Nobel prize-winning economists, Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen are rejecting the notion that GDP growth is THE index for measuring economic and social well-being. They posit that perhaps we have lost perspective; in the quest for growth maximization, other valued objectives have become obscured. One thing is sure: the growth game is hegemonic. It is also adversarial and limited. It makes one think of body-height eating-capacity competitions.
Clearly, the tallest or largest person is not necessarily the healthiest or happiest (indeed, gigantism is a sad, crippling disorder - just ask André the Giant). Likewise, those that can gobble the most chicken wings or cherry pies suffer sickening after-effects: a swollen lethargy, ache, and purge. The meltdown of our culture of gluttony and growth obsession has made us familiar with these sensations. Economist Bernard Baumohl informs us that, prior to the self-inflicted butt-kick, only 65% of what we bought was actually bought. The rest was paid for Dumb and Dumber style, with a fat fistful of IOU's.
It appears that the collective of U.S. American consumers has tunnel-visioned its way into perpetual short-sightedness. Either consequences are too far off to be seen as relevant or we suffer from a societal cecity. The "shameless stuffing while others starve" which Walt Whitman criticized in his 1855 American Epic, Leaves of Grass, is a characteristic aspect of our culture. Darwinian survival of the fittest has taken a backseat to Teletubbian survival of everybody. It might just be that Newton's laws have been conquered by macro-management: causes have been divorced from their effects. AIG stands like a smirking sentinel; the smiling Buddha, complacent and stuffed with greenbacks.
Of course, there were woeful economic effects to the world's most recent price over-evaluation depreciation (bubble-burst). Economic pain is of preeminent concern. However, justice is also principally important, and we likewise know that the spoiled child learns naught. Misbehavior unpunished is misbehavior reinforced. The child, gremlinlike, nurtures his demand, grab, and guzzle mechanisms.
We are stuck with the moderated disincentive which Bernanke and Paulson's meddling has left us. The best we can do is allow the ugly effects of this current downturn to be educating and therefore salubrious. I mean, we should learn from our mistakes. I submit that if the moderated downturn-caused pain is enough to teach us prudence and temperance (for a while, at least) then the effects of this recession are sufficient; if not, they were not enough. We are the spoiled consumer child and China is the currency-devalued consumption-pusher.
We should also recognize that the GDP-growth-centered model has proven to be poisonous and limited. The S-twins (Sen and Stiglitz) and their sidekick Sarkozy (who commissioned their report) propose a solution, or at least an alternative. They are advocating something like the Gross National Happiness (GNH) index, long used in Bhutan. Their sophisticated index would consider growth, of course, but only as one of a number of key variables. Also included would be education and health indices as well as considerations of real wage. The S-trio may be on to something.
Of course, economic theorists have long recognized the relevance and value of other indices. Regrettably, quantitative measure of those mechanisms continues be prohibitively difficult. Economics models center on self-interest and growth because isolation of those effects (even though they over-simplify the huge complexity of human behavior and preference hierarchies) reveals useful empirical information.
The problem, then, is not the use of caricature-style models, but the hegemony of those indicators. Inimitable economic and otherwise analysis utilizes the qualitative and qualitative; in this case, focusing on empirical growth data and culture. The truth of the matter is that close examination of one or both of these instruments should have revealed intrinsic lack of sustainability in the socio-economic culture of the pre-"Great Recession" years.
For less-developed countries, the growth game (coupled with the S and S model) continues to be integral. For the United States and the other rich countries, it has lost its utility. Growth in order to fuel unsustainable excess and global inequality should finally appear less than appetizing, especially when we have to overvalue our assets or go to war to achieve it. We need to figure out what is important, and how to go about getting it and instilling it in our culture.
Clearly, the tallest or largest person is not necessarily the healthiest or happiest (indeed, gigantism is a sad, crippling disorder - just ask André the Giant). Likewise, those that can gobble the most chicken wings or cherry pies suffer sickening after-effects: a swollen lethargy, ache, and purge. The meltdown of our culture of gluttony and growth obsession has made us familiar with these sensations. Economist Bernard Baumohl informs us that, prior to the self-inflicted butt-kick, only 65% of what we bought was actually bought. The rest was paid for Dumb and Dumber style, with a fat fistful of IOU's.
It appears that the collective of U.S. American consumers has tunnel-visioned its way into perpetual short-sightedness. Either consequences are too far off to be seen as relevant or we suffer from a societal cecity. The "shameless stuffing while others starve" which Walt Whitman criticized in his 1855 American Epic, Leaves of Grass, is a characteristic aspect of our culture. Darwinian survival of the fittest has taken a backseat to Teletubbian survival of everybody. It might just be that Newton's laws have been conquered by macro-management: causes have been divorced from their effects. AIG stands like a smirking sentinel; the smiling Buddha, complacent and stuffed with greenbacks.
Of course, there were woeful economic effects to the world's most recent price over-evaluation depreciation (bubble-burst). Economic pain is of preeminent concern. However, justice is also principally important, and we likewise know that the spoiled child learns naught. Misbehavior unpunished is misbehavior reinforced. The child, gremlinlike, nurtures his demand, grab, and guzzle mechanisms.
We are stuck with the moderated disincentive which Bernanke and Paulson's meddling has left us. The best we can do is allow the ugly effects of this current downturn to be educating and therefore salubrious. I mean, we should learn from our mistakes. I submit that if the moderated downturn-caused pain is enough to teach us prudence and temperance (for a while, at least) then the effects of this recession are sufficient; if not, they were not enough. We are the spoiled consumer child and China is the currency-devalued consumption-pusher.
We should also recognize that the GDP-growth-centered model has proven to be poisonous and limited. The S-twins (Sen and Stiglitz) and their sidekick Sarkozy (who commissioned their report) propose a solution, or at least an alternative. They are advocating something like the Gross National Happiness (GNH) index, long used in Bhutan. Their sophisticated index would consider growth, of course, but only as one of a number of key variables. Also included would be education and health indices as well as considerations of real wage. The S-trio may be on to something.
Of course, economic theorists have long recognized the relevance and value of other indices. Regrettably, quantitative measure of those mechanisms continues be prohibitively difficult. Economics models center on self-interest and growth because isolation of those effects (even though they over-simplify the huge complexity of human behavior and preference hierarchies) reveals useful empirical information.
The problem, then, is not the use of caricature-style models, but the hegemony of those indicators. Inimitable economic and otherwise analysis utilizes the qualitative and qualitative; in this case, focusing on empirical growth data and culture. The truth of the matter is that close examination of one or both of these instruments should have revealed intrinsic lack of sustainability in the socio-economic culture of the pre-"Great Recession" years.
For less-developed countries, the growth game (coupled with the S and S model) continues to be integral. For the United States and the other rich countries, it has lost its utility. Growth in order to fuel unsustainable excess and global inequality should finally appear less than appetizing, especially when we have to overvalue our assets or go to war to achieve it. We need to figure out what is important, and how to go about getting it and instilling it in our culture.
