Well argued and cogent! And a good as it gets compulsive argument for a change of direction?

That direction can improve the average lot without killing the very thing that made capitalism work; individual incentives and entrepreneurial innovation!

And here I'm referring to cooperative capitalism as the essential model and something as simple as simply destroying poverty in all its forms a guises, wherever we find it!

And taking every opportunity to recycle whatever can be recycled?

Thus in human terms, we replace volume with margins, where inherently better off folk, replace the sheer volume of misery that used to be the economy, and where absolutely essential recycling becomes the most successful way to get rich!

Simply put, in a world deliberately created where nobody needs to be poor to make the world go round, nobody is poor!

And where the bottom rung in the socioeconomic ladder is empty, all those immediately above have no other choice than step up!

I mean trickle down has been a dismal failure that has just widened the gap, put more and more of our finite resources in fewer and fewer hands, with disastrous consequences!

So why not try a bit of force up geyser economics!?

Take a thousand people who earn a dollar a day, and their total daily spending power is just a thousand dollars!

However if they earn ten dollars a day, their daily spending power is a power to ten, ten thousand dollars.

It's an absolute absurdity to believe making ordinary folk less well off by the application of truly asinine policy, is a road to riches for some; but is a self defeating nonsense!

Eventually even the most privileged in this trickle down model will run out of folk to fleece or the resources that enable that and the ever downward spiral to the lowest common denominator to continue, and a close run thing as to which will come first!?
Rhrosty.

For your homework, study notes 1-10.

Is this really a goal you want to achieve: "10. An eco-socialist economy would be characterized by a strong emphasis on the local and the regional, and it would strongly restrict long-distance trade.2 It would be characterized by a much higher use of labor-intensive technologies (today's high labor productivity is essentially the result of undesirably high resource consumption in capital-intensive technologies)3, a much lower level of division of labor,4 and a high degree of self-sufficiency."

So, you want to take us back to the dark-ages then?

Bruno, until you have
a) understood, and
b) refuted
the economic calculation argument, you have nothing. You are simply spouting slogans and gibberish, and have no understanding of the issues.

To translate it into the moron level that even a socialist can understand, it means the only results you can get from the system you contend for, can only be worse from the standpoint of your own definition of a successful outcome.

Moron.

Got that refutation of the economic calculation argument there yet, feller?

It's idiotic rants like this article that give ecological sustainability a bad name. Indeed they also give socialism a bad name, though they're far from unique in that.

I'm not going to point out every error; that would take too long. But I will mention a few of the most glaring:

1. There is no insurmountable barrier. Most of our planet's resources are extremely abundant, and substitutes exist for the ones that aren't. Although in any case it's possible to have economic growth with out any growth in resource use, which makes the whole argument moot.

2. Unless we have achieved absolute perfection (which we clearly haven't) there are things worth doing that haven't been done yet. So while there are people unemployed, there is much unexploited growth potential yet that could be exploited.

3. We are a very very very very long way from the limits. Do you have any idea how much energy our planet receives from the sun every day?

And the claim that "In all technologies, potential for efficiency increase is limited and subject to the law of diminishing marginal returns" is extremely dubious. Diminishing marginal returns normally occur when something else becomes the limiting factor, but there's no suggestion as to what this new limiting factor would be.

Where dense energy is required, energy dense compounds can be synthesised. This requires lots of energy, but the sun supplies us with lots of energy.

I also note a failure to even consider nuclear energy despite its very high density.

If we really face a choice between “Eco-socialism or barbarism”, and this article describes eco-socialism, I think I’ll opt for barbarism.