Response to Tim Jackson's SDC report

This is a critical response to the report "Prosperity without growth?". The report was authored by Dr. Tim Jackson and released in March, 2009 by the UK's Sustainable Development Commission (SDC). Dr. Jackson is the SDC's Economics Commissioner.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Tim Jackson
• SDC
• growth
• capitalism
• capital
• sustainable development
• economy
• ecological
• environment
• stability
• Rotering
• Frank Rotering

[unisailor]

An alternative concept is: "Capitalism maximizes" In the past, it maximized through growth. But we can maximize without growth or even decreasing. The challenge is not the economic system, but how to decrease because interests will overlap. I am sure a world with 1/4 of the population, at this stage of our history would allowd more resources for each with sustainable capacity.

[Alexopolux]

@DanielAzawitz Hi Daniel. Many thanks for your reply. I will re-check Solow's model and his critiques. It is encouraging that his paper has only 31 pages. I will also check out Harper's magazine.

And yes, of course I know what is productivity, that is why I asked the meaning of "increasing productivity in the form of leisure", which is a contradiction. But now I get it. What Solow proposes has been already proposed in the past, along with early retirement programs, basic income, etc.

[DanielAzawitz]

@redvajra There would still be profits without growth, but there would be lower profits. 

[DanielAzawitz]

@Alexopolux The source of Solow's statement is Harper's Magazine, March 2008. Solow says it is possible "that they would rather use increasing productivity in the form of leisure." Increasing productivity means that workers produce more per hour: you can use that to produce more in total (as we do now) or to work few hours and have more leisure, as Solow suggests. For more info, google: solow no growth economy.

[Alexopolux]

@hymanbookbinder

Hi, could you please tell me the source of Solow's statement? - "There is no reason at all why capitalism could not survive without slow or even no growth" And, what do you mean by "increasing productivity in the form of leisure"?!

Thanks.

[redvajra]

People bend the term to their own purposes, but Frank is right in the classic sense. Capitalism is based on the profit motive, without growth, no profits, thus something other than capitalism. Btw, I'm halfway through Needs and Limits and think it's excellent.

[hymanbookbinder]

Robert Solow, who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his theory of growth, said: There is no reason at all why capitalism could not survive without slow or even no growth. ... It is possible that the United States and Europe will find that, ... either continued growth will be too destructive to the environment ..., or that they would rather use increasing productivity in the form of leisure... There is nothing intrinsic in the system that says it cannot exist happily in a stationary state.

[hymanbookbinder]

This is a nineteenth century critique of a twenty-first century report. An end of growth would mean lower profits, so capitalists would not like it, but it would not mean an end to capitalism. In fact, most of the classical economists believed that capitalism would ultimately lead to a stationary state (=no-growth) economy. Only St. Karl Marx and his followers claimed that capitalism required growth, because they were fanatics battling against the devil.

[randallsellis]

Enjoy your videos. It seems unlikely that the priviledged classes will accept any new ordering of things that diminishes their wealth & power.