[Pen-l] Re: The fundamental crisis response. was Ecological creditcrunch

["Julio Huato" <juliohuato@xxxxxxxxx>]

Carrol wrote:

> I think Raghu has a point. Growth is a concept
> (and certainly a word) that pretty much belongs
> to The Enemy.

My .02 USD:

Growth is a term used not only in economics, but in the physical and
biological sciences, industry, etc.  In macroeconomics in particular,
it's used *not only* in reference to output, but in reference to *any*
macro variable.  Growth just means (X_{t+1}/X_t) - 1, where X is any
variable.

Although I haven't followed this thread closely, people seem to be
talking about *economic* growth -- the growth of the *economy*.  Does
the word "economy" belongs to The Enemy already?  I wouldn't give it
up just yet.

Then, the issue is not what we mean by growth.  Again, growth is not
an ambiguous term in economics.  The issue is what we mean by "the
economy."  Conventional economics holds that the ultimate goal of all
economic activity is "welfare."  I don't think Marxists would object
to that.  In any case, economic growth rightly understood (in the
context of, not critical, but conventional economics) is not the
growth of GDP, but growth of welfare.

The arguments are then about (1) how well GDP (or other conventional
measures) may capture welfare (i.e. its cross-sectional or temporal
correlation with welfare) and, more decisively, (2) what we mean by
welfare.

It seems to me that the content of the latter term (welfare) is and
should be under dispute.  Different classes, different groups of
people -- with different interests and places in society --
understandably have different, even irreconcilably opposed,
perceptions of what is "good" for them, i.e. what constitutes welfare
(and, therefore, its correlate term "wealth").

We, regular working people, should assert our own perceptions.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l