Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)

6. Seems the article seeks a re-definition of prosperity (and conversely, austerity).

Reply to David__77 (Reply #5)

Sun May 5, 2013, 04:58 PM

May 2013

as a sociological problem, not a political one.

Translated to politics, it would inevitably mean putting some brakes on capitalism. That doesn't necessarily result in a cost-benefit tradeoff, however. If take-home salaries are reduced by higher taxes, for instance, that "austerity" would be counteracted by a new transportation system, or paying down a deficit.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Less Is More: Rogue Economists Champion Prosperity without Growth [View all] Iterate May 2013 OP

Anti-growth = right-wing austerity. David__77 May 2013 #1

The article (and the concept) has nothing to do with austerity or abolishing wheels. Iterate May 2013 #2

Did you even try and read the article? hatrack May 2013 #3

That's a pitfall but not an inevitability caraher May 2013 #4

Technological and productivity improvements. David__77 May 2013 #5

Seems the article seeks a re-definition of prosperity (and conversely, austerity). wtmusic May 2013 #6

It's a good beginning. Now lets see a few rogues champion degrowth. GliderGuider May 2013 #7

I was suprised enough by seeing it mentioned in a major paper, Iterate May 2013 #8

+1 GliderGuider May 2013 #9