Economy needs a better goal than ‘more’

Few people today seem to be asking the fundamental
questions of: How much is enough? And what is an econo-
my for? In post-WWII United States, consumption was
seen as a way to make sure a wartime economy could
remain in high gear in peacetime too. According to the
Chair of President Eisenhower’s Council of Economic
Advisors, the “American economy’s ultimate purpose is to

Science

produce more consumer goods.”

So, this thing that pretty much rules the world and
dominates politics at all levels; this thing that citizens are
expected to submit to virtually without question and “help
prop up” or “buckle down for” or whatever we are being
told to do at any given time; the ultimate purpose of this
thing that so controls all of our lives is to...create more
stuff?

This seems beyond narrow minded—it’s dangerous. It’s

Matters

David Suzuki,
David Suzuki
Foundation

 

It’s one of those questions that drifts in the shadows of
our modern world, just waiting to be asked: “How much is
enough?” Yet few people do.

Under our current economic system, you can never
have enough and you can never have too much. In fact,
our entire economy is predicated on continued, endless
growth. Yet we live in a finite world, with finite resources
and a limited amount of space to dump our wastes.

Bit of a problem there.

In fact, right now, the standard measurement of human
well-being is Gross Domestic Product (GDP), that is, the
monetary value of all goods and services produced by a
country. If the country’s GDP is high, then well-being is
considered high. If the GDP is stagnant or, god forbid,
declining, then—regardless of other indicators—politicians
go into crisis mode to “get the economy moving again.”

putting us on a fool’s path to disaster by distracting us
from very real environmental and social problems by
allowing us to shrug them off with a simple “what can you
do? It’s the economy!”

But we can do something. Our economy is a social
construct and right now it’s not working for us, we’re
working for it. We have no goal and without one, we will
never be satisfied and never know when enough is enough.

According to ecological economist Robert Costanza, if
you make the goal of an economy sustainable human well
being, rather than growth, it allows you to consider a com-
prehensive suite of things that should be brought into eco-

. nomic decision making—things like the value of natural
services, education and fulfilling employment.

Costanza groups these things into four types of capital:

; ; built capital, human capital, social capital, and natural capi-
Of course, one immediately wants to ask: “Where,

exactly, is it going?” To which the answer is always: “Up!”
There is a good rationale for all this, in that economic
growth is tied to jobs and income, which are indeed to a
certain extent tied to well-being, But the GDP also
includes things like cleaning up oil spills, clearing car acci-

tal. He contends that all of them are important elements of
an economy and are necessary to examine if we are to ever
get away from the single-mindedness of relentless growth.
We have a population expected to reach seven billion in
the coming decade, a limited supply of natural resources,
: looming environmental concerns and an economy whose
dents and treating asthma attacks brought on by smog, sole purpose is to produce more and more stuff. This is a
And it includes things like strengthening process efficien-
cies to “improve the bottom line”—which actually means
laying off workers so shareholders make more money. Is
that really good for well being?

problem. It isn’t working and it’s time to find something
else for our economy to do.

 

 

Left Overs continued:

interests would increase the level of investment in innovation and invention.
However, at the end of the day, most realize that the embrace of this system is really
about one thing: giving the rich the ability to pay to get faster service. It is about luxury,

death. ‘The detrimental effect of such motivations can be seen in the stories of people
in America who face death if they cannot afford operations or medication they require,
of in the case of the developing world being held at the mercy of pharmaceutical com-

 

and it disrupts one of the few sectors of Canadian society which still enjoys an at least
superficial degree of equality. -

Most advocates of private health care claim that service for those using the public
system would not decrease under a partly private system. This appraisal deserves a sec-
ond look. Unlike Britain, where the public system is seen as considerably more presti-
gious, Canadian doctors seem, for the most part, to have embraced the financial bene-
fits of private systems. Just like anyone else, they want to make more money and would

be able to do ee i Seg Ge siete, the best doctors, sur:

    
 
 
 
  

panies, denying cheap generic versions of their drugs help those dying of treatable ill-
nesses. Matters of life and death should be kept separate from matters of profit and
wealth.

There are many areas of Canadian society where we feign equality. We are told any-
one can go to school, become successful, and be happy. The grim reality of those born
into poverty or with some manner of disability quickly denounces this as myth. We are
told all people are equal before the law. However, everyday those who can afford expert
legal representation are able to avoid punishment for all manner of transgressions while
the poor are left with little recourse against the mistakes they have made. The medical
system, accepted by most Canadians as the most important of all our social systems, is

_ one opportunity to provide some level of equality to all Canadians. Nowhere else is this
ra of hse nod ealeg of life.