Usually there is some sort of interval between a term being coined and it being completely hollowed out of all meaning.
“Sustainable” for a few years meant something. “Resilient” was always tricky, because it meant different things to different groups (military, psychology, ecological systems) anyway.
But these terms at least entered the mainstream with some sort of commonly-ish accepted meaning, and a radical tinge that hadn’t been trimmed.
Not so, it seems, for “steady-state economics.”
Already I’ve witnessed the unfortunate spectacle of people ‘advocating’ it but also saying they are in favour of big infrastructure projects that are going to lock in the belching of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Why? Well, for the “trickle-down” benefits.
“Steady-state” is a term that people are going to throw around more and more. And unless its advocates draw some lines about what is and isn’t compatible with the phrase, I fully expect to see the phrase “steady-state growth” sometime in the next year or so.