Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rdin.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!rdin!abs From: abs@rdin.UUCP (Andrew Siegel) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics Subject: Fallacies of Zero-growth Economies Message-ID: <464@rdin.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Aug-84 15:14:20 EDT Article-I.D.: rdin.464 Posted: Mon Aug 20 15:14:20 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Aug-84 03:14:18 EDT Organization: Resource Dynamics Inc., New York Lines: 82 I'm amazed at some of the odd ideas that people have about economics. Specifically, I can't understand what attraction a no-growth economy would hold for anyone. Would anyone argue with the fact that almost any *constructive* human action creates wealth? Anytime that we convert an item into a more desirable item, we have added to the wealth of the universe. Examples: stacking wood; cutting very long pieces of wire into short ones; writing Lotus 1-2-3; sweeping a floor. In a way, then, we constantly create order from chaos. To have an economy with zero-growth, we must synchronize these constructive acts of order and creation with *destructive* acts of equal magnitude, i.e. for every floor swept, another one must be dirtied; for every new time-, energy-, and/or money-saving idea, an old one must be forgotten. Clearly, this is ridiculous. With this in mind, there are some fallacies that I wish to address: Fallacy 1: A growing GNP means a growing consumption of energy and raw materials. Response: This is not true. Energy and raw materials cost money. Producers want to minimize cost to themselves. Therefore, there is a tendency to minimize use of these resources. In fact, as technology improves, the energy and materials needed to perform a task (or to create an item) diminish. Example: which costs more to operate, an IBM 7090 or 16 IBM PC's? Which uses less energy for equivalent amounts of work? Which uses fewer raw materials to provide the same capability? Fallacy 2: In a no-growth economy, "those products that are least needed will no longer be produced", or efficiency will be improved by "flushing marginal products out of the market." (Quoted from an article by Kurt Guntheroth.) Response: This assumption indicates that some objective third party somehow knows which products are "least needed" or marginal. If a product is "least needed", but is still being produced, then isn't it obvious that SOMEONE needs it? After all, manufacturers don't produce merely for the pleasure of seeing their logo on a department store shelf; they produce for profit. If no one's buying the product, they'll eventually stop making it. (Unless, of course, the manufacturer is subsidized.) Anyway, we don't have to wait for a no-growth economy for these things to happen; the market takes care of these automatically. Fallacy 3: Isn't there some inherent limit as to how large the economy can grow? Response: Wouldn't it have been a tragedy if, after Aristotle said "Objects at rest remain at rest, and objects in motion come to rest", all scientists then and in the future decided that "we know everything there is to know", and stopped thinking? Can anyone say with conviction that we know everything there is to know? We will always learn new concepts and ideas, and we will always be able to apply some of these ideas in order to create more wealth. Let the GNP determine itself. Don't mess with it. Andrew Siegel philabs!rdin!abs (until 8/24)