Αντιγράφω επιστολή αναγνώστριας με τίτλο “Impoverished definitions of GDP — that’s the issue”, η οποία δημοσιεύθηκε στην Φαϊνάνσιαλ Τάιμς της 10 Μαΐου 2024. Διόλου πρωτότυπες οι αιτιάσεις που διατυπώνονται, ασφαλώς όχι αναίτιες ή άδικες και εν πολλοίς κανονιστικές. Είναι υπόθεση της πολιτικής και δευτερευόντως της οικονομικής θεωρίας.
“In her review of Daniel Susskind’s Growth: A Reckoning (‘The great growth puzzle’, Books, Life & Arts, April 13), Soumaya Keynes describes as ‘eco-warriors’, those who are concerned about the constant increase in resource extraction from a planet rapidly losing biodiversity and equilibrium.
She summarises their views as wanting less growth — a policy she implies will inevitably lead to a recession — and says Susskind argues they abandon ‘the left’s tradition of imagination when they reject the possibility of unlimited growth’.
Growth, in the narrow sense in which it’s currently defined by gross domestic product, has been shown to have no correlation, and often an inverse correlation, with health, education, longevity and wellbeing. The US, with the world’s sixth highest per capita GDP, does dismally on all these measures.
What Jason Hickel — the anthropologist cited in Keynes’s review — and others are calling for is not less growth, but growth in different measures.
As Bobby Kennedy memorably put it, back in 1968: ‘Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armoured cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities.’
We could all vote for growth in healthy soil, happy children, educated adults or functioning communities. But the impoverished definition that still prevails, coupled with the tech world’s obsession with growth in automation for its own sake, will just lead to a sick and sad population on a dead planet.
Perhaps it is Susskind who lacks imagination.”
Sheila Hayman
London NW1, UK
Για την αντιγραφή
νκ
Για το ΑΕΠ – και πάλι
poleconomix.gr
Αντιγράφω επιστολή αναγνώστριας με τίτλο “Impoverished definitions of GDP — that’s the issue”, η οποία δημοσιεύθηκε στην Φαϊνάνσιαλ Τάιμς της 10 Μαΐου 2024. Διόλου πρωτότυπες οι αιτιάσεις που διατυπώνονται, ασφαλώς όχι αναίτιες ή άδικες και εν πολλοίς κανονιστικές. Είναι υπόθεση της πολιτικής και δευτερευόντως της οικονομικής θεωρίας.
“In her review of Daniel Susskind’s Growth: A Reckoning (‘The great growth puzzle’, Books, Life & Arts, April 13), Soumaya Keynes describes as ‘eco-warriors’, those who are concerned about the constant increase in resource extraction from a planet rapidly losing biodiversity and equilibrium.
She summarises their views as wanting less growth — a policy she implies will inevitably lead to a recession — and says Susskind argues they abandon ‘the left’s tradition of imagination when they reject the possibility of unlimited growth’.
Growth, in the narrow sense in which it’s currently defined by gross domestic product, has been shown to have no correlation, and often an inverse correlation, with health, education, longevity and wellbeing. The US, with the world’s sixth highest per capita GDP, does dismally on all these measures.
What Jason Hickel — the anthropologist cited in Keynes’s review — and others are calling for is not less growth, but growth in different measures.
As Bobby Kennedy memorably put it, back in 1968: ‘Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armoured cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities.’
We could all vote for growth in healthy soil, happy children, educated adults or functioning communities. But the impoverished definition that still prevails, coupled with the tech world’s obsession with growth in automation for its own sake, will just lead to a sick and sad population on a dead planet.
Perhaps it is Susskind who lacks imagination.”
Sheila Hayman
London NW1, UK
Για την αντιγραφή
νκ
Share:
σχετικά άρθρα
Recession
Tyler Goodspeed (2026) Recession: The Real Reasons Economies Shrink and What to Do About It. London: Basic Books. pp. 310. What causes a recession? Do recessions
The new global imbalances: why care, why now and what should be done?
Beatrice Weder di Mauro, Jeromin Zettelmeyer Global imbalances are back: since 2018, the sums of current account surpluses and deficits have each increased by about 30 percent, reaching their
Αποθέματα κυκλοφορούντων διεθνών χρεωστικών τίτλων ανά νόμισμα έκδοσης, 2020-2024
(% μερίδιο στο σύνολο των νομισμάτων)