Jim Devine wrote: > > > 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? >
In this case, I really don't think you can defeat "how things are" by clarifying vocabulary. That is, I think we have to let the word "growth" retain the meaning it has in 'standard' usage, which means growth in gdp, regardless of human desirability of the product that grows. You would o best to select some different word or words for "growth in human welfare." Let the WSJ have the word "growth," and learn to attack growth as such while contrasting it with (say), "human well-being" or something like that. Growth is bad bad bad and you can't define it out of existence. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
