More with less, not less with more

It is fairly obvious to anyone not suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance that our current policy of infinite economic growth is utterly unsustainable. We "borrow" from future generations at a rate which we won't be able to pay back (we might even have crossed the line already). Infinite economic growth based on finite resources can only lead to an ever increasing allocation of resources in the hands of an ever shrinking number of people. Getting out of this infinite economic growth is difficult, I personally don't know how it can be done, I'd probably be a Nobel laureate if I did. But that doesn't change the fact that we must get out of it.

Basically, what the proponents of infinite economic growth argue, is that if person A gets $10 more per month and person B gets $100 more per month, is good for everyone. Getting caught up in the increasing gap between rich and poor is just socialism, and is based on envy. Further, the gap serves as incentive, making person A work harder to get to the level of person B.

What is missed in this scenario is that the amount of resources, and thus the amount of money, is finite. We are all competing for the same cake, and eventually we'll run out of cake. (There's also the fact that greed might not be the best incentive, but let's leave that for now.)

We need to start doing more with less, to reference Buckminster Fuller. We need to use less resources to achieve more "life-sustainment". When we make production techniques more efficient, the surplus ought to be used to reduce the amount of exploitation and increase "life-sustainment". Today, increased efficiency primarily lead to increased profits for shareholders and owners, and increased bonuses for CEOs.

Looking at Sweden and our current government, this can be seen in the general policy. Tax cuts are said to generate more jobs, and the only way I can see this happening (apart from increased consumption, which is just artificial pumping up of primarily the domestic economy) is through lower wages. This in turn might make companies hire more people. But there's no shortage of unemployed to hire, so I can only imagine that it would offer the possibility to hire more people doing the same work - i.e doing less with more. Of course, the increased profits gained from lowered wages are more likely to go into the pockets of shareholders, owners and CEOs - to be used for increased consumption.

Similarily with the health policy, where sick people are forced to take any jobs available, flooding an already full (un-)employment market thus increasing competition and further lowering wages.

And so it continues.

Rather than doing more with less, we do less with more.

Edit: I would suggest looking at Tim Jackson's report Prosperty without growth?, for more on growth.