It's the metonymy, stupid! (was Re: [Pen-l] Re: De-Growth Conference Declaration)

[Sandwichman <lumpoflabor@xxxxxxxxx>]

The catch is: there is no such thing as "economic growth" and thus no way to "measure" it. What happens rhetorically is that three figures of speech get fused into a cliche and people then talk about the result as if its mere familiarity of usage lends it concreteness.

Economy: there is no discrete economy apart from the way that people arbitrarily agree to classify bunches of activities that are quite different from each other while excluding other bunches of activities that are often quite similar to some of the included activities. The economy literally adds "apples and oranges" but not the apples I eat from the tree in my front yard. Technically speaking, the economy is a synecdoche rather than a metonymy but metonymy rhymes with economy.

Growth: the economy doesn't grow. What expands or increases are the elements that make up "the economy". Crops grow. Yields increase. But the value of the yield can rise when the yield itself has decreased because the crops have stopped growing. In the case of the aggregate economy, increases can occur simply because of the unresolvable ambiguity of the distinction between intermediate goods and final consumption goods. Moreover, our sense of growth is of an activity intrinsic to the thing growing, but the enlargement of the economy is passive in that things are added to it.

Measurement: what is measured is NOT economic growth. It is a proxy. You can't measure economic growth because "the economy" doesn't actually "grow". Any alternative index one could propose for "prosperity" or "progress" would meet the same objection but with the additional disadvantage of not having already become enshrined by usage. 

It's like making up a more modern, "rational" religion with more relevant rituals. Why bother? At least part of the appeal of religion and ritual is their mystery and incomprehensibility. A large part of the appeal of GDP and the myth of economic growth is that they exempt people from having to address the essential incommensurability and contentiousness of a way of life purportedly built on the principle of market transactions.

As a first step, the critique of economic growth is more or less compelled to take "economy," "growth" and "measurement" at face value. People may disagree with that critique but at least they will imagine they comprehend it. The rhetorical critique I essay above is guaranteed to be met with indignant howls of incomprehension, as if it is just too impolite to point out that the whole edifice is built up on imagery (not to mention delusion) and not substance.

When we talk about Wall Street or the Oval Office, we understand that we are using metaphors to refer to the finance industry or the top levels of the executive branch of the federal government. But when we talk about the economy we do so as if it were a sentient and even intentional being and appear not to notice our childish anthropomorphisms.

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Max Sawicky <maxbsawicky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'll add another question, since I have no answers.

It seems possible that growth could be raised by some set of
dirigiste arrangements that we do not observe.  So while growth
is a mantra justifying whatever gets done, what gets done is not
always or necessarily in support of growth uber alles.  While
finance is inextricable from capitalism, IMO the more powerful or
proximte motivating interest underlying finance is aggrandizement
of the wealthiest.  Unsustainable growth is a byproduct, not a prime
mover.  In fact, I expect power to be wielded by elites in support of
sustainable measures (in ways that feather their own nests, as
per usual) when it becomes screamingly obvious that such measures
are inescapable.

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sabri Oncu wrote:
>> Is this financial system exogenous or endogenous to the broader system
>> in which we are pursuing "the sort of growth we were pursuing"?
>
> Exactly! To what extent does the financial bubble and crisis reflect
> the emphasis on GDP growth über alles (i.e., the modern _expression_ of
> capitalism's drive to accumulate like crazy) and its collision with
> ecological and resource constraints?
> --
> 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
> pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

-- 
Sandwichman
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l