Tegan vs Forbes

Today I went head to head with Forbes magazine, challenging the idea that further economic growth is the answer to today’s problems. But before I explain about that, I need to outline a bit of background…

I’m a volunteer for CASSE, the Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. A steady state economy is a truly sustainable economy, that delivers an equitable and  high standard of wellbeing to all citizens while operating within the biophysical limits of our planet. This means an economic system that operates beyond growth, as infinite growth on a finite planet is not sustainable or even possible. Instead a steady state economy aims to reach an optimal size and then stay balanced at that size. This doesn’t mean science and culture cannot develop, of course they can, and should. But it does mean less waste and less consumer products. It means better instead of bigger. Qualitative improvement rather than quantitative growth.

CASSE is an America based think-tank organization that does all it can to promote steady state economics. I live in the UK so I can’t do any physical volunteering for them, but I’m part of an ‘online response team’ which basically means they email me  links to relevant online articles and I’m asked to go and leave a comment about the issues with economic growth in a full world of dwindling resources and the steady state solution.

Recently I received an email from CASSE alerting me to an article on the Forbes website called Why Economic Growth is Exponentially More Important Than Income Inequality and suggesting I respond to it. Now, I generally have a fairly cool disposition. But this article sure got me fired up. It started off with a catalog of amazing things growth has achieved in the last century. Fair enough. It went on to bitch at Obama a bit for allegedly caring about equality too much. It suggested growth will be better for the poor than increased equality – ignoring the fact that the richest 1% of the population get the vast majority of the benefits of growth, and ignoring the fact that in the West, poverty is generally relative – meaning increased equality is the only way to resolve it. Very dumb. Then it got really crazy. The second half of the article was a wishlist (framed as a certainty) of things growth could achieve in the future. It was a sci-fi fantasy hogwash of internet-connected contact lenses, digital medical chips in people’s blood, talking walls and animated AI doctors. Uhh, right. Sure. Oh, and they managed to get some casual climate change denying in there, too. What did they call it? The “environmentalist extremist fraud” which is “trying to reverse the industrial revolution”. Oh my god.

I had to calm myself down a bit before hitting the keyboard, because I didn’t want to be too brash and be written off as some kind of ‘crazy environmental extremist’. I’m sure it’s too much to ask for the readership of Forbes to change their whole outlook just because of some comment on some article, but I at least wanted to present my thoughts in a reasonable way that wasn’t too feisty or extreme. Here’s what I wrote:

No one is denying the amazing achievements economic growth has yielded over the 20th century. I’m the first person to praise electricity, running water, the internet, medicine, mobile phones and the rest.
But your assumption that economic growth will continue relentlessly is mistaken. Growth requires natural resources as the initial inputs, and such resources are not infinite. Fossil fuels and minerals are becoming seriously depleted, as are renewable resources such as water, fish and timber. Even land will become a constricting factor as the global population heads towards 9 billion, all expecting an increasing standard of living. The sad fact that you’re a climate denier does not, unfortunately, stop climate change from existing. It’s not something like religion that you can simply choose whether to subscribe to or not. Have you seen the IPCC papers? These people are not ‘leftist environmental extremists’ – they are word class pHD trained scientists from around the world. Very different to the actual environmental extremists who are living in yurts and who probably couldn’t understand a scientific report, much less write one. But I doubt something as simple as common sense will persuade you. Even taking the serious problem of climate change out of the equation, continuous growth in a finite and increasingly crowded world is still not possible. You mention that growth allows environmental protection. Only for localised and highly visible pollution. Even in this case, growth can pay for mess to be cleaned up but it cannot create new reserves of natural resources, or create more land. The uncomfortable fact is that there is a limit to economic growth. But don’t worry, I’m not a doom and gloomer. I don’t want us to go back to living in huts or anything – nor do I think this is at all likely. I’m very optimistic about the future, but for slightly different reasons to you. I see a future where relentless economic growth is no longer necessary to develop amazing green technologies, unleash scientific discoveries and improve human health and wellbeing. Post-growth economics will be the future, and to me that’s an even more exciting prospect than the sci-fi fantasy you paint with the second part of your article. It’s more exciting because it’s actually possible in this century. Thanks for your article and if you feel like finding out more about post-growth economics check out steadystate.org

To understand the context you obviously need to read the original article. But yeah, what do you think? How would you have replied?

I was struck by how clueless this author – a man called Peter Ferrara – seems to be about the concept of limits. It doesn’t appear to be anywhere in his mind. Well, my mind boggles to understand how he can think this kind of growth-forever policy can have any connection to reality. Let alone how he can think the current economic system is the best way to help the poor! He can’t really think that, can he? And he’s so casual to admit he’s a climate change denyer. Crazy. I wonder if this is normal for American economists? In the UK they tend to at least pay lip service to climate change, even if they do nothing about it! What really worries me is how respected Forbes is as a publication. This stuff isn’t just going to some crazy guy’s blog. It’s probably read – and taken seriously – by millions.

Well if even a couple of those people read my comment and give just a square-inch of mind-space to questioning the sanity of the growth model then I’ll be very happy.

We desperately need to question it.

The planet isn't growing. Cartoon by Seppo Leinonen. See www.seppo.net for more

The planet isn’t growing. Cartoon by Seppo Leinonen. www.seppo.net


P.S. I mean absolutely no disrespect to any environmentalists who happen to live in yurts. Please understand I was just trying to underline my point that IPCC scientists are a far cry from tree-hugging hippies. No harm meant!

8 thoughts on “Tegan vs Forbes

  1. good comment – barring a dodgy sentence or two :) – but it looks to me as if you’re answering from a ‘world’ perspective while the author is almost entirely ‘americentric’ in outlook, and focused on the flawed measure of GDP which, theoretically, can increase infinitely simply by inflating the currency used to measure it… it doesn’t function as a measure of real public or private good, just circulation of money

    as such, he’s simply adhering to the common orthodoxy that growth is good without questioning what that growth is, what it’s for, and who it benefits. ‘growth’ is almost a religious concept amongst its adherents, who never stop to question why it’s supposedly a good thing…

    but the fact remains that growth (as measured by GDP) is predicated by the needs of the financial system, that creates money out of nothing by typing a few numbers into a computer and lending it. the interest on that loan is not created at the same time and so the debt circus continues: it’s a game of ‘devil take the hindmost’ as the interest then has to be created by someone else going into debt, until the limit is reached with regard to an economy’s ability to pay – and someone’s left without a chair when the financial game of musical chairs stops. such is the ‘business cycle’. it’s flawed but neoclassical economists disregard banking as a ‘fringe element’ within the economy…

    within this system, ‘growth’ is a necessity or it collapses – and the bankers know it

    without getting into the neo-malthusian vs techno-optimist argument, it might be possible that technological advances will continue to improve the lot of the poorest – for example, the african farmer being able to check current prices with a mobile phone, so as not to be cheated by buyers of produce, or efficiencies gained by moving data rather than goods – but i cannot see anything this author writes that it concerned with anything but the US of A’s position in the world. he skates lightly over the massive income inequalities there, the problems of which are so well described in The Spirit Level, and so to me, he’s basically inventing arguments to justify the position he’s already taken

    (and in case you’re wondering who i am, i once almost ran over you on my bike in a wacky Somerset town…i found your blog via a post you made a few weeks back. keep up the good work)

    1. Hi Richard C, thanks for your insightful comment! Yes, I suppose theoretically the GDP can grow forever: it’s the physical economy it measures that cannot. I’m always struck by how narrow minded people can be about the concept of economic growth. They tend to think there’s no other way. And while it is true that the modern economic system requires growth for stability, we need to find a way out of that catch 22. I think this is possible, if we put our brightest minds to the task! I’m hardly an economic specialist, but even I’ve had a stab at the problem to show anyone and everyone needs to start thinking about it. See my idea here: http://earthbabyblog.org/?p=1098
      Thanks for reading my blog!

  2. Tegan, I read the article you referenced and was blown away but the rubbish spewed there. Just where do they think they are going to get all the resources necessary for these advances? And I don’t know about you but most of the people I know are already upset by the lack of privacy we are experiencing as a result of government programs that spy on us. Very few would embrace these technologies that bring us doctors by talking to the wall or embedded chips in our bodies. Even if these are possible in a few years I see it taking generations before people have become adjusted enough to a lack of privacy to embrace these things.

    Your comment was perfect and addressed each issue of concern in that article. And to answer your question, yes, most economists in the US do ignore the limits to growth and talk about needing to grow as the holy grail of what ails the US.

    1. Thanks for reading Lois. (: I know, it was so full of mind-bending rubbish! It’s a good point you make about privacy. I certainly wouldn’t want that kind of stuff even if it was possible. Even if it was desirable, I really think we need to deal with the basics before attending to the stuff of sci-fi movies. Phase out fossil fuels. Provide clean water and food for everyone on earth. Then ask them if they’d like a cartoon doctor jumping out of their damn bathroom wall!
      I’m happy you thought my comment was clear. In the UK growth is treated as the holy grail as well. But I wondered if climate scepticism is common in the US?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>