I am in full agreement with the brief commentary offered by Umair Haque of the Bubblegeneration blog and Havas Media Lab in the quote outlined below.
I have often wondered if it is not time to get REALLY serious about exploring how we humans define "growth" and "quality of life" now that there is such a split in the world … the affluent societies living with conditions where many many of the goods necessary for living are commodified and we are engaged in all manner of scamming in a mindless chase for money, basically competing ourselves to death, while the not-affluent societies are struggling with daily issues of existence and don’t even have significant access to basics such as fresh water, health care and education.
Could we not redefine growth in different (and perhaps more qualitative) terms … and if we have to keep the current capital-and-credit-markets-driven economic models in place, develop incentives for measuring and rewarding growth to include qualitative, humanity-oriented issues ? Markets, as we know them, are not primordial, nor are they free. That much is clear.
Complacency and making excuses to maintain a seriously-flawed status quo are the order of the day, it seems.
.
.
"…That said, none of this means the bailout is a mistake. "My own view is that the world isn’t fair," says Zvi Bodie, finance professor at Boston University. "But would it be fair to put the economy into a deep recession or depression? I don’t think so."
There’s the rub. If the monetary and fiscal authorities are right in their judgment that the risk of an economic plunge of frightening proportions is real, then the Herculean actions they’re taking are fair to all of us. What’s more, if innovation is the core dynamic in a capitalist economy, the engine of growth and higher living standards, then there will be booms and busts, especially during periods of rapid technological change. It’s in the nature of the beast. Like it or not, limiting the downside damage when the boom goes bust is a critical part of the monetary authorities job."
.
Wow. Are you joking?
That this logic is actually somehow reasonable is fairly depressing. The logic of collective responsibility is actually the logic of anti-markets: the more we invest in bailing banks out, the longer and nastier the crisis is gonna be, and the less productive the economy is going to remain.
Honestly, I don’t even wanna write about any of this much anymore. It’s almost inexpressibly lame.
Powered by Qumana
“I have often wondered if it is not time to get REALLY serious about exploring how we humans define “growth” and “quality of life” now that there is such a split in the world”
Having finished reading Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein just a few days ago, the above is exactly what I wrote down as reflective notes.
As to growth, i.e. economic growth, the need for it is a direct result of the way our money system is designed. Money comes into existence primarily through lending. But interest on that loans isn’t created with it. You need to grow to stay ahead of your loans. Interest is presented as a means against inflation usually, but it is also the core cause of it.
In a moneyless society, as my grandparents grew up in, growth was measured differently, basically on paramaters corresponding to the Maslov pyramid. Are we safe(r), do we grow enough food, is our house in better shape, am I learning, am I contributing to my community, is my community supportive of me, am I realizing my dreams. Mind you I am not romanticizing my grandparents lives. They were relatively poor during their working lives, and worked very hard. But they measured growth as I describe above.
Yesterday I jotted down I needed to research companies and organisation models more that have non-monetary growth more at heart. Like cooperatives. I was also reminded of the happiness-research that’s being done.
Another note: Johnnie Moore, Martin Roell and I once postulated that a true knowledge economy would see a shrinking GDP. As the GDP would be measuring the wrong thing to actually perceive the knowledge economy.
I come across many companies who only have monetary goals defined at the highest management level. I distrust those completely.