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

[Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

me:
>> 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).

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

you think so? is there evidence for this assertion?

>> (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).

raghu:
> 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.

alas, economists "see it" (improved human welfare) all the time (as
rising real GDP).

>> (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.

huh? If the calculation follows the same rules, e.g., counting the
impact of pollution as a cost to be subtracted from GDP, then the
number would have the same meaning, wouldn't it?
-- 
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