Gene said: >> It will be more effective, politically and environmentally, to >> "discard the economic growth pardigm" right now, and then the other >> pieces will more easily be achieved.
Hans writes: > Steady state economics is an important issue, and we as economists > should definitely do research about it. But right now there is no > general consensus that economic growth is bad. As usual, we have to be clear what _kind_ of "economic growth" is bad. Growth of real GDP _per capita_? or _all_ "economic growth," however defined? would some growth of some alternative measure such as the "Genuine Progress Indicator" be okay? how about growth of per-person happiness? By the way, even by Obaman standards, rejection of real GDP per capita would be radical: GDP calculation embraces the market as the measure of all things, while most in the US see market capitalism as the best way to go. (Even the GPI does this, though it does apply market-like prices to goods that currently have no market prices.) -- Jim Devine / "If heart-aches were commercials, we'd all be on TV." -- John Prine _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
