Stagnation instead of growth as a main political policy.

[Distracted]

With the recent split from the greens vs labor I heard a labor representative mention that the labor party has two goals in mind, the creation of jobs and the growth of the economy. That made me think for a bit.

Is it possible to have a government based on being stagnant instead of growth?
Not just in population but in production also. Purposefully building industries for fixing things rather than creating new things?
No more new car manufacturing, each company releases one car every 5 years and they can apply the 5 years of research into that car.

Same with phones!
This society seems silly the way it operates, i'm just not sure the fastest path to progression is the best one for future sustainability.

Does anyone here think that sort of mindset could ever be reached? It would seem draconic to put laws in place preventing people of doing things and there's always the possibility people could avoid such laws. For instance car manufacturers would only create one car then fold to be able to create another one next year under a different manufacturer.

Even if laws were put in place it wouldn't be enough, i feel it's more about changing people's minds, influencing the part of their minds that tells them what they deserve in life.

[shortly]

Unless there is a dramatic turn of events no, it ill be business as usual. As a rule people wont change unless they are shocked into change, their inertia is a formidable force.

Everything about grubbyment, business and just about every surviving culture on earth is geared toward growth and they fight tooth and nail to preserve it at any cost.

Multinationals have their share price written down if their profits are less than previous years even if they still make billions.

And given the interconnectedness of our government to business and businesses within Australia to world markets any small attempt to go against the tide the markets, ratings agencies & foreign governments will likely respond swiftly less than favorably.

Any government seeking to limit the growth of industry to 0 or even near 0 would most likely find a itself besieged by & swiftly replaced all the ppl who put them put them there in the first place, Gina, Clive, Rupert etc etc.

[WoodDragon]

Interesting question.

The short answer is 'theorectically', the slightly longer answer is 'not with our cultural/political proclivities', and the ultimate answer is 'any society that relies on a continuous growth model of economics with ultimately fail'.

It boils down to the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Very few economists properly (or even vaguely) understand the laws of thermodynamics, or the fact that all human activity is beholden to them. Almost no politicians understand this.

The current global fixation on continuous growth won't last. The idea that it can be sustained indefinitely is simply an illusion, although hints such as the GFC, degrading ecosystems, and disintegrating national economies should be waking up more than a few intelligent people.

If humans don't take the initiative and restructure their economic activity, the laws of thermodynamics will. It's as sure as death, and more sure than taxes.