"It's important to remember that growth is not synonymous with betterment."
Yves Cochet showed up at our General Assembly this morning, which was sorta funny and unexpected. I think now he's gonna remember me. That guy has amazing blue eyes, by the way, as much as I'm not attracted to him physically. He spoke up for a bit and of course stirred up the whole debate about politics and political parties taking over "our fight", which still annoys me. I understand that we don't want to be taken over - but to reject the idea that we share that battle with non-communist political parties is ridiculous. You can reproach any party that gets involved in government with many things (good thing about the small communist parties is that you can't reproach much to them, seeing they don't get involved in governing - always easier to complain than to try and actively change anything) but you can't deny some fights are general. Tsk. It "amuses" me we can warn people about being "taken over" by the "gauche plurielle" and then we start talking about a general strike. He.
Quelques citations qui m'ont fait réfléchir ce matin, en lisant l'article du dernier Monde 2 sur la décroissance.
"Pourquoi la notion de richesse est-elle d'abord monétaire?" (Pierre Rabhi)
"Peu importe qu'on dégraisse, qu'on élimine des gens, pourvu que le PNB continue d'augmenter. L'homme est devenu un contingent." (Pierre Rabhi)
The whole topic of "décroissance" (akwardly translated into "ungrowth", but most of what I've read in English actually refers to "zero growth" or "steady-state economics" which is slightly different but stems from the same arguments) I find really appealing. I first remember hearing about the concept in Dr Moore's class, "In Search of Justice", when she had us read a text by Herman Daly entitled "Steady-state economics" and actually, I recommend reading it to anyone who's interested by the concept and/or studying economics (twixou, I know you probably have other things on your plate right now, but I'd love to hear your opinion on that text). It's a challenging article but overall an easy read (there are so pretty tough parts though), and Daly even managed to use humor from time to time :
"The American people have been told by no less an authority than the President's Council of Economic Advisors that, 'If it is agreed that economic output is a good thing it follows by definition that there is not enough of it' (Economic Reportof the President, 1971, p. 92). It is evidently impossible to have too much of a good thing. If rain is a good thing, a torrential downpour is, by definition, better!"
No matter what you think about zero growth, the article makes a lot of good points. (There are also some points I don't really agree with, but that's what debate and questioning is about.)
"As Wallich so bluntly put it in defending growth, 'Growth is a substitute for equality of income. So long as there is growth there is hope, and that makes large income differentials tolerable' (1972). We are addicted to growth because we are addicted to large inequalities in income and wealth. What about the poor? Let them eat growth! Better yet, let them feed on the hope of eating growth in the future!"
Interestingly enough, Daly actually counter-points arguments made by economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, often recognized as the founding father of the zero growth theory. I've also reached sections of Singer's book that talk of free trade, which is obviously linked to economic growth, so it's fascinating to get different perspectives on what is, ultimately, the same issue.
This reminds me of how much I dislike the French system - I would have loved to keep studying philosophy (though not in that terribly forbidding French style) and I'd also be very interested in studying economics, just to understand the whole system better (because, unlike what that girl said at the GA earlier, I don't think captitalism can quite be summarized in two minutes, and simply demonized). But I couldn't actually get a degree in either majors. I just wish we could pick a few classes, actually open our minds instead of getting stuck in one single topic. It seems so out of touch with our times, where everything is intertwined, economics, lifestyles, ecology, poverty, violence. Anyway.
Totally unrelated, but let me squee : Dr Moore is on the picture illustrating Phillips' RelPhil department!!!
Et un peu d'humour pour finir...
"Pour ce qu'on nous a dit, on aurait pu nous envoyer un fax." (Membre d'un syndicat étudiant, à la sortie de Matignon samedi)
"And therefore education at the University mostly worked by the age-old method of putting a lot of young people in the vicinity of a lot of books and hoping that something would pass from one to the other, while the actual young people put themselves in the vicinity of inns and taverns for exactly the same reason." (Terry Pratchett)
Quelques citations qui m'ont fait réfléchir ce matin, en lisant l'article du dernier Monde 2 sur la décroissance.
"Pourquoi la notion de richesse est-elle d'abord monétaire?" (Pierre Rabhi)
"Peu importe qu'on dégraisse, qu'on élimine des gens, pourvu que le PNB continue d'augmenter. L'homme est devenu un contingent." (Pierre Rabhi)
The whole topic of "décroissance" (akwardly translated into "ungrowth", but most of what I've read in English actually refers to "zero growth" or "steady-state economics" which is slightly different but stems from the same arguments) I find really appealing. I first remember hearing about the concept in Dr Moore's class, "In Search of Justice", when she had us read a text by Herman Daly entitled "Steady-state economics" and actually, I recommend reading it to anyone who's interested by the concept and/or studying economics (twixou, I know you probably have other things on your plate right now, but I'd love to hear your opinion on that text). It's a challenging article but overall an easy read (there are so pretty tough parts though), and Daly even managed to use humor from time to time :
"The American people have been told by no less an authority than the President's Council of Economic Advisors that, 'If it is agreed that economic output is a good thing it follows by definition that there is not enough of it' (Economic Reportof the President, 1971, p. 92). It is evidently impossible to have too much of a good thing. If rain is a good thing, a torrential downpour is, by definition, better!"
No matter what you think about zero growth, the article makes a lot of good points. (There are also some points I don't really agree with, but that's what debate and questioning is about.)
"As Wallich so bluntly put it in defending growth, 'Growth is a substitute for equality of income. So long as there is growth there is hope, and that makes large income differentials tolerable' (1972). We are addicted to growth because we are addicted to large inequalities in income and wealth. What about the poor? Let them eat growth! Better yet, let them feed on the hope of eating growth in the future!"
Interestingly enough, Daly actually counter-points arguments made by economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, often recognized as the founding father of the zero growth theory. I've also reached sections of Singer's book that talk of free trade, which is obviously linked to economic growth, so it's fascinating to get different perspectives on what is, ultimately, the same issue.
This reminds me of how much I dislike the French system - I would have loved to keep studying philosophy (though not in that terribly forbidding French style) and I'd also be very interested in studying economics, just to understand the whole system better (because, unlike what that girl said at the GA earlier, I don't think captitalism can quite be summarized in two minutes, and simply demonized). But I couldn't actually get a degree in either majors. I just wish we could pick a few classes, actually open our minds instead of getting stuck in one single topic. It seems so out of touch with our times, where everything is intertwined, economics, lifestyles, ecology, poverty, violence. Anyway.
Totally unrelated, but let me squee : Dr Moore is on the picture illustrating Phillips' RelPhil department!!!
Et un peu d'humour pour finir...
"Pour ce qu'on nous a dit, on aurait pu nous envoyer un fax." (Membre d'un syndicat étudiant, à la sortie de Matignon samedi)
"And therefore education at the University mostly worked by the age-old method of putting a lot of young people in the vicinity of a lot of books and hoping that something would pass from one to the other, while the actual young people put themselves in the vicinity of inns and taverns for exactly the same reason." (Terry Pratchett)