john fernbach wrote:
> "Economic scientists" is a rather optimistic misnomer, I think.
Only if you are talking about those dolts who when they say "greed is
good" take it literally and think that acting selfishly will lead them
to paradise :). For real economic scientists try the "Economist
intelligence unit" - I attest that they are more scientific than most
climate scientists.
>
> But supposing you're right. If added "value" in an economic sense has
> no physical component to it that's worth talking about, if "value" is
> added to the economy that means absolutely nothing in terms of either
> resource expenditures or expenditures of energy -- then how meaningful
> is it?
It is not that it could mean nothing - It is just that "most" peoples
values (both needs and desires) can be met in some way through resource
and energy expenditure. The trick is to efficiently encapsulate their
own values they might lose in an accurate and efficient way (ie.
objectively as a sin tax rather than subjectively as choosing "ethical"
or "green" products.) Semantics is one thing, talk of money, finance
and profit motive are perceived as sin in themselves, so thinking more
about what money actually is, a liquid uncomitted general human value,
we see that it is our values that have perhaps become generally selfish
and it is not the fault of the money.
>
> And why should we want to pursue this sort of "value"? Except,
> perhaps, as a mechanism for keeping an otherwise bankrupt economic
> system afloat?
>
> The economic historians write that political economists began worrying
> about the implications of the "stationary state," and what this would
> mean for wages and profits, almost as soon as Adam Smith's "Wealth of
> Nations" first was published. With the exception of John Stuart Mill,
> who asserted although he did not really demonstrate that the
> "stationary state" would be quite tolerable, many or most 19th century
> political economists feared that the "stationary state," when achieved,
> would be disastrous for capitalist society.
>
> Given this history, I think it's probable that "economic scientists"
> who profess to have found some way for value to expand forever, yet
> without having any physical impact on resources of raw materials and
> energy, are simply looking for a magic formula to put off the
> attainment of the stationary state almost indefinitely.
>
> And it is partly a matter of semantics. If we define "value" to be
> without any material substance, we can play with words in a fashion
> that seems to make the problem of finite limits to growth disappear.
> But I submit that it's really just playing with words.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
