in Europe became a productive conversation. Amanda Ripley
This story about finding common ground to solve a problem about wolves in Denmark holds lessons on approaching conflict rather than increasing division between groups.
On “Umbrage” and SPH
I hope we start moving away from this idea of a “tough guy” leader. I was troubled to hear that a business leader finds it alright to proclaim he’s not a gentleman and talk down to others. Unfortunately he is being ridiculed for losing his cool in public, but I am sure many other leaders are like this or worse behind closed doors.
Being aggressive, temperamental, and even unreasonable, is a way of delivering results by putting pressure others. This is bad for the world though. It adds stress to others, who have to release it elsewhere. It leads to superficial results, often ignoring problems or losing out on better ideas by stifling others.
Thanks for reading! I do hope to hear about your thoughts or ideas!
You can reply this email, leave a comment, or reach me at jameschanwz@hey.com.
Also pop by my site at www.jameschanwz.com to read more about me and what I am working on.
I have not read the book but I find the term “degrowth” interesting. Although the book probably focuses on economic growth, I think the underlying foundation of growth is based on the nature of living things which will find a way to take over an under-utilised environment when the opportunity arises. It’s only when there is competition or predatory challenges where the growth is halted or reversed. The questions I would ask are: are we at the point, from both economic and population growth, are at its maximum before we settle into an equilibrium like all natural systems? Will degrowth take place after this “golden age” of expansion? Is the pandemic playing the role of the predator and is a precursor of things to come? How would a degrowth economic work? Is capitalism nothing but a complex Ponzi scheme?
On a more personal basis, I don’t come from a rich family. Both my parents work hard as they were not educated. Were they exploited? I don’t know. But they earn enough to put us through schooling as they know that education is a great leveller and a chance for the family to have a better economic life. I like to think they have succeeded. I will not refuse wealth by providence or hard work as it may be the way for me to help others. Would I want to live in a world where there is no more opportunities for less fortunate to use to improve themselves? I will likely not.
Just my 0.02c on a lazy afternoon trying to avoid real work 😊