Why isn't the economy growing any more - because it can't

Bump

Fascinating! Thank you for sharing this.

You're welcome Ashcombe. This guy comes at politics from a very different direction! I have to admit I have never heard of a "cargo cult" before.

When thinking of growth in relation to "cargo culting" I found this relevant:

Cargo cults are very diverse but they all share these elements:

1. They involve ritual activities that in some way imitate or mimic actions associated with whites/Europeans.
2. These activities are aimed at effecting transformations and/or reversals in status (often associated with skin colour), wealth and power for adherents.
3. They involve stories of the ‘loss’ of skills, goods and knowledge to white people (often those who colonized them) through some moral failure or offence. Some of the rites or practices aim to redeem these failures in order to effect the transformation.
4. They have (charismatic) local leaders.
5. They have strong nativist elements – that is, they aim at advancing the political interests of local people by appealing to the reinstatement of specific ‘traditional’ practices and they see their movement as one that reclaims self-determination and independence from (white) foreign control.
6. They entail beliefs in the return of ancestors bringing wealth in the form of money, European goods etc –‘cargo’.
7. They include utopian and/or millenarian ideas of a future in which people will not have to labour.
8. They have continued over many decades, changing slightly, but maintaining core beliefs and practices.

I remember reading about this a while back. I might be wrong, so I apologise in advance, but I think it started during or after the second WW in places like Polynesia by indigenous people, who watched western technology suddenly arriving on their islands and who, because they had zero understanding, at the time, of technology, somehow thought that they could ask their ancestors to deliver cargo to them out of the sky.

Personally I’d prefer their existing life🌴

Yes Whitewave. They had seen the "cargo" come and go but, with no background knowledge in producing the wealth of different items, and no idea why the America flyers performed the "rituals" they had watched, they tried to replicate the rituals expecting the outcomes to be the "cargo" coming back.

Sorry, should have said that this video suggests that is what we are doing in an attempt to continue growth, instead of understanding that it's not coming back in the same way/form and that rather, we need to learn how to share, maintain, etc.

I did watch the video. I already knew about the cargo cult.

I have every sympathy with the very valid argument that calling for infinite growth on our planet with finite resources is likely to destroy us.

I also agree that wealth needs to be dispersed to achieve a more equable distribution.

But I can’t see where the one connects with the other. I don’t see how redistribution of wealth would ease the pressure on the earth’s finite physical resources.

I loved the clip of Gary Stevenson telling Campbell and Stewart that the Oxford economists were completely wrong. Gary is absolutely right in that judgement. Neoliberal economists, who control current ‘orthodoxy’ are wrong. Sadly, though, Gary doesn’t seem to have developed any interest in the empirical economic analyses which point to solutions for his campaign for wealth redistribution.

Whitewavemark2

I remember reading about this a while back. I might be wrong, so I apologise in advance, but I think it started during or after the second WW in places like Polynesia by indigenous people, who watched western technology suddenly arriving on their islands and who, because they had zero understanding, at the time, of technology, somehow thought that they could ask their ancestors to deliver cargo to them out of the sky.

Personally I’d prefer their existing life🌴

We would enjoy the Polynesian lifestyle as a tourist or one of the local elite but the typical citizen it’s a pretty poor lifestyle.
Even Fiji which has a lot of tourism and resources, subsistence levels are high, most pacific nations are much worse off, but at least they don’t have to pay for heating.

I take your point david but tbh I was talking about WW2.

Whitewavemark2

I take your point david but tbh I was talking about WW2.

I don’t think we are quite as primitive as the Islanders were in 1940
Although maybe our understanding of the world of technology is comparable, are we not at the mercy of those that are developing technology.

Am I thick? I keep seeing the word ‘bump’ on here, on its own. I have no idea what it means and it doesn’t seem to bear any relation to a previous message. What am I missing?

MaizieD (Wed 10-Dec-25 08:25:39)

I think Gary Stevenson has chosen a single track message. Others are putting different aspects forward do we're not without the information.

You said I loved the clip of Gary Stevenson telling Campbell and Stewart that the Oxford economists were completely wrong. Unfortunately Rory's, usually well hidden, sense of superiority surfaced. Barry did a video "The Disturbing Bias In The Rest Is Politics"The blurb for it says:

Why isn't Inequality being addressed despite it being clear and visible - why are the voices of those who are raising it are getting ignored?
It can be incredibly confusing when the evidence of inequality is all around us and yet it is ignored by people in power.
Sometime the reasons can be in in plain sight but hard to truly see - but when I saw this interview with Gary Stevenson on The Rest is Politics saw a bias so clearly I had to unpick it.

Crossstitchfan

Am I thick? I keep seeing the word ‘bump’ on here, on its own. I have no idea what it means and it doesn’t seem to bear any relation to a previous message. What am I missing?

Bump is generally used when posters feel a post isn’t getting enough responses.
Posts move down so quickly so unless you check in the last hour you’d miss them.

You don't address the main point of my post at 08.25, DAR.

Which is the disconnect between what he says about finite physical resources and taxing wealth.

The bit about Gary Stevenson wasn't really relevant.

I thought that he was arguing for the worlds resources and climate and thus less growth.

But all he was arguing for was redistribution.

Whitewavemark2

I thought that he was arguing for the worlds resources and climate and thus less growth.

But all he was arguing for was redistribution.

The UK is just not exploiting the resources we have, Physical Human or Intellectual.

How can we expect have growth when we are importing all 3.

Thank you MollyGo for explaining ‘bump’ to me! 💐

David49

Whitewavemark2

I thought that he was arguing for the worlds resources and climate and thus less growth.

But all he was arguing for was redistribution.

The UK is just not exploiting the resources we have, Physical Human or Intellectual.

How can we expect have growth when we are importing all 3.

Barry, the guy in the video, is saying that we don't need growth at all because it is killing the planet.

But he wasn't proposing any plan for what we need to do about it.

Redistribution is highly desirable but it's not going to solve the problem of exhausting the planet's finite resources.

Barry was saying that the economists were all wrong, that I disagree and in any case governments don’t take any notice they just promise what the electorate want to hear.

Barry’s final words were, we need to redistribute wealth fairly, there is one problem with that, the wealthy are mobile, they can and will move, while we want to borrow money from them nothing is going to change, that’s public and consumer borrowing.

I deposit my spare cash with a bank, I trust them to give it back plus interest, they lend it to make a profit and trust the borrower to repay.

Barry’s solution isn’t a solution at all it’s a dream.

MaizieD

You don't address the main point of my post at 08.25, DAR.

Which is the disconnect between what he says about finite physical resources and taxing wealth.

The bit about Gary Stevenson wasn't really relevant.

I'm choosing which points I want to engage with, and I don't feel obliged to respond to everything raised. I felt the reference to Gary Stevenson was relevant to my extended thinking.

You're welcome to disagree, but let's keep the discussion to ideas rather than how people ‘should’ or shouldn’t post.

Thank you, Daisy Anne. I hadn't come across Barry before, but I've liked and subscribed. He strikes me as being very clear and very sensible.

Wow. Thanks for that. I've not heard of Barry before. However, very interesting and thought provoking

I remember the Head of the Bank of Canada (who came here, I think) aiming for very low growth to stabilise the Canadian economy. It had mixed results because of massive immigration, but I believe they do not have the same deficits as us or the US