Since I started taking economics in high school there was ever mention of the environment, sustainability, “just enough” growth. The nature of the game was always to grow and produce more and more. Now that I have taken this course I am seeing more and more how the economy and ecology are linked together. I never though of economy having another component to it, other than the ones that are discussed in conventional economic classes: factors of production, different economic sectors, etc.
One thing I found very interesting was how the concept of a steady state economy developed from the ideas of Adam Smith to Georgescu-Roegen and finally to Herman Daly. His breakdown of everyday economic terms into simple concepts was something I found very refreshing and informative. That goes into what you mentioned, Professor, about the way a term or phrased is used can change its meaning. We see this all the time in politics and in our day-to-day interactions with people. Getting back on topic, the concept of entropy (second law of thermodynamics) and how it relates to the economic process was one that confused me at first. To me, factors of production were used to ¬create goods and services. It didn’t occur to me at the time, that when this is applied to the second law of thermodynamics factors of productions become converted to goods and services, since energy can neither be created or destroyed.
Thinking about this concept, it puzzles me that many economists and politicians, don’t think this way. We, as a nation, have become so engulfed in the notion of growth that we have put aside ecological laws that we are all bound to. After all, the economy exists inside living system; one that we continue to deplete for the sake of “growth.”
As I stated in my comment I agree with you I never learned about another economy but for the capitalism’s economy of constant growth. The idea of steady economy is a new term I am learning. Economists and politicians never talk about anything but a constant growing economy. People should know that there are other types of economy. We could demand change in our capitalism economy for a more steady economy.
It always is good to read your replies on our topics. You add more great thought and knowledge to what we have already read and thought to ourselves about. I am amazed also about how many economist and politicians don't think about some of these things either. But they are politicians, it seems like they are only worried about themselves most of the time.
I actually agree with the theory of Steady State Economics. Time and time again, the solution to many problems dealing with scarcity, or the ones that arrive from population growth, is to push the supply curve out. That may have seemed like a suitable idea about 100 years ago when the earth's resources weren't showing signs of becoming so scarce. On our midterm, we briefly covered the possibility of the earth's population reaching nine billion people. The fact that governments aren't looking at that estimate and thinking that something needs to be done immediately is preposterous. It may sound like I am suggesting that we live in a totalitarian state of sorts when I suggest that there should be laws against having a certain amount of children. Also, what happens when we continue to encroach on lands that previously weren't disturbed, and in a sense, shouldn't be disturbed? What happens when the population begins to move on to the land that is designated for food production. Since economic growth was always regarded as a relatively good thing, most economists never really tracked the possible negative aspects to it, such as the fact that it was stemming from a rising population that is growing out of control. I also completely agree with the theory's belief that economic growth is not the simple solution that we are searching for to alleviate poverty. In fact, growth, which could sometimes be defined as an increase in affluence within the developed world, will only put more economic pressure on the backs of the poverty-stricken portion of the world's population. Earlier in the semester, we covered the effects of rising demand for Bolivian Quinoa in the developed world and how it only increased the domestic price for Bolivians, thus making it an expensive good for them. In terms of economics, this could could technically be considered to be economic growth, but look at the repercussions. Bolivian families are now unable to purchase a domestic good that was once considered to be relatively cheap. I guess what I am trying to say is that economic growth usually only benefits those in the developed world who can reap the benefits.
Great points about what we had on the Midterm with population reaching 9 billion people. Governments aren't looking at that and thinking ahead. They are more conceded about how we can fix our economy today when in fact if they would've thought ahead back then we wouldn't be in the situation we are in with our debt. Now going forward we are going to end up where we are now. We are going to look back and say why didn't we do something about this back then.
I agree with Phil I never knew that there where so many types of economy such as sustainable economy. I never heard about sustainable economy or steady economy until this semester. I think the idea of steady state economy is interesting. Steady state economy is defined in terms of constant stocks however I think of steady state economy as a straight line with no growth or decline. I think of steady state economy to be a pause in the economy mostly because of capitalism.
Capitalism only makes you think that an economy can only be a roll-a-costar. Capitalism is trying to grow the economy with little to no decline. However with capitalism there are many bubbles that get created. When those bubbles burst the effect is more badly then the growth on the economy. Daly points out that there is no notion of “enough” in a growth-base economy and I agree. We are adding a lot of problems to the earth with our desire of growth in our economy. However technology growth is needed. I think technology can solve the solar energy problems. Technology is changing every day for the better. For technology to solve the problems of solar energy it is time that is the biggest factor. It could take a month a year or 5 years for the solution.
I am very familiar with the term "cowboy economics" but I do not recall the term "spaceman economics." This is a shame because, as previously mentioned by two classmates, we've all learned cowboy economics as children. We want to make more things as fast as possible because it leads to innovation and a better future...or so we've been told. But knowledge and awareness of the impact "cowboy economics" has on our environment should very well steer attention to "spaceman economics" especially with depleting resources. It is clear "cowboy economics" is too much production with too much waste and "spaceman economics" is little production with little innovation (not enough revenue incentives for innovation). So is there any way to fix this problem---to turn the spaceman economy less wasteful or the spaceman economy any more innovative?
It's very troubling that the information is there but nothing is done about it. From the article, there's dozens of examples of steady state economics not being implemented and ways of repairing it. Maintaining a constant population, for example, is one method and we have seen examples of such regulations in China (one child policy) that have successfully prevented an overpopulation of China. But these policies result in criticism and backlash, the most common being "a threat to freedom." It does not matter if it's for the greater good or not; people tend to take things personally if it affects themselves and it is this selfish outlook that prevents any environmental progress. People must be made to SEE what is happening to the environment and that only they could stop it whether it be population control, minimization of resources or just plain recycling. We have to tread on these problems lightly in order to appeal to the greater good and to the people but it's so difficult that we've spent years doing nothing except publishing papers asking for a change. Can something PLEASE be done about this?
Another aspect of the steady state economy debate is whether or not the growth based model for economic prosperity is even desirable. Some have argued that while emerging countries are growing substantially in terms of GDP, none of these countries are anywhere near the desired standard of living like that of developed countries. In the case of China, after years of dramatic growth the country is still faced with major inequality issues, human rights problems, and increasing environmental pollution. Therefore, some people believe that economic growth is not worth the consequences. However, if we cannot rely on economic growth to alleviate poverty and inequality, then what’s the alternative? And with this thought, that is where the global steady state movement gathers momentum.
There are so many factors when it comes to limiting our impact on the environment that it can seem overwhelming. To improve these conditions means for many, changing their way of life entirely and for the U.S. it means a change in government: creating a Steady State Economy. This presents many challenges in itself because we are talking about issues such as population control which could potentially mean something like laws that regulate the number of children one can have. This kind of transition is not easy because there is a certain element of the loss of freedoms. But the way we are currently living is obviously not sustainable. As mentioned in the document our current economy is focused on growth, but growth toward what? There is no end to justify the means we are using because…there is no end. I had never considered the isea that we need to keep growing just to keep our economy “flat.” We just keep using , depleting our resources , and producing waste. We are going nowhere. Many would view such a shift in the economy to an SSE as stunting growth but I think John Stuart Mill said it best: “It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on.”
As mentioned above by others, this is the first time I have learned about Steady State Economics. There are a lot of ideas and concepts that seem too good to be true in this economic model. I won’t say I disagree with it completely but some of the concepts are just a bit too farfetched. For example, the number of births equaling to the number of deaths, to me this seems entirely impossible as you cannot control nature, especially that of people. Realistically, religion would overturn all the points that could possibly justify this design; you would have to control the nature of people to actually have this state stick. I am sure at a much smaller, national state this economic structure could be tested but with people still struggling for clean water and a roof over their heads, I’m not sure how this would work globally. I realize that the SSE applies to the physical components of a society and not the non-physical but there seems to be a lack of taking into account that a change from capitalism to a SSE economy would require so much change that it’s almost impractical. Who and how would one keep account for all the natural components of a society, what if one resource outweighs another, would we waste the non-balancing resource in hopes of restoring equality? “An economy with constant stocks of people and artifacts, maintained at some desired, sufficient levels by low rates of maintenance "throughput", that is, by the lowest feasible flows of matter and energy from the first stage of production to the last stage of consumption”, who and how would you determine what that desired maintained level of stock is, wouldn’t we again fall in a power struggle of greedy people in control of our resources and exploiting the weak for their own agendas?
On the other hand, economists like Adam Smith mention that “desirable consequences of each person pursuing self-interest in the marketplace” would lead to “population growth, which would push wages down, natural resources would become increasingly scarce, and division of labor would approach the limits of its effectiveness”. These are all limits to economic growth, most economist agree with Keynes when he talks about people caring for the being rather than the means, as greed will only lead to destruction and in economic growth there is no limit to the greed. SSE encourages the maintenance of ecosystems health and the life-support services they provide, extracting renewable resources such as fish/timber at a rate fast enough to replenish the supply, consume non-renewable resources at a rate at which they can be replaced and deposit waste in the environment at a rate at which they can be absorbed. All of these elements are which I agree that we should all work towards to achieve as that would lead to a greater impact in our society. If we can maintain a sustainable level of use and waste, then we can achieve a SSE that is reasonable as a global application.
Having taken a few of Professor Karam’s courses, this is not the first (or last) time I will be reading on Steady State. The SSE, in my eyes, is simply the necessary drastic change to our growth-based economic system today, which is greatly needed if we ever want to reach anything close to sustainable development. (Although, another point I have taken away from these courses, is that ‘true’ sustainability simply cannot be reached, we have dug ourselves too deep of a hole.) The problem is that the neoclassical economy that we live in today, relies on the ideas that continuous economic growth is both possible and the main goal, when we can see (from Georgescu-Roegen’s analysis of the laws of thermodynamics) that this growth is not even possible. Our economy today is simply a closed and isolated system; there are no inflows from or outflows to the environment, as can be seen in the ‘circular flow’ chart economic professors use. This leaves the idea that the supply of natural resources and ‘capacity to absorb waste’ are not considered as limiting factors which, in itself, is a ridiculous concept. Daly’s SSE holds emphasis on a physical concept; standing rather than running, and constancy rather than increase or decrease. Capital stock is being held, but non-physical levels, such as knowledge, values, and ethics are not held constant. So Daly sees an economy that does develop, but remains constant and does not grow physically.
I have not read or thought much of steady state of economics. The Economic model makes a lot of sense and gives me another point of few in economics. I am an economics major and this is not exactly what I thought the class was going to be about when I started but a lot of this has really opened my eyes. Our world population grows and grows and we use and waste more and more. We are running through our resources without any thought of how to save or reserve what we have. SSE has ideas to start saving more resources and not use so much. There are a lot of things that need to be done to limit the amount of resources we have been using. I do believe things are starting to go in the right direction in recent years. We are looking for more efficiency from everything we do.
I have not read or thought much of steady state of economics. The Economic model makes a lot of sense and gives me another point of few in economics. I am an economics major and this is not exactly what I thought the class was going to be about when I started but a lot of this has really opened my eyes. Our world population grows and grows and we use and waste more and more. We are running through our resources without any thought of how to save or reserve what we have. SSE has ideas to start saving more resources and not use so much. There are a lot of things that need to be done to limit the amount of resources we have been using. I do believe things are starting to go in the right direction in recent years. We are looking for more efficiency from everything we do.
Roegen's analysis of the laws of thermodynamics describes how energy is neither created nor destroyed--we simply change the state of the energy from usable energy into waste. After the energy is converted into waste, we are simply living in our own filth, with few solutions to deal with the waste. Fossil fuels are ancient resources that required thousands of years to develop, and are being used at a rapid rate. The ideas of steady state and economy are based on the notion that we're on a "spaceship earth," where we live in a closed system. Our planet is a spaceship orbiting through the solar system, and we cannot abuse our resources.
Truly adapting the steady state economy would require a paradigm shift in the U.S. The basis of our nation's attitude is capitalism. People validate themselves and their life work by money and possession. We are sworn to protect "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ("happiness" replaced property, as written by John Locke). To shift to a SSE economy, the US would have to relinquish the values of happiness equating to property and ownership. Unlimited growth is our goal, but many do not realize the effect of unlimited growth on our environment. The population is growing exponentially, and resources will continue to become more limited. If we care about our children, and our grandchildren, and our grandchildren's children, we should aim to develop a world that is suitable for living. Some argue that we cannot know what future generations could want, but it is easy to assume that they will want access to clean air and water.
As an Environmental Studies major, there are many disciplines the major covers. I am mostly interested in building sustainable measures in a financial realm. Steady State Economics is the key to what all environmentalists want to see become incorporated in our economies. The fact that the U.S economy requires growth to be in a steady state is ridiculous, and when growth drops below 2% we are likely to enter a recession. Economic growth depletes natural resources at an exponential rate and our economy depends on growth to be sustainable. The idea of Capitalism is genius, but as we are starting to see now it is not accurate for the future of our economy or population.
To move towards SSE, we must incorporate sustainability into our practices. There is nothing we can do about growing populations as we approach nine billion, so we have to start learning on how to cut back now. Economic growth cannot be used as the consumption of resources. We must create an idea of sustainable growth, being able to consume as much as the earth allows us. "If we use growth to mean quantitative change, and development to refer to qualitative change, then we may say that a steady-state economy develops but does not grow, just as the planet Earth, of which the human economy is a subsystem, develops but does not grow."
Before this can happen, we must change our thinking. John Keynes notes that we should focus on the ends rather than the means. Coming to the point where I am graduating next month and focused on finding a job, everyone is thinking about how can they better themselves and accumulate as much as money to hopefully attain happiness. We have become so individualistic in todays society which forces us to be more focused on means rather than ends. Standards of living are ever increasing and will make it very hard to change people's thinking, but we must think of an option before it's too late.
The number one problem with out capitalistic economy is the idea that we do not need to worry about anything except what is in our pockets. Steady - state economy truly calls for a decline in population, which is in my opinion one of the rising issues of our century, because it shows no sign of stopping. I think it is crazy that we use 1.5 earths to sustain our lives, when so many people in the world are starving. I think that a switch to steady-state economy would really be beneficial to all economies in the world, and would definitely be an ideal system. However I think that the West is much to greedy to let that go. Eventually, our economy will have to find a way to change for the benefit of the earth, because one day there will be no more resources to sustain our livelihoods, just like 2/3 of the world suffers from.
I think that the underlying principle behind the idea of a steady state economy is not that zero growth in wealth occurs over time. Instead, it focuses on increasing innovation and efficient use of resources to result in a state where consumption and production rates are balanced overall. Steady state economy is an economy that aims to maintain a stable level of resource consumption and a stable population. It is an economy where energy and resource use are reduced to levels that are within ecological limits, and where the goal of maximizing economic output is replaced by the goal of maximizing quality of life. In a steady state economy, instead of attempting to maximize and continually grow profits, organizations would aim to achieve ‘right-size profits’. An organization’s total revenue would still be large enough to allow it to be financially viable, but not so large as to cause environmental damage. I wish the concept of steady state economy were practiced and implemented in all advanced countries because they just depleting and polluting our planet looking for economic growth.
I would have to agree with many what many classmates have said perviously, it amazes me that in the 12+ years I have had a concept of economics and I was being formally taught it in a class, that I have not been aware of a cap or a maximum growth. However, thanks to this class I now have a deeper understanding of our abilities and the pure capacity the earth has. Having said this, it seems a bit extreme to push for a change right now when most of the public, like many of us, are not even aware of the threats or true danger we are in. The SSE vitality to future economic growth is clear to us and should be to everyone else who is educated on the subject. We are not going to see widespread change unless it comes through the help of the government and the government is not going to enact steps towards becoming a Steady State Economy unless the people make it clear that this is not only urgent, but imperative to the future of our economy. As Leah said, we do not want people to feel as if they are loosing their freedoms when it comes to enforcing these changes, so the public has to be educated and motived to make changes.
In the past I attend a short course that was part of job training. Topic was wine production and distribution, wine makers, traditions and innovations. Despite of all data about small vineyards and big winemakers around the world it was a little fact I still remember in details. As we say in English “winemaker” we have an understanding of someone who produces wine. Quite surprisingly, there is no French word for winemaker; someone who makes wine is called a vigneron-literally, a “vine grower”. All the distinguishing elements of a place, such as climate, sun exposure, soil and surrounding flora are fundamental to French winemaking philosophy. It is the belief that nature and geography make wine, not man. Making connection with Daly’s theory ...”Man transforms raw materials into commodities and commodities into garbage”. As more people transform more raw materials per person into commodities, we experience higher rates of depletion; as more people transform more commodities into waste, we experience higher rate of pollution. This economy model explains with simplicity the two basic physical magnitudes: population of human bodies and population of artifacts that need to be held in steady state. Growth is quantitative change, and human economy is a subsystem in planet Earth, which develops but does not grow. In what point we will consider growth enough? I agreed with the goal of steady –state economy..” maximize the benefits rendered to society by both the economic system and the natural ecosystem in which it is embedded, and to do so, the economy’s rate of consumption must be limited by both what the ecosystem can provide as constant income and by what it can be accept as waste.”
I've been exploring for a little for any high quality articles or blog posts on this sort of area . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this web site. Studying this info So i am happy to exhibit that I've an incredibly good uncanny feeling I found out just what I needed. I so much unquestionably will make certain to do not put out of your mind this site and give it a look regularly.
Whеn I orіginally left a cοmment Ι apρeaг to havе clicked on the -Notify mе ωhen new comments are added- checkbox and from now on ωheneѵeг a соmment is aԁded I get 4 emails with the exаct sаme comment. Perhaps there is a means you can гemove me from thаt service? Τhankѕ!
Since I started taking economics in high school there was ever mention of the environment, sustainability, “just enough” growth. The nature of the game was always to grow and produce more and more. Now that I have taken this course I am seeing more and more how the economy and ecology are linked together. I never though of economy having another component to it, other than the ones that are discussed in conventional economic classes: factors of production, different economic sectors, etc.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found very interesting was how the concept of a steady state economy developed from the ideas of Adam Smith to Georgescu-Roegen and finally to Herman Daly. His breakdown of everyday economic terms into simple concepts was something I found very refreshing and informative. That goes into what you mentioned, Professor, about the way a term or phrased is used can change its meaning. We see this all the time in politics and in our day-to-day interactions with people. Getting back on topic, the concept of entropy (second law of thermodynamics) and how it relates to the economic process was one that confused me at first. To me, factors of production were used to ¬create goods and services. It didn’t occur to me at the time, that when this is applied to the second law of thermodynamics factors of productions become converted to goods and services, since energy can neither be created or destroyed.
Thinking about this concept, it puzzles me that many economists and politicians, don’t think this way. We, as a nation, have become so engulfed in the notion of growth that we have put aside ecological laws that we are all bound to. After all, the economy exists inside living system; one that we continue to deplete for the sake of “growth.”
As I stated in my comment I agree with you I never learned about another economy but for the capitalism’s economy of constant growth. The idea of steady economy is a new term I am learning. Economists and politicians never talk about anything but a constant growing economy. People should know that there are other types of economy. We could demand change in our capitalism economy for a more steady economy.
DeleteIt always is good to read your replies on our topics. You add more great thought and knowledge to what we have already read and thought to ourselves about. I am amazed also about how many economist and politicians don't think about some of these things either. But they are politicians, it seems like they are only worried about themselves most of the time.
DeleteI actually agree with the theory of Steady State Economics. Time and time again, the solution to many problems dealing with scarcity, or the ones that arrive from population growth, is to push the supply curve out. That may have seemed like a suitable idea about 100 years ago when the earth's resources weren't showing signs of becoming so scarce. On our midterm, we briefly covered the possibility of the earth's population reaching nine billion people. The fact that governments aren't looking at that estimate and thinking that something needs to be done immediately is preposterous. It may sound like I am suggesting that we live in a totalitarian state of sorts when I suggest that there should be laws against having a certain amount of children. Also, what happens when we continue to encroach on lands that previously weren't disturbed, and in a sense, shouldn't be disturbed? What happens when the population begins to move on to the land that is designated for food production. Since economic growth was always regarded as a relatively good thing, most economists never really tracked the possible negative aspects to it, such as the fact that it was stemming from a rising population that is growing out of control. I also completely agree with the theory's belief that economic growth is not the simple solution that we are searching for to alleviate poverty. In fact, growth, which could sometimes be defined as an increase in affluence within the developed world, will only put more economic pressure on the backs of the poverty-stricken portion of the world's population. Earlier in the semester, we covered the effects of rising demand for Bolivian Quinoa in the developed world and how it only increased the domestic price for Bolivians, thus making it an expensive good for them. In terms of economics, this could could technically be considered to be economic growth, but look at the repercussions. Bolivian families are now unable to purchase a domestic good that was once considered to be relatively cheap. I guess what I am trying to say is that economic growth usually only benefits those in the developed world who can reap the benefits.
ReplyDeleteGreat points about what we had on the Midterm with population reaching 9 billion people. Governments aren't looking at that and thinking ahead. They are more conceded about how we can fix our economy today when in fact if they would've thought ahead back then we wouldn't be in the situation we are in with our debt. Now going forward we are going to end up where we are now. We are going to look back and say why didn't we do something about this back then.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Phil I never knew that there where so many types of economy such as sustainable economy. I never heard about sustainable economy or steady economy until this semester. I think the idea of steady state economy is interesting. Steady state economy is defined in terms of constant stocks however I think of steady state economy as a straight line with no growth or decline. I think of steady state economy to be a pause in the economy mostly because of capitalism.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism only makes you think that an economy can only be a roll-a-costar. Capitalism is trying to grow the economy with little to no decline. However with capitalism there are many bubbles that get created. When those bubbles burst the effect is more badly then the growth on the economy. Daly points out that there is no notion of “enough” in a growth-base economy and I agree. We are adding a lot of problems to the earth with our desire of growth in our economy. However technology growth is needed. I think technology can solve the solar energy problems. Technology is changing every day for the better. For technology to solve the problems of solar energy it is time that is the biggest factor. It could take a month a year or 5 years for the solution.
I am very familiar with the term "cowboy economics" but I do not recall the term "spaceman economics." This is a shame because, as previously mentioned by two classmates, we've all learned cowboy economics as children. We want to make more things as fast as possible because it leads to innovation and a better future...or so we've been told. But knowledge and awareness of the impact "cowboy economics" has on our environment should very well steer attention to "spaceman economics" especially with depleting resources. It is clear "cowboy economics" is too much production with too much waste and "spaceman economics" is little production with little innovation (not enough revenue incentives for innovation). So is there any way to fix this problem---to turn the spaceman economy less wasteful or the spaceman economy any more innovative?
ReplyDeleteIt's very troubling that the information is there but nothing is done about it. From the article, there's dozens of examples of steady state economics not being implemented and ways of repairing it. Maintaining a constant population, for example, is one method and we have seen examples of such regulations in China (one child policy) that have successfully prevented an overpopulation of China. But these policies result in criticism and backlash, the most common being "a threat to freedom." It does not matter if it's for the greater good or not; people tend to take things personally if it affects themselves and it is this selfish outlook that prevents any environmental progress. People must be made to SEE what is happening to the environment and that only they could stop it whether it be population control, minimization of resources or just plain recycling. We have to tread on these problems lightly in order to appeal to the greater good and to the people but it's so difficult that we've spent years doing nothing except publishing papers asking for a change. Can something PLEASE be done about this?
Another aspect of the steady state economy debate is whether or not the growth based model for economic prosperity is even desirable. Some have argued that while emerging countries are growing substantially in terms of GDP, none of these countries are anywhere near the desired standard of living like that of developed countries. In the case of China, after years of dramatic growth the country is still faced with major inequality issues, human rights problems, and increasing environmental pollution. Therefore, some people believe that economic growth is not worth the consequences. However, if we cannot rely on economic growth to alleviate poverty and inequality, then what’s the alternative? And with this thought, that is where the global steady state movement gathers momentum.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many factors when it comes to limiting our impact on the environment that it can seem overwhelming. To improve these conditions means for many, changing their way of life entirely and for the U.S. it means a change in government: creating a Steady State Economy. This presents many challenges in itself because we are talking about issues such as population control which could potentially mean something like laws that regulate the number of children one can have. This kind of transition is not easy because there is a certain element of the loss of freedoms. But the way we are currently living is obviously not sustainable. As mentioned in the document our current economy is focused on growth, but growth toward what? There is no end to justify the means we are using because…there is no end. I had never considered the isea that we need to keep growing just to keep our economy “flat.” We just keep using , depleting our resources , and producing waste. We are going nowhere. Many would view such a shift in the economy to an SSE as stunting growth but I think John Stuart Mill said it best: “It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on.”
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned above by others, this is the first time I have learned about Steady State Economics. There are a lot of ideas and concepts that seem too good to be true in this economic model. I won’t say I disagree with it completely but some of the concepts are just a bit too farfetched. For example, the number of births equaling to the number of deaths, to me this seems entirely impossible as you cannot control nature, especially that of people. Realistically, religion would overturn all the points that could possibly justify this design; you would have to control the nature of people to actually have this state stick. I am sure at a much smaller, national state this economic structure could be tested but with people still struggling for clean water and a roof over their heads, I’m not sure how this would work globally. I realize that the SSE applies to the physical components of a society and not the non-physical but there seems to be a lack of taking into account that a change from capitalism to a SSE economy would require so much change that it’s almost impractical. Who and how would one keep account for all the natural components of a society, what if one resource outweighs another, would we waste the non-balancing resource in hopes of restoring equality? “An economy with constant stocks of people and artifacts, maintained at some desired, sufficient levels by low rates of maintenance "throughput", that is, by the lowest feasible flows of matter and energy from the first stage of production to the last stage of consumption”, who and how would you determine what that desired maintained level of stock is, wouldn’t we again fall in a power struggle of greedy people in control of our resources and exploiting the weak for their own agendas?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, economists like Adam Smith mention that “desirable consequences of each person pursuing self-interest in the marketplace” would lead to “population growth, which would push wages down, natural resources would become increasingly scarce, and division of labor would approach the limits of its effectiveness”. These are all limits to economic growth, most economist agree with Keynes when he talks about people caring for the being rather than the means, as greed will only lead to destruction and in economic growth there is no limit to the greed. SSE encourages the maintenance of ecosystems health and the life-support services they provide, extracting renewable resources such as fish/timber at a rate fast enough to replenish the supply, consume non-renewable resources at a rate at which they can be replaced and deposit waste in the environment at a rate at which they can be absorbed. All of these elements are which I agree that we should all work towards to achieve as that would lead to a greater impact in our society. If we can maintain a sustainable level of use and waste, then we can achieve a SSE that is reasonable as a global application.
Having taken a few of Professor Karam’s courses, this is not the first (or last) time I will be reading on Steady State. The SSE, in my eyes, is simply the necessary drastic change to our growth-based economic system today, which is greatly needed if we ever want to reach anything close to sustainable development. (Although, another point I have taken away from these courses, is that ‘true’ sustainability simply cannot be reached, we have dug ourselves too deep of a hole.) The problem is that the neoclassical economy that we live in today, relies on the ideas that continuous economic growth is both possible and the main goal, when we can see (from Georgescu-Roegen’s analysis of the laws of thermodynamics) that this growth is not even possible. Our economy today is simply a closed and isolated system; there are no inflows from or outflows to the environment, as can be seen in the ‘circular flow’ chart economic professors use. This leaves the idea that the supply of natural resources and ‘capacity to absorb waste’ are not considered as limiting factors which, in itself, is a ridiculous concept. Daly’s SSE holds emphasis on a physical concept; standing rather than running, and constancy rather than increase or decrease. Capital stock is being held, but non-physical levels, such as knowledge, values, and ethics are not held constant. So Daly sees an economy that does develop, but remains constant and does not grow physically.
ReplyDelete- Virginia MacDougall
I have not read or thought much of steady state of economics. The Economic model makes a lot of sense and gives me another point of few in economics. I am an economics major and this is not exactly what I thought the class was going to be about when I started but a lot of this has really opened my eyes. Our world population grows and grows and we use and waste more and more. We are running through our resources without any thought of how to save or reserve what we have. SSE has ideas to start saving more resources and not use so much. There are a lot of things that need to be done to limit the amount of resources we have been using. I do believe things are starting to go in the right direction in recent years. We are looking for more efficiency from everything we do.
ReplyDeleteI have not read or thought much of steady state of economics. The Economic model makes a lot of sense and gives me another point of few in economics. I am an economics major and this is not exactly what I thought the class was going to be about when I started but a lot of this has really opened my eyes. Our world population grows and grows and we use and waste more and more. We are running through our resources without any thought of how to save or reserve what we have. SSE has ideas to start saving more resources and not use so much. There are a lot of things that need to be done to limit the amount of resources we have been using. I do believe things are starting to go in the right direction in recent years. We are looking for more efficiency from everything we do.
ReplyDeleteRoegen's analysis of the laws of thermodynamics describes how energy is neither created nor destroyed--we simply change the state of the energy from usable energy into waste. After the energy is converted into waste, we are simply living in our own filth, with few solutions to deal with the waste. Fossil fuels are ancient resources that required thousands of years to develop, and are being used at a rapid rate. The ideas of steady state and economy are based on the notion that we're on a "spaceship earth," where we live in a closed system. Our planet is a spaceship orbiting through the solar system, and we cannot abuse our resources.
ReplyDeleteTruly adapting the steady state economy would require a paradigm shift in the U.S. The basis of our nation's attitude is capitalism. People validate themselves and their life work by money and possession. We are sworn to protect "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ("happiness" replaced property, as written by John Locke). To shift to a SSE economy, the US would have to relinquish the values of happiness equating to property and ownership. Unlimited growth is our goal, but many do not realize the effect of unlimited growth on our environment. The population is growing exponentially, and resources will continue to become more limited. If we care about our children, and our grandchildren, and our grandchildren's children, we should aim to develop a world that is suitable for living. Some argue that we cannot know what future generations could want, but it is easy to assume that they will want access to clean air and water.
As an Environmental Studies major, there are many disciplines the major covers. I am mostly interested in building sustainable measures in a financial realm. Steady State Economics is the key to what all environmentalists want to see become incorporated in our economies. The fact that the U.S economy requires growth to be in a steady state is ridiculous, and when growth drops below 2% we are likely to enter a recession. Economic growth depletes natural resources at an exponential rate and our economy depends on growth to be sustainable. The idea of Capitalism is genius, but as we are starting to see now it is not accurate for the future of our economy or population.
ReplyDeleteTo move towards SSE, we must incorporate sustainability into our practices. There is nothing we can do about growing populations as we approach nine billion, so we have to start learning on how to cut back now. Economic growth cannot be used as the consumption of resources. We must create an idea of sustainable growth, being able to consume as much as the earth allows us. "If we use growth to mean quantitative change, and development to refer to qualitative change, then we may say that a steady-state economy develops but does not grow, just as the planet Earth, of which the human economy is a subsystem, develops but does not grow."
Before this can happen, we must change our thinking. John Keynes notes that we should focus on the ends rather than the means. Coming to the point where I am graduating next month and focused on finding a job, everyone is thinking about how can they better themselves and accumulate as much as money to hopefully attain happiness. We have become so individualistic in todays society which forces us to be more focused on means rather than ends. Standards of living are ever increasing and will make it very hard to change people's thinking, but we must think of an option before it's too late.
The number one problem with out capitalistic economy is the idea that we do not need to worry about anything except what is in our pockets. Steady - state economy truly calls for a decline in population, which is in my opinion one of the rising issues of our century, because it shows no sign of stopping. I think it is crazy that we use 1.5 earths to sustain our lives, when so many people in the world are starving. I think that a switch to steady-state economy would really be beneficial to all economies in the world, and would definitely be an ideal system. However I think that the West is much to greedy to let that go. Eventually, our economy will have to find a way to change for the benefit of the earth, because one day there will be no more resources to sustain our livelihoods, just like 2/3 of the world suffers from.
ReplyDeleteIt's very easy to find out any matter on web as compared to textbooks, as I found this piece of writing at this web page.
ReplyDeleteStop by my site; Link Building
I think that the underlying principle behind the idea of a steady state economy is not that zero growth in wealth occurs over time. Instead, it focuses on increasing innovation and efficient use of resources to result in a state where consumption and production rates are balanced overall.
ReplyDeleteSteady state economy is an economy that aims to maintain a stable level of resource consumption and a stable population. It is an economy where energy and resource use are reduced to levels that are within ecological limits, and where the goal of maximizing economic output is replaced by the goal of maximizing quality of life.
In a steady state economy, instead of attempting to maximize and continually grow profits, organizations would aim to achieve ‘right-size profits’. An organization’s total revenue would still be large enough to allow it to be financially viable, but not so large as to cause environmental damage.
I wish the concept of steady state economy were practiced and implemented in all advanced countries because they just depleting and polluting our planet looking for economic growth.
I would have to agree with many what many classmates have said perviously, it amazes me that in the 12+ years I have had a concept of economics and I was being formally taught it in a class, that I have not been aware of a cap or a maximum growth. However, thanks to this class I now have a deeper understanding of our abilities and the pure capacity the earth has. Having said this, it seems a bit extreme to push for a change right now when most of the public, like many of us, are not even aware of the threats or true danger we are in. The SSE vitality to future economic growth is clear to us and should be to everyone else who is educated on the subject. We are not going to see widespread change unless it comes through the help of the government and the government is not going to enact steps towards becoming a Steady State Economy unless the people make it clear that this is not only urgent, but imperative to the future of our economy. As Leah said, we do not want people to feel as if they are loosing their freedoms when it comes to enforcing these changes, so the public has to be educated and motived to make changes.
ReplyDeleteIn the past I attend a short course that was part of job training. Topic was wine production and distribution, wine makers, traditions and innovations. Despite of all data about small vineyards and big winemakers around the world it was a little fact I still remember in details. As we say in English “winemaker” we have an understanding of someone who produces wine. Quite surprisingly, there is no French word for winemaker; someone who makes wine is called a vigneron-literally, a “vine grower”. All the distinguishing elements of a place, such as climate, sun exposure, soil and surrounding flora are fundamental to French winemaking philosophy. It is the belief that nature and geography make wine, not man. Making connection with Daly’s theory ...”Man transforms raw materials into commodities and commodities into garbage”. As more people transform more raw materials per person into commodities, we experience higher rates of depletion; as more people transform more commodities into waste, we experience higher rate of pollution.
ReplyDeleteThis economy model explains with simplicity the two basic physical magnitudes: population of human bodies and population of artifacts that need to be held in steady state. Growth is quantitative change, and human economy is a subsystem in planet Earth, which develops but does not grow. In what point we will consider growth enough? I agreed with the goal of steady –state economy..” maximize the benefits rendered to society by both the economic system and the natural ecosystem in which it is embedded, and to do so, the economy’s rate of consumption must be limited by both what the ecosystem can provide as constant income and by what it can be accept as waste.”
I've been exploring for a little for any high quality articles or blog posts on this sort of area . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this web site. Studying this info So i am happy to exhibit that I've
ReplyDeletean incredibly good uncanny feeling I found out just what I needed.
I so much unquestionably will make certain to do not put out of your
mind this site and give it a look regularly.
Also visit my web blog :: individual reputation management
Whеn I orіginally left a cοmment
ReplyDeleteΙ apρeaг to havе clicked on the -Notify mе ωhen new comments are added- checkbox and from now on ωheneѵeг a соmment is aԁded I get 4 emails with the exаct sаme comment.
Perhaps there is a means you can гemove me from thаt service?
Τhankѕ!
Hеre is my blog :: lloyd irvin