I appreciate the ecological economic post-growth concept of a steady state economy. However, to achieve this, it may be more practical to re-evaluate the idea by removing the financial capital aspect for a more prudent approach, focusing on increasing social capital through technology, networking, AI, and automation. This would create a moneyless Steady State Economy (MSSE). Through real-time networking, individuals can replace the need for financial capital. While we all have money in our pockets, in our information age, we have a greater networking tool: our cell phones, internet, and AI, which can manage the transparency of tasks needed to meet demand. This concept is challenging to explain, but it essentially places the economy in the hands and responsibility of the people. For example, in this type of economy,, if no one wants to work for free at McDonald's to make free hamburgers, it would be clear that there is no demand for McDonald's food, allowing the establishment to become redundant. If all economic attainment is initially free, people can freely produce their own interests, wants, and demands within the economy. Another example is electricity. In a society where all economic activity is free and half the population can support the whole, not every individual is required in the workforce. Suppose there is a shortage of workers at a power plant and it needs ten more people to reach full staffing of 100 employees to supply power to 100,000 people. Out of those 100,000 people, there are 22,900 unemployed individuals; ten of them will work there to provide free power for everyone. If someone doesn't, someone else will. People value electricity enough that 100,000 people won't sit idle, especially when the economy sustains them on all other levels. This microscale example, when applied to the whole macroeconomy, results in a more efficient economy and a highly interactive democratic approach for all people. Opponents might argue, "I work harder than others or my labor is more valuable; I deserve more." This is an outdated ideal in the modern day. Many incentives exclude financial ones as prime motivators, such as workplace seniority, social or public authority, or simply not participating if they feel overburdened. Boredom from staying at home is another incentive. Most people working for money focus solely on money, not on the actual value of their labor. This method of human capital allows individuals to take pride in themselves and understand how their participation impacts the bigger picture. Additionally, status and prestige within higher economic activities can be achieved through expertise rather than financial manipulation. Leadership roles in the workplace will still provide structure and safety, but without financial incentives, these positions will be based on expertise. Money is increasingly irrelevant in our modern age. Natural capital and environmental resources do not demand money in return for their consumption or attainment; people impose these charges. From resources in the ground to the dinner table, if people do not charge for them, they can be free. Many technological and automation advancements are regulated out of production roles because they eliminate jobs. An unhealthy number of jobs in the economy contribute to environmental degradation, waste, and pollution, solely to provide financial capital for spending. This is unnecessary. It is not wise to eliminate the human element from the economy, but forcing every individual into labor just to live leads to crime. Automation can be implemented where needed. By removing the wage requirement and applying automation to unfilled positions that are redundant, repetitive, or critical, we can address job shortages. Sustaining unemployed people in the economy is crucial for solutions that result in massive job loss. For instance, if someone cured cancer, the impact on a money-driven economy could be devastating: job loss, supply chain loss, research loss, investment loss, clinics and treatments becoming unneeded, and pharmaceuticals becoming obsolete. However, if everyone is economically secure, the impact of such a solution can be successful with minimal repercussions, even if many jobs are lost. We can supply economic demand through free human and social capital, using our networking, especially AI, which can suggest production levels to meet human demand in real-time. This can be done through static distributions or outlet centers as part of the network. There's no need to produce two coffee mugs when one is sufficient. "Financial" capital, one of the five types of capital in ecological economics (natural, built, human, social, and financial), is causing the biggest limitations and problems in our technological age and level of networking. By simply asking people to participate, such as in a power plant, we can remove all financial operating costs and consumer affordability issues, allowing it to run indefinitely at what would be considered a financial loss. This enables expensive or impractical pollution regulation solutions without any impact on the economy.

Aint gonna happen

Dear Dan, thank you for sharing the discussion with Giorgos. Listening to your words, I just wonder how your perspective changes if you are entrepreneur who can not count on regular employee salary, but have to deliver results every single day to bring food home. Frequently the real world is very different to academic world

I always wondered why K and L were the only variables in the model. Why don’t we add C for commodities such as fuel and metals?

Thank you so much for this video!

At 11:26…”rearrange our structure….maybe sewer sweepers should be paid more than bankers.” Come on you guys, get serious. Seriously. Jesus christ. So many of us want what you’re talking about, obviously the majority of the world’s population wants the sort of wealth equality that you’re talking about, but when you make caustic, resentful, marxist statements like that not only does it clearly display your hateful true colors, which totally alienates serious thinkers, it immediately takes all the seriousness out of the whole discussion and relegates it to the dustbin of hippie pipe dream nonsense. Its absolutely ridiculous. If we ever want to make real progress in this we need to be constructive and take seriously these issues and ask the tough questions, like exactly WHY bankers make the obscene amounts of money they do, while sewer sweepers make so little. Another thing i keep hearing in your discussions is the idea that EVERYONE values a non consumption based well being and happiness, you use the phrase “what REALLY matters to people” a lot, and that totally dismisses the real problem at hand, or half of the real problem, which is the desire in so many human beings to materially enrich themselves and/or accumulate as much power as possible. Taking that seriously and exploring it also sheds much light on the banker pay question above, of course. But you guys dont do that, you dont really take any of this seriously at the levels needed to tackle the problem. And thats a huge shame because you guys are otherwise very on track on most of this stuff.

Do you have any book suggestions on the topic?

Great to see The Spirit Level mentioned! Healthy societies mean healthy people and vice versa. Enjoyed the clear presentation too :)

Socialism

Wow no wonder economists are so wrong all the time lmao

Again, a misunderstanding of the word "sustainable." So many people want to have it all. We can all have fully satisfying and comfortable lives in a sustainable modern world. No we can't. I would have thought that Rob Dietz is familiar with Richard Heinberg's Five Axioms of Sustainability. But this seems not to be the case. It looks like the book is all about vague notions of enough is enough in distinct areas of the economy and society/civilisation but it isn't all put together. How would an "enough" society and economy work, on a daily basis? Which production should be cut, and why? How to businesses start up, without growing the economy or obtaining interest free finance (interest bearing loans require a growing economy)? Is there a concept of a career? Of promotion? I've never been able to find this nitty gritty detail and, from this trailer, this book doesn't provide any. A sustainable modern society is impossible (or I haven't found a way to have it be sustainable, after years of searching). This is the first thing we need to understand (or refute) before we try to imagine the way it would work.

Hi! What are the sources for this content? Thanks

Economics is a branch of thermodynamics!!!!

Hi, I was wondering why MB has to equal MC? What does it mean if MB > MC

THANK YOU SIR! This is the only video on youtube that makes this topic easy to understand. You got a new like!

Thank you! This was very clear and helpful

i advise you to watch this videoi

I love you bro pls dont die

Sounds bad.

Amazing

Giorgos Kallis knows very well deep down inside, that such fantasies of degrowth is only possible for say 10% people on earth. The rest 90% have to work, have to burn more fossil-fuels, have to toil and slave so that the above group can practice all such degrowth mantras. Try again...

kzbin.infonWJLXaVO_Do?si=AMgIScl9oD8nn4DO

kzbin.infolMYZa0NqH4M?si=A0P2Aof7dVQAh5uH

kzbin.info5wIfq0QK2mk?si=uLztb6cY6Q4Dt4J8

Percentage wise 72% of world in 1980 lived under $7.40/day. In 2015 that percentage dropped to 56%.

Is he Marxist? Usually "degrowth" is Marxism in drag.

Moloch is winning, Moloch always wins.

“In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future” (2017).

I have an economics final next week and I have been struggling with this concept all year! This simple video explained it SO well and I am so ready for this final! Thank you so much!!

A great overview of this extremely important field. Blessed to say I will be studying environmental economics and policy in college to hopefully add to this movement

"Let's aggregate historical data and deduce principles from it." - someone who doesn't understand statistics, the scientific method, nor economics Economic data IS historic data. There are too many factors involved to ever have reproduceable data; thus there cannot be logically sound deductions of that data. Real economics has to start from fundamental axioms and make deductions from there.

This misses key economic factors like technological growth and how earth we can harness a lot more than what we do now with nuclear and solar, now there are even sodium batteries. This is the free market at work. But this just falls into economic fixed pie fallacy, but as a whole discipline.

This is profound bullshit.

This is missing key parts of any real economy 1. Capital can be improved, like Americans have been actually been burning less carbon per capita. It cannot be the case that the sum is zero, no real economy works like this. 2.Entropy would be an issue if the earth was not getting new energy and innovations from humans. Otherwise Evolution by natural selection would not work, you're slipping into an economic creationism. The economy under your model is a closed system (save bit of space-junk). But it is still getting more energy from other sources. With nuclear and solar, we will have plenty energy to keep the earth a good habitat for humanity.

Hi Dan, Once again a very insightful explainer video. Speficially, for the synthesis regarding 'interest and the growth imperative' about which I also have a question. You say: "...and if everyone is doing this - taking out loans and having to pay them back (including interest) - then it would seem that the total money supply would have to increase over time. However, this argument assumes that interest payments are somehow taken out of circulation by banks, which they are not." New for me is this part: "this argument assumes that interest payments are somehow taken out of circulation by banks." I'd like to know more about this argument and the usual assumption. Do you have a name/reference? Thanks and keep up the good work!

THIS is why socialism has been demonised. Marx, Chomsky and co saw this coming decades ago but were pilloried and vilified so that corporations could profit instead.

0:11 What do you mean by "social equity"?

Μπράβο Γιώργο! Great interview!

I love this guy!

He said “to say economics has no ideology is its ideology”

I appreciate the concept of population control as well or better than most, but demographic challenges presented by population decline in industrialized countries (or any country, for that matter) can't be so easily ignored. Financial incentives for reproduction exist for powerful, multifaceted reasons and are thus difficult to untangle and/or erase. I am very much on board with what you're doing here, but I do think we have to drill down a lot deeper on questions like these to provide workable solutions for global governments. Like it or not (and I don't like it, ha), these solutions have to be politically palatable to be actionable in the absence of authoritarian regimes...which I suspect most of us can agree that we'd prefer to avoid. That said, this is a great foundation for a lot of people looking for answers (or at least the right questions) on the subject. Thanks for your work.

Clear and useful, thank you! I will cite it in my book.

So, marginal cost is equivalent to total utility?

okay so basically their argument is just: (1) put the money supply under direct democratic control (2) somehow only 'green energy'/similar projects receive increases to money supply?? (3) economy stops growing because money supply is growing slower?? (4) ??? (5) everything is better did I understand?

"Precision is not Accuracy", and wave-particle coordination-identification positioning is subject to the Uncertainty Principle, Absolutely all about the aspect-versions of Singularity-point Lensing Partitioning of Superspin Modulation Mechanism for time duration timing, which is why Euler's e-Pi-i 1-0-infinity sync-duration Unit Circle is a set of Mathematical symbols to precisely self-define thermodynamical real-time superposition Fluxion-Integral Temporal superposition Logarithmic logic. Good presentation, near enough for most practical purposes in Economics and science references to Ecology.

Wind is renewable. Sunshine is renewable. Wind turbines and solar panels are about as renewable as a Volkswagon. As they scale, raw material extraction costs more energy, and recycling both costs a lot of energy and fails to fully recover all the materials (see earlier videos on thermodynamics and stock-flow). Furthermore, extraction of materials for these devices, refinement, steel and glass production, transportation to the factory and then to point of use all use oil, not electricity. These devices don't last more than 25 years. How long until THEIR EROI declines below usefulness? I hope Dr. O'Neill addresses this in a future video.

Let's see if I got this right. Neoclassical capital and labor are fund-service resources, while raw materials inventory and finished goods inventory are stock-flow resources. A company naturally uses different accounting methods for each. Dividing it up that way, if a company wishes to cut costs, it should reduce incoming raw materials before laying off labor. If a resource can be identified first as a fund-service type, then we have to ask if it is excludable or rival to determine whether to manage it as a public good or to privatize it. Sometimes there is a gray area where a formerly non-excludable, nonrival resource can be made excludable and/or rival for the purpose of privatization. An example might be seeds. Formerly, they were non-excludable because anyone with physical access to a seed producing plant could gather some seeds, and non-rival, though maybe congestible, in that one farmer gathering seeds didn't prevent the next farmer from gathering them. "Green Revolution" industry, such a Monsanto, made seeds excludable by patenting them and made them rival by making the resulting crop plants sterile, thus allowing it to privatize seeds. Did I get it?

Absolutely informative! Thank you for sharing.

Brilliant discussion and insight on Degrowth. Dr. Kallis

Degrowth is a marketing scam that tries to manipulate people into adopting socialism.