see
"the degrowth movement"
Sometimes some downtime is exactly what we need to re-evaluate our choices and our values, and to adjust our course.
After all, a recession is simply a correction of an imbalance in the economy, and should best be seen as a period of renewal and rebirth--a time for changing direction!
According to the theory of evolution, failure to adapt
/adjust can result in extinction!
Endless growth is not sustainable!
Demanding more and more growth is a suicidal path!
see: "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered"--E F Schumacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Such ideas (zero growth) are not just "politically incorrect', they are economic heresy and subvert the very foundations of the status quo economy.
For politicians its all about "growing the economy"
Recesion is what happens to a consumption-driven economy when consumer demand for product and services declines due to a reluctance to spend using borrowed money (i.e,by entering deeper into debt.)
see "too much debt"
However, "limitless growth" is not only unsustainable, it is irrational!
see "the pathology of unsustainable consumption"
Yet it drives current economic policy.
Therefore some core assumptions of our economic system must be re-examined.
The error in our current economic model lies in the assumption that a healthy economy depends upon ever-increasing consumption.
In a consumption-fueled economy, governments and business seek to stimulate and increase consumption by encouraging consumers to spend more by taking on more debt!
When the debt load becomes excessive, there is a retraction of spending wch results in a recession. And so the cycle repeats.
"How the economy grows and why it crashes"
-peter schiff
the stock market is a classic "pyramid scheme" that is doomed to inevitable collapse.
recessions happen on average every 5 to 6 years as the economy goes through it's "boom and bust" cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are there Limits to Growth?
--, Paul Phillips
In 1972, the Club of Rome published its quite famous "Limits to
Growth," an analysis and statistical projection of our usage of the
world's resources and pollution of the environment. This
distinguished group of scientists came to the somewhat ominous
conclusion that we were, literally, reaching the physical limits on
our exploitation of the world's resources and on the ability of the
environment to absorb our wastes.
Economists pooh-poohed the report arguing that it came as a result
of OPEC's restriction of oil production, raising energy prices and
causing a mini-crisis in the western world. Skeptics of limits to
growth won the day in subsequent years as North Sea oil gushed (and
oil prices fell) and the green revolution raised agricultural
production around the third world, erasing the spectre of global
famine. We all heaved a sigh of relief and thought that things were
back to "normal", that we could count on more economic growth,
fueled by global free trade, to solve all our problems of poverty
both in Canada and the developing world.
I wish we could believe this. In 1992 the Club of Rome scientists
put out an updated report that took into account all the objections
raised by critics of the earlier report. There was only one
problem. Their new projections were even more dismal than those two
decades earlier. Yet, compared with the almost hysterical response
in 1972, the 1992 report went almost unnoticed and now, over a
decade later, we are still doing little to stop what a former
British Shell Oil scientist has called the "sinking of our planet's
ship." We are facing global warming. We did, over Alberta's
objections, sign the Kyoto protocol to reduce global warming
gasses. The only problem is we signed on to a commitment to lower
greenhouse gasses by 6 per cent and then proceeded to raise our
emissions by 20 per cent.
Now we are also facing peak oil, the time when the flow of oil to
the market will begin to decline and real energy prices will rise
inexorably. The inevitable result of this, and the rise in price of
natural gas as it also approaches its peak, will be a sharp rise in
the price of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, tractor and
combine fuels, and irrigation systems - all of the inputs into
'green revolution" agriculture - which, of course, means that world
food supplies will begin to diminish and we will have to produce a
lot more close to home, here in the Okanagan, and not rely on fruit
and vegetables imported from Chile, California or Florida, or on
Iamb from New Zealand and Australia.
Yet what are we doing? We are converting more and more land to
housing developments and calling for increased immigration to our
region. But here is the nub of the problem. The world can not
sustain the existing population that it already has, particularly
if we try to raise the majority of the world's population out of
poverty. That is true even if we in the developed world cease
growing completely. In 1800, world population was 1 billion; a century
later it had increased by 65 per cent to 1.65 billion. But in the
last century, fed by cheap oil, population increased by 300 per
cent to 6.5 billion and projections are that it will rise to 9
billion before leveling off. That is simply not sustainable.
If the standard of living of the South were to be raised to the
levels in the North even with the current population, the earth
would use up all its resources within a decade and the world's
economies and population would crash. A common estimate of how many
people would need to disappear before life would be
sustainable is 80 per cent. That is a pretty sobering figure and
may be higher than necessary, particularly if we start now reducing
our population, developing renewable sources of energy and other
resources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing, reusing
and recycling more of our waste by products. But even if it is only
a 50 per cent reduction required, the question is whether that
reduction will be achieved by policy, or by the four horsemen of
the apocalypse: famine, disease, war and pestilence.
Alarmist? Guelph University philosophy professor, John McMurtry,
wrote in Value Wars: Inside the Global Crisis (2005 University of
Toronto John and Lois Dove Memorial Lecture):
"A slow-motion collapse of life conditions under ... increasingly competitive
exploitation becomes undeniable, but is celebrated as 'freedom' and
'progress.' For the first time in history, virtually all the
conditions of planetary life are being destabilized and are on a
downward slide - from earth's atmosphere to the oceans, forests,
and topsoils to the funding of non-profit science." These are the
real limits to growth.
If you have thoughts or questions on this or any other economics
issue, write me, care of' Norlh of 50, Box 100, Armstrong, BC VOE
recently retired to Vernon after teaching economics at the
University of Manitoba for 34 years, specializing in Canadian
Economic policy and labour economics. He has recently been elected
Professor Emeritus in Economics at the University of Manitoba and
Professor of American Studies at the University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the fallacy of ever-increasing growth
Social injustice is not resolved by economic growth.
An economy based on ever-increasing growth is like a Ponzi scheme.Any interrruption in the rate of growth precipitates a collapse
Unlimited economic growth is not sustainable.
Hence we must aspire to sustainable economic growth.
What limits must be placed on economic growth to achieve sustainability.
We cannot grow the economy at the expense of the environment,
Economic activities must not be allowed to poison and degrade the environment
We must work with nature and not against it.
We must change our behavior and our relationship with the earth that nurtures and sustains us
This earth is our home. There is no wisdom in destroying one's home!
See "the pathology of unsustainable consumption"
see "The Limits to Growth"
see "The End of Growth " by richard heinberg
http://youtu.be/XjFQLGVIJak
http://richardheinberg.com/222-the-end-of-growth
Having more "things" doesn't make life happier! 
