To be more specific, GDP growth refers to an aggregate that contains both goods and crap. This is not controversial. It is simply glossed over in media and political shorthand. The more quantitative growth becomes the imperative, the less consideration can be given to the quality of that growth. Crap growth comes at the expense of good growth. It draws resources away from socially necessary production.
We are coming to the end of the third decade in which US governments have fostered the production of crap for the sake of growth. A reduction of that crap would lead, by itself, to negative growth even if at the same time it freed resources for improving the quality of life. This systemic irrationality is something that Marx highlighted in the Grundrisse. But not only Marx. It is the raison d'etre of ecological economics: Gus Speth, Robert Costanza, Peter Victor and so on... Let's not forget J.K. Galbraith or Fred Hirsch. It is not simply a matter of being for or against "growth". It is primarily about being for health care and against prisons, for education and against war, for nutrition and housing and against plutocratic ostentation. In the neo-liberal political economy, the goods are expendable because they don't pack the same GDP punch as the crap. This is rationalized as "the trade off between equity and efficiency." It's no such thing. It's a trade off between quality and crap. But if growth is your only criteria, by all means, go for the crap. On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:40 PM, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > > I disagree. I think we should be talking as loudly about the growth > disease as about other things like health care. > -raghu. > -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
