Re: Does capitalism really need growth to survive?

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

Well, I point out to Principles students some of the weaknesses and
criticisms of standard national income accounting, but I mention but
don't expose them to alternatives.  In my view, alternative indicators
are under-discussed in the PK literature, and PKE in general seems
considerably pro-growth.  What is the PK view of alternative indicators
such as Net National Product/Net National Income, Net National Welfare,
General Progress Indicator, Human Development Index, Gender
Development-related Index, etc.

Supposedly Keynes said, "If a man marries his housekeeper, GNP goes
down."  Should unpaid housework and child-rearing be accounted for?
Should we subtract resource depletion, adjust for externalities,
consider volunteerism or other non-market production?

These are worthy questions for discussion in my view, but perhaps not
for others.  That's the nature of an e-mail list.  If no one is
interested, the thread will dissolve. Mat


-----Original Message-----
From: Sven R Larson [mailto:larson@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 11:53 AM
To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Does capitalism really need growth to survive?

Forgive me for asking, but where is this discussion really heading? This
stuff is what I
discuss with my introductory macro students.
/srl