On 6/18/08, Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  My counter metaphor is that  capitalism is not acromegaly, but simply
>  adolescence.  Many adolescents have huge appetites, often needing
>  unbelievable amounts of food.  They grow amazingly fast. They tend to
>  flail around, often extremely destructively. A fair number of
>  adolescents manage to exercise sufficiently bad judgment that they die
>  of bad choices  - for instance drunk driving. Whatever we mean by
>  socialism, I don't think we mean that humanity should stop growing,
>  merely that growing needs to include growing up.

Economic growth is already a metaphor. Before seeking greater clarity
through specificity of the metaphor, it is useful to ask what the
semantic limits of the metaphor are. Just what is it that "grows"? And
in what sense is that growth "economic"?

What grows are incomes and assets measured in dollars. Growth in
income and assets has traditionally been associated with something we
could call "prosperity" or "economic welfare," which are composed of
subjective experiences and are thus unquantifiable.

The ruse that "economic science" uses to get around the
incommensurability of subjective experience is laughable in its
circular justification. Since you can't compare subjective utilities,
you must take it as given that a larger dollar volume of incomes and
assets represents an improvement in total welfare. The economic part
of economic growth is thus economic only by edict. In other words, it
isn't.

The association between growth of assets and income and prosperity is
strictly contingent. Although we may become accustomed to the
association and thus think of it as normal, there can be growth
without prosperity and prosperity without growth just as there can be
love without marriage and marriage without love.

Of course, to assume that growth in income and/or assets is
intrinsically incompatible with environmental sustainability is as
groundless as to assume that prosperity and growth are joined at the
hip. All that would be necessary would be to redefine what counts as
income or as an asset and you can have all the
environmentally-friendly economic growth you want.
The key to that redefinition is given in the observation that "wealth
is disposable time, and nothing more."

-- 
Sandwichman
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to