You might want to talk to someone about that bloodlust Nigel. That's the second time in as many days that you openly wished for the death of a group you don't belong to. Yesterday it was queers and criminals. Anyone else we should warn?
Its not an action statement ….. it’s a question as to how serous must be the deterrent of breaking the law by crossing a border to prevent attempts.
And the bit about queers and criminals was a reaction to the article talking about the value of males in society…. The argument is clear that the result of your degrowth approach will be the deaths of innocent people…. so why not put the undesirables at the top of the list.
Very interesting hypothetical. Who knows how this will transpire... I keep on telling people we're in for a financial crash but it's like the climate crisis. No one wants to hear it.
And forget the semantics folks! We're in trouble 😣
Any recession or unintentional “degrowth” under Trump would be inequitable and thus give people more reason to be scared of real degrowth. I think it will make people less ready for a degrowth conversation- not more ready as you suggested.
We are in a propaganda battle of life and death! Degrowthers have a responsibility to get the terminology right. As Timothée Parrique says: "Associating degrowth with a recession just because the two involve a reduction of GDP is absurd; it would be like arguing that an amputation and a diet are the very same thing just because they both lead to weight loss."
Matt is a much better writer than me, so I assume the heading is an attempt at some sort of rhetorical device. But which devise? Satire, irony, acyron (the use of a word repugnant or contrary to what is meant), catachresis (the use of a word in a context that differs from its proper application)? Whichever devise it is supposed to be I think it fails monumentally.
Perhaps it works well for those who understand Degrowth (I don’t think it does) but for the vast majority of the population it probably does more harm than good.
Thanks for the comment. I added the subheader - just not on purpose, and say in the article that degrowth and recession are indeed not the same thing, but Trump may very well stumble into slowing the economy and slowing environmental damage, just not on purpose. But we should be doing it on purpose.
I admit it was a bit of a provocative headline, with the subheadline meant to tease people into reading more.
Thank you for reading and your thoughtful critique. I very much value your opinion.
Fascinating article Matt. When you consider the data you've highlighted it looks serious. Now add the notion that Elon wants to cut 30% of the federal budget. Consider the impact when $2 trillion is cut from the fed budget and the loss of jobs on top of what you've already put forward.
My guess is that they will start to do all of this, but then get resistance from Republicans in the House and Senate who see just how damaging it will be. If Trump gives the U.S. a 4 percent drop in GDP growth or more, House and Senate will flip in 2 years.
I wonder how many will try to cross if the penalty when arrested is death!
You might want to talk to someone about that bloodlust Nigel. That's the second time in as many days that you openly wished for the death of a group you don't belong to. Yesterday it was queers and criminals. Anyone else we should warn?
Its not an action statement ….. it’s a question as to how serous must be the deterrent of breaking the law by crossing a border to prevent attempts.
And the bit about queers and criminals was a reaction to the article talking about the value of males in society…. The argument is clear that the result of your degrowth approach will be the deaths of innocent people…. so why not put the undesirables at the top of the list.
It’s not degrowth if it’s not on purpose
Very interesting hypothetical. Who knows how this will transpire... I keep on telling people we're in for a financial crash but it's like the climate crisis. No one wants to hear it.
And forget the semantics folks! We're in trouble 😣
Any recession or unintentional “degrowth” under Trump would be inequitable and thus give people more reason to be scared of real degrowth. I think it will make people less ready for a degrowth conversation- not more ready as you suggested.
The heading is most unfortunate.
We are in a propaganda battle of life and death! Degrowthers have a responsibility to get the terminology right. As Timothée Parrique says: "Associating degrowth with a recession just because the two involve a reduction of GDP is absurd; it would be like arguing that an amputation and a diet are the very same thing just because they both lead to weight loss."
Matt is a much better writer than me, so I assume the heading is an attempt at some sort of rhetorical device. But which devise? Satire, irony, acyron (the use of a word repugnant or contrary to what is meant), catachresis (the use of a word in a context that differs from its proper application)? Whichever devise it is supposed to be I think it fails monumentally.
Perhaps it works well for those who understand Degrowth (I don’t think it does) but for the vast majority of the population it probably does more harm than good.
Kirk,
Thanks for the comment. I added the subheader - just not on purpose, and say in the article that degrowth and recession are indeed not the same thing, but Trump may very well stumble into slowing the economy and slowing environmental damage, just not on purpose. But we should be doing it on purpose.
I admit it was a bit of a provocative headline, with the subheadline meant to tease people into reading more.
Thank you for reading and your thoughtful critique. I very much value your opinion.
That sounds about right.
It will be challenging to deceive those who have expectations but they have demonstrated that they can sell most anything . . . so far.
Fascinating article Matt. When you consider the data you've highlighted it looks serious. Now add the notion that Elon wants to cut 30% of the federal budget. Consider the impact when $2 trillion is cut from the fed budget and the loss of jobs on top of what you've already put forward.
My guess is that they will start to do all of this, but then get resistance from Republicans in the House and Senate who see just how damaging it will be. If Trump gives the U.S. a 4 percent drop in GDP growth or more, House and Senate will flip in 2 years.
You are making a very bold assumption there that there will be an election in 2 years, or indeed ever again. I don't think that is the plan.