In his article "Sooner Or Later, We Have To Stop
Economic Growth – And We'll Be Better For It" (08 January 2019, Ensia, ensia.com),
Richard Heinberg says:
Both the US economy
and the global economy have expanded dramatically in the past century, as have
life expectancies and material progress. Economists raised in this period of
plenty assume that growth is good, necessary even, and should continue forever
and ever without end, amen. Growth delivers jobs, returns on investment and
higher tax revenues. What's not to like? We've gotten so accustomed to growth
that governments, corporations and banks now depend on it. It's no exaggeration
to say that we're collectively addicted to growth.
Mr Heinberg is like saying, "We live on a finite planet
with our infinite economic wants. We are increasing the quantity but not the
quality of life."
That is because we look at people as resources, not the
reason for the use of resources. We look at people as insatiable consumers, and
while we try to meet such unlimited wants, we unwittingly abuse our resources.
Now, Mr Heinberg says:
We could begin to
boost quality of life simply by tracking it more explicitly: instead of
focusing government policy on boosting GDP (the total dollar value of all goods
and services produced domestically), why not aim to increase Gross National
Happiness – as measured by a selected group of social indicators?
Mr Heinberg, an author and speaker, means well. But he is
using economics to persuade economists to change their ways – it becomes a question
of:
You think well, but I think better!
We do have to think better. Mr Heinberg himself says:
Granted, we're talking
about an unprecedented, coordinated economic shift that would require political
will and courage... Perhaps we could think of it as cooperative conservatism
(since its goal would be to conserve nature while maximizing mutual aid). It
would require a lot of creative thinking on everyone's part.
"It would require a lot of creative thinking on
everyone's part." The economists cannot solve the problems of the world
because they're using only The Science of Economics, which is finite. They are
not using the Art of Creativity, which is infinite.
We go back to Mr Heinberg's suggestion of Gross National
Happiness as measured by "a selected group of social indicators" – my
question is: "How will we ever agree on those indicators? I believe we
never will!
I go back to my own proposal of Gross Domestic Prosperity,
GDP², which I first presented in my essay "The Innovation Paradox Of World
Bank. Time To Learn GDP²" (16 November 2017, GAIA Con GAIA, blogspot.com).
Am I pulling your leg? No, GDP² is simple enough:
You liberate the
farmers from their poverty by cutting off the merchants from the value chain of
any farm produce, that's all!
I got the idea of GDP² from the Inclusive Market-Oriented Development, IMOD, strategy that ICRISAT
has been espousing since science manager William Dar became Director General in
2000. In IMOD, the farmers become their own merchants.
Economists don't make great ideas like they used to anymore!517
Comments
Post a Comment