Home | About | Donate

Nobel Economist: If We Want to Save the World, Humanity Must DitNobel Economist: If We Want to Save the World, Humanity Must Ditch Its Obsession With GDPch GDP

My point Giovanna being:

“we are so distracted by shiny and twinkling motives that we don’t notice the ugliness beneath them”.

Mark Rowlands - the philosopher and the wolf.

1 Like

Yes like the NPR’s obsession with DJIA, NASDAQ etc… bull shit “economic” indicators which are nothing more than casino money being deliberately moved around by the wealthy stock owners to fleece the unwary small time “investor”. It has absolutely no bearing on the vast majority citizenry who have zero savings, are indebted to credit card companies or worse are homeless, jobless and I’ll.

3 Likes

Marx was 100% correct, humans will have to eventually grasp his concepts and put it to practice for the sake of humanity and the natural world. We cannot as the capitalist system practices eat our planet to create endless profit for fewer and fewer at the expense to everyone and everything else

3 Likes

We don’t need to nationalize them. Just assess a transaction tax on every transaction. That will curb speculation and raise funds for more socially worthwhile goals.

Peace.
ths.

3 Likes

Stiglitz, of course, is right. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was the term originally coined by Simon Kuznetz in the 1930s, as an assumed way to measure a nation’s economic growth by comparing the change in GDP from one period to the next. It puts a price on a nation’s production, which the orthodox economists then erroneously translate into an assumed “wealth” figure for the individual by dividing the GDP figure by the population.
That application is totally ludicrous.
However, it is an absolute truth that the production of anything, goods or services, is a fundamental waste of time, energy, resources and money, unless that production is consumed.

Just as importantly, every dollar of profit comes from consumption, it does not come from production unless that production is sold.
Of course, we cannot have consumption unless something is available to consume. Thus, it should be obvious that any measure of a GDP must always be related to a measure of the Gross Domestic Consumption (GDC). Both these figures are quantifiable but should be quatifiable in a universal and transparent way…

However, both of those measures are very much dependent on the level of debt available for their existence. Thus, it is axiomatic that both the GDP and the GDC must be measured against the Gross Domestic Debt, (GDD).

Depending on the ratios of GDD to GDP and GDC, and the ratio of GDP to GDC after deducting the measure of GDD to each, we would have a much more accurate assessment of the health and prosperity of a nation.

1 Like

Over-population has been an issue raised for almost two hundred years and it has been answered repeatedly. Just how many times can the cry of wolf be raised before we question the validity of it?

It is not too many people but the mis-distribution of resources that is the problem.

Take food for instance, it is said that we already produce sufficient food for 10 billion people yet we have almost a billion who suffer hunger. How can that be too many people’s fault? I recall an Oxfam volunteer many years ago saying he has never seen a famine-struck region where there was not food available but he always saw people who did not have the money to afford to buy it.

But the real telling statistic is that those who advocate increased birth control are pushing against a wide open door. Fertility rates are dropping globally. Many nations’ population are declining or are projected to fall. Increased immigration is being suggested as a solution. The real incentive to reduced family size is women’s empowerment and better healthcare when they decide to have children.

Poverty is the highest in countries with the lowest population density. Do we see the “over-crowded” Dutch fleeing their country which btw is also a net food exporter?

With a rational system of production and distribution where consumption is not based on the expansion of the market and accumulation of capital, we can support many billions more people and not suffer environmental degradation. The carrying-capacity of our planet is not some fixed limit but one that it is elastic and flexible.

As Marx said, it is time not to see each new birth as a burden and an extra mouth to feed but to view it as another pair of helping hands and one more thinking brain for the benefit of humanity.

2 Likes

You are perfectly correct.

Without changing the capitalist economic system, all efforts to deal with global warming will be ineffective.

A bit stale these days but this pamphlet expresses Marxist ideas on the environment

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlet/an-inconvenient-question-socialism-and-the-environment/

If you don’t know already of it this website makes interesting reading

“An Economy of Well-Being” by Mark Anielski is an excellent book that goes beyond GDP, 2018. There is also the Measure of Economic Welfare (MEW) and Genuine Progress Index (GPI) and the U.N.'s Human Development Index, and the Happy Planet Index (HPI). It reminds of me Dick Cheney’s statement, “The American lifestyle is non-negotiable.” But nature does not agree with that position, because “nature” is non-negotiable. We will be flooded out of home and cities, deserts will expand across the landscape, aquifers and glaciers will dry up, crops will fail, and eventually plants will not generate photosynthesis and the protein content of grains will decline, also, at certain predicted high temperatures. We are on a collision course, and social awareness must be raised, somehow. My blog: http://benL88.blogspot.com, Economics Without Greed

1 Like