Limitless Growth Is Possible If We Run Our Economies Correctly | Economics Explained

Sponsored by Brilliant

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

0:00 - 2:15 Intro
2:16 - 3:12 Brilliant
3:13 - 4:02 GDP growth
4:03 - 4:53 Is growth bad?
4:54 - 7:00 Inequality
7:01 - 9:00 Resource depletion
9:01 - 11:01 Quality over quantity
11:02 - 12:22 Digital economy
12:23 A better way forward

Enjoyed the video? Comment below! 💬
⭑ Enjoyed? Hit the like button! 👍

Follow EE on social media:

#EconomicsExplained #climatechange #sustainability #Economics #Explained

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

ECONOMICS EXPLAINED IS MADE POSSIBLE BY OUR PATREON COMMUNITY 👊🙏

The video you’re watching right now would not exist without the monthly support provided by our generous Patrons:

Patrons, rotation 2
Delesdernier IV, Efe ??zyŽñlmaz, Emrys Brand, Patrick Anderson, '-, Jesus lovera, Hunter Wentland, Chris Roche, Jono Chadwell, Abenezer Samuel, Matthew Cataldo, Mario Diaz, p3ngwin , collin dsouza, Ryan Matthews, Beer van der Drift, Jake Nonnemaker, Andre Villarreal, tibo, Cathrin Machin, Gaurav Arora, Philip Mueller, Leonardo Bruzzichesi, Glen Knowles, Robin Johnson, Mason Shivers, Salt-Upon-Wounds , NoncompliantBanana, Janusz Wieczorek, Nicolas Guillaume, Gregory Tiesi, Bill Eaton, Samuel Elliott, larry82, Keith Turner, Michael U, Tactical Bagels, Michael , Adrian Grey, Jonas Jensen, Nelson W, Christopher Han, Jonathan Hoover, Mark , Elvis Stotland, Simon Venning, Jason Travis, Kris De Decker, Jacob Adams, Dan Renwick, Netherfield, Silvio, Artemaeus , Aleks D, Julian Khandros, Tom Flanigan, Jonathan Metter, Chris Froussios, Bill Coxon, Kathleen Ripley, Jesse Hallett, Rita Guimaraes, Bernardo Seixas, Albert Sheu, Steve Williamson, Nir Stalkol, Dennis Kane, gerrit landolt, Stu Mentha, Colin Tylk, Nathan Snyder, Daniel Lambert, Alexander Aeschbacher, Jacob Suter, rechid, Derek VerLee, Arto Karhu, Jean Lee, jose martinez, Consalvo , Justin Stephens, Finlay

Middle class patrons, rotation 2
Michael K?¬rbis, Matthew Kelly, Nima Maghoul, justin bake, Michael Houlihan, Hugh Raymond Harris, David W., Will , Kheng Lai Tan, Andrey Kalganov, David Taylor, Scott Greenwood, Jane Walerud, Simon Sturmer, Zachary Demko, Michael Wolff, Simon Harman, skuerzo , Siegfried Eggl, PM, Jack Annear, michael , Jonathan Krailler, Franklin , Ivan , Tinni , Trevor, Marcel Roquette, Daniel Hall, Bradley Reimers, Connor Costello , John D Tyler, Petronio Coelho, Kevin MacIntyre, Alexander, Travis Thompson, Cliff Russell, Joseph Bateh, Matthew Eggleston, Marco Tamassia, Michael Weber, Andrew Vinnichenko, Zachary Kasow, AZbytes , Johannes , Reuben Field, Nigel Pauli , Jacob , AB3 , Mai Ly Fong, Sridev, Eric Schmidtke, CJ LaCour, Matt McKee, Norrawed Setthiwong, giatn giatn, Victor T., Pedro Brito, kekomod, Michael Salt, John C, Rimvydas , George Dusu, John Downie , Jimotei , Shivan , Caleb Adjokatse, Donald Wedington, Demo sthenes, Brenton Milne, Ed , Tom Szuszai, Hayden van Reyswoud, ReysDad

Upper middle class patrons
Andrew Schechtman, Michael Ling, Cy 'kkm' K'Nelson, Bob Burdett, Stephanie Roth, Frank Soltero, David Poliakoff, Johan Auster, Jay Eno, Philip, Ryan Foo, Gr??goire Duch?¦ne, Sophie G, Brett Jubinville, Anthony Roberts, jill hoffman, Christopher Blackmon, Nathan Ngumi, JKH , Luis Bernal, Milo ­ RankoviŽ?, Denzil, Samantha Satow, Constanza de Svastich, Marie and Peter, Rachel Winters, Steffen Lindner, Laor Glukhovsky, Kib Bibens-LeFebvre, Forodon, Daniel Hardingham, Paul Ashworth, BlobyTwo , Igor Stavchanskiy, Mcfeld, Wendover Productions, Michael Chang, Shab Kumar, Andrew Harrison, Hector Mayorga, Alex Gogan, Morgon Goranson, Irsal Mashhor, Jack Doe, Igor Bazarny

Upper class patrons
Jeromy Johnson

[theoeaves]

"ANYONE who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist, ” Kenneth Boulding

[triplexlongueuil]

The problem here is that selling jackets that will last a lifetime is not as profitable as selling jackets that will only last one year or two; even if you sell that first jacket for 10 times the price of the second.
Companies will always try to increase their profit; but governments could tax polluting material like plastic, and then use the money from this tax to subsidize companies producing durable goods.
The more of these sustainable companies we have, the more likely people are to realize where their money should go.

[empireone]

"Even Switzerland has the good sense to diversify into dodgy banking" 😂😂😂😂 I just about died of laughter 😂😂

[DanielBrotherston]

I think you need to challenge the initial assumption...that human demand is infinite.

You can see that this is challenged later in the video...fast fashion is the clearest example.

Fast fashion exists in order to CREATE demand. We make cheap garbage clothes and new styles every year for only one purpose...so that people will buy them. If we built quality clothing that was durable and lasted a long time in styles that were not tacky after a few times wearing then we would consume LESS CLOTHING. I.e., our natural demand for clothing isn't infinite, consumption is artificially created through branding, advertising, and cheap disposable goods.

[donwald]

Manufacturers want to lower quality, not improve it, because it's both cheaper and creates repeat business.

[Natalieneptune]

The worst part about this recession is that consumers are racking up credit card debt. In April alone, credit card debt went up 20% while rates have doubled in a year. Inflation is so high that consumers are literally taking debt for basic life necessities. Collapse is near.

[JermanRamirez]

There is a danger in prioritizing "infinite growth" or growth in general. Marketing especially is guilty of "creating desires, " even desires that are harmful to its customers (like smoking), all in the pursuit of growth.

If economics is to be used to help "society, " then examining our desires (manufactured or otherwise) may need to be a part of the equation.

[insane_troll]

More important than GDP is GDP per capita. If you just measure GDP it looks like an improvement to have a higher population who are poorer on average.

[visheshrao]

How tremendous an impact can an idea like paying more attention to Material Productivity/GDP per material use, rather than other GDP based Metrics, can have on our own personal perspective of Economic Growth! Amazing!

[anneyeurism]

I've been a long time viewer and subscriber of this channel but this video has me really disappointed.

So many of this video's arguments are based on assumptions that are unsubstantiated or have been proven untrue. GDP growth is not strongly linked to the production of goods and services when the largest "creators of wealth" are things like stock price inflation via buybacks. Picketty's raising of all tides is clearly not representative of the actual functioning of the economy as we have seen real wages for average citizens in developed economies shrink while gdp growth has continued. The value added by "growth" is not questioned here in any meaningful way. A lot of the assumptions about this value do more to protect the status quo than any degrowth movement ever could. The central economic problem remains unsolved because despite certain individuals having an abundance of resources those resources address only their desires while the basic needs of many go unfulfilled. Why is there no question of distribution of wealth as this is a core tenet of the degrowth movement, that the wealth we have is sufficient but that distribution of that wealth is inefficiently allocated to meet many people's needs and desires? This video seems like it handwaves a lot of these important arguments. In the past you have highlighted nordic countries for the way their distribution of wealth has been a great benefit to their citiziens. Why is that same principal not even discussed? Why is the current system of production and distribution of economic value examined at all and given as a foregone conclusion? When it comes to unmet needs why is a lack of growth going to be what causes the poor to be outraged when we have seen extreme outrage over the past two years despite economic growth up until very recently? Why are none of these questions mentioned even in passing?

I'm very disappointed in this video's lack of attention to vital details of the degrowth argument and I hope that in the future more attention will be given to them. This doesn't feel like a well rounded discussion of growth vs degrowth so much as a dismissal of degrowth.

[metrx]

The problem with limitless growth in a finite world is if demand would ever intersect ultimate resource availability. The problem I have with economics is the assumption that human wants are limitless. They are not. Even in the most materialistic sense, life has finite timespan in which to express those desires. Additionally, awareness of what could be desired is limited by the experience and exposure of those capable of desiring. Would you desire an iPhone if you lived in 1888? The result is a complicated matrix of social conditioning, cultural expectation, resource availability and ingenuity in exploiting available resources. Something even a supercomputer could never calculate for.

[Kevin-the-Simple]

The premise of humans having unlimited [material] desires cannot be taken for granted. This is taught as a maxim in Econ 101, but it is only a maxim for capitalism - not economics as a whole. It is extremely difficult for me to imagine most of our ancestors agreeing that they had infinite material desires.

I would say human nature's most foundational desires are for purpose; community and family; survival and comfort; and the pursuit of art, intellect, and spirit. Materially, plenty of us would be satisfied with a limited amount.

[rLgxTbQ]

"Infinite growth" always reminds me of Asimov's "The Last Question". We'll keep going until we suck up all the energy in the universe.

[cadencsawesomeness]

A few thoughts.

Increasing material productivity through a greater digital economy will still be tied to material resources, like you've pointed out. The digital transformation definitely increases the value of those materials but its acting as a multiplier or exponent on the value but its still coupled to the production of the materials. I don't really think it makes to think that this multiplier could or would reach infinity. It would need to reach infinity to take limited resources into unlimited value. The base issue of finite to infinity is still there. At best it increases the material value maybe even exponentially but doesn't over come infinity.

I wonder if a better framing for the fundamental problem of economics is humans have desires beyond our resources. This doesn't necessarily have to be an infinite amount.

Doesn't decreasing our growth based on producing more materials have the same issue as zero growth for impoverished economies. As in how much comfort is watching Netflix when you don't have a home or know where your next meal is coming from. Any suggestion to address these material realities in infinite growth based on a digital economy model I would think could be applied to zero growth model maybe with some slight changes.

[geopoliticsweekly]

Even by making current resource use more efficient, we’re still using the same finite resources, so infinite growth is just as impossible. Growth may continue a bit longer but it doesn’t fundamentally change the equation.

[Celis.C]

The fundamental issue with modern day 'economy' is that it's completely based on 'number go up'. Focusing solely on the _monetary_ side of things is why the world is getting rekt for starters; the _true_ price is presented to future generations, who might not even be born at the rate we're destroying things.

Filling the need should ever come before fulfilling the greed.

[ArchOrigin]

Already starting off with a very bold assumption (that we have unlimited material desires), no wonder the conclusion is trash.

[stormiewutzke]

Something I found interesting when looking at history is that things tended to get cheaper over time. There may have been some production increases but while hand made good are very expensive they often were built from the highest quality material because the best way to get economy was to go for longevity. Since the population stayed static there were actually deflationary pressures. The overall amount of good was low at the time and it was one thing that really helped to increase the standard of living. We would have to have a major shift in policy but it's a smart thing to do on a personal level especially since you get to have nicer stuff although less new stuff.

[electrified]

The tricky part is how we actually use this information. Material productivity measurements won't do much to sway those with the means of production if they're still profiting from our current unsustainable model.

[naddarr]

We essentially live in a post scarcity world when it comes to food, especially in the U.S. Yet 1 in 5 children in this country go hungry everyday. The biggest issue with capitalism and thus the way most economists think is that more goods/more growth will solve our problems despite evidence showing the contrary. We have plenty of food to feed all of our citizens but we let it rot in the fields and in dumpsters behind stores because that is what is most profitable.