Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The Great Debate: Is There a Limit? “Yes” Physiocrats Classical economists Ecological economists Ecologists “No” Neoclassical economists Corporations.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "The Great Debate: Is There a Limit? “Yes” Physiocrats Classical economists Ecological economists Ecologists “No” Neoclassical economists Corporations."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 The Great Debate: Is There a Limit? “Yes” Physiocrats Classical economists Ecological economists Ecologists “No” Neoclassical economists Corporations Politicians

3 = $ $ $ $

4 The “Information Economy” What is the information used for? How does one come to afford the information?

5 And yet we hear: “Some people just don’t get it. There is no conflict between economic growth and environmental protection!” Why do they persist?

6

7

8

9

10

11 Goals Replace national goal of “economic growth” with national goal of steady state economy. Replace bloating economy with steady state economy.

12 Revolutions Magnitude of change Pace of change “When evolution won’t cut it” Evolution combined with revolt

13 Steady State Revolution Academic, social Peaceable, not pacifistic Models –abolition of child labor –reduction of smoking

14 Academic Phase Replacement of neoclassical economic growth theory Refocusing of curricula More public outreach

15 Social Phase “Economic growth” reconstructed as economic bloating Dollar spent is dollar burned Castigation of the liquidating class

16 Class Structure of the Steady State Revolution Liquidating class Steady state class Amorphic class

17 Percentile: 80 99 100 Expenditures Consumption Classes

18 Percentile: 80 99 100 Expenditures Consumption Classes

19 Percentile: 80 99 100 Expenditures Consumption Classes

20 Percentile: 80 99 100 Expenditures Consumption Classes

21 Liquidators Steady Staters Amorphs

22 Amorphic Class Steady State Class Liquidating Class

23 Amorphic Class Liquidating Class Steady State Class

24 Economic Rationale “Trickle-down consumption” Redistribution of wealth compensates for reduced per capita consumption Reduction of waste Leads toward steady state economy

25 Liquidators Amorphs Ecological Capacity Poverty Line Some Steady Staters Most Steady Staters

26 Liquidators Amorphs Liquidators Amorphs Steady Staters Ecological Capacity Poverty Line Some Steady Staters Most Steady Staters

27 Political Rationale No “everyone revolt against everybody” Taps into predisposition Readily identifiable classes

28 Psychological Rationale Darwin, Veblen, Maslow Cure for “liquidator syndrome” Ratcheting effect toward sustainable ideology

29 Maslow’s Hierarchy 1) Food 2) Security 3) Love, affection, reproduction 4) Self-esteem 5) Self-actualization

30 Sociopolitical Rationale Ideological horse before the public policy cart Supplementary to policy prescriptions Replaces politicians, not system

31 Ethics I Equity (current, intergenerational) Consistent with religions: Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Judaic “Devil in the details” of castigation Tolerance overrated

32 Ethics II “Why do they hate Americans?” – It’s the economy, stupid! – Conspicuous consumption not everything, but major thing SSR beats violent alternatives “Speaking truth to power”

33 K GDP Time


Download ppt "The Great Debate: Is There a Limit? “Yes” Physiocrats Classical economists Ecological economists Ecologists “No” Neoclassical economists Corporations."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google