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

[raghu <mraghu01@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm sure that the folks at "Redefining Progress" (who calculate the
> GPI) would be a tad miffed by Tom's attribution of religious feelings
> to them. By the way, they see themselves as _critics_ of "economic
> growth" as normally defined (i.e., by real GDP).


No doubt. They may be well-intentioned, but they are trying to build a
perpetual motion machine.




> (1) Using real GDP to measure "economic growth" is really just
> measuring the growth of market activity (exchange value), even when
> corrected for inflation. It's not a measure of human welfare (assuming
> that such a thing can be measured).


That's just the point: it can't be measured. To measure "welfare",
we'd first have to define it. It is like that judge said about
defining pornography: we can't precisely define what "welfare" is but
we'd know it when we see it.




> (4) The seeming fact that measure such as the Genuine Progress
> Indicator stopped growing in the 1970s and after in the U.S. also
> suggests the validity of point (1).


That's because the GPI is obscure and no one cares about it much. The
moment economists and politicians start paying attention to it, it
will stop measuring anything meaningful. The very fact that a lot of
people care so much about it will make it completely useless.
-raghu.


--
"I bought some batteries, but they weren't included." - Steven Wright
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l