Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Classic example is hurricanes, they generate additional GDP be requiring goods and services to be built to replace what used to be there, but this in no way makes any one better off.
Yes, there are many examples of this... all sorts of resources devoted to things that do not really enhance our lives or living standards; or more clearly we'd be better off if we didn't *need* to spend it. Defense spending, police and law enforcement spending, administration spending, etc.
Personally, I would like to see much more attention paid to quality of life. A big part of that could be accomplished by finding more efficient methods to accomplish a particular outcome. We tend to get stuck in long-running paradigms though, and people are reluctant to change. This has only gotten more acute in our current divisive climate.
The "degrowth" idea is the one I find annoying... because it implies that the opposite of economic growth is somehow a worthy goal on its own, and will automatically improve things.
Lol, no need to jump on the anti-socialist bandwagon so quick!
This has been a longstanding debate in economics. Here's the basic tenants:
1. The economy lives within the environment, which provides the raw materials for the economy. If the economy is too focused short changes the environment and destructs it, then in the long run the economy falls apart because there's no more inputs available. That's 'ecological economics'. This definitely happened in the past in Mesoamerican civilizations and is something we have to be aware of with the modern economy.
2. GDP is a measure rate of output production, not utilization. To use an analogy, it's the RPMs of the cars engine, not the speed it's running at. People use outputs to generate wellbeing, but generating outputs does not guarantee wellbeing. Classic example is hurricanes, they generate additional GDP be requiring goods and services to be built to replace what used to be there, but this in no way makes any one better off.
I don't necessarily agree with the solutions in the article, but it's pretty well agreed upon within economics that GDP is very overused as a measure of success - that wealth, durability, distribution, and usefulness need to be better captured in whatever future metrics we use.
I'm, "in" economics at least as much as anyone here and disagree with your thesis points and flatly no it is not well agreed that GDP is overused. GDP, GDP per capita, GDP per capita at PPP are the best broad measures of economic success/performance we have.
Yes, there are many examples of this... all sorts of resources devoted to things that do not really enhance our lives or living standards; or more clearly we'd be better off if we didn't *need* to spend it. Defense spending, police and law enforcement spending, administration spending, etc.
Personally, I would like to see much more attention paid to quality of life. A big part of that could be accomplished by finding more efficient methods to accomplish a particular outcome. We tend to get stuck in long-running paradigms though, and people are reluctant to change. This has only gotten more acute in our current divisive climate.
The "degrowth" idea is the one I find annoying... because it implies that the opposite of economic growth is somehow a worthy goal on its own, and will automatically improve things.
Agreed with the bolded. Our current system has made it untenable for so many young people to be out on their own. With the college debt their saddled with paired with the ever-increasing real estate prices, young people have been forced to live at home (w/ parents) longer and delay milestone events in adulthood such as starting a family or buying property. But what am I supposed to do or care about it since I own a home and paid my college debts. Am I right? Poor people should just stop being poor and that would solve all of this. /s
Incidentally, sustainability is one of the basic tenets of regrowth. Anyone with a useful brain knows that if you have a watering well (a resource) that isn't being replenished with new water, that the well will eventually dry up. Good luck if your entire homestead depends on it. Now, I'm not going to pretend to know that regrowth has all the answers to our problems. However, I do know that when we use up our resources faster than we can replace them, or destroy important components of our life-sustaining ecosystem, that isn't good for us either.
...If the economy is too focused short changes the environment and destructs it, then in the long run the economy falls apart because there's no more inputs available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
... sustainability is one of the basic tenets of regrowth.
Yes, of course eating the proverbial seed-corn likely portends starvation this year. But we have several options. First, we aggressively seek other resources. Second, instead of limiting the vitality and freedoms of persons who are already alive, we intentionally make fewer new persons. If our descendants are fewer, then their resource-consumption will be smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
GDP is a measure rate of output production, not utilization. ...
Why should utilization matter more than output production? Why should it even matter at all? If I'm a billionaire but choose to sleep in a tent on an overpass of I-110 in South Central, so what? That is my choice. GDP is the bound of what is available. Within that bound, we choose as we like. I'd rather have more choice - even if that means to be miserly and stupid - than to have so-called basic needs met, but overall output production curtailed.
Yes, there are many examples of this... all sorts of resources devoted to things that do not really enhance our lives or living standards; or more clearly we'd be better off if we didn't *need* to spend it. Defense spending, police and law enforcement spending, administration spending, etc.
Personally, I would like to see much more attention paid to quality of life. A big part of that could be accomplished by finding more efficient methods to accomplish a particular outcome. We tend to get stuck in long-running paradigms though, and people are reluctant to change. This has only gotten more acute in our current divisive climate.
The "degrowth" idea is the one I find annoying... because it implies that the opposite of economic growth is somehow a worthy goal on its own, and will automatically improve things.
Both sides fall prey to the same issue, assuming movement in one direction is always good. If there's less growth, you can't assume the enviornment will automatically be in a better place, and with more growth, you can't assume the transactions are always guaranteeing better long term outcomes - ie admin spending...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_
I'm, "in" economics at least as much as anyone here and disagree with your thesis points and flatly no it is not well agreed that GDP is overused. GDP, GDP per capita, GDP per capita at PPP are the best broad measures of economic success/performance we have.
Because there's no consensus on a better metric yet. Things like HDI have a lot subjectiveness that raise eyebrows and don't quite serve as a parallel. But it would be narrowminded to say that GDP, a rate of change, gives the full picture without looking at the starting point of wealth. It may be the best metric to date, but looking at only one metric will always blind you to the full picture.
Yes, of course eating the proverbial seed-corn likely portends starvation this year. But we have several options. First, we aggressively seek other resources. Second, instead of limiting the vitality and freedoms of persons who are already alive, we intentionally make fewer new persons. If our descendants are fewer, then their resource-consumption will be smaller.
Why should utilization matter more than output production? Why should it even matter at all? If I'm a billionaire but choose to sleep in a tent on an overpass of I-110 in South Central, so what? That is my choice. GDP is the bound of what is available. Within that bound, we choose as we like. I'd rather have more choice - even if that means to be miserly and stupid - than to have so-called basic needs met, but overall output production curtailed.
To the first point, if everything was substitutable we would have infinite options. But with nature, you can't always assume that with feedback loops and such. Also, less people = less GDP, again reinforcing my point that just blind following of a number doesn't make sense. To maximize GDP, we'd have 60 billion people.
To the 2nd point, that's how we end up with walls of empty apartment skyscrapers in China. Production looks good on a sheet, but would you want to say that outcomes like that are somehow optimal??
I try hard to never respond to your serial nonsense. There is a vast gulf between public health measures accepted across the world and eugenics.
That "serial nonsense" usually comes in response to the often bizarre and robotic comments about human performance, achievement, and appearance that leaks out onto this forum. People are people, not many are set on being performance machines to be operated at optimal performance. Most babies aren't chomping down on steaks and pork chops, so I don't see the relevancy to their diets. Most babies eat relatively vegetarian diets early on in life. Not exactly sure who goes into a hospital on the birth date of their young child and starts asking the medical professionals about the diets they can feed their babies for optimal height attainment. If those are the main concerns, then those are probably some very strange people indeed. Furthermore, the best shape I've ever been in in my life was when I ate a mostly vegetarian diet with some moderate amounts of chicken and turkey mixed in for protein. There are also a lot more options available for sustainable protein today than just five years ago. My wife is particular to tofu, but when she was doing Keto leading up to our wedding, she was also fond of nut butters and legumes.
It's those weird obsessions with human KPIs, achievement, and appearance that are bizarre. I don't think most healthy-minded people are overly concerned with that as opposed to just making the best out of life with what they got.
Furthermore, you went off on your own political tirade earlier upthread when one of the top stickies directs us to keep this sub void of political discussions.
There is such incredible humor - and irony - in the title of this thread:
Title: "Create prosperity by abandoning economic growth as an objective"
Because
Prosperity ≡ Economic Growth
Therefore, via substitution, the title could be restated as:
"Create prosperity by abandoning prosperity as an objective"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
/s
