Lets not forget though, that the economy serves man, not the other way
round? Just an observation regarding your suspicion of the "growth"
imperative in contemporary economics.
On Jun 24, 9:54 pm, Contemplative <wjwiel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The key phrase for me is "relative homeostasis". I agree that the
> encouragement you refer to
> is desirable. I am unsure of it's possibility. Our belief that growth is
> mandatory for our economy
> encourages activities and behaviors that, I think, out-pace the ability of
> the natural system to
> balance itself at its natural rate. I am not convinced that we have a solid
> enough understanding
> of our own system to allow us to recognize true key indicators of systemic
> health, rationally process
> that input, and subsequently make good decisions about the which conditions
> we should encourage.
>
> To state it bluntly, I think our desire for growth is malignant...
>
> I don't mean to be doom and gloom about this, and actually I think there is
> reason to be optimistic.
> But economics seems to me to have that stereotypical characteristic of
> having 20/20 vision through
> the rear view mirror. Economic policy decisions that are both long term and
> aggressive(such as increased
> home ownership) which use 'tweaks' to the system to achieve the aims are
> likely destructive and very
> unpredictable. In a relatively isolated or buffered system, they may be
> more predictable, but we are not
> in an economy which is either buffered or isolated. We are comparatively
> wide open(global), and playing
> in a much bigger sandbox than we have been, say 25 years ago. ...and from
> my perspective, we don't
> know the playing field well enough to be aggressive, though we should be
> looking long term. ...and by
> long term, I mean more than two quarters out!
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to think this through a bit...! :-)
0 comments:
Post a Comment