Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Was preparing a more snarky title FT: 'By the way, our metrics sucked'

Here's one reason:

In spite of growth, people were worse off on average, as Stiglitz says:

"Many people looked at US GDP growth in the 2000s and said: `How fast you are growing - we must imitate you.' But it was not sustainable or equitable growth. Even before the crash, most people were worse off than they were in 2000. It was a decade of decline for most Americans."

And of course this was a big part of what caused the crash. Note Jerome's diaries 'The One Graph That Damns the Bush Economy' and 'Blame the Poor'.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 08:08:38 AM EST
Economic 'growth' can result from undesirable spending:
So, for example, government spending on prisons counts the same as government spending on universities. Cleaning up a nuclear accident would add to GDP in the same way as the production of solar power. When oil is extracted from the ground and sold to consumers, this is counted as an addition to a nation's wealth rather than a depletion of its resources.

See the European Tribune story 'Regrettables'.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 08:10:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's a still-relevant quote by ThatBritGuy in 'Socratic Economics I: Why GDP growth above everything else?'
Yes, but 'productive capital' is a complete fiction. Capital doesn't exist as a physical thing. It only exists if people choose to believe in it.

Natural resources certainly exist, and the destruction of natural resources has an obvious real-world effect.

So why do economists apparently prefer to deal with fictions than realities?

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 08:12:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series