The economics of enough: Dan O'Neill at TEDxOxbridge
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- Is economic growth always a good thing? Why are people in countries like the US and UK not happier or working fewer hours when GDP has tripled since 1950? Dan O'Neill's thought-provoking talk exposes the pitfalls of economic growth and hints at alternative ways to measure progress.
Dan O'Neill is a lecturer in ecological economics at the University of Leeds, and the chief economist at the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE). His work focuses on the changes that would be needed to achieve a prosperous non-growing economy, and alternative ways of measuring progress besides GDP. He is co-author (with Rob Dietz) of Enough Is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources, an international best-seller which has recently been made into a short film. When he isn't doing research or teaching, Dan enjoys hiking in the Yorkshire Dales and singing songs about the misguided pursuit of economic growth.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
I hate how people just try to disagree with him because of different opinions, but while doing so they don't say anything against his arguments, they just... complain for the sake of disagreeing with different views, no matter how clever those other views are.
This is very reminiscent of Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics!
Economics of enough
If students are not listening such lectures in economics class then their study is not complete
actually, their study is inculcating the opposite
my economics prof made me watch this tho
you are right
I am studying economics because I am enviromment aware
and watching it by myself
I'm writing a thesis about this based on some of the most remote communities in Peru. They've survived the fall of the Inca Empire, Spanish Colonialism, successive failed governments, by living in communal, with enough resource to meet their needs, not to over consume unless in dire times.
Also, this communities tend to organize their own militias to defend each others, creating stability for a resilient local economy. The funniest of all, they feel happy and with meaning in life.
They also craft amazing arts, very sought after by the tourism sector.
Sol K. Posner but world know them as “underdeveloped” country
Fairly depressing to watch this in 2022 and realise that in the past 8 years nothing much has changed :(
Yes you right. How are you doing today
Except that we've transgressed several more planetary boundaries since then.
wow. we need more of this
Really really insightful. One of the best talks I have ever watched.
Fantastic talk - economic reform with models such as De Growth and Buen Vivir need to be prioritised for the future of the earth and humanity.
Excellent talk. As he says Economic growth surely is a means to an end not an end in itself! We can grow our support systems, education, healthcare etc and we can regulate the market to produce more equitable outcomes as regards distribution of wealth. We can stop banks issueing loans when they have virtually no deposits to cover these loans. The reserve bank can spend on useful infrastructure which will in turn create economic activity. We can switch to a sustainable economy a Steady State economy where everyone can have a good not luxurious life and we dont outstrip the natural bounds of the ecosystems we and our fellow creature depend on. Enough is enough !
Love love LOVE this
Madness of More and Economics of Enough
(0:8:47) Ribanomics: Have you ever wondered where money comes from? They create money out of thin air. 2-minutes of a very sharp explanation of how the current (fractional reserve) banking system majorly contributes to inflation.
Well, human nature doesn't seem to go to the direction of what O'nei is proposing. In order for it to work, would require a responsible society or an authoritarian state. The latter is easier, but it would defeat the purpose of the prosposition in the first place.
Let's try the first.
Great speech and great theory
This talk was wayyyyyyyy ahead of its time
Excellent
Loved the start of his speech!
Very polished.
The key to fundamental change is actually simple: treating the planet as our commons rather than as private property. Grant access to locations (to nature) by competitive bidding under leasehold arrangements. Rely on these '"rents" to pay for public goods and services. At the same time, eliminate the taxation of earned income, of capital goods and commerce. The result will be full employment without inflation and sustainable economic activity.
Jacque Fresco was saying all of this since the 70s a resource based economy but like his space ship analogy the difference is on Apollo everyone involved wanted to solve the problem
What about confounding factors that affect the correlation between GDP growth and unemployment rate? Correlation does not imply causation.
I look forward to making do & living with {lol} less... A Steady State Economy is something I hope humanity attains sooner rather than later, however, the comments below show that uncoupling the economy from human identity is going to be a challenge.
You can afford to have less? Wow arent you privileged. I guess you are not part of the billions of working poor in the world.
Judging the circumstances of people whom you have no knowledge whatsoever makes me curious about your intent watching TED talks. Are you an unhappy troller? Or did you fling your crazy judgement at me because you were feeling less than positive yesterday? Either way, I sincerely hope you find some ease. To clarify, I live for a world where people are valued above things/experiences. X
Elle Cooper Well while you are worried about your trivial life some people are struggling to survive. Must be nice to be as privileged as you
It's not something you can't do already. The cost of living has gone down in most areas except for a few key ones (healthcare, housing, education). If you want to have a 50s standard of living and work less, go ahead.
Perhaps the government could offer an ultimatum to companies: either you choose your own minimum wage:maximum wage ratio before a certain date, or wait until (after that date) the government decides for you what ratio you'll be allowed to pay. We should also encourage companies to do this by choice, for ethical reasons, as certain co-operatives and other 'values-driven' businesses do this already. The difficult thing is having the political will to make such an ultimatum happen...I don't have an easy answer for that! Suggestions welcome ;)
nobody has "easy answers" -- wonder why?
Good idea but there's no political will especially here in America where the politicians and billionaire class have managed to convince the poor people that they too could become billionaires some day...
@@ikeman9784 But right now the ceos are paying themselves millions, yet saying they can't pay workers a living wage.
You are a game changer sir. You have great insight I am your follower from today. You are infinite and you shall grow your limits and you will help the kingdom of God prevail.
Notes:
1:47 Planetary Boundaries
4:15 The New Economic (The steady State Economy Conference)
If America wants to measure the well-being of people, how can they collect data and convert them to utils? RGDP has flaws, but it is by far the most practical way of measuring economic growth.
You've missed the point of this entire talk, he is arguing the economic growth is not a suitable indicator for development
Oxbridge ^^
It is true that GDP is measured improperly. It is also true that the fractional reserve banking system implies default to balance the books. Growth though, is only really necessary to account for increases in population and to pay for extravagant entitlements. The problem with Utopian schemes like minimum and maximum income require coercion. If "utopia" could be done voluntary, it would already be done.
"Inequality" is a canard - a nice way of saying "I'm jealous of your income and you owe me". What matters is not income inequality but rather the real income of the lowest earners. Just because you are rich does not make me poor - the opposite is true. Wealth diversity is useful in the same way as biological diversity is - it creates opportunities. Very wealthy individuals can invest in ways that others cannot.
What is required is the free market and patience - free markets are the only mechanism proven to increase wealth and prosperity. Happiness is not a quantity that can be measured because it cannot really be defined and it changes from minute to minute. All we know is that shortage of resources causes unhappiness so why not promote prosperity by removing coercion and control growth by controlling population and restraining government growth.
We waste 40% of our food in the US so Increase in population is not the problem it's distribution of those resources. Entitlements programs are tiny in the US for example and increase in GDP has not lead to a growth in entitlement programs. We could also eliminate many programs if we had a standard basic income, which would go to everyone not just the poor.
The problem with letting the free market do it's work is that it's hugely destructive to the planet and after initial gains it doesn't make us more well off in any real way in the end (just more crazy and addicted). We've used a huge amount of the earth's resources to get those initial gains in terms of "raising people out of poverty" ,often disrupting the ways of living they've used to meet needs historically etc). Ultimately we have to figure out a new framework for seeing our goals before we destroy the ecosystems our growth has been based on.
If you worry about government control great! So do anarchists. There are plenty of bottom up community based ways to pursue the aims of degrowth. Examples are planting gardens, buying a CSA, starting a tool library, making time banks and local institutions that allow us to figure out a new way to live together. We can also fight for a government that's more amenable to goals of degrowth. Who says that GDP has to be a goal at all, that's the argument not weather the free market has value or wether we should tax the rich Keynes vs. Friedman etc.
Gary Renner You miss the point- is GDP per capita growth important, is really the point he’a getting at. How happier are you if you get more advanced smartphones? You may believe that you are happier, but it gets kinda Buddhist at this point. More important maybe, while we have continued to grow economically, we have more smartphones, we aren’t really happier.
What about the fact that the financial system (due to interest / fractional reserve banking) require growth and with out it will actually collapse?
It won't collapse. Humans provide the system with collective belief called faith. In 2008 the banks failed and needed to be bailed out by the government and the people stood by and did nothing. This is proof the people are to conformist and docile to even impede the actions of failure called the banking system, instead the dependents ask the government to do something and the government simply gave more imaginary money to the imagination machine called the banks. The population is increasing which means more debt slaves will always be available.
10:00 so returning the loan won't destroy the created money?
Peepal Farm theoretically yes but there are 3 Problems:
1) some loans never get payed off - that money was created and exchanged and never gets back to the banks
2) the banks create to much money so that even if a debtor pays them back after some years there is just more and more money produced
3) Due to the massive amount of money produced because of the loans the money itself looses it's worth (=Inflation) and therefore the 20$ they loan you today can get you more then the 22$ can get you when you pay your debt back in some years
But you're right, theoretically the system was supposed to work the way you describe it- the banks create money and you pay the money back so they can give it to someone else.
The problem here is that in reality the banks started giving everyone money creating to much so that 1)some won't pay it back 2)it needs time to pay back and most importantly 3)the inflation rises
Rouwen Lau thank you for explaining. I think in India the system still works like the way it was supposed to in theory as we don't have fractional reserve banking.
For the sake of the eco system/ environment. We need to transition into the post capitalist post scarcity post debt based fiat monetary currency economy based on abundance, technological efficiency, collaboration, automation, and cooperation
If you don't see anything wrong with what he's saying. I recommend you read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt then watch this again.
“Neoliberalist Ideology & Austrian Economics in One Lesson”
From what university is Dan from?
Big uppp Leeds University!
and limited trees to absorb that excess co2
The only problem with this is that he is just repeating what has been told many times since the 1990s, and even before. Something is very wrong with a wholly reasonable message that sounds like a broken record ....and the "cause" is hardly advancing
LEFT WING FTW!
Lack of economic understanding, plain and simple. People make decisions based on risk/reward. Simply saying that you don't buy and argument doesn't make it false.
Basic minimum poverty
@Learn Social Justice: you too are on you tube. watch the self righteous finger pointing.
when did left start worrying about environment? I believe that money supply should be controlled, but not rest of his Ideas. When people have more time on hand, they will spend it on looking after children? looking after the elderly? Has this idea been tested? I would like to make it clear that I am not in favour of overworking people, but 'empty mind is devil's workshop'. A balance has to be maintained.
Has it been tested. In a way yes, When electricity and washing machines came women had more time to spend on their children and help them with studying and such. After a while women wanted a career of their own and the free time went away of course.
And on the elderly part. My grandparents are currently in a retirement home. I try to visit them as much as I can, but I hear myself and many others in the family often say "I'd like to visit more, but I simply don't have the time".
There are *a lot* of field research tests on universal basic income going on in most European countries for the past years
without CO2 all plants would die
all give all your money to Mr.Shekelstein
What he says about happiness and GDP is untrue. Long-term surveys across many different countries show that happiness does indeed increase with income (specifically with log income, as economists have long assumed) and does not level off as he says. (And no-one suggests that relationships etc. don't also contribute to happiness.) See this paper: www.ksg.harvard.edu/inequality/Seminar/Papers/Stevenson13-1.pdf
Certainly some is untrue, but there are variables associated with individual wealth ownership that also account for a correlated increased happiness. What he said about GDP in it of itself... Good, it doesn't reflect only positive growth of purchasing goods vs. negative growth of financing response to disasters. That should be enough information to uphold that growth doesn't correlate to happiness. That's where individual wealth comes in. Prosperity in an economic sense certainly allows other avenues of prosperity to widen, with more available interpersonal relationships and opportunity. However, this is where the ideas of equality that are labeled "socialist" based more often on the fear of unknown and history versus practical merit of the benefits that can be regarded as humanitarian and not the radical Marxist ideas that simply do not work. I'm glad to see your skepticism, I had some time and I thought I'd offer my opinion, I'll be glad to read the paper you shared shortly. Until then, I hope we can both work to make the world a better place for people, whatever complicated and uphill battle that may be or look like.
Read Adam Smith's (Father of Economics) book "Wealth of Nations". That clears up these these economics theories, they've been tired before. Nothing works like the "invisible hand".
Jarrett Jensen clearly you haven't read the book.
The invisible hand fails consistently in the management of common property resources like the oceans, the air, wildlife, etc. They create economic externalities. That is the essence of the issue here.
There is no such thing as a renewable resource.
+Jason Rosenberg wonder what comes out the other side of a black hole
I mean what are you talking about?
why don't you go to a hamlet in Africa and live. The Soviet union did that and what we saw was rationing.
If you´re disagreeing with someone who lectures at a university because you believe socialisme in economy leads to the same kind of system as the Soviet union, then you need to work on your knowledge of economy and respect for more intelligent people. It´s like if I go the a economy lecturer who pleads for lower taxes and say 'but without taxes our government is a mess and can't protect us, so you're saying we should throw away our safety for money?! Go to Qatar and live there!' That would be a bit disrespectful and not that smart, wouldn't it?
There are not multiple views on economy because one is correct and some people are just looking for excuses to be lazy, they both have points.
Milo Savage Yea but the Soviet Union didn’t do this
Ahhh my brain hurts. I'm left wing and so sympathetic to this, but there's so much wrong here.
get yourself a bigger brain!
I'm not sure that's how brains work....
***** It's like.. that's not the issue really
I am also sympathetic to this, as well, but there are a lot of mistruths here based on anecdotal evidence.
Steady state economy is a code term for: "Talk everyone into having less so the ultra rich can have even more".
He is talking about having maximum income limits. That doesn't sound like creating a system where the ultra rich can have even more.
This is the exact opposite of what he’s saying.
so naive
Maximum wage. Why can't a CEO's make millions? What if you started the company? And some people are extremely clever and sacrifised alot to get on the top. They make themselves worth millions.
People want shit they can't pay for. That is why there are loans. This doesn't sound bad to me, I like having a mortgage/house. And about the bankingsystem; he clearly isn't aware of Basel 1, 2 and 3.
+Jeftha Bisschop because it's excess at this point. Did you not watch the video? This is about a sustainable transition and finding solutions to all the problems around us.
Yes I know but there are huge flaws in (t)his video
+Jon Reyes yeah and then after you make a minimum and maximum wage, all you have to do is outlaw theft and murder, then we'll all have equal money and no robberies or murders. Legislation catches the flies, but let's the hornets go.
+Jeftha Bisschop your mind understands the changes to the rules but fails to see how it would change society, when you have a fair game , we can all achieve whatever we desire and people wont need to sacrifice or trample on other people to achieve their dreams. all we have to do is be responsible and share the profits. Right now the few are stealing so much economic energy that they have exhausted the present economic energy and now even robbing the economic energy of people who are not even born yet! #mikemaloney #keiserreport #davegraeber the list goes on
+Alex Rae we live in extraordinary good times. Im sure you would agree. So why change? Everything is growing and going the right way. I mean everyting. (Except the environment) Maybe the gap between the rich and poor has become bigger but everyone is going forward non the less.
"given the opportunity, people do amazing things - plant gardens, make music..." - in other words, exactly the same as laying on a couch and watching daytime TV as far as making sure the work necessary to keep society running gets done is concerned. Nothing but virtuous sounding equivalents of a surfer lifestyle. One thing for sure, on a basic income people are NOT going to be doing the basic manual labour jobs. So who builds the houses, cleans the streets, does the mail deliveries, drives the busses and trains? If you had enough to live on doing nothing, would YOU carry on doing any of those?
And a maximum income? Why would any bother to aspire if they just hiot an artifical ceiling? What is being promoted here is an imposed mediocrity. With a maximum income there would be no Apples, no Amazons - why bother, when no matter how talented or hard working you are, you hit a maximum where increased effort no longer increases rewards?
Reply to this comment if you'd like me to tell you an interesting refutation. (Id rather not spend the time typing it out now if you're no longer active or interested)