I think you’re missing my point now. Maybe the headphone example is weak, but it illustrates the point. Abundance is not necessarily abundance of wealth. Im arguing that reducing general production and increasing wealth are compatible. Making the distribution of wealth depend on abundant production, independently of quality, only overworks people and pollute the world.
Legitimizing degrowth exterminates those unable to afford resistance to oligarchy.
This seems too general. Defending degrowth may do that if its done in the specific way you have described before, but not generally.
Resistance to oligarchy and general improvements to quality of life could have degrowth as a consequence, not the other way around.
What you seem to be criticizing is that “other way around” thesis.
Scarcity is the intended opposite of abundance. The US economic model of corporatism, oligarchy, and capital supremacism promotes scarcity and protection from competitition/disruption because those policies provide the highest ROI from higher sales prices. Abundance necessarily means more jobs than producing less. Lower prices makes buyers richer, including companies that can leverage cheaper raw materials to make more/cheaper end products, employing more people by making society richer in affording more of their goods. Refusing cheap chinese energy (solar) makes America poorer. Much more expense in job creation to deploy solar than the cost of the panels. This is done to protect oil oligarchy extortion power. Where China has a competitive advantage in electric motors and batteries, incorporating their technology in domestic factories, or just importing their finished products, would greatly improve domestic EV value production, making Americans richer.
Wealth defined as producing more useful to people things means abundance = wealth. I understand that GDP definition means wealth = overpaying the most for things no matter how oppressed workers are made by minimizing labour demand by limiting production, can create a bigger score, especially if pensions and 401k schemes benefit from extortion economic model, and property owners are empowered to limit competing housing supply. I understand that it is possible for the extortion and slavery model to provide a higher “official” wealth score. But this is a failure in understanding of, at least my intended, meaning of social wealth.
Resistance to oligarchy and general improvements to quality of life could have degrowth as a consequence
The US political order has no hope of resisting oligarchy. DNC is a zionist first, oligarchist fundraising second, political organization, gaslighting the left into supporting Israel third. Winning a non priority if GOP will be more Israel friendly. Bernie, who DNC will always oppose, economic policies are absolutely so stupid as to be intentional stupidity to lose. The moderate candidate in both parties is actually the most extremist zionist warmongering supremacist that will prioritize war over any social pluralism. Only UBI/freedom dividends can disempower the US empire. As mentioned, UBI results in exponential clean growth instead of degrowth.
I think you’re missing my point now. Maybe the headphone example is weak, but it illustrates the point. Abundance is not necessarily abundance of wealth. Im arguing that reducing general production and increasing wealth are compatible. Making the distribution of wealth depend on abundant production, independently of quality, only overworks people and pollute the world.
This seems too general. Defending degrowth may do that if its done in the specific way you have described before, but not generally. Resistance to oligarchy and general improvements to quality of life could have degrowth as a consequence, not the other way around. What you seem to be criticizing is that “other way around” thesis.
Scarcity is the intended opposite of abundance. The US economic model of corporatism, oligarchy, and capital supremacism promotes scarcity and protection from competitition/disruption because those policies provide the highest ROI from higher sales prices. Abundance necessarily means more jobs than producing less. Lower prices makes buyers richer, including companies that can leverage cheaper raw materials to make more/cheaper end products, employing more people by making society richer in affording more of their goods. Refusing cheap chinese energy (solar) makes America poorer. Much more expense in job creation to deploy solar than the cost of the panels. This is done to protect oil oligarchy extortion power. Where China has a competitive advantage in electric motors and batteries, incorporating their technology in domestic factories, or just importing their finished products, would greatly improve domestic EV value production, making Americans richer.
Wealth defined as producing more useful to people things means abundance = wealth. I understand that GDP definition means wealth = overpaying the most for things no matter how oppressed workers are made by minimizing labour demand by limiting production, can create a bigger score, especially if pensions and 401k schemes benefit from extortion economic model, and property owners are empowered to limit competing housing supply. I understand that it is possible for the extortion and slavery model to provide a higher “official” wealth score. But this is a failure in understanding of, at least my intended, meaning of social wealth.
The US political order has no hope of resisting oligarchy. DNC is a zionist first, oligarchist fundraising second, political organization, gaslighting the left into supporting Israel third. Winning a non priority if GOP will be more Israel friendly. Bernie, who DNC will always oppose, economic policies are absolutely so stupid as to be intentional stupidity to lose. The moderate candidate in both parties is actually the most extremist zionist warmongering supremacist that will prioritize war over any social pluralism. Only UBI/freedom dividends can disempower the US empire. As mentioned, UBI results in exponential clean growth instead of degrowth.