ISPP 2015

Career Opportunities in Pharmacy
A healthy economy should be designed to thrive, not grow | Kate Raworth

Have you ever watched
a baby learning to crawl? Because as any
parent knows, it’s gripping. First, they wriggle about on the floor, usually backwards, but then they drag themselves forwards, and then they pull themselves up to stand, and we all clap. And that simple motion
of forwards and upwards, it’s the most basic direction
of progress we humans recognize. We tell it in our story
of evolution as well, from our lolloping ancestors
to Homo erectus, finally upright, to Homo sapiens, depicted, always a man, always mid-stride. So no wonder we so readily believe that economic progress
will take this very same shape, this ever-rising line of growth. It’s time to think again, to reimagine the shape of progress, because today, we have economies that need to grow,
whether or not they make us thrive, and what we need,
especially in the richest countries, are economies that make us thrive whether or not they grow. Yes, it’s a little flippant word hiding a profound shift in mindset, but I believe this is the shift
we need to make if we, humanity, are going to thrive
here together this century. So where did this obsession
with growth come from? Well, GDP, gross domestic product, it’s just the total cost
of goods and services sold in an economy in a year. It was invented in the 1930s, but it very soon became
the overriding goal of policymaking, so much so that even today,
in the richest of countries, governments think that the solution
to their economic problems lies in more growth. Just how that happened is best told through
the 1960 classic by W.W. Rostow. I love it so much,
I have a first-edition copy. “The Stages of Economic Growth:
A Non-Communist Manifesto.” (Laughter) You can just smell the politics, huh? And Rostow tells us that all economies need to pass through
five stages of growth: first, traditional society,
where a nation’s output is limited by its technology,
its institutions and mindset; but then the preconditions for takeoff, where we get the beginnings
of a banking industry, the mechanization of work and the belief that growth is necessary
for something beyond itself, like national dignity
or a better life for the children; then takeoff, where compound interest
is built into the economy’s institutions and growth becomes the normal condition; fourth is the drive to maturity
where you can have any industry you want, no matter your natural resource base; and the fifth and final stage,
the age of high-mass consumption where people can buy
all the consumer goods they want, like bicycles and sewing machines — this was 1960, remember. Well, you can hear the implicit
airplane metaphor in this story, but this plane is like no other, because it can never be allowed to land. Rostow left us flying
into the sunset of mass consumerism, and he knew it. As he wrote, “And then the question beyond, where history offers us only fragments. What to do when the increase
in real income itself loses its charm?” He asked that question,
but he never answered it, and here’s why. The year was 1960, he was an advisor to the presidential
candidate John F. Kennedy, who was running for election
on the promise of five-percent growth, so Rostow’s job was
to keep that plane flying, not to ask if, how, or when
it could ever be allowed to land. So here we are, flying into the sunset
of mass consumerism over half a century on, with economies that have come
to expect, demand and depend upon unending growth, because we’re financially,
politically and socially addicted to it. We’re financially addicted to growth,
because today’s financial system is designed to pursue
the highest rate of monetary return, putting publicly traded companies
under constant pressure to deliver growing sales,
growing market share and growing profits, and because banks create money
as debt bearing interest, which must be repaid with more. We’re politically addicted to growth because politicians
want to raise tax revenue without raising taxes and a growing GDP
seems a sure way to do that. And no politician wants to lose
their place in the G-20 family photo. (Laughter) But if their economy stops growing
while the rest keep going, well, they’ll be booted out
by the next emerging powerhouse. And we are socially addicted to growth, because thanks to a century
of consumer propaganda, which fascinatingly
was created by Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, who realized that
his uncle’s psychotherapy could be turned into
very lucrative retail therapy if we could be convinced
to believe that we transform ourselves every time we buy something more. None of these addictions
are insurmountable, but they all deserve far more attention
than they currently get, because look where this journey
has been taking us. Global GDP is 10 times bigger
than it was in 1950 and that increase has brought
prosperity to billions of people, but the global economy
has also become incredibly divisive, with the vast share of returns to wealth now accruing to a fraction
of the global one percent. And the economy has become
incredibly degenerative, rapidly destabilizing
this delicately balanced planet on which all of our lives depend. Our politicians know it, and so they offer
new destinations for growth. You can have green growth,
inclusive growth, smart, resilient, balanced growth. Choose any future you want
so long as you choose growth. I think it’s time to choose
a higher ambition, a far bigger one, because humanity’s
21st century challenge is clear: to meet the needs of all people within the means of this
extraordinary, unique, living planet so that we and the rest
of nature can thrive. Progress on this goal isn’t going
to be measured with the metric of money. We need a dashboard of indicators. And when I sat down to try and draw
a picture of what that might look like, strange though this is going to sound, it came out looking like a doughnut. I know, I’m sorry, but let me introduce you
to the one doughnut that might actually turn out
to be good for us. So imagine humanity’s resource use
radiating out from the middle. That hole in the middle is a place where people are falling short
on life’s essentials. They don’t have the food, health care,
education, political voice, housing that every person needs
for a life of dignity and opportunity. We want to get everybody out of the hole,
over the social foundation and into that green doughnut itself. But, and it’s a big but, we cannot let our collective resource use
overshoot that outer circle, the ecological ceiling, because there we put so much pressure
on this extraordinary planet that we begin to kick it out of kilter. We cause climate breakdown,
we acidify the oceans, a hole in the ozone layer, pushing ourselves
beyond the planetary boundaries of the life-supporting systems
that have for the last 11,000 years made earth such a benevolent
home to humanity. So this double-sided challenge
to meet the needs of all within the means of the planet, it invites a new shape of progress, no longer this ever-rising line of growth, but a sweet spot for humanity, thriving in dynamic balance
between the foundation and the ceiling. And I was really struck
once I’d drawn this picture to realize that the symbol of well-being
in many ancient cultures reflects this very same sense
of dynamic balance, from the Maori Takarangi to the Taoist Yin Yang,
the Buddhist endless knot, the Celtic double spiral. So can we find this dynamic balance
in the 21st century? Well, that’s a key question, because as these red wedges show,
right now we are far from balanced, falling short and overshooting
at the same time. Look in that hole, you can see that
millions or billions of people worldwide still fall short
on their most basic of needs. And yet, we’ve already overshot at least
four of these planetary boundaries, risking irreversible impact
of climate breakdown and ecosystem collapse. This is the state of humanity
and our planetary home. We, the people of the early 21st century, this is our selfie. No economist from last century
saw this picture, so why would we imagine
that their theories would be up for taking on its challenges? We need ideas of our own, because we are the first
generation to see this and probably the last with a real chance
of turning this story around. You see, 20th century economics assured us
that if growth creates inequality, don’t try to redistribute, because more growth
will even things up again. If growth creates pollution, don’t try to regulate, because more growth
will clean things up again. Except, it turns out, it doesn’t, and it won’t. We need to create economies that tackle
this shortfall and overshoot together, by design. We need economies that are regenerative
and distributive by design. You see, we’ve inherited
degenerative industries. We take earth’s materials,
make them into stuff we want, use it for a while, often only once,
and then throw it away, and that is pushing us
over planetary boundaries, so we need to bend those arrows around, create economies that work with and within
the cycles of the living world, so that resources are never used up
but used again and again, economies that run on sunlight, where waste from one process
is food for the next. And this kind of regenerative design
is popping up everywhere. Over a hundred cities worldwide,
from Quito to Oslo, from Harare to Hobart, already generate more than 70 percent
of their electricity from sun, wind and waves. Cities like London, Glasgow, Amsterdam
are pioneering circular city design, finding ways to turn the waste
from one urban process into food for the next. And from Tigray, Ethiopia
to Queensland, Australia, farmers and foresters are regenerating
once-barren landscapes so that it teems with life again. But as well as being
regenerative by design, our economies must be
distributive by design, and we’ve got unprecedented
opportunities for making that happen, because 20th-century
centralized technologies, institutions, concentrated wealth,
knowledge and power in few hands. This century, we can design
our technologies and institutions to distribute wealth, knowledge
and empowerment to many. Instead of fossil fuel energy
and large-scale manufacturing, we’ve got renewable energy networks,
digital platforms and 3D printing. 200 years of corporate control
of intellectual property is being upended by the bottom-up, open-source,
peer-to-peer knowledge commons. And corporations that still pursue
maximum rate of return for their shareholders, well they suddenly look rather out of date next to social enterprises
that are designed to generate multiple forms of value and share it
with those throughout their networks. If we can harness today’s technologies, from AI to blockchain to the Internet of Things
to material science, if we can harness these
in service of distributive design, we can ensure that health care, education,
finance, energy, political voice reaches and empowers those people
who need it most. You see, regenerative
and distributive design create extraordinary opportunities
for the 21st-century economy. So where does this leave
Rostow’s airplane ride? Well, for some it still carries
the hope of endless green growth, the idea that thanks to dematerialization, exponential GDP growth can go on forever
while resource use keeps falling. But look at the data.
This is a flight of fancy. Yes, we need to dematerialize
our economies, but this dependency on unending growth
cannot be decoupled from resource use on anything like the scale required to bring us safely back
within planetary boundaries. I know this way of thinking
about growth is unfamiliar, because growth is good, no? We want our children to grow,
our gardens to grow. Yes, look to nature and growth
is a wonderful, healthy source of life. It’s a phase, but many economies
like Ethiopia and Nepal today may be in that phase. Their economies are growing
at seven percent a year. But look again to nature, because from your children’s feet
to the Amazon forest, nothing in nature grows forever. Things grow, and they grow up
and they mature, and it’s only by doing so that they can thrive for a very long time. We already know this. If I told you my friend went to the doctor who told her she had a growth that feels very different, because we intuitively understand
that when something tries to grow forever within a healthy, living, thriving system, it’s a threat to the health of the whole. So why would we imagine that our economies would be the one system
that could buck this trend and succeed by growing forever? We urgently need financial,
political and social innovations that enable us to overcome
this structural dependency on growth, so that we can instead
focus on thriving and balance within the social and the ecological
boundaries of the doughnut. And if the mere idea of boundaries
makes you feel, well, bounded, think again. Because the world’s most ingenious people turn boundaries into
the source of their creativity. From Mozart on his five-octave piano Jimi Hendrix on his six-string guitar, Serena Williams on a tennis court, it’s boundaries
that unleash our potential. And the doughnut’s boundaries unleash
the potential for humanity to thrive with boundless creativity,
participation, belonging and meaning. It’s going to take all the ingenuity
that we have got to get there, so bring it on. Thank you. (Applause)

100 thoughts on “A healthy economy should be designed to thrive, not grow | Kate Raworth

  1. This is exactly what my company is striving to do with our corporate structure, perhaps in a few years I'll be giving a Ted Talk

  2. Okay, where do I begin. The pragmatic nature of fungi which I don't know. Are responsible for our minds coming into enough consciousness to form thoughts, language, ability to understand that language. These fungi, phages, and all those other sybiotes??? in concert with each other have granted an awareness of the cosmic. Which these fungi are for whatever reason are in tune with. Now, over the billions of years fungi have been evolving, gaining genes, losing genes, with epigenetics as its termed today, but a lot more so archaic processes. Have become aware of the cosmic imminent dangers. The Sun's expiration should have a correlation. Whereas CME's may be an accelerant in the process, attributing our science and leaps into making A.I, to do the thinking for us in some way, whether it's to get the human operational intellectually sooner, or the defeat aging. This omits all politcal process, civil unrest, because if only everybody could get on this page and accept their internal quarrel with inadequacy and get learn that inadequacy AND find more to overcome.

  3. Kate, you are saying wonderful things. However, you must need to know that individual or even large group of people can't make big difference without these electables who are the competent idiots who always talk about the growth rather than thriving.

    Thriving happens when every individual become responsible sharing and loving each other prevailing the values.

    Sharing is loving and loving means caring. Well done, care.

    Many years before we tried this as responsible innovation (as to bring social responsible innovation) but were not able to reach anywhere.

  4. I like the idea of the doughnut. But I'm not sure about the inner circle. Networks, in the context of a social foundation, and social equity seem to be the same thing. They both describe being able to contact people who you can rely on when you're in need. While gender equality seems to be too focused because it excludes other forms of unequal treatment such as racism and xenophobia.

  5. The reason we are dependant on growth is because we've taken on debt assuming we will have future growth to pay for that debt. Once we stop forecasting growth, we won't borrow money and won't need to grow to run a smooth economy. Growth can continue for a lot longer if we can use more energy with less resources and design machines with less material and sustainable waste.

    Before we become sustainable, most species will go extinct, climate change will displace hundreds of millions and cause economic turmoil and many humanitarian crises. People think the benefits of growth outweigh climate change and other problems. If enough people care enough about the problems with squeezing every inch of growth out of our planet, then maybe we can leave some oil in the ground and stop fishing.

  6. This woman is an example of people that are very good at talking while being STUPID.  'Technology' is not a requirement for a distributive economy. Also, distributive economy can not be sustained if even a single participant in the economy is driven by the 'pursuit of PROFIT'.

  7. The most power now reside now in corporations. But there is actually a solution in B Corporations that are structured for the public benefit. When we structure corporations for benefit instead of profit we come out ahead.

  8. Socialism is a genocidal ideology, how many more corpses need to be thrown onto its death pits before your ineptitude and resentment have had enough. Disgusting.

  9. There's one small problem with this idealistic nonsense, humanity. Every system mankind has ever made has placed an exclusive few at the heart of that system. Those exclusive few are essentially the last to fall in the case of catastrophic social failure. Every system is essentially set up to protect the genetics of those at the top, so that they do not have to change. Humanity is suddenly going to stop doing what the anxiety centers of our brain do to justify our selfishness? Every system you create will eventually be dominated by a few. Even if you set this up perfectly, there will be a generation that forgets why it was set up that way to begin with, and let it become corrupted and fail.

    If your model requires mankind to be honest, fair, and equitable, do not count on this idealistic nonsense to work. Why is it the intellectuals who live in Lala land lack even the most basic understanding of mankind's base nature? Not to mention the current economic incumbents have an interest in seeing this fail, because if it does succeed they will lose their privilege.

    In no way shape or form does this idealistic bullshit correspond to anything even vaguely resembling reality.

  10. This is a brilliant concept! I really hope that as a society, we are heading in this direction but I sit paralyzed by the work that needs to be done in order to promulgate it's adoption. It requires massive amounts of education and reform, and it will take generations to adopt. I believe in the merits of this message and I have committed myself to sharing it with the people I know. It all starts with one step…

  11. What a load of bullshit. So her solution is basically state mandated sharing of resources. Where have I heard that bef… ah, yes, a little thing called communism. You know the wonderful system that killed far more people for a much longer time and in many more countries than nazism… but she is different!!! She will do the same identical things, but the results will be different because she just can feel it!!!

    Oh, well, here is a cookie and that's the door… NEXT!

  12. Growth is never infinite. We have one planet with finite resources. I don't think we'll hit a place where we cannot grow further anytime soon but it is an inevitability. I think she's speaking of something similar to a Star Trek future, where money has been abolished and humanity works towards a common goal. This basic premise assumes the quality of living is equal across the planet though. One could argue that we need to change our motivation in order to achieve that, as she postulates.

  13. Common sense should tell anyone that infinite growth is not even imaginable, not to mention sustainable.

  14. Thank You Kate Raworth for this important talk. You are spot on about how conditioned many of us have become to place the focus on continued growth and how that has and is effecting us … it even is one component of why poor people have such a hard time … so many products are built to only last a brief time so they can be made and sold again … and those made the cheapest are the ones the poor end up buying so over and over poor people have to buy clothing and shoes and toasters …. and light bulbs … so the economy can grow. Love & Peace to All

  15. She is saying that constant growth is unsustainable and that a society that requires constant growth is therefore going to collapse from the barriers in the donut chart. An interesting perspective on economics and politics.

  16. At 9:32 she said that no economist from last century saw this picture (of current whiplash of economic growth). She forgot about Marx. She is basically reaffirming Marx at 10:02. I don't understand why mainstream scholars feel so obliged to leave Marx out of the picture even when his works are the most relevant.

  17. I hope the sitting president of the Republic of Botswana together with his advisors are some of those who viewed this.

  18. Honestly I think we just have to keep riding the accomplishments of scientists/technologists/engineers. Let tech carry our stupid minds and bodies to pleasure without consequence 🙂

  19. If you have more people, you better have more wealth or you'll all be poorer.
    Please look at history and note that we are healthier, less violent, longer living and better educated than ever before in history. It always amazes me that people at all times throughout history think everything is a mess and the world is coming to an end. The reality is progress happens, and it happens best when people are free and equal to make decisions for themselves, and it gets worse when others tell you want to think (communism everywhere, empires that close off their societies from "foreigners" and of course fascism/totalitarianism/authoritarianism of all kinds).

  20. How does she know that climate change is so destructive? She pretends that the future won't solve these with more solutions that make others rich? Instead she'd like us to poor so as to "save" the planet that cares not for us or for warming temperatures. People have solved all sorts of problems that were unimaginable before. All the "good things" she points out are done by people who are making money doing so.

  21. Amazing view kate, the permaculture movement has the same tenets and its the only way to habitate the planet. Well done on giving an economic blueprint. Am from a 3rd world country and even with effects of colonization, climate change and cancerous corruption, i dont think we need growth desparately. Alot can be done with localized solutions driven by circular systems technology.

  22. If next year, we spent a hundred billion dollars cleaning up nuclear waste after a preventable meltdown, bourgeois economics would consider that growth. If every couple filed for divorce, and had to hire attorneys, that's GDP and wage growth. A million dollars worth of fidget spinners or a million dollars of bread are the same to the capitalist.

  23. What about mentioning the work of degrowth, in particular the work of Georgescu-Roegen  that goes very well with biological analogies she uses?

  24. There are a few fundamental problems with this.
    1. Humans are hard wired to always want more, if you constrain the size of the economy, that means the only way to have more is to take from someone else. That means wars, slavery, ethnic cleansing, and all other kinds of misery. Rapid economic growth made the world a much better place already. For example now most countries gain far more from trading with their neighbors than invading them.
    2. Wishing something isn't enough, you have to have a plan to make it happen too. And making sure it doesn't get corrupted on the way. Communism sounds nice on paper too, and it's not a completely stupid idea, but it got hijacked by dictators immediately every time it was tried.
    3. There are really no limits to growth. And I don't mean in the foreseeable future, I mean we can grow for ever. Even after all stars died in the visible universe, and after all supermassive black holes evaporated. The trick that we are not limited to the technologies we currently have, to the way we currently use them, or even to this planet. We can easily make unlimited energy with practically zero environmental footprint, we can recycle practically everything, we can grow our food far far more efficiently. And we can leave this planet and gain access to all resources in our galaxy cluster at least. Just by rearranging the materials in our planet we can make a trillion times bigger surface area to live on. We can have gardens bigger than Earth. And we can give up our bodies and move to a virtual world. That way we can reduce our energy consumption by many orders of magnitude.

  25. We could start by curtailing and eventually eliminating compounding interest. The maths of compounding interest plainly shows that it is impossible to sustain.

  26. The basic assumption of continuous growth is irrational, without an example in history to even suggest it's rational.

  27. She's forgetting one crucial element, and the reason why this will never happen without a cataclysmic event: THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN POWER, CEO'S, POLITICIANS…ARE EXTREME NARCISSISTS, SOCIOPATHS & PSYCHOPATHS. Not to mention, the vast majority of lower and middle class persons are sorely uneducated, uninterested, tuned out, or plugged in to absolute rubbish.

  28. Read "The New Human Rights Movement" if you want to be inspired and depressed at the exact same time 🙂

  29. Existem várias alternativas ao mundo pós-emprego e pós-capitalismo.

    Algumas ótimas iniciativas e projetos são:

    Fluxonomia, da Lala Deheinzelin

    Próspera, iniciada pelo Oswaldo Oliveira

    Projeto Vênus, do Jacques Fresco

    Segue uma playlist que fiz sobre economia criativa, colaborativa, compartilhada e multimoedas abaixo (e que tem também vários outros teóricos, iniciativas e projetos já em andamento, além dos acima citados):

  30. Financial and political power will do everything to keep this status quo that killing our Planet. They are so confident in their power that they allow Kate to talk about destroying the status quo.
    And again, she is an economist, not an engineer or physicist who know the natural laws and how to apply them. She says right things but it's insufficient. Consumerism can be dematerialized only so much, so, Earth population too must be controllably and naturally (not thru wars and catastrophes) multi-fold decreased.
    Bottom line is: it's just another talk with no actual result, just like Age of Reason Guidestone in the State of Georgia, U.S. erected 50 years ago.

  31. Another declinist. Disappointing analysis. What a sparse vision. Another Utopian uncoupled from the realities of marginal analysis.

  32. Economics is measured in money, which isn`t real, but a belief system. So measured economic growth have no other limits than our imaginations. Besides that, most people can`t buy what they need, and powerful people will never allow that to happen. We can chose between leving most people in poverty, continue economic growth or leave todays economic system and it`s measurments. Sadly this woman propose the second alternative

  33. Utility based economics is superior to profit based economics. But people frankly aren't smart enough to do what's best versus what feels good.

  34. Excellent talk. I like the idea of aiming for the sweet spot in-line with nature, and agree that the limitations we place on ourselves to become responsible with the planet's resources can promote creativity.

  35. This is brilliant and likely one of the best ted talks. We need a scientific revolution that applies decentralized technology to face the challenges which capitalism cannot account for. This system she is describing is almost identical to a well established economic system called a Natural Law Resource Based Economy. For more information I would look into the work of Peter Joseph and the zeitgeist movement

  36. "Las personas más ingeniosas del mundo convierten los límites en la fuente de su creatividad"Kate Raworth 💗

    🌺 She is just like… Eleanor Roosevelt !!! 🍀

  37. What if growth for an individual is increasing Net Worth not increasing Income? But if schools do not make Double-Entry Accounting mandatory in the schools. Our economists do not talk about NDP, Net Domestic Product. Our economists get that equation wrong however. The Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods is ignored.

  38. We want to have better lives so that… What? Easier better life for you often equals harder life for someone else ,or the earth (unless a good amount of creativity and care is used) . The idea that industrialization is going to bring better life to a nation, made the people robots for big business/bank/… owners (owners not CEOs and presidents that you are familiar with) and this growth based system brought a great increase in the population and just like a family, when resources aren't enough for the people, the quality of life decreases. Innovation is never a bad thing. But the purpose of it is important. The point is at this time, we should stop over-consuming and focus on other aspects of our life.
    We're starving from some other needs than hunger.
    And if you think her point is close to communism , I guess you've been exposed to a lot of anti-communism propaganda. Almost every thing is Grey. So instead of focusing on an old theory, or a governmental system, try to see and solve our current situation and problems as human beings.

  39. This economic theory reflects the principle of regeneration that men and women both understand if they value their children.

  40. Hmm. Major video games industries come to mind most recently. They are fucking flopping all over the place this year because all they care about is growth.

  41. What are the solutions to sustainable use of the planet in a manner that provides what the philosopher Mortimer J. Adler described as "the goods for a decent human existence"? The first priority is to change our systems of law and taxation to secure for all the right of equal access to nature, to what nature provides free of charge for our survival. The socio-political arrangement and institutions of every society stand in the way of this outcome. Our laws were forged out of a long process of force, fraud and theft and today takes the form of rent-seeking privilege. As Winston Churchill famously wrote in 1909 while campaigning for his first seat in the House of Commons:

    "It is quite true that land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies – it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. It is quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal form of unearned increment which is derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but which are positively detrimental to the general public.

    "Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position. Land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions.

    "Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of our monopolist opponents to prove that other forms of property and increment are exactly the same and are similar in all respects to the unearned increment in land."

    Churchill agreed with Henry George's argument that the solution is to collect the societally-created rents, from land and land-like assets (e.g., frequencies of the broadcast spectrum, take-off and landing slots at airports, competition-limiting licenses granted to individuals or entities).

  42. So Well Done and Well Spoken! My formalized Paper is weeks away (not enough time or Energy to complete it by Davos 2019), but I couldn't have spoken this better than This Brit! In RE to 1uca and Austrians… Economics as a Science MUST BE Positive Sum= EVERYBODY WINS! (why would enter a trade if it was deemed to be hurtful?) So- a perceived Plus or Thrill isnotnec. A Non-Rational Choice, but one of Better Feelings- putting off payment of Rehab or … to regain Health. WE WILL SUCCEED. YES, WE CAN AND YES WE Will. 100% tax on Million Dollar Cars + LOWER SALES TAX (~10% here in L.A., CA) Raise Corporate Tax, lessen Land Tax or Vice-versa to INCREASE and PROMOTE Growth and Global Health! YES WE WILL. Eric M. Sending All Cali♡

  43. This is what I am actively working on creating and everyone is welcome to join. We need solutions from everywhere and we need to own our own data/tech. We can create systems and services together that no small group can.

  44. The economy has many modes. A few of the factors of growth, non change and stagnating growth affect it.

    But it is easier to look at a town to give a picture. Growing economy on the town is an increase in jobs and wages. People from outside the town move in. The town gets bigger and busier, more exchange of goods happens, people feel confident (essentially the boomer years).

    When the economy slows down rapidly, people lose their jobs, wages go down or hours are cut. Other opportunities pop up that were not as prevalent as before to make people feel a little better or to survive: prawn brokering, loans sharks, prostitution, gambling and bartering increases. People lose hope, real estate loses value.

    I love the growth mode but that entails moving to each growth center early to capture the rising work, rising wages and rapidly rising property.

    There are cycles as one place experiences rapid growth it will one day (after several generations of easy living) experience stagnation as the people become complacent, descend into higher pleasures and the government regulates too harshly. The places of stagnation over a few generations have people who have had enough and take risks, regulation is removed and they boom.

  45. A confident speaker who reached the wrong conclusion because she only scratched the surface. Economic Growth does not equal increased recourse consumption (counter intuitive? Not really).

    1) If I write a piece of software how many more resources do I have to consume to produce 1 Million copies of that software? Almost none.
    2) If I use solar energy (the cheapest current source of energy) am I consuming a finite resource? No
    3) If I use a MacBook instead of an IBM 7090 am I consuming more resources? No. If fact I have something infinitely more powerful made using 2-3 lb of metal products compared to the room size IBM 7090
    4) If we continue to increase steel reutilization from 88% to 100% will growing the economy exhaust metal reserves? No

    By prioritizing growth, economies maximize the production of value per unit input. The ultimate dream is infinite production with no additional input. That is also where the ever growing economy is headed. Your argument ignores what value is, it ignores what economic growth is, and it ignores productivity.

    This presentation was overly reductionist at best.

  46. A shared, fixed-size piece of cake would create a situation where participants fight over it. We cannot do that.
    We can do this.

  47. David Suzuki famously said "we live in a finite world".

    Its only taken 25 years and a decent dose of reality for the first economist to admit that in public.
    Now if we can only find a few thousand more.

  48. the only thing that made Europe great is Charles deckens in his novels where they were all calling to give the poor money, equality in destrebuting the profits of the factory when he called for a union for the labours we need a union for the people to help achieve your goals globaly

  49. Growth is a imperative for individuals. Without it life would die out. In nature, various forces limit it, often painfully for the individual. The same will be true for us – if we don't learn to live sustainably.

  50. 10:00 Then she hasn't read Murray Roathbards manifest of airpollution.. He was an Ancap economist who argued for the right of citizens to not have their private property be polluted!

  51. The wellbeing of every single human being (as well as other species of animals and plants) depends on one fundamental change in how we are organized. We must treat the planet as our Commons. We must then allocate private control over any portion of the Commons by competitive bidding under a leasehold arrangement rather than the issuance of deeds suggesting any individual or entity is an "owner" of the Commons. The annual payment — a rental payment — would go into the common fund out of which we pay for democratically-agreed upon public goods and services. This systemic change has been called for by thoughtful people for centuries. Read anything by the 19th century political economist Henry George for clear insight into why this is so necessary and how it would work to change the course of history.

  52. That's so dumb I don't even know where to start, but I couldn't watch any longer after she said that economic growth would redistribute and solve pollutions problems on itself (around 10th minute). There is just no such thing as those in economic literature – and many other things she said. She could just get the Elusive Quest for Growth by Easterly and she would be far better on the economic growth discussion. The problem is the elusive quest for easy solutions like these. I mean, it's quite relevant the discussions about mass consumption, the abusive use of natural resources, redistribution (which is a duty of the State, not capitalism/econ growth itself) and many other things, but the discussion goes far off from where she went.

  53. I've always thought there was something drastically wrong with the idea that an economy must get bigger and bigger in order to be sustainable. It gives me a mental picture of a huge maw, consuming everything in its path. How wonderful to find someone who articulates so well what a sustainable, thriving economy would look like, and how wonderful to see from the comments that there are many, many out there who agree.

  54. Cool story of the plane, except she forgot one thing … not only does this plane ✈️ never land 🛬 but it crushes now and then. Horrible! 😩 We need new ways for the economy to thrive and be more inclusive.

  55. Just the first 20 pages of "The Growth Illusion" by Richard Douthwaite explains perfectly, why economic growth (as measured by GNP or GDP) is a harmful illusion.

  56. We need to pull our heads out of the sand. This is brilliant; Ms. Raworth, you're a genius. I hope this idea gets adopted before it's too late.

  57. Certain twentieth century economists DID see this coming… those in the Club of Rome, for instance. Not that it is impossible to conceptualise a degree or few of economic growth without further exceeding the limits set by a finite earth, as not all economic growth is alike. I also think that there should be a further increase in world GDP, as developing countries require it, implemented within earthly limits.

  58. The ONE and ONLY reason for this growth requirement is FIAT currency that requires currency to be borrowed
    into existence and for interest to be paid on it. Think about it! Borrow a dollar, pay back $1.05, where does the 5 cents come from? It has to be borrowed into existence with interest too. This requires INFINITE GROWTH.

    This wasn't always the case, governments used to issue the currency with no interest until the banks

    got together at Jeckyll Island in 1913 and wrestled the power to print money with interest from the

    govt. THIS is the one and only cause of the maladies that you highlight in this excellent talk.

    There's a superb YouTube vid called "the Secret of Oz" by Bill Still which beautifully demonstrates how

    the film "The Wizard of Oz" was actually a warning to alert people about bank-issued currency.

  59. No doubt that a sustainable economy is the way forward but, unfortunatelly, it's not possible yet. As long as capital can flee to countries where there is a cheap labour there won't be any radical changes.

Leave comment

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