I'm certainly not going to argue with your take on Le Monde's ridiculous attack on supporters of the doctrine.  I am, however, very skeptical of the doctrine.  The short answer is that I think it's impossible to manage properly.  If growth is zero, what will be the result of (say) productivity gains?  If you fix the size of the pie, who benefits?  Those are the questions that, I think, a reasonable editor would've asked.

GDP growth is not the only factor in poverty reduction, but it is a factor, and it is not unreasonable to bring up China.  Even if recent years have simply seen gains largely among the coastal minorities, they're still gains, and the budget surpluses will allow China to lend a hand to the poor farmers out in the rural provinces.

Or, to take another example, the combination of strong growth and increased spending on social welfare under Kennedy and Johnson led to significant reductions in poverty.  (The two went hand-in-hand.)  Again, GDP is not the only factor, and perhaps, in some cases, not even the most important, but it is a factor.  It allowed Johnson to spend a lot without sending the debt-to-GDP ratio through the ceiling -- or, as my father likes to say when talking about Bush's spending, "Growth covers a multitude of sins."  The 1990s boom led to a reduction, as well, although it, obviously, jumped up again as the recession set in and continued on.

I'm in agreement with Le Monde on the point that humans can, and will, find a way out of the energy crisis and environmental threat.  But, as I pointed out to Miguel on Sunday, we're not using all of the tools at our disposal -- the tax code being the most important, in my opinion.  People respond to incentives, but we're not providing them with those incentives.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.