Randomly selecting passages from the previous two missives in this thread: >From David Bent's summary: > Economic growth fails to deliver prosperity, now or in the future. Poorer nations urgently need further economic development, but do already-rich nations?<
>From the previous message's Declaration, we know that "Economic growth" is "indicated by increasing real GDP or GNP." But what is "prosperity"? what is "development"? can these be measured? or is there some other way of discovering whether or not prosperity and/or development are prevailing? from Bent: > Understanding prosperity as possessions or income has failed because, beyond a certain point, more of either does not increase people's life satisfaction or development indicators.< This says that "prosperity" _as usually understood_ is pretty much the same as (GDP-based) "economic growth" as defined above. But if they are the same, how can economic growth fail to provide prosperity? It must be that these authors point to _true_ prosperity (differing from perceived prosperity), which would be measured by such things as the Human Development Index, the Genuine Progress Indicator, or survey-based measures of happiness. To me at least, that says that "growth" should be measured using non-GDP (non-market) measures and should be given a different name (true "prosperity") to distinguish it from the usual meaning of "growth." Marx might see this in terms of a contrast -- or even a contradiction -- between exchange-value (GDP) and use-value. from Bent: > The current turmoil and recession is the result of the sort of growth we were pursuing.< What sort of growth is that? Some would blame economic growth based on asset bubbles and excessive financial leveraging. Others would blame GDP growth hitting ecological and resource constraints. At least in the short run, the second explanation doesn't make much sense. However, if the first explanation (crazy finance) can be explained in terms of the second (ecological constraints), then maybe the second one makes sense. So, how can we understand the rising craziness of finance by reference to ecological/resource constraints? >From the conference's declaration: "degrowth" is > a voluntary transition towards a just, participatory, and ecologically sustainable society.< Has this also been called a red-and-green "democratic socialism"? Call me cynical, but both of these summaries seem long on declarations and short on content. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
