From serious consideration of no growth or steady state economics to corporations questioning capitalism as we know it, economic ideas that used to be considered radical, even dangerous, are gaining mainstream traction. The other day I wrote a post, inspired by part one of Rob Hopkins' interview with economist and no growth advocate Peter Victor, on whether capitalism can exist without economic growth. For folks who enjoyed that post, you may be interested to note that Rob has just posted part II of his interview with Peter Victor. And it is equally insightful:
I think the idea that we’ll default to more local economies whether we do it deliberately and maybe reasonably pleasantly, or whether we’ll be forced into it, is a very good question. The subtitle of my book is “Slower by design, not disaster.” If you have an economy predicated on growth that slows and maybe growth goes negative, that’s a disaster formula. That’s mass unemployment, deep poverty. Greenhouse gas emissions would go down but the social consequences of would be horrendous. That’s surely something we want to avoid.
The case for resilience just keeps getting stronger.