People are talking about getting back to "normal." But, perhaps, normal isn't such a good idea. Glen Pearson writes:
The prosperous nations of the world have spent their entire existence upholding the rationale that progress is impossible without growth. It has found welcoming audiences in universities, various levels of government, mass media, and Chambers of Commerce. It has been the driving force of graduates, small business entrepreneurs, tech gurus, houses of faith, sports franchises, and urban planners.
We have a lot to show for it: technological miracles, vast suburbs, affluence, a collection of material riches historical average families would never have known, and a sense of “can-do” that infuses everything. But there was a cost to that rampant pursuit of growth that now threatens to undo us: a degrading planet, vast swaths of poverty, racism, renewed nationalism, and yes, unpreparedness for a pandemic.
Governments have been devoted to the notion of growth. But the future may be one of "no growth:"
For the first time in perhaps centuries, the concept of growth is becoming the subject of criticism and exploration. A growing list of academic voices is wondering if anacronyms like GDP or GNP are actually proper or accurate measures of true prosperity. There was so much these abbreviations didn’t account for: people without jobs and jobs without people, environmental ruin, broken communities, homelessness, bankruptcies, the decline of infrastructure and human productivity. These are the things that are awry in our world and they reached record levels during the same time as wealth exploded.
We have come to the point where governments view their main reason for existence as the management of growth rather than the expansion of prosperity. The former is about creating winners and losers; the latter involves bettering the human possibilities for families, businesses, the environment, and, indeed, civilization itself. Politics is at its best when it accepts differences, and politicians are the most effective when measuring progress through the advancement of all sectors of modern society. When this is not the case, citizens fall prey to acquiring cheaper goods at the expense of meaningful labour, and we don’t think twice about it. Governments have, as a result, learned to appease voters through the flow of trinkets instead of equity.
Growth -- with its winners and losers -- isn't a dead idea. Donald Trump is the incarnation of the idea. But it's abundantly clear that the world can no longer afford people like Donald Trump:
Suddenly all those things we had acquired – knowledge, technology, ease of travel, wide-open possibilities – have been held ransom, contained by something that can only be found through a microscope. All that wealth and growth couldn’t keep us from having to socially distance or face the threat of a diminished future. An effective prosperity would have invested much more than it took away. It would have poured funds into healthcare, more secure food chains, a politics of meaning rather than madness, and societies built on empowered citizenries instead of spoiled voters. An unseen virus has stripped us of our security and left us highly suspicious of the idea of economic growth as an end in itself.
Facing that reality is difficult. But facing it squarely could be our salvation.
Image: economicshelp.org
10 comments:
The requirement for growth is driven by the need to pay interest on borrowed capital. Of course, the government could mitigate the effects of interest by allowing inflation. But the oligarchs won't allow this, since it would cripple their ability to extract wealth from others without doing any work. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Cap
You may be right, Cap. The forces favouring inertia are strong and organized. The future will tell us just what this pandemic has taught us.
Perhaps we are measuring prosperity and wealth wrongly Owen, is money in the bank and ownership of far more property than we can ever personalty use or need a true measure of 'prosperity'? Is growth and a constant demand for more, more, more of everything ...much of which we don't really 'need' but simply uses up the earths finite resources at an increasingly alarming rate the only way forward?
Some of us with a few years under our belts have come belatedly to the conclusion that such is a poor measure of 'wealth', clean air, unpolluted rivers and streams, non aggressive cooperative neighbors both locally and internationally and truly democratic governance .... and yes, good heath .... are perhaps a better measures. Will some of the younger folks who are starting to show signs of realizing this get to lead us out of the ever increasing cycle leading down a black hole....I sure hope so, for their sake and for humanity in general.
Growth was a viable model until the mid-70s when consumption began to exceed the planet's carrying capacity. This wasn't widely recognized until the late 90s but the pursuit of perpetual exponential growth continues. We, especially the affluent nations, have grown accustomed to modes of organization and behaviour that are now as lethal as any addiction and yet, like some junkies, we can't break free.
I posted an essay this morning about my frustration with this seemingly unstoppable madness that permeates our House of Commons on both sides of the aisle. Our generation may be spared the Day of Reckoning. There's some chance those in the 50+ bracket may also dodge the bullet but those 40 and under won't.
Maybe, just maybe, when we start witnessing the depopulating of the Third World through famine and other blights we may come to our senses. Whether there would still be sufficient time to change course is far from clear.
We have chosen a fool's path, Rural. And our leaders are at the front of a fool's parade. Let's hope the young recognize folly when they see it.
An excellent post, Mound. We know -- or should, by now -- know the prescriptions. But our attention spans are short. The prescriptions disappear down the Memory Hole almost as soon as they are written.
Growth? for whom? If we have a look at the charts which reflect income inequity, all we see is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In my opinion, growth or no growth, what does it matter if all the growth/money goes into the hands of the billionaires. We have had a great growth in the number of billionaires but where did the money come from? Had to come from some where and my take on it is, it came from the middle class/working class/economically deprived classes.
Growth is good if everyone benefits but that hasn't been the way since certainly the 1980s.
We see the stock markets go up and down but does it impact the living standards of the average Canadian? Not so much.
When corporations/politiicans talk about growth what type of growth do they talk about. I'm 70 and I don't see them talking much over the past 70 years about higher welfare rates or higher pensions for those without them from their employer. didn't see them talking about increasing the government housing stock
I do not see much growth in the next few decades. It maybe back to the 1950/60s. Why do people think closets were so small in homes prior to the 1960s--people didn't have that many cloths and they couldn't afford them. When supply chains shrink we may begin producing in Canada again, but we shall have to wait and see.
although we saw great profits made by all sorts of corporations, the work was sent to second and third world countries and the majority of those workers did no see any improvements in their standard of living. Growth is something for the billionaire class, nothing that will improve our lives.
It's about sustainability, e.a.f. We've reached the point where exponential growth will fry the planet.
Anonymous e.a.f. said...
Growth? for whom? If we have a look at the charts which reflect income inequity,
We were bound to fall even before Covid19 the economy was teetering on the edge of collapse.
That some many marginal businesses are failing is because they relied upon cheap credit.
That cheap credit makes many such as myself unable to save for older age because of low bank interest rates.
To save nowadays we are pushed to enter the casino of the stock markets.
Cheap credit is the slavery of the twenty first century.
@EAF, at 70 you are a youngster...LOL.
TB
If you're rich enough to enter the casino -- and shoulder the losses, TB -- you'll survive. But, as COVID has made clear, survival has become an international crisis.
Post a Comment