Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonynmous)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    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.

    And the Greens policy of bringing us back to the Dark ages doesn't seem to be a solution to the problem.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    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_Spi...ways_Do_Better

    and a short article they wrote on the subject:
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...e-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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    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_Spi...ways_Do_Better

    and a short article they wrote on the subject:
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...e-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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    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.
    It's a load of *******s.

    http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot....nson-kate.html
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raineandfyre)
    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'.
    They're not suggesting that, that's what you're hoping they stand for.

    In fact, given their policy is to introduce Citizen Income (72 pounds a week) and abolish all other benefits, including housing benefit, you will see many people thrown out of their homes, including many of Britain's most vulnerable people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I would advise stepping away from the PC and doing a bit of reading on the subject.
    Just as others conflated economic growth with resource consumption, you are conflating economic growth with inequality.

    You could have economic growth in a purely socialist economy. In fact, you could even have it in a pure environmentally-friendly economy.

    What the Greens are demanding is "negative growth" (i.e. an economic contraction), which means fewer goods and services produced and fewer goods and services consumed.

    The fact that instead of demanding we use renewable energy they simply demand an 80% cut in energy supplies demonstrates that this has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with hating consumption in and of itself.

    A "Green" society would be colder, darker and poorer. And there's no question is would increase inequality, given the Greens would abolish all benefits in favour of the 72 pounds a week of Citizen Income (which means many people would love substantial amounts of benefits such as HB which they rely on to survive). The Greens are utterly irresponsible and clueless
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by reallydontknow)
    What he means was, was the Nazi regime and the nazi society no worse than ours?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As much as my disdain for fascism yes. We are no better.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    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.
    Economic Inequality is not always bad thing. I think the poster above has clarified this a bit further.

    As for your second point - take a look at this in another perspective: http://andrewleach.ca/uncategorized/...finite-growth/

    Not arguing wheather you agree with me or not, just informing you of the other ways this can be seen.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonynmous)
    Economic Inequality is not always bad thing. I think the poster above has clarified this a bit further.

    As for your second point - take a look at this in another perspective: http://andrewleach.ca/uncategorized/...finite-growth/

    Not arguing wheather you agree with me or not, just informing you of the other ways this can be seen.
    I'd just like to point out that peer reviewed science disputes your first point thoroughly.

    There would have to be a VERY big shift to enable infinite growth though. As things stand we're already taking the planet down with us.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Just as others conflated economic growth with resource consumption, you are conflating economic growth with inequality.
    No i'm not, but the two are linked in the respect inequality restricts economic growth.

    You could have economic growth in a purely socialist economy. In fact, you could even have it in a pure environmentally-friendly economy.
    I never said you couldn't. Scandinavia and Japan have both experienced very high levels of growth with low inequality levels and as a result are pretty much the best places to live in the world

    What the Greens are demanding is "negative growth" (i.e. an economic contraction), which means fewer goods and services produced and fewer goods and services consumed.

    The fact that instead of demanding we use renewable energy they simply demand an 80% cut in energy supplies demonstrates that this has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with hating consumption in and of itself.
    Well at the moment we consume too much. Even if we have green energy what we use goes way beyond sustainability. Especially in terms of plastics and pollutants. Until we 'green' all those processes then yes, clearly there does need to be lower levels of consumption.

    A "Green" society would be colder, darker and poorer. And there's no question is would increase inequality, given the Greens would abolish all benefits in favour of the 72 pounds a week of Citizen Income (which means many people would love substantial amounts of benefits such as HB which they rely on to survive). The Greens are utterly irresponsible and clueless
    I don't see why you are having a go at me about this, you do realise I'm a Labour supporter? Like I go out canvassing and ****? The greens green policy is an absolute crock of ****e and the reason I could never vote for them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raineandfyre)
    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.
    Saving the planet is something you can only do if you have the money to do it. Historically, it's only the rich countries that can do it. The developing countries of any political colouring couldn't give two hoots. People will only care about the environment if they are otherwise "safe" from more immediate concerns and it's no good telling starving people that the key to their salvation would be worldwide sustainable agriculture. They want food and shelter right now, and to hell with your green politics.

    The Green Party seem to be sticking to an exceptionally philosophical "big picture" type of politics, almost like VI Form socialists, and implying unilateral action, assuming the acquiesence of everyone else on Earth. This is utterly mad. You would see the UK turn into Greece within a few years and Rwanda within a decade.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    As much as my disdain for fascism yes. We are no better.
    That's just ridiculous.

    Even I, as a Muslim acknowledge that the British society, the 1st world society is better than the crappy society from the countries I come from. And it's a hell of a lot better than the nazi society, because you aren't punished for being a certain faith.

    Anybody who believes a civil society with freedoms is just as bad as the nazi society, is just stupid beyond belief.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    1) I'd just like to point out that peer reviewed science disputes your first point thoroughly.

    2) There would have to be a VERY big shift to enable infinite growth though. As things stand we're already taking the planet down with us.
    1) And mathematics says otherwise. It is possible. Case closed.

    2) No there wouldnt be. The markets will simply adjust. It's all supply and demand, by increasing prices you stave off collapse. It's a simple concept which I don't see why you don't get.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by reallydontknow)
    That's just ridiculous.

    Even I, as a Muslim acknowledge that the British society, the 1st world society is better than the crappy society from the countries I come from. And it's a hell of a lot better than the nazi society, because you aren't punished for being a certain faith.

    Anybody who believes a civil society with freedoms is just as bad as the nazi society, is just stupid beyond belief.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Now I'm not saying that I'd like to live in nazi Germany all im saying is that from a purely scientific objective standpoint no one society is better

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonynmous)
    1) And mathematics says otherwise. It is possible. Case closed.

    2) No there wouldnt be. The markets will simply adjust. It's all supply and demand, by increasing prices you stave off collapse. It's a simple concept which I don't see why you don't get.
    'Mathematics' says nothing of the sort.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    'Mathematics' says nothing of the sort.
    You obviously got my point...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I don't see why you are having a go at me about this, you do realise I'm a Labour supporter? Like I go out canvassing and ****? The greens green policy is an absolute crock of ****e and the reason I could never vote for them.
    In which case we are in total agreement, my apologies.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.