Ron, I said nothing whatsoever about economic "progress." I specifically challenged the meaningfulness of the notion of economic "growth". Economic *progress,* by contrast, would require discarding the obsolete and discredited terminology from the mid-1950s.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:57 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > "Patrick Bond" <[email protected]> > > *> *On 2014/03/21 08:09 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > >>Paul Baran defines economic growth as "increase over time in per > capita output of material goods". What's your > problem with that? > > > Impeccable source though it is, Baran's is sufficiently close to GDP to > roll out the usual correctives, not so? > > I was responding to previous poster's claim that economic progress wasn't > a valid concept. You are simply saying that Baran's definition isn't > appropriate because it doesn't subtract the harmful aspect of production > which is a good point and I would also make changes to Baran's definition. > > -- > Ron > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
