Comment by spwa4
2 days ago
The reason people don't accept this is that it fundamentally changes society, it is because of what it means, not because it is or isn't possible.
Net-growth society: new wealth is being created, if you can be part of the creation you get wealth
No-growth society: only way to acquire wealth is to take it from someone else
Oh plus because essentially every society that experienced it legislated it's way into a no-growth situation. The problem was not that growth was not possible, it's that people used state power, for a lot of different excuses, to prevent growth (and of course really to secure the position of the richest and most powerful in society)
The excuses range from religion, morality separate from religion, wars, avoiding losing wars (and putting the entire economy in a usually futile attempt to win or avoid losing a war) and of course the whole thing feeding onto itself: laws protecting the rich at the direct expense of the poor (that can happen even if there is economic growth, though of course, the more growth the less likely)
Btw: "futile attempt to win or avoid losing a war" these attempt were futile not because they lead to a win or a loss, but because the imposed cost of a no-growth society far exceeded any gains or even avoided losses ...
In a no-growth (or even degrowth, which I have recently learned is a thing) society taking what you need from someone else is not the only option: someone can also choose to share it.
A society like that may be quite different in innumerable ways, of course, and the idea of “wealth” in the way we understand it may not make sense.
> No-growth society: only way to acquire wealth is to take it from someone else
Wealth is created by work. In any society, be it growth or no-growth, you can create and acquire wealth by working. (Not necessarily for a wage. Working for yourself also creates wealth. Every time you make yourself dinner, or patch a torn pant leg, or change your car's oil, you are creating wealth.)
The problem is that non-working parasites (investors, rent-seekers, warlords) can't acquire wealth in a no-growth society without taking it from someone else.[1] (Because in a no-growth society, investing on the net is ~zero-returns, ~zero-value.)
------
[1] They take it from someone else in a growth society, too, but a person who works and loses half their productive surplus to a rent seeker is still getting the benefits of growth. In a no-growth society, the rent-seeker's gain is 100% someone else's net loss.
Why this focus? Rent-seekers aren't anywhere near the biggest group of non-working people. Not in money and certainly not in number. And if you include non-productive then you have to add the whole government too (because the government does work, but not for wealth production, not saying it's not necessary, but in your model, it's not wealth production)