I don’t think you understand how economics works then - seems to be an epidemic of people who are clueless about this and they are actually the root of the problem.

Kind of ironic really.

If you truly cannot fathom/believe how the rich can get richer whilst the poorest of the poor also get richer then look at the history of economic growth on a global scale over the course of human history. As for teh population growth this decreases when poverty decreases so it is in everyone’s interest to expand economic growth not inhibit it.

Like I said, these kind of things can be quite counter intuitive as what we believe in our gut to be the ‘wrong’ focus quite often turns out to be the right one. Greed, guilt and avarice are generally perceived as ‘sins’ so keep an eye out for them. They will cause your destruction and everyone else’s if left unchecked … they often appear in the hearts of the do goobers and have far more power there.

Everything you say here ignores, as so many economists do, the reality of limited resources. I don't think you understand how ecology (of which economy is merely a subset) works and there certainly is an epidemic of such people and they are indeed the root of the problem.

Economists who ignore resources are not economists. Can you explain?

You do at least understand that economics isn't merely about making money right?

Evidence of previous bias (always coming down on one side of an ambiguous dichotomy), ideological commitments (politics, academic allegiances), publication biases (shock value, issue-of-the-day)...all of these can be used heuristically to weight evidence, or reject it entirely, without needing any expertise in the field at all. — Isaac

Similar to why we should ignore the rantings of people like you, who try to manufacture controversy where there is none to justify the fact that you’ve been duped into aligning yourself with anti-vaxxer stupidity, mostly due to displaced fear and distrust.

This whole thread is just Xtrix having another stab a creating a version of epistemology in which it's impossible for him to be wrong. Last time we had that opposing views need not be engaged with, this time it's that opposing views are actually morally required to switch allegiance. I'm opening a book on what's next if you're interested in a wager... — Isaac

One thread was asking if it was worthwhile engaging with deluded individuals like yourself— and the answer was in the affirmative, mostly for the benefit of others.

This thread is about the responsibility to at least have sufficient evidence for believing something, especially when said belied has dramatic effects on others.

So much for your reading comprehension.

If you truly cannot fathom/believe how the rich can get richer whilst the poorest of the poor also get richer then look at the history of economic growth on a global scale over the course of human history. — I like sushi

Yes but you see how this argument is often used to justify massively disproportionate growth. A good example is the 2017 tax cut. Yes, it’s true that middle class people got a modest (and temporary) cut to their taxes…but I think you know the rest.

Yes but you see how this argument is often used to justify massively disproportionate growth. — Xtrix

I see the kind of thing Janus is saying far more often. That is more disconcerting.

A good example is the 2017 tax cut. Yes, it’s true that middle class people got a modest (and temporary) cut to their taxes…but I think you know the rest. — Xtrix

No I don’t. The reason being I’m not from your country and don’t much care about what one single nation’s government does regarding taxes. I do know that the wealthiest nations (throughout history) always have the largest disparity when it comes to comparisons between the richest and the poorest.

None of this has anything to do with the point I made. The better the economy the lower the birthrate, the better the economy the more opportunities for individuals and the better the economy the more room for environmental concerns (because first and foremost people need to see the horizon before they care about what is over it).

One thread was asking if it was worthwhile engaging with deluded individuals like yourself— and the answer was in the affirmative, mostly for the benefit of others. — Xtrix

And you didn’t seem to learn much by the looks of it? Shame (in both ways)

I didn't say most economists ignore resources, I said they ignore ecology; the reality of limited resources and the cost, both to the environment and economically, of so-called externalities. If you think growth can continue with business as usual, without dire results, you are as deluded as those economists.The only solution to our ecological woes will be to transition to a non-growth, even a shrinking, economy.

Ha!

Seems I missed...

These people are simply liars. — Olivier5

The real issue is with people who are obviously, demonstrably wrong in their belief but will pretend to not even understand the counterfactuals or arguments of others, and to disbelieve or simply ignore their evidence en vrac. — Olivier5

No, that's exactly what the discussion is about. the identification of those people. Identifying a category doesn't constitute proof that any given entity is a member of it. That such people exist doesn't answer the question of which side in any discussion are behaving that way. Both sides will obviously accuse the other of such activities.

What's going wrong in all these threads is the assumption that only one side has the Solomonesque wisdom to 'step outside' of their role as proponent/opponent to judge the other side's evidence as if they were an impartial observer.

Everyone agrees that...

we have a responsibility to argue in good faith — Olivier5

Everyone agrees that...

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

So it's disingenuous to present these as if they were live issues. I doubt you'll find a person on the planet to disagree with them. The issue is identifying when it is happening without simply declaring it of one's opponents as a cheap way of avoiding having to understand them. Or as Janus puts it...

Is there a reliable standard by means of which it could be judged that some conceptions of what constitutes evidence really don't add up? — Janus

What I've been lamenting in the Covid threads is that fact that I think there used to be a perfectly adequate standard (not perfect, by any means, but enough to filter out the crap). Matters regarding some field of expertise are discussed either by those experts or by reference to them. It's as simple as that. If you've met the threshold of epistemic responsibility to become an expert in some field, have no discoverable conflict of interest, no history of deep bias, then you have the right to be taken seriously and respectfully in any discussion within that field. Likewise laymen discussing that field are extended this right if they (in context) cite, or paraphrase the positions of these people who have met this standard.

I know I might sound like a typical old man, but this is how things used to be done (at least in my circles, which I admit are quite limited). The decay started before Covid but has been exaggerated massively during the crisis to the point we now find ourselves, where one's conclusions are all that matter, not the diligence with which one has arrived at them. Indeed, as here, one's conclusions are being used as a measure of the diligence one is assumed to have used arriving at them.

Yes, I agree that politicization of the whole issue of covid (not to mention any other domains similarly affected) has considerably muddied the waters.

Identifying a category doesn't constitute proof that any given entity is a member of it. That such people exist doesn't answer the question of which side in any discussion are behaving that way. Both sides will obviously accuse the other of such activities. — Isaac

That happens but is not necessary or obvious. There are many discussions here or elsewhere between people in good faith. Seek them and you will find them.

Everyone agrees that...

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. — Isaac

I happen to disagree; all of us believe many things without evidence, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

The decay started before Covid but has been exaggerated massively during the crisis to the point we now find ourselves, where one's conclusions are all that matter, not the diligence with which one has arrived at them. — Isaac

'We'? Speak for yourself. There's no fatality here, nobody is forcing anyone to become stupid. It's a choice 'we' make.

I don’t believe that for a second because I know what is taught in economics and I know exactly how important the relation between economics and ecology is.

Your point was the population is an issue. It is. My point is that population growth reduces as GDP increases.

That is all.

The only solution to our ecological woes will be to transition to a non-growth, even a shrinking, economy. — Janus

How is that viable? Is it a realistic option? What happens to the poorest people in this process? What events in human history have raised living standards beyond mere survival?

It does not follow from something being desirable, that it is therefore viable.

about.the identification of those people. — Isaac

A few pointers and indicators about people arguing in bad faith:

1. No data is good enough for them, except theirs. They are likely to disregard entire sciences and throw away vast amount of data just because they can (or must).

2. On the other hand, they choose to trust and accept uncritically any data that seems to buttress their view, without ever wondering if it's genuine or manipulative. They are eager to believe alternative views and that makes them easy to manipulate.

3. They misinterpret even their own data, like when you pretended to confuse an in vitro finding with an in vivo conclusion. This is done on purpose and is part of the lying.

4. They tend to essentialize their opponents, at least in their rhetoric. Whether it's the Jews, climate scientists, politicians, the CIA or the medical establishment, they pretend to believe that their (invented) enemies -- all of them or nearly all of them -- are essentially, fundamentally evil and will always remain so.

5. From 4, it follows that they see no solution. They will criticize any proposal or policy around, but can't propose anything cogent themselves. It's about denial and negativity, about lying and poisoning the well of knowledge for others, not about proposing new knowledge or constructively moving forward.

How is that viable? — I like sushi

Is eternal economic growth viable?

Uh huh. So I think all those apply to you, you think all those apply to me. Now what?

Why mention it as a solution then? Solutions tend to be at least partially viable if if they're framed as a solution.

I'm genuinely interested to learn about how a non-growth or shrinking economy will help.

You know it does not apply to me, or rather, you know that I do not usually behave this way.

You know it does not apply to me, or rather, you know that I do not usually behave this way. — Olivier5

You know it does not apply to me either, or rather, you know that I do not usually behave this way.

A growing economy is viable and has been beneficial for larger and larger proportions of the human population as history has shown. As far as I see it the priority is to provide people with more, and better, education and resources.

I don't see how a shirking economy helps pull more people out of poverty that it puts into it (proportionally). I'm happy to look and learn though if you can provide details about this.

A growing economy is viable and has been beneficial for larger and larger proportions of the human population as history has shown. — I like sushi

Certainly, there are limits to what the environment can provide. You cannot eternally increase production.

That is incorrect, and I can prove it.

That is incorrect, and I can prove it. — Olivier5

Ah, good, now we're getting somewhere. Let's have the proof then.

Didn't you harp forever about pharmaceuticals and politicians being all corrupt?

Didn't you pretend to equate a finding about the presence of certain molecules in the blood stream of 38 individuals with the effective immunity of all of us against COVID?

What are you proposing we do about COVID?

Obviously.

If you have something to share about non-growth or shrinking economies that would be nice to hear.

My point is that forever lasting growth is not viable. It's a pipe dream.

That's kind of a a pointless point in the discussion we were having though.

It's a rebuttal to your argument that negative growth is not viable.