I was just listening to a radio program here in the UK "The moral maze", in which the relationship between national wealth and equality or inequality was discussed.
Naturally, in the course of this, the issue of economic growth as the engine of wealth, and its sustainability, came up.
So far so good. My problem is that people use this term "economic growth" with no apparent reference to what is being produced. It's just "more", never "more what?"
Our current pattern of growth in the affluent industrial societies seems to me to be built on filling demand for something useful, or at least desirable, bringing out ever better versions of it, persuading people they'd be so much happier if they had more than one, and then expanding the pool of potential consumers by lending money to those who wouldn't normally be able to afford this object (good) or service.
For some years now, I've been bleating about how we should surely be able to put all this productive capacity to better and more humane use by manufacturing and growing stuff the rest of the under-provided under-fed world could use, rather than just a small and favoured portion of it, while still providing employment in the industrialised countries.
This could be roundly dismissed as idealistic hogwash in the face of an economic model that did at least work, and was based on tried and tested financial principles.
But, in the light of the catastrohic failure of this much-vaunted financial regime, if my hogwash doesn't work, there seems little doubt in my mind that traditional free market capitalism has also failed. The idea that exponential growth could somehow magically continue to expand was built on an ever growing mountain of debt, and money that didn't really exist. We've even largely given up making things here in the UK, in favour of providing all kinds of mysterious financial services that generate money, apparently out of thin air.
Forgive my limited understanding of all this, but the point is that, if the idealists have a problem, maybe the self-proclaimed realists do as well.
So does this provide us with a rare opportunity to take stock? Should we not be thinking about, not just how to produce more, but thinking about what we actually produce, and what use it actually is beyond just making stuff for the sake of creating a job for someone, profit for a corporation, and using up resources to end up in a land fill somewhere?
Is it really beyond the wit of humanity to restructure our manufacturing base to more useful and humane ends? What if the days of growth for growth's sake are numbered. Addressing the whole world instead of part of it may not make so much money for any of us. Maybe we'll all have to reappraise our attachment to affluence. But perhaps it would at least provide sustainable employment to some purpose, and people of good conscience might feel more connected to creation, and less alienated by vast accretions of pointless stuff.
Reg
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reg,
ReplyDeleteHere in the states, where the news gets more dire by the minute, still, no one is questioning the basic assumptions of capitalism; what are we making and why? The answers? We are making as much of what we think we can sell. Profit. That's it. Don't you think that perhaps fundamental values in the hearts and minds of people have to change before anyone begins thinking of manufacturing for the greater good? And if so, how do we accomplish this? Do you think companies should be forced in a certain direction? I'd be greatly interested in your thoughts on this.
My thoughts are inconclusive, and I invite comments such as yours to clarify myself to myself. My thoughts so far are:
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right in saying that my thesis requires a fundamental shift in the values which characterise consumer behaviour in our industrialised societies.
Unlikely though that seems, I feel able to raise it now only because, if enough of us find that our material aspirations have turned to dust in our hands, we might be encouraged to contemplate a future which, although less glossy, might be more solid, less based on the illusion created by advertising and debt, and more just..
In saying this, I should add that I do believe in the presence of positive energy in the world, which enables me to think of this outcome as slightly more likely than plain impossible.
As to the corporate response to present and future circumstances, here too a rethink might be in order, as a sustainable alternative to perpetual bail outs from the tax payer, subsidising the production of a superfluity of stuff which nobody can afford any more.
A fond hope maybe, but I feel driven to hope, and to at least try to articulate it sufficiently well to make myself believe that there might be some justification for doing it.
To that end, any alternative scenario to my own is particularly welcome. Thank you.
Blessings
Reg
Reg,
ReplyDeleteIt would seem to me that all we can do, at a personal level, is make sure we are not one of the, pardon the expression, blind consumers who take no thought to accumulation of wealth, gadgets, houses, furniture, etc. but acquire merely for the sake of having them. There used to be something called living within one's means, which even I have lost sight of. Unfortunately, some of us cannot even live within our means because the means are so meager. Credit is a tempting alternative to help even with the bare necessities. Unfortunately, I believe that allowing corporations and banks to fail is as necessary as allowing individuals to fail. Without the failures and the lessons learned by them, I believe we will continue to see bailouts and the ignoring of the less fortunate. I however applaud your optimism. We need more of that.