Comments about ‘University of Utah professor advocates steady-state economy’

Am I not already free to work less and consume less? Are there not a multitude of neighborhoods in which I may choose to live, depending on whether I want to spend a lot of money or not so much? May I not choose a profession or a wage job or be my own boss?

It seems that there is a bit of envy in this "new economy" - an envy that still seeks to keep up with the Jones', except that in this economy you can match the Jones' because some outside entity (local, state or federal government?) will hold them back, rather than you expending what you consider to be an excessive amount of time and effort to be where they are, live like they live and have what they have.

It seems easier to me to take the freedom that already exists in our society and economy and use it to live life the way you want to live, and let others live the life they desire.

I took a class from Ehbar. He is a super smart guy and can defend his arguments well. This doesn't seem like a horrible idea on paper. No more booms and crashes just slow, steady growth. However, The thing that I never understood about this steady-state economy were the incentives. Who is going to come up with alternative fuel sources if you tax anyone who gets rich off of it? Who is going to bother working harder/ at all if you tax them so much? I agree we need more production and less consumption in the economy, but who is going to start up the new factory? or bother to get a job there? Only people who will sacrifice for the good of society. Not until we have a eutopian society can these things work.

I totally agree with this professor.

Life is to live, what is the purpose of so much production, of having huge houses, designer clothes, when there is hardly time to live life.

A person can be quite happy in a well built house that is just big enough, and then the person has time to live life, not so much debt, money to go on fun vacations etc.

I am already living this way as much as possible, I don't work more than I have to, I don't spend more than I need to, I don't have debt.

This professor is totally right.

I hope this never happens,it seems akin to socialism, setting limits in un-american, we are a free society, I agree with the first commentor if one chooses to live this way he already can and good luck to him. I though still want to aspire to achieve and to make my mark in the world in any way that I choose and should that mark result in my making more money and spending more money so be it.

Some interesting ideas. Opponents will cry foul, putting selfishness above the interests of the greater part of society. I'm curious why middle class folks fiercely defend the modern day robber-barons who use us and have no problem crushing us. The reality is, almost none of us will become them, as if that was a good thing to do any way.

By any other name, collectivism. Has never worked. Will never work. Always leads to some form of tyranny -- soft or otherwise -- as history has, time-and-again, revealed.

Ridiculous idea. Widespread caps on consumption and wealth would lead to the massive spread of black markets. Peoples' wants and desires don't go away just because there are government laws trying to inhibit them. Prostitution is a perfect example. A steady state economy just means all commodities become candidates for "prostitution-like" under-the-table transactions ruled by pimps, small cartels, and crime lords. No thanks, I am prefer free-market capitalism.

Okay, I have a question for the professor, or anyone else who knows his thinking. The story talked about everything staying at steady state because it would be taxed, regulated, etc. so that it stays at equilibrium. My question is whether our consumption level now is at equilibrium, and if not, what level is at equilibrium? Also, who gets to decide what level is at equilibrium, and what criteria are going to be used?

Another related question: If consumption of certain things begins to wane, because people don't like them anymore, would consumption of other things be allowed to rise, in order to keep the economy at steady state? If so, who decides what gets to rise, and what criteria will be used?

The professor's ideas seem very idealistic, but those utopian ideals tend to be fairly short on details.

It's called communism, and it has failed miserably wherever and whenever it has been implemented.

Not surprising a university professor would continue to advocate it, though.

The love affair that the Deseret News writers for anything DeChristopher continues. i just do not understand why most of the writers for the news only sees one side of an issure like health care

Just a blatent attempt to knock the US industry out of commission. If they can't do it through regulation/taxation/and outright ownership, then try the direct approach like this. Lazy people trying to drag down the industrious rather than let them get ahead in life.

What a bunch of lazy, slothful, and idle people who can't stand the guilt they feel when they see someone working hard.

IT will NEVER work.

YOu must give Federal Governemnt complete and utter control over EVERY aspect of our lives.

Then they MUSTG be able to completely trust government that won't become tyrannical that it will make the best choices and plans.

Even communism couldn't make it work,

there is STILL an elite ruling class,

they demonstrated you can not FORCE equality, sameness of thought, on everyone by shackling everyone (but the elite class, and even in some ways they have shackles),

that deep down everyonr yearns for freedom

to do what they want,
to think what they want,
to make their own choices,
to persue their own happiness.

My thoughts are similar. I want to see this civilization last a long time. Our worship of the great god GNP and our unlimited freedom to use inefficiently and to waste will hasten the day that our resources will support only a low standard of living. Goodbye high quality health care, goodbye tourism goodbye plenty to eat and so on.On the positive side we wouldn't have to work so much if we don't buy so much, we could see the wonders of nature and the world on video and so on.
I take a mixed view of wealth There are the wealthy that invest in needed enterprises and the the wealthy that simply hog a big share of goods, services and advantage. I have no program to offer but I would, because of health care problems, like to see punitive judgments in lawsuits be made property of the state.

"Rand Hirschi pointed out that a stead-state economy is basically asking Americans to be poorer."

And, MUCH less free.

"But most of the 25 [how representative!] Utahns at the meeting, organized by the activist group Citizens for Sustainability, said that a steady-state economy would mean a better quality of life for everyone in it."

Whether you like it or not!!

Lots of talk here... very little practice. I'm happy to say, I'm giving it a try. My companion and I used equity in out home to put up a 27 foot yurt (which was put up with the help of our family and friends), then we moved in, sold the house, and live debt free. Having no debt, we no longer have to work full time, each of us work just 3 days a week! So far we can meet all of our needs, and add to our savings. our health care is not the best, but we have some. WE ARE NOT LAZY with our own time (not spare time) we harvest and chop fire wood, grow a garden, and preserve food. Our goal is to be as self sustaining as possible. We do not own the land we live on, we lease it from some friends, which in turn helps them pay the taxes, we pay less taxes because we work less. There are different ways to live, life can be simpler, and more satisfying, more free. Take a dip, simplify, get rid of stuff, the water is great!

Other may choose not that,

what of them? are you going to force them to live your way?

There are too many variables that affect the economy; thus, to achieve a steady state is impossible.

Also, I wrote another comment critical of this principle but DesNews apparently censored it. It was a scathing indinctment trust me.

The steady state theory comes out of the economic theories described by E. F. Schumacher in his book "Small is Beautiful". I believe the book originally came out in the seventies. Probably why the professor is teaching economics rather than living in the real world. That said, I agree with the earlier poster that said we are free to spend less, consume less and re-order our lives now should we choose. Why do we need the heavy hand of government deciding what is appropriate?

There is a good argument for a "heavy hand" because of the depleting natural resources. I don't know when they are going to run out, but chances are it will be soon. Currently America uses much more natural resources than it produces, and we have a military presence in many countries in order to secure those vanishing natural resources. We fight wars and kill thousands for resources, we destroy the environment for them, people across the world work in horrible conditions for them. I think those are a few good reasons for a heavy hand. Many of the worlds problems would be solved if ALL Americans would really start conserving, and consuming less. Our capitalist economy has succeeded only because it has exploited nature. When nature runs out. All hell is going to break loose, our economy will fail, and then we will know who was right and who was wrong, the sad situation will be it's going to be too late to do anything about it.

I am a graduate student at the U and know this professor quite well. He is in fact actually a communist and not shy about it. He is always advocating any cause that is anti-freedom and anti-human. This "steady state" nonsense is nothing more than pure communism that has failed everywhere it has been tried. It is to little wonder why our country enjoys the greatest standard of living along with the most charitable giving of any other nation on earth: freedom. Utah tax payers and parents would be appalled to know what kind of indoctrination goes on in the classrooms at the U.