The Big Issue
This article articulates the notion that economists have a biased vision. Their biggest problem is the end to the economic world. Without it, they would not exist. However, there are more crucial issues at play. Climate change is a controversial topic in today's world. The author contends that individuals could adjust to a more steady economy a lot easier than those in the economic sector. Economic growth derives from productivity; productivity is the result of creating more goods than the previous years; technological innovation has allowed for an increase in productivity while still utilizing the same amount of resources. The machines have become more efficient. However, "despite the unending wonders of the digital age, and the digital disruption of industry after industry, they just don't compare with the life-changing and economy-transforming technological advances of the past: electricity, the internal combustion engine, even underground water and sewerage" (Gittins). We might have reached the peak of inventions. Furthermore, aged individuals are starting to save more money because of the current economy, and a decline in population growth - higher savings and lower investments - are also causes of the economy's slower growth. Perhaps a more stagnant economy could be the solution to the world's issues; seemingly, it would only hurt the economist. The Earth would be a greener world, quality of goods can overpower quantity, and individuals would be a lot less stress. The world might have its own plan for itself and us. This specific type of economy might be in its early stages of development already.
In class, we read the Daly reading which discussed steady-state economics. He proposed a number of ideas that are congruent with Gittins article. In Daly's article, he contends that growth is creating even more inequality in the world; the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. We cannot assume that technology will eventually save us environmentally, and it is also contributing largely to the problem. There are those who believe technology will solve our problems, and those who assume it will not. Overall, resources are being used in all sectors - not just the economic one. There is no infinite substitutionability; resources are going to become more and more scarce. He proposes government restrictions on natural resources, and a steady population - a basic cap on economic growth. This could possibly change the values in society and help solve the climate change issues. However, do we need to make a valiant effort as Daly suggests, or is it naturally occurring as Gittins contends. Additionally, is controlling economic growth as simple as it appears? How would those who promote free trade respond to Daly's proposal? It comes to the point where one has to decide if the Gross National Product is truly worth the benefits which it reaps. It is difficult to have economic growth and prosperity without hurting others (besides the economist) in the process.
I agree. Economists tend to have a very narrow scope of the world. They look at numbers, trends, and capital. The focus is typically on economic security. They don't tend to look at other aspects such as environmental security and human security, which can be argued are more important. People are too afraid of spending money on ways to limit harming the environment because they are too concerned with making large profits. It is greedy and will only harm future generations. The international community cannot create a world where people can prosper in the future without putting environmental consciousness at the forefront.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said. I don't know how much innovation we will go through. As much as technology is good, it is also producing a lot of our problems. Especially to climate change and the environment. Yet, it is difficult to figure out what exactly we need. What is the best way to continue to grow without the economic world being affected?
ReplyDeleteI agree that economics definitely looks at the world while ignoring major factors such as environmental degradation. However, I think it is the capitalistic system that forces economists to do so. If people were actually concerned with allocating the costs of environmental harm to those who create it economics would have the tools to look at the best ways to internalize said costs. However, sincee growth and profit maximizing is at the center of our attention we tend to focus on those.
ReplyDelete