<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is De-Growth Compatible with Capitalism?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://triplecrisis.com/is-de-growth-compatible-with-capitalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://triplecrisis.com/is-de-growth-compatible-with-capitalism/</link>
	<description>Global Perspectives on Finance, Development, and Environment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:49:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn Ashton</title>
		<link>http://triplecrisis.com/is-de-growth-compatible-with-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1949</link>
		<dc:creator>Glenn Ashton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:28:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://triplecrisis.com/?p=942#comment-1949</guid>
		<description>This really is a rather pointless discourse - not surprising really, given its ephemeral nature.
It may be an interesting academic exercise to examine the concept of de-growth but its a futile, time-wasting and entropic discourse given its pointlessness. Unless the commentator cannot perceive that the capitalist system will never, by its very nature, be capable of growth as de-growth - the two are mutually exclusive, no worse, they are a practical contradiction of reality - and wants to just jabber on about some sort of theoretical case in point, then have the discussion.
Otherwise it would seem so much more useful to actually try to engage in looking at real solutions to the mess we are in than in wasting time on nonsense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This really is a rather pointless discourse &#8211; not surprising really, given its ephemeral nature.<br />
It may be an interesting academic exercise to examine the concept of de-growth but its a futile, time-wasting and entropic discourse given its pointlessness. Unless the commentator cannot perceive that the capitalist system will never, by its very nature, be capable of growth as de-growth &#8211; the two are mutually exclusive, no worse, they are a practical contradiction of reality &#8211; and wants to just jabber on about some sort of theoretical case in point, then have the discussion.<br />
Otherwise it would seem so much more useful to actually try to engage in looking at real solutions to the mess we are in than in wasting time on nonsense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LennertMariaWeber</title>
		<link>http://triplecrisis.com/is-de-growth-compatible-with-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1935</link>
		<dc:creator>LennertMariaWeber</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:04:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://triplecrisis.com/?p=942#comment-1935</guid>
		<description>This really is a dilemma the moralists, conversationists and the concept of &quot;sustainable development&quot; itself is facing. The belief/concept that the three types of capital (economic, ecological and social) are interchangable in a capitalist society. From a pure welfare point of view, this makes sense. The only way out at the moment seems to be (a) regulate the capitalist system as to internalize all externalized costs or even more to offset prior damage. Which could mean as an example that on every ton of CO2 you need to somehow (plant trees,etc) take 1,2 tons out of the system. Or (b) change the capitalist system so that the &quot;need&quot; for profit diminishes. Alternative monetary systems such as local currencies, which promote localized production and consumption, with a negative rate of interest so that an investment would still be profitable with zero net profits. Including risk, etc. Regarding Oppertunity Costs of Course. Don&#039;t see this possible on a large scale though. 
Some feedback on these thoughts would be quite nice

Great blog by the way. I really enjoy reading it 
Lennert</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This really is a dilemma the moralists, conversationists and the concept of &#8220;sustainable development&#8221; itself is facing. The belief/concept that the three types of capital (economic, ecological and social) are interchangable in a capitalist society. From a pure welfare point of view, this makes sense. The only way out at the moment seems to be (a) regulate the capitalist system as to internalize all externalized costs or even more to offset prior damage. Which could mean as an example that on every ton of CO2 you need to somehow (plant trees,etc) take 1,2 tons out of the system. Or (b) change the capitalist system so that the &#8220;need&#8221; for profit diminishes. Alternative monetary systems such as local currencies, which promote localized production and consumption, with a negative rate of interest so that an investment would still be profitable with zero net profits. Including risk, etc. Regarding Oppertunity Costs of Course. Don&#8217;t see this possible on a large scale though.<br />
Some feedback on these thoughts would be quite nice</p>
<p>Great blog by the way. I really enjoy reading it<br />
Lennert</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

