J-Pierre wrote:If this decrease is not imposed on the economy and finance, it will not take place.
By giving up the agitation which makes growth, one will have more time for a growth of knowledge and personal culture
If, it will take place, but in the form of a crisis causing a lot of suffering among the population as in the case of the Greek laboratory.
Ahmed wrote:Talking about degrowth * is a particularly inadequate way of approaching things: it suggests moving the growth slider downwards (with the debates that we imagine on the optimal positioning of said slider!), Whereas the problem is to radically change the model. If we accept this diagnosis, the concepts of "growth" or "decrease" no longer have any meaning.
In addition, the decline suffered through austerity policies torpedo the concept ...
* This term had the value of a provocative slogan at the start, this is no longer the case today.
I find the term "degrowth" very correct. The decrease in GDP, therefore the slowdown in the economy, implies a reduction in its impact on the environment.
Austerity policies, which are in fact a means of maintaining the aim of the economic system (the accumulation of wealth) in times of crisis, by making the population pay, make decay seem like something to be avoided at all costs. To have a decrease without making the population suffer, it would indeed be necessary to completely change the system.
For that it would be necessary to start by offering another way out than the current dogma "work, credit, consumption". Universal income seems like a good way to get there.