> Yet we continue to treat it (economics, the global financial system) as some kind of inevitable force of nature, rather than as something that we invented and (to some degree) chose. I wish I knew why that is.
If you want a good guess; the economy is complicated, there is no consensus on how it works and the plurality position on how it works among the public is badly misaligned with reality.
> Yet we continue to treat it (economics, the global financial system) as some kind of inevitable force of nature, rather than as something that we invented and (to some degree) chose. I wish I knew why that is.
This is well said, and I have been very frustrated by this in recent years, too. The simplest clue I have is to look at who benefits from this perspective, and what means they have to spread this idea in the public sphere and discourse.
>Yet we continue to treat it (economics, the global financial system) as some kind of inevitable force of nature, rather than as something that we invented and (to some degree) chose. I wish I knew why that is.
The powers that develop and promote this ideology will profit from it even as the planet is destroyed.
> But our financial constructs are so fundamental to daily life, it's hard to imagine what that would look like.
We have politicians asking if we can change the orbit of the moon because changing the system which is creating these problems somehow seems more impossible. I cannot fathom how a system created by humans cannot be changed by humans, but here we are.
>I think the economy is one of these things that no one can understand.
I think that's overstating it a bit. The economy is certainly a complex system, but there are patterns we can understand.
We do understand how something like Facebook can come to pass in capitalism. We just can't predict where, when, what and and who (sorry, ycombinator can do that of course, but that's an exception :).
We do know that debt and leverage comes with certain dangers and also that there are counter forces that mitigate those dangers. We just can't predict very well where and when it gets out of hand.
But to those who reject markets on that basis I want to say that society as a whole is a complex system as well. We can't really get rid of that sort of danger.
Nations and democracies can be stable and peaceful for a long time and then suddenly fracture and drift towards conflict and hostility for no one's benefit.
> An economy can usually make more of stuff, or substitutes, and/or consume relatively painlessly. The pain kicks in when the financial sector feels pain. The real economy reshuffles if it's financed adequately
Isn't money just an abstraction over resources? In essence i think you're saying that creating goods is not a problem assuming there are sufficient resources to make the goods and sufficient resources to compensate the people making the goods.
While i don't disagree, doesn't that kind of go without saying?
> economy is basically a fancy word for the system that distributes each human's limited time into the various tasks society needs
That's a bit too idealist a view for me. The economy isn't strictly or even mostly about fulfilling needs of society, but the aggregated demands of those with economic power, both wants and needs. A lot of what we spend effort on is not useful to society and a lot of needs go unmet. Certainly not every wasteful activity can be waved away as investing in our mental health. Some leisure is a net negative there, too. Some spending is destructive, with no upside. We humans are only somewhat-rational actors.
>It is very sad that people believe in this. Why is growth needed to prevent a regressive dystopian society?
How are we deciding what gets made and for whom? Does democracy get to decide if you deserve a new car? Does a bureaucracy get to decide?
Lets cover an economic concept quickly, given options, people will trend towards rational self interest. If two people agree to a deal voluntarily, they must each believe that trade increases their subjective well being.
In a market system, people can aquire goods and services in proportion to the value they create for others. It isnt decided from way on high, it is the product of a complex social system and the choices we make in it. Since we can assume that people will trend towards their rational self interest, the economy will grow simply as a byproduct of the individuals involved having their needs met.
To have degrowth, I have to question what measures are required to so disrupt the natural order of markets. Now, there are ways, you could use the law to restrict peoples options both legally and economically, but that is dystopian and regressive. Any governing body given the power to decide what goods and services others are entitled to, are violating those individuals human rights to things like free association and autonomy, and are guarenteed to be captured by entrenched interests.
If you just think people are too wasteful and careless, I agree, but I think you need to dig a bit deeper at why people are acting this way. You cant effectively save dollars for the future, and the stock market is a casino; I think people waste because the concept of saving has been turned into a charade. I'll lose it gambling on an auto industry that looks ready for bankruptcy, or lose it when my short position gets blown out by a bailout, and itll be worthless when I need it if its in the bank, so ill buy a new $300 couch and plan to replace it in a couple years.
> In a system where money is power, and the economy encourages its concentration, you always end up with such unbalances.
Is money really the only power? For all I know these companies depend on consumers’ attention and consumption. Not only that, the people who run them depend on continuous growth of those to keep their positions.
To the extent consumer interests can organize (which includes democratic, legal, informational organization and organizing consumption behavior) there are always ways out.
> The invisible hand cannot help here
Maybe invisible hand was never there to help. Maybe that is the origin of such a defeatist perspective.
Companies are not gods, markets are not forces of nature. They are more like semi-useful entities and processes that can also parasitize our stone age psychology for their own ends. It is on to us to realize our own part in that equation.
>> I think there are two contradictory conditions in this. The reality is that just because it saves lives doesn't mean it should be free.
If the economy can't support peoples' lives, what's the point of having an economy in the first place? Is it just so a very few people can accumulate most of the available wealth and leave everyone else unable to access vital goods and services?
> I don't know how we get from here to a place where these problems become solvable (or even what that place looks like) and from there to a world that is actually going to sustain us again.
Austrians argue that this is the inevitable force of nature. Basically that economic plans are inherently under-informed.
> we've chosen an economic model that maximizes growth but also incurs significant risks to stability.
You mean the same economic system that has been in place since the industrial revolution?
Sure, the US tried softening it a bit during the aftermath of the great depression, but in the end, this is just a free market economic behaving as expected?
The one thing that keeps surprising me is the belief that the US seems to have in self regulation, which has failed time and time again?
If you want a good guess; the economy is complicated, there is no consensus on how it works and the plurality position on how it works among the public is badly misaligned with reality.
reply