Catastrophe without Economic Growth?

Catastrophe without economic growth?

by Günter Faltin (excerpt from " David versus Goliath ")

It is normal for politicians to promise sustainability one moment and call for growth the next. As if growth were the solution and not the problem. As soon as someone advocates turning away from growth, the painters of catastrophes appear.[1]

Paint scary scenarios. Less consumption, fewer jobs, fewer taxes, less government spending, falling pensions, even less consumption, fewer jobs, even less income and so on.

Let's not be intimidated by such scenarios. The ups and downs of the business cycle have been well studied in economic theory. Downturns of greater or lesser magnitude have always existed. In no case did an endless downward spiral take place. Economic researchers have repeatedly described that there is a turning point in the downward trend and then a rebound. The catastrophe paintings lack a factual basis. We can do without quantitative growth.

For most of history, periods of burgeoning economic growth have been the exception and periods of economic stagnation the norm. Meinhard Miegel argues that it was not until the middle of the 20th century that economic growth flared up into a kind of flash fire that gradually spread to larger and larger parts of the world.[2] As early as the 1970s, the most important industrial nations at the time were experiencing lower growth rates, which people thought could be increased by means of credit-financed economic stimulus programs. The increase in material prosperity was the undisputed goal. Ever since we recognized the limits of growth, the question of economic growth and increased material prosperity has arisen anew. There have long been official attempts to measure the "wealth" of a nation not only by the value of the goods and services produced, but at least to supplement it with other factors. We are already experiencing an increasingly critical attitude towards owning as many consumer goods as possible.[3]

In the future, prosperity must be something qualitatively different from primarily material goods, according to Miegel. Prosperity begins where growth ends. Enjoying nature, art, beauty, learning; humane houses and cities with streets and squares that residents like to visit; an intelligent transport system; occasional silence; sensuous enjoyment; the ability of the individual to do something with themselves and, last but not least, the certainty of being part of a lively community based on solidarity.

When it comes to impending catastrophes, scenarios come to mind that are becoming more likely as a result of ever-increasing growth. A massive increase in weather disasters, sea level rise. Then who pays your pensions if you're still alive? If Western consumer culture becomes the model for the "rest" of the world, how will the planet endure it? If more and more nature is concreted and poisoned, what can we spend our pensions on? If we experience migration of peoples on an almost unimaginable scale because we continue to act economically as before, who will then take care of our pensions?

Let's brace ourselves against the dynamics of the system while there is still time. We still have the chance to go another way. We are not at the mercy of the dynamics of the system. we can do something We even have to. Creating an artificial shortage and the brand nonsense that goes with it are a perversion of the economy. They are not worth protecting. Are a betrayal of the principles of economy that have developed over the centuries: to produce high quality and to deliver cheaply. This is the basis of the legitimacy of the market economy system. An economic order that produces inequality of income and wealth inherent in the system is only acceptable, as Ludwig Erhard said, if it creates prosperity for everyone in return, if the system "delivers", when it provides high quality products as cheaply as possible. When the system's performance clearly outweighs its weaknesses. Only then can the weaknesses of the system be accepted and defended. If, on the other hand, companies fall outside of this regulatory framework and systematically evade the services expected of them, there is no longer any argument to justify such an economic system.

The path proposed here describes a system change that can take place without radicality, without major upheavals. Who can bring about changes before serious events force changes. And it is a concept in which each individual can take action according to their abilities and desires - without having to wait for approval or majorities.
It is a solution that works in the existing system and does not depend on a new system that is still in the clouds. A way of free decision instead of state coercion.

---

At the first digital Entrepreneurship Summit - from October 9th to 11th, 2020 - our experts will show how we can bring about a system change together. In keynotes, workshops and impulse groups, experiences and insights are exchanged and new, innovative ideas and solutions are sought to drive change forward.

[1] This refers to the supporters of an extremely expansive monetary policy, as pursued primarily by the head of the euro central bank, Mario Draghi, during his tenure since 2011. It was intended to prevent a downward spiral in demand.

[2] Miegel, Meinhard: Exit – prosperity without growth, 2010

[3] The renaissance of sharing that we are currently experiencing can also be seen as an indication of this