Are efficiency, sustainability and preservation enemies of our economic system?

[The Crusader]

Are efficiency, sustainability and preservation enemies of our economic system?
and is product sustainability inverse to economic growth?

[bassrique]

Efficiency isn't, and that's all I'll comment on.

[guitar ed]

They are the enemies of our economy as it is NOW. Meaning that there are winners in the current system, who will be losers if we switch to a sustainability model. Moving to a new model will create problems, new winners & new losers, in the short to medium term. Stuff like that. But that does not mean that in the long term we will have lower growth. Just different growth. Assuming that it is a viable model in the first place.

All that said, the best way to move to a sustainability model is to increase the cost of the item to be conserved or used in a sustainable way. People react to price signals, not government desires. Look at what killed the Hummer.

edg

Ask 100 economist for their opinion, consider yourself lucky if you only get 101 answers.

[MJ5150]

Originally Posted by The Crusader

and is product sustainability inverse to economic growth?

Seems like it. How often do we hear the comment "they don't make 'em like they used to"?

Products that last 25 years don't benefit manufacturers. It's a wonder it took as long as it did for manufacturers to figure that one out.

-Mike

[bassrique]

Products that last 25 years don't benefit manufacturers.

I don't think you are seeing "sustainability" the same way the OP is.

[MakiSupaStar]

Well preservation of the species is a difficult job but someone has to do it. This is why I adhere to my theory of quantity over quality. Now in order to be efficient I've chosen to only tap sexy Asian chicks and an occasional brazilian to keep the gene pool interesting. Also I wouldn't mind a nice busty blonde swede once in a while, but I digress. Sometimes the pursuit of quantity places me in not so proud moments, so in order to maintain sustainability I tend to roll through my memory bank of sexy Asian chicks to finish the job at hand... except there's no hand, but I don't really think we need a picture. If you insist on a visual on how I maintain the economy of motion then picture me naked trying to play a tuba that has been smothered in crisco. No one said it was going to be pretty.

[theNoseBleedKid]

I think it's the economic system that's the enemy of preservation and sustainability.

Capitalism seems tied to, and the bearer and proponent of, consumerism, and that life style/economic fact is simply unsustainable from any perspective, I think.

[hbarcat]

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

Well preservation of the species is a difficult job but someone has to do it. This is why I adhere to my theory of quantity over quality. Now in order to be efficient I've chosen to only tap sexy Asian chicks and an occasional brazilian to keep the gene pool interesting. Also I wouldn't mind a nice busty blonde swede once in a while, but I digress. Sometimes the pursuit of quantity places me in not so proud moments, so in order to maintain sustainability I tend to roll through my memory bank of sexy Asian chicks to finish the job at hand... except there's no hand, but I don't really think we need a picture. If you insist on a visual on how I maintain the economy of motion then picture me naked trying to play a tuba that has been smothered in crisco. No one said it was going to be pretty.

How can anyone read this and not LOL?

[thefruitfarmer]

Originally Posted by The Crusader

Are efficiency, sustainability and preservation enemies of our economic system?

As it is now, yes. They are an additional complication to the process of making money in the short term.

Originally Posted by The Crusader

and is product sustainability inverse to economic growth?

Not necessarily, instead of spending the money on replacing a worn out good the consumer could buy something else.

I have been questioning the icon of Economic Growth for years....It always seems to be thought of as a good thing. However, all it means is that the wealth in a country, measured by GDP or somesuch, has increased.

Whether the population of a country is any happier or benefited by a measured increase in the country's wealth is another thing.

Consider this example. I want a desk for my home studio. I could buy one from IKEA or Studiodesks for say £300, which would put £300 in to the economy and be measured as £300 of economic growth. However, I decide to build my own desk and go to the timber yard. I buy battens and plywood for £100 and build a made to measure desk in my garage. This would be measured as £100 of economic growth.

The desk I made is better for me. It fits the studio exactly without any waste of space. It is the exact height I want and everything is within an arms reach.

Buying a desk would have added £300 to the country's economic growth but making the desk added £100 to the country's economic growth. However, I get more utility from the desk I built myself.....

Therefore, economic growth is not always an accurate reflection of how well off people really are. It does not show how much utility people get from the goods and services they buy.

I really think that economic growth is perhaps something we should stop chasing as a be all and end all...

[12bass]

The Earth is a closed system with finite resources. Any economic model which is based on the notion of perpetual growth is therefore at odds with the ecosystem. Further, because resources are finite, there is no way for everyone on the planet to be prosperous. Thus, those who prosper tend to do so at the expense of everyone else.

[The Crusader]

Originally Posted by bassrique

I don't think you are seeing "sustainability" the same way the OP is.

i see it in no certain way. it was just something I read and thought I would post to get others opinions.

[The Crusader]

Originally Posted by guitar ed

All that said, the best way to move to a sustainability model is to increase the cost of the item to be conserved or used in a sustainable way.

Problem is though, I believe anyway, that people are very willing to buy a product that costs less (including being made cheaper, ie. inferior product, sub-standard wages, etc) and someone is always willing to make said product.
In a sense, we are all victims of our own demise. We accept things that we shouldn't, then we complain about it.

[Jim Nazium]

Originally Posted by The Crusader

Are efficiency, sustainability and preservation enemies of our economic system?

No, but it looks that way because the cost of sustainability and preservation are not borne by goods producers or service providers. For example, if you can manufacture something with toxic by-products and then dum the waste into a river, thus not paying the cost of cleaning it up, competitive pressure will drive you to do it that way. If you can be made to pay all the costs of cleaning up the watse, either you will find cleaner ways to make the product, or the price will rise causing fewer people to buy the product. Either way there will be less pollution. The problem is not with a competitive system, it's with imposing cleanup costs on those who make the mess.

[Jim Nazium]

Originally Posted by 12bass

The Earth is a closed system with finite resources. Any economic model which is based on the notion of perpetual growth is therefore at odds with the ecosystem. Further, because resources are finite, there is no way for everyone on the planet to be prosperous. Thus, those who prosper tend to do so at the expense of everyone else.

I disagree, prosperity deosn't necessarily require the consumption of more resources, and it isn't necessarily zero-sum. The stone age didn't end because the earth's finite supply of stones ran out.

[stevetx19]

Originally Posted by thefruitfarmer

Not necessarily, instead of spending the money on replacing a worn out good the consumer could buy something else.

I have been questioning the icon of Economic Growth for years....It always seems to be thought of as a good thing. However, all it means is that the wealth in a country, measured by GDP or somesuch, has increased.

Whether the population of a country is any happier or benefited by a measured increase in the country's wealth is another thing.

Consider this example. I want a desk for my home studio. I could buy one from IKEA or Studiodesks for say £300, which would put £300 in to the economy and be measured as £300 of economic growth. However, I decide to build my own desk and go to the timber yard. I buy battens and plywood for £100 and build a made to measure desk in my garage. This would be measured as £100 of economic growth.

The desk I made is better for me. It fits the studio exactly without any waste of space. It is the exact height I want and everything is within an arms reach.

Buying a desk would have added £300 to the country's economic growth but making the desk added £100 to the country's economic growth. However, I get more utility from the desk I built myself.....

Therefore, economic growth is not always an accurate reflection of how well off people really are. It does not show how much utility people get from the goods and services they buy.

I really think that economic growth is perhaps something we should stop chasing as a be all and end all...

i tend to agree...i've thought of it as learning to recognize multiple "currencies" that are in play.

[12bass]

Originally Posted by Jim Nazium

I disagree, prosperity deosn't necessarily require the consumption of more resources, and it isn't necessarily zero-sum. The stone age didn't end because the earth's finite supply of stones ran out.

Today's wealth is not built on stones....

Think non-renewable resources.

Take a look at who is most represented in this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ies_by_revenue

[Jim Nazium]

Originally Posted by 12bass

Today's wealth is not built on stones....

Think non-renewable resources.

Take a look at who is most represented in this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ies_by_revenue

That's exactly my point. Today's wealth is not built on stones, or cotton, or tea, or salt, all of which were important commodities at one time. It's built on oil, gas, and coal. 200 years from now those commodities probably won't be nearly as important as they are today, but I don't think that means humans will be less well off as a result.

[12bass]

The immense profit generated with non-renewable resources factors greatly into the OP's question about sustainability. That wealth-generating machinery is completely unsustainable. Yet these are the very corporations who are steering economic policy, spreading FUD about climate change, etc....

[MonetBass]

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

Well preservation of the species is a difficult job but someone has to do it. This is why I adhere to my theory of quantity over quality. Now in order to be efficient I've chosen to only tap sexy Asian chicks and an occasional brazilian to keep the gene pool interesting. Also I wouldn't mind a nice busty blonde swede once in a while, but I digress. Sometimes the pursuit of quantity places me in not so proud moments, so in order to maintain sustainability I tend to roll through my memory bank of sexy Asian chicks to finish the job at hand... except there's no hand, but I don't really think we need a picture. If you insist on a visual on how I maintain the economy of motion then picture me naked trying to play a tuba that has been smothered in crisco. No one said it was going to be pretty.

Although not necessarily on-topic, this is still my favorite answer.

[PSPookie]

Originally Posted by 12bass

Today's wealth is not built on stones....

No, but the stone age did come about due to a wood shortage at the end of the stick age.