So how about a riskier economic future worldwide?

01. März 2022

The argu­ment made here reli­es on several fac­tors that aren’t fixed. The speed and relia­bi­li­ty of tech­no­lo­gi­cal inno­va­ti­on, that isnt able to remain just ite­ra­ti­ve (the per­son in the video is tal­king about it as if it were fixed, or ite­ra­ti­ve).. The argu­ment that peo­p­les cul­tures and housing needs can be made more fle­xi­ble. The argu­ment, that moving peop­le into rural are­as whe­re housing is less in demand to some extend also is good for the envi­ron­ment (urba­niz­a­ti­on usual­ly is kee­ping ener­gy usa­ge low). And the argu­ment that crea­ting tho­se shifts crea­tes “eco­no­mic oppor­tu­ni­ty for ever­yo­ne” (who cant in princip­le rely on (non ite­ra­ti­ve) tech­no­lo­gi­cal advan­ce­ment), and not just ear­ly inves­tors (with lar­ger bund­les of cash in the game).
So to craft a cohe­rent pic­tu­re out of this - one more aspect is added. “Work will be scar­ce in the future.” So hig­her mini­mal wages are paramount.

Not in my generation.

This is how you down­play a lost genera­ti­on as part of a big­ger picture.

Dont worry, you could always dri­ve peop­le into sel­ling others che­a­per forms of housing, or con­sump­ti­on reduc­tion - thats what my genera­ti­on is get­ting paid for. Thats what jour­na­lism part­ly is get­ting payed for (crea­ti­on of that part of jour­na­lism to beco­me a dai­ly seg­ment, while the eco­no­mic deve­lo­p­ment in tho­se sec­tors isn’t that advan­ced yet - may­be, becau­se com­pa­ra­tively jour­na­lism always is and was easy to finance).

So I’ll end with the ARTE con­cept of, euro­pe could be such a nice and cosy place, with con­sump­ti­on reduc­tion, cheap housing, when Boo­mers are gone (still, thats also not just plain sai­ling…), and may­be in a genera­ti­on or two, the free ener­gy infra­st­ruc­tu­re we are buil­ding up will be enough to estab­lish base growth again.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Hinterlasse eine Antwort