12
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by kudra@sh.itjust.works to c/degrowth@slrpnk.net

what bothers me most is that the concept of degrowth isn't even possible to contemplate to these numpties. This economic model is failing, yes, but the article does not actually propose to consider the deeper reasons. "Economic growth" must be pursued at all costs according to these fucking twats... oh? Really? Why? When we have energy constraints, how the fuck can this even be possible, yanno? They don't even consider the reality of energy descent being inevitable, and that we are now staring it in the face.

I'm so tired of not being allowed to talk about this to 99% of people, too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 7 points 5 months ago

The current capitalist system moves wealth from the poor to the rich. That sort of works, if the total wealth is growing at such a rate that the poor keep their quality of life. However when you have stagnation and even worse a decline in GDP you end up in a situation, where the poor get actually poorer and the rich either keep their wealth or become richer.

So with a stagnating economy, you have to change the system to stop the flow of wealth to the rich. When you want to actively shrink the economy, you need to take from the rich.

In this case these numpties work for Murdoch.

[-] kudra@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
12 points (100.0% liked)

Degrowth

2487 readers
12 users here now

Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS