Over the past few years I've written a lot about degrowth ideology. The view is that the only way to save the planet is to abandon it for economic growth. DeGrowthers sometimes have more controversial things like GDP, which are important in the world, sometimes don't need or deserve washing machines, air conditioners, or out-of-season fruits and vegetables. Sometimes we say what we brew.
There are two major differences of opinion with DeGrowthers. The first is that they think they're wrong about how to save the planet. It appears promising that many countries will successfully crack down on their code to increase prosperity without increasing carbon emissions and continue their path. Second, we live in a democracy and it's hard to find something to vote as badly as trying to shrink the economy. Most voters consistently rank the economy as the highest interest. If you need to be specifically and specifically poor with a plan to revise the world, your plan will be lost in the ballot box.
Sign up here to explore the big complex problems the world is facing and the most efficient ways to solve them. It was sent twice a week.
This week I've been thinking about this. Because I think we are witnessing the birth of the right-wing depletion, which has all the same flaws as the left-wing degenerate. I saw it most specifically during the 24-hour period when it seemed to be imposing a task to punish tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Certainly, some commentators have admitted that the price of the item will rise dramatically, but they either pay more for the item to restore American greatness or they I was proud to reduce access to. Certainly, the economy crashes, but American patriotism is more important than the economy.
Of course, the tariff threat didn't last long. The stock market was immersed, and Donald Trump declared victory, putting tariffs on hold on both Canada and Mexico. And it's beneficial. Because while some of Trump's bad ideas are popular, I think the destruction of the right is just as ideology in attack as the degrowth of the left. That's not just a problem for the tariff portion of Trump's agenda. If he begins to deport the promised masses, I think that is also a problem he will encounter.
People are willing to suffer from your ideology
The fatal flaw of left-wing demelting, which I wrote about, is indifference to political reality. People are interested in owning a washing machine. They are interested in owning air conditioners. In developing countries, people buy these things as soon as they reach them. People also care about the environment, but when environmental concerns oppose the ability to have material goods, material preferences win.
In fact, one of the lessons from the final election is that even providing substantial improvements to workers won't save you if prices rise. Voters really hate inflation and punish it in the ballot box.
Under Trump, we are looking at the right setup to learn the same lesson. Trump, I'm willing to see people crying hours before the tariffs turn around and put us in short-term pain for the long-term benefits! (But it turns out he wasn't – not yet.)
Most people are not willing to pay dramatically to buy American-made items. They already have that option and know they won't take it by far. Most people don't intend to deal with the decline in the stock market in order to stick to Canadians. And I think that when you generate dramatically higher prices at grocery stores, most people, even those who want more strict immigration enforcement, will most likely help large-scale deportation. I don't think it's.
The problem is that political decisions are made by people who care about politics, those who have dedicated their lives to the vision of the country and the world. On the left or right, they tend to dramatically overestimate how willingly suffer the people they serve are for ideology.
But I want to say more. I think that's bad either. Especially because it's bad, it's unpopular. People value almost accurately what makes a good life for them and their loved ones, and economic prosperity is a big part of a good life.
I talk to many people who find the flow of very cheap and low quality products is bad for us. I don't buy it. When my parents were growing up, you could tell the poor kids at school because they didn't have nice clothes. Households spent most of their income on clothing. Now we buy more clothes, but we spend much less – it's a good thing, not a bad thing. Clothes mean they are very cheap, but they can be dressed in a way that makes you feel better.
Just as Americans cost far less than we had on clothes, we spend much less on food than we once did. That's a good thing. That means that even the poorest Americans can buy dietary diversity. They are encouraged to embrace sustainability on the left and patriotism on the right, and accept that they will become food deserts everywhere. (“Do I need to eat avocado?” asked Rep. Jared Golden, a Maine Democrat, defending tariffs.)
I don't want Congress to decide what food we're worth eating. I want to buy what I want to eat. And even when I'm taking bonds, I'd like to have that option during work, or in situations where the money is tough, or if not.
In a way, if food, clothing and other essentials were more expensive, they declare that they are OK if they themselves are the product of America's breathtaking wealth. In a society exposed to the reality of material poverty, no one could say with a straight face that a higher price would be better for us. But even in the US, low prices are good. They give us more and better options, allowing low-income people to live like people with higher incomes, and they improve our quality of life. The right, like the left, needs to come up with a vision of the nation that embraces prosperity rather than justifying its prosperity.
This version of the story originally appeared in the future Perfect Newsletter. Sign up here!
