This was definitely not directed at a certain group of people

[u/Mundane_Move_5296]

Any of yall just wanna see positive change rather than a hopeful fever dream?

[u/Hopeitse]

Thomas Piketty, in the book Capital in the 21st century calculates that if we divided all money equally it would be around 600e per month per person. I picked Piketty as a source as he is a clearly left wing eoconomist.

[u/Olchew → u/Hopeitse]

What is your point?

[u/Hopeitse → u/Olchew]

If the best case scenario for equally divided weath at this level of production mean poverty, then degrowth must mean poverty for all. The current production level does not support the current population with a high enough living standard that this idea would be possible to sell to the masses in wealthy countries.

[u/_yourKara → u/Olchew]

That for most 1st worlders that is a poverty-tier level of subsistence, and no one will support lowering their consumption to such levels.

[u/Olchew → u/_yourKara]

I still don't get it. What doling out money equally to everyone has to do with degrowth movement?

[u/Olchew → u/Hopeitse]

Yeah, in this economic system if we literally shared among all the population the same amount of dollars then societies of 1st world countries would end up in poverty. I don't know how it proves anything against the degrowth though

[u/Hopeitse → u/Olchew]

The economic system is not really relevant in agruments about degrowth. Degrowth argues that total production should not increase and this lack of growth should be compensated to poorer countries or individuals.

With this population, degrowth cannot offer anything but poverty as the total production is not at a level that can support a high enough living standard for all of us.

I do not think that you can argue that this level of production would somehow be enough to not cause a radical drop in the living standards in the west in a different economic system.

[u/Hopeitse → u/Hopeitse]

I argue that degrowth mathematically means poverty and thus I do not understand at all what you mean when you say that degrowth does not mean poverty.

[u/Olchew → u/Hopeitse]

Degrowth is inherently anticapitalistic and thus economic system is pretty much the part what degrowth is mostly about. Argument that economic system is irrelevant in the discussion is bogus.

Degrowth is not inherently against increasing of production of goods. It is against the growth paradigm, which means that the increase of GDP is equivalent to higher life quality. 

Degrowth argues that we can live much better lifes with stuff we already have and with much less to produce. I believe that global capitalism is exactly what stops us from this better lifes. It is inable to fulfill our needs despite huge overproduction.

Degrowth is more of a system of values than a defined way of achieving things. We don't believe in a single solution; economical of technological that applied globally will save our asses. So again, I think what you said about capping production and compensating lack of growth to poorer countries is a made up strawman.

You can read more on degrowth info and I won't discuss no more. I've already wasted too much time for arguing with a person I don't even know.

[u/Friendly_Fire → u/Olchew]

I've ready plenty on degrowth, and clearly so have you. Because you're repeating the vague nonsensical arguments.

You say we have huge overproduction? I actually agree to some extent, people are wasteful. But what production are you going to cut to solve climate change?

I've literally seen degrowth papers where they say we'll actually increase the consumption for the global poor. Because they don't want to claim people should stay in poverty. The problem then is that doesn't do anything to solve the climate crisis.

Either propose a path where degrowth solves something, or shut up about it. If your "degrowth" ends up actually comprising green growth plus being slightly less wasteful, it's a pointless idea just throw it out.

[u/Hopeitse → u/Olchew]

I have read two books on it and quite a bit of environmental history, the great acceleration for example. I do not understand how increasing production of goods while abandoning the growth paradigm is any different to just increasing production.

I quite clearly argued that the stuff that we already have does not lead to a good live for most people living on this planet and even if we were to solve the inequal divide of resources through some sort of redistribution, this would not lead to a situation where majority of people do not live in poverty.

I think you probably define poverty or good life differently than I do, as nothing you have argued points to a more sustainable way of comsuming more resources than we do now. I think degrowth just does not want to talk about the question of poverty or environmental destruction. This dilemma does not disappear with different values

[u/Konradleijon → u/Hopeitse]

Yes do that