yeah before reagan we had a system where the more money you made the harder to was to make that much more. So large companies had to run better than small ones to succeed. that time is long gone.
That articles always mention the economic models will cause catastrophic disasters since they are based on infinite growth. But economics models are notoriously bad. They can never perfect a recession and predictions are almost never hit. So why would this be any different. We will get by but maybe just in a different way
Economic models are bad at predicting the exact time of a recession, but basically all economist can agree that we will have a recession in the future. We had enough of them in the past.
However the point in the article is that we live on a planet with limited resources and resource consumption and the size of the economy are linked. So the idea is that we run out of resources. A good example of that is climate change. We have a limited somewhat save carbon budget and are on the edge of moving past it. This is why we see a massive heat wave in India right now, for example. That heat wave is really bad for the economy. This is one of the ways civilizations have collapsed in the past.
Also I’d like to add: if the maths behind economic models have yet to be perfected (and are inadequate), we can still look to historical examples as models for collapses from resource shocks. Some good examples include the Late Bronze Age (likely drought), Mayan (drought from warming), Khmer (drought), Ming (drought from cooling), which are all climate/resource related. Food has been the primary energy resource besides wood (which has also led to collapses), but nowadays oil might hold that title. I do think it’s possible that we may get by in a different way, but that’s only because there’s others things we still missed out on our better models (new invention, alien contact, nuclear physics breakthrough, divine intervention, nature of reality revelation, etc.)
The 2 series is now ~180 inches long (about the same as the first generation bmw x3) and ~3900 pounds (significantly heavier than the first generation x3) (about the same as the first generation bmw x3).
Yep I finally upgraded my 2003 Renault Kangoo for a station wagon that’s bigger, carries more, probably heavier (don’t actually know) but uses much less fuel. It has a tiny 1L ecoboost engine that still packs a punch when needed and barely uses any more fuel than our much smaller hybrid hatchback with the way I drive it, which admittedly I do drive in a particularly fuel conscious manner.
The modern unloaded base 2 is 3400lbs and the first Gen X3 started at 4k and you could load it up when features to 5k. This 3 series in its poverty trim weighs 3k (and functionally represents a different class of vehicle today) Nice try playing fast and lose with loaded vs base vehicles. Also let’s not pretend the 3 series EVER had a short wheel base. In 1990 it was 175.5 inches. My accord from that era is 179, 1 inch shorter than my 2021 outback.
I will admit that I am fully biased against the absurd weight of the new 2 series. I’ll update the post to reflect what I found instead - the new 2 series is of comparable curb weight, powertrain to powertrain, to the first generation x3, not significantly heavier:
2L AWD: 3640 vs 3650 3L AWD: 3870 vs 3902
The 5k weight listed for the x3 seems to be the gross weight (i.e. car + max rated cargo capacity), which wouldn’t be comparable to the 2 series, having no such rated capacity.
Euh, no. Used to have a renault clio, which was a lot safer than a car from the 80’s like, lets say, a vw beetle. Lighter too, as back then cars were mostly made of steel, while its a combination of steel, aluminium and plastic now.
Same size of car too, so size doesnt matter either.
We make a 2 ton metal box, cruising at 70mph, and driven by basically anyone. The only way to do this while having a reasonable level of safety is to cram it full of features that make it heavy and expensive. This is fundamentally terrible.
People’s needs for transportation will never cease to exist and there will always be some people that will need individual transportation so even in a world where only those who need a vehicle have one, I think it’s only fair that they should be as safe as possible in it.
I find it quite convincing. I’m involved in activist groups with a lot of young people here in Northern Europe, and I see a lot of this “smash capitalism” attitude. And I think it’s very relatable, and in some places has real potential for changing things. But I wish to see it combined ever more often with concrete goals and plans in eroding and taming capitalism. And I think it is important to keep the rage there, in the spirit, not to become cynical and calculative and opportunist.
Building alternatives to capitalism is not just about eroding it, but also abut developing a working alternative to capitalism, which can be scaled up in case of a revolution. A lot of people just look at the bad parts of capitalism and forget that there are even worse options. Revolutions just change the balance between already existing forces in a country. So without a working alternative, they just end up looking like the old system with different branding. There are a lot of “socialist” countries like that in history.
The other part of it, is to increase the anti capitalist movements power. Basically people believe you, when they see that what you do is working for them. This article explains this fairly well.
Other then that we can implement degrowth ideas within a capitalist framework. EU emissions trading for example is massively neoliberal in its approach, but it is also a clear way of limiting environmental damage by limiting fossil fuel consumption. Also things like UBI are clearly possible, as most Nordic countries already have social welfare systems, which are more limited, but certainly have some similarities.
Oh that’s so true. I have looked through all the thrift stores in my surrounding and they all had really bad clothes for bad prices. When you can get a new top in a size that fits for 5€ at H&M it makes no sense to pay 12€ for an H&M shirt that has holes in it and doesn’t fit right just because it is from a thrift store.
I don’t buy clothes often, I have much more than enough from when I was a teen. But I think that when I do, in the future, I’ll just go straight to a normal store. I don’t see the sense in spending the time and energy if it isn’t worth it at all.
There’s also this thing now where “trendy” thrift stores go to regular thrift stores and pick them clean of anything worth buying, then they Jack up the price.
I look for thrift stores in or around proper rich neighborhoods. There’s one I go to that routinely has stuff from last year or that no one’s ever worn, tags and all.
I have never bought a car, I looked at prices for new cars last year and I was blown away. I didn’t know at the time that they were at an all time high
What's are some of yall's less obvious "always buy second hand" items?
Crockery, cutlery, pressure cookers and computer peripherals are some things I think it makes no sense to buy new. 2nd hand they're usually under a tenth the price and often better quality.
I've heard some arguments that buying 2nd hand cars is usually better for the climate owing to how much of a car's lifetime carbon generation is the manufacturing.
The better quality is the key here. The shit made today are intentionally made to be replaced.
Pyrex is the best example. The old-school Pyrex logo means it’s made from really tough glass whereas the newer logo means it’s shit and will shatter when going from hot to cold (oven to countertop).
Tools! With the exception of a few big power tools like a table saw or miter saw, where the new safety features make it worthwhile, I get everything I can used. I prefer stuff passed down from family with sentimental value, but I get a lot of my tools from Everything is Free, junk stores, yard sales, estate clean outs, swap shops etc.
Older tools tend to be simpler, easier to fix, and remarkably sturdy. I’ve read that the metallurgy wasn’t as good sixty+ years ago so they overbuilt them a bit to compensate, and then decades of use weaned out the weaker ones, so anything left still working is basically survivorship-bias guaranteed. I’ve got a drill press that’s been in the family for four generations and will probably outlast my grandkids.
They’re cheaper, sturdier, easier to fix, generally well-documented online (sometimes better than the new stuff), and they don’t come with sheaves of unnecessary styrofoam and plastic packaging. And they have history and stories in them, even if I don’t always know what those stories are.
applied science actually has a really good video about leaded glass. And it’s tendency to cause shenanigans, i don’t remember much from it, so you should just go watch it.
Even if you do need a truck, most of the models marketed here are stupidly oversized in all the areas that DON’T matter. As a builder, I don’t need to be lifted into the stratosphere and have a teeny-tiny bed! I want to be able to fit an entire sheet of plywood in the bed and two people in the cab… ideally without having to hoist myself up into the seat!
gonna suck when those underwear, sheets, towels get huge holes in them. gonna make their own soap, shampoo, and deodorant? how bout medications, not buying any of those? subway, L, bus tokens? gasoline? bicycles? shoes? smartphones? lol. this should be interesting to watch.
Man it just gets dumber the more times I read what you said. I hope you’re at least self aware enough that you don’t consider yourself an intellectual on any level.
Maybe I’d feel differently if I’d read their comment (they deleted it), but that seems a touch harsh. By their comments they don’t seem like a bad person. Maybe it’s just because we’re from the same instance, and I’m not especially smart
gonna suck when those underwear, sheets, towels get huge holes in them. gonna make their own soap, shampoo, and deodorant? how bout medications, not buying any of those? subway, L, bus tokens? gasoline? bicycles? shoes? smartphones? lol. this should be interesting to watch.
Why? Most people are not intellectuals. Lord knows I’m not. But way too many people consider themselves above the curve for intelligence and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with pointing that out.
degrowth
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.