webdiplomacy.net

Ok, b'ait and switch title, by we I mean the Japanese.

And by eat the rich I mean kill their gods?

And by ...

Ok let me take a step back for context, based on two sources (which may be inaccurate, and I am open to correction), Japan is in an aweful state of stagnation and this is largely down to the dominantion of large conglomerates.

In reverse order, the last time the Japanese 'ate the rich' it facilitated a complete change of direction, instead of focusing on dividing up the limited resources of Japan, they instead were force to pivot towards exports lead tech development which created a massively successful economy in the 60s and 70s (see here: https://youtu.be/5_-Ac68FKG4?si=USfcf7r2QZqfWpyq )

But today the dominant culture has become stagnant and it is the success of these conglomerates which is to blame. So burn it all down and start again? Or just prune it back to the point where innovation is necessary?

The aweful state of Japan at present (described as the lost decades) began in the 90s and has people working themselves to death (heart attacks, stress etc) or not working (social recluses living in a single room, supported dby elderly parents) or dying by suicide. (Src: https://youtu.be/IEUqLL8J4gI?si=07V00BILl0fKZdMB&t=3475 - where they basically describeJapan in the context of Japan's new religion as capitalism, conglomerates as the poisonous God entities which are often killed in computer game tropes).

You know, I'd always had you down as one of the "perpetual economic growth is u sustainable" crowd

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 11, 2023 4:28 pm

You know, I'd always had you down as one of the "perpetual economic growth is u sustainable" crowd

So here is the thing. Some growth may require smarter use of less resourced in a way which makes it more valuable.

So computers, or silicon chips in general, are far more valuable than the sand it is made from (of silicon dioxide? I assume derived from sand).

The main thing consumed is energy, but in theory one could be using some of the ample renewable energy.

Or look at it another way. If two parents work and pay a third adult for childcare that is three jobs worth of gdp, compared to one parent working and the other providing childcare, only generating one or two persons worth of gdp (assuming the 3rd person is still working). So you can increase the economy by changing what labour is paid for and what is done for free.

So without changing the actual amount of work done, you can have some growth in economic terms.

So overall the disruption of standard means of production to a new mode could result in less resources used more efficiently, while increasing gdp - whereas large groups stuck in a particular mode of production will tend to grow by increasing the volume of their successful production... So pruning may be ideal in some situations.

Though I think gdp is not an ideal measure... We would need to distinguish between different types of growth and reward efficiency somehow...

Should we eat the rich? Good heavens no. Everyone knows they taste funny.

Eating the poor is much more practical anyways, as Jonathan Swift pointed out:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

That's not eating the poor, that is paying for their excess babies production and eating them, so the poor have more money and fewer mouths to feed!

You don't want to eat the poor. If you're going to eat anyone you should opt for an organically reared vegan. Preferably an office worker otherwise the muscles can get a little stringy.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 12, 2023 4:50 am

Or look at it another way. If two parents work and pay a third adult for childcare that is three jobs worth of gdp, compared to one parent working and the other providing childcare, only generating one or two persons worth of gdp (assuming the 3rd person is still working). So you can increase the economy by changing what labour is paid for and what is done for free.

This is an argument saying that economic growth can be stupid and actively make the world a worse place? I agree, it can. It's an imperfect measure.

Ultimately life is inefficient. A bottle of wine is a very inefficient way of consuming alcohol. A holiday in the Mediterranean is a very inefficient way of relaxing. Theatre is a very inefficient way of telling stories. We become more efficient at our peril

I have have just been for a weekend in Germany.

It was very relaxing and quite efficient.

You can have smart growth which doesn't make the world better (or consume more resources). We could all be writing some quality book rather than posting random arguments on the internet...

orathaic wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 13, 2023 8:01 pm

You can have smart growth which doesn't make the world better (or consume more resources). We could all be writing some quality book rather than posting random arguments on the internet...

Out of curiosity, what quality book are we missing out on due to your forum commitments? Where would the muses be guiding you if their wings were unclipped?

If my neuro spicy-ness didn't get in the way, my first book would be a bit of maths, metaphysics, and sociology...

Stuff I learned from Frito Carpa's "The Dao of Physics" (which is a book I can't recommend less), "The Emperor's New Mind", which is fine apart from the last chapter (is the reason Penrose wrote the book), and musings on Spinozan Pantheism (except I didn't know Spinoza existed when I came up with those ideas....)

If you convince someone that the fashion at the time is for minimalism and you are a great interior designer, can you sell your elite skills to not put anything into their home?

So long as they value it, then you have created value without consuming any materials. Thus the environment has less resources exploited but the GDP measure goes up.

I find mostly that GDP is a flawed measure.