On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But still it is hard to imagine doing all this and not having a larger GDP > as a result. So it seems like any discussion of a low or no-growth economy > has acknowledge that any such practice will, at minimum, have to wait until > we finish (and hell until we begin) the needed transformation of out > infrastructure. > I am not sure that "zero growth" makes any more sense than "more growth". I think the right approach is "growth agnostic" i.e. do what is right and pay no attention to whether GDP increases or decreases. Sometimes progressive policies will lead to GDP increases, other times to decreases. Either way it should not be a factor in decision making at all. That said, I do suspect that doing the right thing for the environment will sooner or later require GDP reduction.-raghu. -- "His credit rating is so bad that his junk mail comes postage due." - Anonymous
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
