Most of the main Green policies are terrifying

Trees grow, fields are resown, populations reproduce. This is all because the sun is putting energy into the earth.

And once again, I pose the question: what economy are you envisioning that is based purely on resources powered by the sun? And actually, even that isn't renewable. Modern agriculture is completely dependent on artificially fixed nitrogen for fertiliser since current levels of productivity are beyond what nature can sustain. Nitrogen shortages are getting increasingly serious and on top of that, unused nitrogen flows into the oceans and is creating a potentially incredibly serious problem of oceanic anoxia.

I'm not.

...So why are you using that as a counterargument to Aph's point?

because what he said was wrong.

And what you proposed as the solution is something you don't agree with anyway?

If you accept what those arguments are saying, then you also have to accept that "value" is some arbitrary and meaningless concept that doesn't reflect physical reality. If you use some abstract definition of "value" then sure, "value" can keep growing if someone decides to allow it to keep growing. It's utterly meaningless though. One of those articles asserts that infinite growth is possible in a steady state economy. In a steady state economy, there is no change in the amount of work done. So "value" is therefore completely independent of work, so it can't have any physical basis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11356354/Drugs-brothels-al-Qaeda-and-the-Beyonce-tax-the-Green-Party-plan-for-Britain.html

Zero growth economy?
Are they that unaware how economic growth has made everyone richer?

2) no one society is better then another

You're the same as Hitler was?

That's a very simplistic viewpoint you seem have there. How exactly does economic growth make everyone richer in real terms?

What it really comes down to is whether or not the pursuit of economic growth above all else is advisable. All the Green party is doing is suggesting that it's more important that everyone has somewhere to live, enough food, healthcare when they need it, a good education etc. than it is for the economy to be 'growing'.

Ultimately money is only something we invented to make our lives easier and we should not be slaves to it. People must always come before profits and that is what the Greens stand for.

And of course please bear in mind that the Telegraph is incredibly biased against anything anti-neoliberal so it's hardly a realistic source of information on the Greens. I'd suggest reading their manifesto instead, whether or not you end up agreeing with it.

I said society not person.

1) You do realise this is false and actually the real result is growing inequality?

2) Trickle down economics is a lie.

3) Also you can't have infinite growth, it just isn't possible.

1) No. just no.

2) It's a theory, Can't say I agree with it.

3) It is possible. Provided productivity increases.

So you deny that inequality has risen since the 80s then?

Growth happens at the expense of the environment. Until a solution to that occurs no, you cannot have infinite growth.

The statement "There has been an increase in inequality" is consistent with "Everybody is getting richer" you do realise?

Why is inequality inherently a bad thing? Suppose the bottom 20% and the top 20% of incomes become more unequal, but the increased wealth of the top 20% creates jobs and better economic circumstance for the bottom 20%. Why would this scenario be a bad thing?

I would advise stepping away from the PC and doing a bit of reading on the subject.

The book The Spirit Level is a very good illustration (made up of peer reviewed science by the way) of how inequality actually decreases quality of life for everyone in a country, regardless of how rich that individual is.

After that I would probably move on to som of Ha-Joon Chang's work on how inequality has actually prevented economic growth since the 1980s. The UK Economy could be 20% bigger but the second highest levels of inequality in the Western world prevent that.

I'm too busy to read a load of books, though i appreciate you've provided decent information.

Is there anyway you can summerise the arguments, or any websites or blogs which contain the relevant information? I find it hard to believe that the super rich have a worse quality of life because others aren't super rich.

Ha-Joon Chang often does columns for the Guardian so you could take a look at those.

Here is the Wikipedia page for the book which I guess might summarise it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

and a short article they wrote on the subject:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/09/society-unequal-the-spirit-level

honestly though if you read one book in your lifetime I would recommend that this was it, It is really impressive.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/ that might have some good info as well I imagine.

Hmm. Googling suggests that there are many who contest the books claims. I'd have to become acquainted with the entire field of sociology, read the book, and read the criticisms of it to be able to form an opinion, so I'll pass for now. At the minute I'm binge reading Tudor history and historiography theory, along with my studies.

And Ha-Joon Chang doesn't exactly seem to be against capitalism per se.

But what is important is this: will the Green's polices achieve the aim of a prosperous and equal society? The answer is no.