The key phrase for me is "relative homeostasis". I agree that the encouragement you refer to is desirable. I am unsure of it's possibility. Our belief that growth is mandatory for our economy encourages activities and behaviors that, I think, out-pace the ability of the natural system to balance itself at its natural rate. I am not convinced that we have a solid enough understanding of our own system to allow us to recognize true key indicators of systemic health, rationally process that input, and subsequently make good decisions about the which conditions we should encourage.
To state it bluntly, I think our desire for growth is malignant... I don't mean to be doom and gloom about this, and actually I think there is reason to be optimistic. But economics seems to me to have that stereotypical characteristic of having 20/20 vision through the rear view mirror. Economic policy decisions that are both long term and aggressive(such as increased home ownership) which use 'tweaks' to the system to achieve the aims are likely destructive and very unpredictable. In a relatively isolated or buffered system, they may be more predictable, but we are not in an economy which is either buffered or isolated. We are comparatively wide open(global), and playing in a much bigger sandbox than we have been, say 25 years ago. ...and from my perspective, we don't know the playing field well enough to be aggressive, though we should be looking long term. ...and by long term, I mean more than two quarters out! Thanks for the opportunity to think this through a bit...! :-)
