Actually your words were at least as good as the ones you quoted, but the mix worked well. Perhaps you should read the stupid book to give you legitimacy in criticizing it, because this is an important discussion. But that's only worth it if your discussion gets out there beyond a small circle who already agree with you. And of course that's one of your major points--the oligarchs control the gatekeeping portals of both legacy and electronic media, so they will not platform voices that question their right to more and more wealth.
I have said this before… telling people they cannot have what they want and using a word like degrowth is a political death wish… especially when 75% of the population on the planet has not got what we have… the better approach is to use the word sustainability and insist that we waste far less of everything… so now we need to define “waste”….. which has some challenges but still viable.
When Forbes magazine released its first global billionaires list in 1987, just 140 names appeared on it. The 2025 version featured more than 3,000 people, worth a collective $16tn. Even allowing for factors such as the rise of China and over three decades of inflation, it is a staggering increase in both numbers and values; the net worth of Elon Musk, judged the world’s richest person in April 2025, was estimated at $342bn — compared with $295bn for the entire class of 1987. Globally, the average wealth of the top 0.0001 per cent of the population grew on average 7.1 per cent a year between 1987 and 2024, compared to 3.2 per cent for the average adult, according to Gabriel Zucman, a professor of economics at the Paris School of Economics and at the University of California, Berkeley. … Income-based taxes are not particularly effective in taxing this cohort, according to Zucman. He cites research from a team he led, based on anonymised tax returns filed at the US Internal Revenue Service. It found that the top 400 wealthiest Americans had a total effective tax rate of 23.8 per cent of income in the years from 2018 to 2020, including individual income taxes, estate and gift taxes, and corporate taxes. In comparison, the rate for the wider US population was 30 per cent, rising to 45 per cent for the highest-earning workers.
Degrowthers are basically correct -- but sabotage their own efforts by failing to deal honestly and holistically with the following key facts...
#1. What is a stock? In a private corporation , a stock is only a record of ownership. But in a public stock market -- a stock is a product that promises growth. Or there is no point to buying that stock. I am constantly reading statements by world-famous economists and environmentalists and degrowthers who prove that they lack this kindergarten level of understanding of stock markets. They even confuse "private" vs "public" corporations.
#2. A lack of sufficient growth will crash the stock markets. Duh!
Thousands of corporations will fail and millions of people will lose their jobs and homes. They will vote for politicians who Blame struggling minorities and who promote wars and pollution. For example. Hitler was totally unpopular until the stock market crash of 1930. And the most influential campaign slogan in 2008 was "drill baby drill."
#3. All the above problems are totally unnecessary. If only a few idealists would start more corporations like "newman's own." That share the profits with the people and the planet that pay for the profits.
But on the contrary. We primarily patronize corporations like facebook, amazon and google. That suck a billion dollars a month out of every poor corner of the planet. And send it all to wall street.
Of course there are idealistic versions of such corporations. However they seem to think the point is to be woke and politically correct and personally moral. Not one of them seriously imitates and competes with Facebook etc. And simply shares the profits. If done properly, then Facebook etc. could not compete and would fade away.
Especially if the pro environmental versions were endorsed by major celebrities. The vast majority of whom are pro environmental and quasi socialist. The fame of paul newman is obviously what made newman's own successful.
#4. Degrowth also would require global cooperation.
Modern warfare is primarily a financial battle to the death. The Soviet Union was not destroyed by capitalism vs socialism -- but by stock markets vs socialism. The Soviet "military industrial complex" could not compete with our "military industrial complex." Especially after hundreds of USA corporations were battling each other to develop computer technology in a "dog eat dog" race.
A Viking-style or Roman-style or Colonial-style economy based on constant war, pillage and slavery is not sustainable. Nonetheless -- will destroy all else in its path.
Obviously. The nation that succeeds in looting and conquering other nations will have a stronger economy.
Things do not need to be this way. Because China is fundamentally socialist. It was "US" -- the U.S.A. -- who coerced China to join the global stock market system.
Goading China to become ultra-capitalist was obviously on a par with the Hiroshima bombing as one of the most self-destructive blunders in history. Much worse and more stupid than the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor. After which one Japanese commander said, "I fear we have merely awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with resolve."
Just so -- in awakening Chinese ultra-capitalism -- the USA awakened a giant more powerful than itself.
Without Chinese stock markets -- the USA had no significant competition. With Chinese stock market capitalism -- we must ultimately devastate the world and each other. Just as colonial Europe literally owned the world -- and yet, somehow became so desperate as to murder each other by the millions. In two so-called World Wars. Just like drug cartels ultimately fighting each other to the death in spite of making billions of dollars. That is the obvious inevitable result of any growth-based economy.
However. For obvious reasons. Any state or nation or sector that does not play the same game. Has about as much effect as lying down in front of a steam roller. Especially if they are not even aware of the cornerstone of the machine they are against. The stock market.
The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima similarly alerted Stalin to the fact that nuclear weapons exist. This instantly converted the most safe and victorious military situation in history into a situation that was likely to destroy the USA. Otherwise there could not have been a "nuclear arms race" and a so-called "Cold War." Resulting in the USA feeling forced to support anti-democratic dictators across the Mideast, Africa, South America and Southeast Asia. For good reason -- Stalin and Mao had "the bomb." Because Harry Truman gave the idea to them. Even though the USA also electrocuted two Jews for supposedly giving away nuclear ideas.
Anyone who told anyone what the "Manhattan Project" was about would have been executed for treason. For obvious reasons. And yet. The USA president told the whole world as if in a neon sign 6,000 feet high. He later claimed this "shortened the war." Nobody claimed this was necessary to win the war. And if you add the so-called "Cold War" it is still going on today.
Ironically -- in spite of its economic superiority -- China has no chance of competing with the USA in terms of stock market investing. A strong stock market requires constant growth of everything -- especially population and resource usage. China is already so seriously over-populated that all they can do is to halt their efforts to reduce population.
The resulting global military and financial self-destruction of China and the USA could easily be avoided -- if China were merely to support corporate bonds and de-emphasize the stock market. For reasons as obvious as an elephant in the room. Or 1 + 1 = 2.
Unfortunately -- as i said -- there seems to be no intelligent life on earth. We are not descended from monkeys -- we still are monkeys. And China only seems inclined either to follow an archaic Jewish philosopher, Karl Marx. Or to mimic the USA stock market system.
Monkey see, monkey do. We monkeys seldom know how to think for ourselves. Even to see something just as obvious as an elephant staring us in the face.
“ A better community is what politics always promises, but never delivers.”
Politics always promises better, because better is what people actually want.
Politics never delivers better, because that is not within the remit of Politics as a social institution for socially choosing, redistributively, reactively and correctively, through the expenditure of the public fisc and the exercise of public force, to cajole and coerce compliance with social narratives of what is possible and social norms for what is right and true and good, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America) as “... the last great experiment for promoting human happiness” ( George Washington, January 9, 1790)
Better is within the remit of “the powers behind the status quo”. That is Finance, that chooses, predistributivley, where the money can, should and will be made to go, and Enterprise that does the work of putting technological knowledge into action creating through curation an abundance of choices from which others can choose, through participation in enterprise and exchange.
Since the early 1970s, we have been complicit in letting securities trading, and the financial mathematics of ownership for profit extraction from volatility and growth in market clearing prices for securities in the markets for maintaining volatility and growth in market clearing prices for those securities, monopolize financing for enterprise by replacing our common sense of the capacity that Pensions & Endowments derive from their capacity as large, purposeful and self-perpetuating social trusts, with their expert knowledge of outperformance in maximizing the highest possible purely pecuniary profit extraction from volatility and growth in the securities trading markets.
These markets need growth to deliver opportunities for profit extraction.
In these markets, more is better, and better requires more.
This is the source of what Kate Raworth calls our growth addiction.
Infinite growth. Finite planet. What could possibly go wrong?
Actually your words were at least as good as the ones you quoted, but the mix worked well. Perhaps you should read the stupid book to give you legitimacy in criticizing it, because this is an important discussion. But that's only worth it if your discussion gets out there beyond a small circle who already agree with you. And of course that's one of your major points--the oligarchs control the gatekeeping portals of both legacy and electronic media, so they will not platform voices that question their right to more and more wealth.
I have said this before… telling people they cannot have what they want and using a word like degrowth is a political death wish… especially when 75% of the population on the planet has not got what we have… the better approach is to use the word sustainability and insist that we waste far less of everything… so now we need to define “waste”….. which has some challenges but still viable.
Excellent review Matt - just not very popular with the powers that be...
When Forbes magazine released its first global billionaires list in 1987, just 140 names appeared on it. The 2025 version featured more than 3,000 people, worth a collective $16tn. Even allowing for factors such as the rise of China and over three decades of inflation, it is a staggering increase in both numbers and values; the net worth of Elon Musk, judged the world’s richest person in April 2025, was estimated at $342bn — compared with $295bn for the entire class of 1987. Globally, the average wealth of the top 0.0001 per cent of the population grew on average 7.1 per cent a year between 1987 and 2024, compared to 3.2 per cent for the average adult, according to Gabriel Zucman, a professor of economics at the Paris School of Economics and at the University of California, Berkeley. … Income-based taxes are not particularly effective in taxing this cohort, according to Zucman. He cites research from a team he led, based on anonymised tax returns filed at the US Internal Revenue Service. It found that the top 400 wealthiest Americans had a total effective tax rate of 23.8 per cent of income in the years from 2018 to 2020, including individual income taxes, estate and gift taxes, and corporate taxes. In comparison, the rate for the wider US population was 30 per cent, rising to 45 per cent for the highest-earning workers.
Source: Financial Times
Degrowthers are basically correct -- but sabotage their own efforts by failing to deal honestly and holistically with the following key facts...
#1. What is a stock? In a private corporation , a stock is only a record of ownership. But in a public stock market -- a stock is a product that promises growth. Or there is no point to buying that stock. I am constantly reading statements by world-famous economists and environmentalists and degrowthers who prove that they lack this kindergarten level of understanding of stock markets. They even confuse "private" vs "public" corporations.
#2. A lack of sufficient growth will crash the stock markets. Duh!
Thousands of corporations will fail and millions of people will lose their jobs and homes. They will vote for politicians who Blame struggling minorities and who promote wars and pollution. For example. Hitler was totally unpopular until the stock market crash of 1930. And the most influential campaign slogan in 2008 was "drill baby drill."
#3. All the above problems are totally unnecessary. If only a few idealists would start more corporations like "newman's own." That share the profits with the people and the planet that pay for the profits.
But on the contrary. We primarily patronize corporations like facebook, amazon and google. That suck a billion dollars a month out of every poor corner of the planet. And send it all to wall street.
Of course there are idealistic versions of such corporations. However they seem to think the point is to be woke and politically correct and personally moral. Not one of them seriously imitates and competes with Facebook etc. And simply shares the profits. If done properly, then Facebook etc. could not compete and would fade away.
Especially if the pro environmental versions were endorsed by major celebrities. The vast majority of whom are pro environmental and quasi socialist. The fame of paul newman is obviously what made newman's own successful.
#4. Degrowth also would require global cooperation.
Modern warfare is primarily a financial battle to the death. The Soviet Union was not destroyed by capitalism vs socialism -- but by stock markets vs socialism. The Soviet "military industrial complex" could not compete with our "military industrial complex." Especially after hundreds of USA corporations were battling each other to develop computer technology in a "dog eat dog" race.
A Viking-style or Roman-style or Colonial-style economy based on constant war, pillage and slavery is not sustainable. Nonetheless -- will destroy all else in its path.
Obviously. The nation that succeeds in looting and conquering other nations will have a stronger economy.
Things do not need to be this way. Because China is fundamentally socialist. It was "US" -- the U.S.A. -- who coerced China to join the global stock market system.
Goading China to become ultra-capitalist was obviously on a par with the Hiroshima bombing as one of the most self-destructive blunders in history. Much worse and more stupid than the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor. After which one Japanese commander said, "I fear we have merely awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with resolve."
Just so -- in awakening Chinese ultra-capitalism -- the USA awakened a giant more powerful than itself.
Without Chinese stock markets -- the USA had no significant competition. With Chinese stock market capitalism -- we must ultimately devastate the world and each other. Just as colonial Europe literally owned the world -- and yet, somehow became so desperate as to murder each other by the millions. In two so-called World Wars. Just like drug cartels ultimately fighting each other to the death in spite of making billions of dollars. That is the obvious inevitable result of any growth-based economy.
However. For obvious reasons. Any state or nation or sector that does not play the same game. Has about as much effect as lying down in front of a steam roller. Especially if they are not even aware of the cornerstone of the machine they are against. The stock market.
The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima similarly alerted Stalin to the fact that nuclear weapons exist. This instantly converted the most safe and victorious military situation in history into a situation that was likely to destroy the USA. Otherwise there could not have been a "nuclear arms race" and a so-called "Cold War." Resulting in the USA feeling forced to support anti-democratic dictators across the Mideast, Africa, South America and Southeast Asia. For good reason -- Stalin and Mao had "the bomb." Because Harry Truman gave the idea to them. Even though the USA also electrocuted two Jews for supposedly giving away nuclear ideas.
Anyone who told anyone what the "Manhattan Project" was about would have been executed for treason. For obvious reasons. And yet. The USA president told the whole world as if in a neon sign 6,000 feet high. He later claimed this "shortened the war." Nobody claimed this was necessary to win the war. And if you add the so-called "Cold War" it is still going on today.
Ironically -- in spite of its economic superiority -- China has no chance of competing with the USA in terms of stock market investing. A strong stock market requires constant growth of everything -- especially population and resource usage. China is already so seriously over-populated that all they can do is to halt their efforts to reduce population.
The resulting global military and financial self-destruction of China and the USA could easily be avoided -- if China were merely to support corporate bonds and de-emphasize the stock market. For reasons as obvious as an elephant in the room. Or 1 + 1 = 2.
Unfortunately -- as i said -- there seems to be no intelligent life on earth. We are not descended from monkeys -- we still are monkeys. And China only seems inclined either to follow an archaic Jewish philosopher, Karl Marx. Or to mimic the USA stock market system.
Monkey see, monkey do. We monkeys seldom know how to think for ourselves. Even to see something just as obvious as an elephant staring us in the face.
“ A better community is what politics always promises, but never delivers.”
Politics always promises better, because better is what people actually want.
Politics never delivers better, because that is not within the remit of Politics as a social institution for socially choosing, redistributively, reactively and correctively, through the expenditure of the public fisc and the exercise of public force, to cajole and coerce compliance with social narratives of what is possible and social norms for what is right and true and good, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America) as “... the last great experiment for promoting human happiness” ( George Washington, January 9, 1790)
Better is within the remit of “the powers behind the status quo”. That is Finance, that chooses, predistributivley, where the money can, should and will be made to go, and Enterprise that does the work of putting technological knowledge into action creating through curation an abundance of choices from which others can choose, through participation in enterprise and exchange.
Since the early 1970s, we have been complicit in letting securities trading, and the financial mathematics of ownership for profit extraction from volatility and growth in market clearing prices for securities in the markets for maintaining volatility and growth in market clearing prices for those securities, monopolize financing for enterprise by replacing our common sense of the capacity that Pensions & Endowments derive from their capacity as large, purposeful and self-perpetuating social trusts, with their expert knowledge of outperformance in maximizing the highest possible purely pecuniary profit extraction from volatility and growth in the securities trading markets.
These markets need growth to deliver opportunities for profit extraction.
In these markets, more is better, and better requires more.
This is the source of what Kate Raworth calls our growth addiction.
It is not easy to see.
What’s wrong with wrong thinking never is.