====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
In fairness, the Cuban columnist's favourable reference to Bhutan was related to just one thing: the fact that the regime does not view GDP growth as an appropriate measure of development, so they have come up with a different concept that encompasses other important things, such as ecological sustainability and respect for local culture. (Since about 2005 Cuba has adopted a unique way of measuring GDP that takes into account universal subsides for social services that would slip under the radar of traditional measures of GDP growth; this seems to be why the UN excluded Cuba from the Human Development Report rankings this year, complaining of inadequate data). He did not endorse Bhutan's semi-feudal social relations, the monarchy, discrimination against ethnic Nepalese, the banning of progressive political parties, etc. He did not hold up Bhutan as some kind of model for Cuba's social development. He simply used Bhutan's attempt to come up with national goals other than maximising GDP growth as something that is relevant to Cuba and its socialist orientation. Am I aware that "Gross National Happiness" is a Buddhist concept? I assumed so. But so what? Do Marxists have monopoly on good ideas? Marce Cameron ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
