raghu: >>> No doubt. They may be well-intentioned, but they are trying to build a >>> perpetual motion machine.
me: >> you think so? is there evidence for this assertion? raghu, now: > The burden of evidence is on the other side. To show that come > consistent and reasonable index of welfare can be constructed. I think > it is impossible. ... I don't think that a measure of welfare is possible either. But the _contrast_ between the GPI or whatever and measures of market activity such as real GDP is meaningful. raghu: > As soon as some index like GPI becomes popular enough that > there are incentives for capitalists to increase this measure, they > will find a way to game it by trial and error. If you try accounting > for pollution costs, they'll find a way to pollute that minimizes this > accounting cost. The point is that if the GPI becomes popular enough, > there will always be an incentive to game it. we can't assume that there's a profit in gaming the GPI. It might be profitable for the capitalist class as a whole to do so, but there's little benefit to an individual capitalist. (They would do so only if there are direct public relations benefits and the like.) In addition, the accounting can be changed in order to maintain the principle. > And it is *impossible* > to construct an index that cannot be gamed. In the same way that rich > guys can find loopholes in *any* tax code no matter how well-designed. you're right that no single number is immune to being gamed. That's why we should never use a single measure. Multiple measures and qualitative judgments are needed. > It is certainly true that some indexes are better than others. But in > the end they are all fundamentally flawed. right. Unfortunately, if we want to actually study the world so that we can understand it (rather than simply moralizing about it), we have to use index numbers of one sort or another. When people want to talk seriously about a topic such as "peak oil," for example, they have to make assumptions about what kind of economic growth is likely. That means they needs some sort of measure of economic growth -- even though they may not want to keep the "monotonic growth narrative alive." -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
