2014 Edition: Welcome to the Economy Group!
It has been a couple of years since the transition to the new DU. So, I thought it was time to refresh our banner message and refresh our stated purpose.
This statement is as relevant as ever:
It is great to see that in addition to the perennial SMW and WEE features (many thanks to the maintainers and regular contributors to those features) that there are many who come to the Economy Group to post articles and threads of interest. Thanks for those and please keep them coming!
Come on in, pull up a chair, the more the merrier!
Always remember to keep a place for those affected by natural and man-made disasters in your thoughts.
To the right of the Blue "Post a Thread to this Group" button is a lighter blue button that says "About This Group"
Clicking on it will describe the host moderation functions and identify the current hosts of the group.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Sustainable Economies: Do they even exist in modern technological times?
For me, the error of every economic period and economic model is that it's unsustainable, not designed for three or four generations out.
Resources are finite, yet modern models of success have depended upon constant growth and expansion.
We're out of space, resources, everything, and it's time to stop growing and probably time to retract toward a truly sustainable model.
If we don't do it, nature will send us there.
PS: let me know if you need a co-host.
I'd argue that the common interpretation over my life, even among economists and especially among the populace, is that it has shrunk from perhaps three generations down to less than one generation.
Investors flip investments, bet against themselves, look for short term profit with no sense of the consequences.
Economics isn't my field, mine is architecture/education/energy, but I can still make fairly educated guesses based on observations.
Great question.
To me, I'd apply the definition for "sustainable" that's most commonly used in my world (from the EPA):
From L.Hunter Lovins, author of "Natural Capitalism" and lover of fine (Scotch whiskies):
"Respectful of future generations" being, for me, the operative term.
especially since I've got 'future generations' growing rapidly in my family. 
It's why I changed careers!
Interesting observation that can be made include some of the benefits that were seen as a result of the economic collapse, including,
Less energy use YOY, a turn away from Big Trucks, a renewed interest in home-made stuff, gardening.
I think McMansions are finally on their way out, too. 
I don't know whether or not an honest economist could find some economic indicators to support economic contraction, but I imagine they are out there.
Often, good economic news doesn't equate with sustainability. IE housing starts- shouldn't we be restoring buildings? Black Friday sales- really, more crap?
Girls were getting dolls by then.
We were kind of poor, too, so that might have factored in but as a fan of design and invention I've become a harsh critic of consumption and fashion, fashion being one of those economic drivers that make no sense in a sustainable world.
Rant:
When I moved to NYC to go to college, I bought a pair of Reeboks at Penney's where there might have been a dozen styles available of ALL sports shoes.
Now I walk into a store and get dizzy. Same with EVERYTHING! Look, I just want my Reeboks or Red Wing boots, a pair of 501s and a Bend Davis or Pendelton shirt.
/Rant.
But if I was a parent or grandparent, I'd probably be very weak and spoil the child!
