Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Joe Emersberger discusses GDP

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
toastkid



Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 393

Post Post subject: Joe Emersberger discusses GDP Reply with quote

Media Lens Message Board
[ Media Lens Message Board ]

please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by emersberger on October 31, 2011, 4:39 pm

Norway has had higher per capita GDP growth rate than the USA since 1980.

How many of you would therefore say it would be a bad thing (yes a bad thing) if the USA economic policy moved in the direction of Norway's?

Presumably all of you are aware that Norway has (compared to the USA) lower inequality, higher rate of unionization, higher taxes on rich, lower per capita CO2 emissions.

Just trying to determine roughly how prevalent, or not, such a view wodl be among people who post here.
Thanks

Joe

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by Tim J on October 31, 2011, 5:21 pm, in reply to "please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"


Well I think it would be a most welcome and positive change and not a bad thing. To be honest on issues like taxation of the wealthy and healthcare, any step in that direction by the US would be for the better.

Incidentally are you asking this question because you have the old Gore Vidal quotation in mind that GV was often fond of saying?

"Oh Mr Vidal, you’re so negative, can’t you say something nice about America? It’s a wonderful country, everybody wants to live here.’ Oh yes? When was the last time you saw a Norwegian with a green card who wanted to come here because of the health service? I’ll pay you if you can find one."

http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/hes_still_the_great_gore_vidal_but_boy_is_he_cranky/

Cheers Tim

--Previous Message--
: Norway has had higher per capita GDP growth
: rate than the USA since 1980.
:
: How many of you would therefore say it would
: be a bad thing (yes a bad thing) if the USA
: economic policy moved in the direction of
: Norway's?
:
: Presumably all of you are aware that Norway
: has (compared to the USA) lower inequality,
: higher rate of unionization, higher taxes on
: rich, lower per capita CO2 emissions.
:
: Just trying to determine roughly how
: prevalent, or not, such a view wodl be among
: people who post here.
: Thanks
:
: Joe
:
:

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by emersberger on October 31, 2011, 5:46 pm, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

Thanks Tim. I wasn't familiar with that Gore Vidal quote but it is a good one. No accident that US citizens are kept unaware of alternatves - even within capitalist assumptions.

I ask becaue of discussion on this board recently about econominc growth, GDP as a measurement of it etc....

--Previous Message--
:
: Well I think it would be a most welcome and
: positive change and not a bad thing. To be
: honest on issues like taxation of the
: wealthy and healthcare, any step in that
: direction by the US would be for the better.
:
: Incidentally are you asking this question
: because you have the old Gore Vidal
: quotation in mind that GV was often fond of
: saying?
:
: "Oh Mr Vidal, you’re so negative, can’t
: you say something nice about America? It’s a
: wonderful country, everybody wants to live
: here.’ Oh yes? When was the last time you
: saw a Norwegian with a green card who wanted
: to come here because of the health service?
: I’ll pay you if you can find one."
:
:
: http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/hes_still_the_great_gore_vidal_but_boy_is_he_cranky/
:
: Cheers Tim
:
: --Previous Message--
: Norway has had higher per capita GDP growth
: rate than the USA since 1980.
:
: How many of you would therefore say it would
: be a bad thing (yes a bad thing) if the USA
: economic policy moved in the direction of
: Norway's?
:
: Presumably all of you are aware that Norway
: has (compared to the USA) lower inequality,
: higher rate of unionization, higher taxes on
: rich, lower per capita CO2 emissions.
:
: Just trying to determine roughly how
: prevalent, or not, such a view wodl be among
: people who post here.
: Thanks
:
: Joe
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

It would amount to the end of USA inc.
Posted by Keith-264 on October 31, 2011, 6:01 pm, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

So it's worth a try.
264, the last working class hero in England.

Post a Response

Joe : Did you get a chance to look at this ?
Posted by alquds43 on October 31, 2011, 6:18 pm, in reply to "It would amount to the end of USA inc."

The New York Times October 29, 2011
Report "Social Justice in the OECD - How Do the Member States Compare?"

U.S. : Bottom of the Heap

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/10/29/opinion/29blow-ch.html?ref=opin

--Previous Message--
: So it's worth a try.
:

Post a Response

Re: Joe : Did you get a chance to look at this ?
Posted by emersberger on October 31, 2011, 6:25 pm, in reply to "Joe : Did you get a chance to look at this ?"

Hadn't seen that. Thanks very much for posting it.

So I should put you down as another person who doe snot see Norway's per capita GDP growth rate (higher than the USA's on avergaeg in the post 1980 period) that you would not welcome the USA shifting in their direction?


--Previous Message--
: The New York Times October 29, 2011
: Report "Social Justice in the OECD -
: How Do the Member States Compare?"
:
: U.S. : Bottom of the Heap
:
:
: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/10/29/opinion/29blow-ch.html?ref=opin
:
: --Previous Message--
: So it's worth a try.
:
:
:

Post a Response

Rhs, Eds - care to humor me with a reply?[nm]
Posted by emersberger on October 31, 2011, 6:27 pm, in reply to "Re: Joe : Did you get a chance to look at this ?"



--Previous Message--
: Hadn't seen that. Thanks very much for posting
: it.
:
: So I should put you down as another person
: who doe snot see Norway's per capita GDP
: growth rate (higher than the USA's on
: avergaeg in the post 1980 period) that you
: would not welcome the USA shifting in their
: direction?
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: The New York Times October 29, 2011
: Report "Social Justice in the OECD -
: How Do the Member States Compare?"
:
: U.S. : Bottom of the Heap
:
:
:
: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/10/29/opinion/29blow-ch.html?ref=opin
:
: --Previous Message--
: So it's worth a try.
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Joe: Is this a " Trick OR Treat " choice ?
Posted by alquds43 on October 31, 2011, 7:05 pm, in reply to "Re: Joe : Did you get a chance to look at this ?"


I would rather presume that most MediaLensers would prefer to have the USofA mind its OWN business . KEEP YOUR UGLY NOSE OUT OF OUR FACE !!
Cheers and Happy Hallowe'en .

--Previous Message--
: Hadn't seen that. Thanks very much for posting
: it.
:
: So I should put you down as another person
: who doe snot see Norway's per capita GDP
: growth rate (higher than the USA's on
: avergaeg in the post 1980 period) that you
: would not welcome the USA shifting in their
: direction?
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: The New York Times October 29, 2011
: Report "Social Justice in the OECD -
: How Do the Member States Compare?"
:
: U.S. : Bottom of the Heap
:
:
:
: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/10/29/opinion/29blow-ch.html?ref=opin
:
: --Previous Message--
: So it's worth a try.
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Joe this is the old pollsters error of mixing a good idea and a bad one. I'd have to say: 'Yes, but-
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on October 31, 2011, 6:52 pm, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

-No and No.'

Yes to the copying of Norge's social and economic policies (some of the economic policies anyway); but no, absolutely not to the particular highlighting of the higher GDP as the cause of this superior socio-economic model; and no, absolutely not to the pursuit of further growth of GDP.

The source of Norge's much greater socio-economic justice is, may I suggest, their wisdom in promoting socially-responsible and egalitarian policies as a fundamental good in their own right, which should simply be deemed to take precedence over doctrinaire blether about 'free' markets and competition (all of it just smoke-screening for ruthless gangster capitalism anyway).

You know from the conversations that some of us have been having recently on this Board that I'm dead against the idea that the world needs more economic growth; and also that I'm fairly certain (along with a whole bunch of others, some of them pretty distinguished clear-seers) that we're not going to get any more growth, much, whatever the hell anyone does, because it's no longer practically possible (as well as being a very bad idea).

However, I think we're on the same side of the arguments when it comes to switching peoples' endeavours away from exploitative, Earth-wrecking commercial/consumerist preoccupations towards the growth of more non-material, yet much greater real goods, and towards a very much fairer and more egalitarian sharing of whatever is still available in this new era of the Long Descent.

So we may as well switch to working out economic strategies that can actually work in this new era, and that could be tailored to promote the basic social/economic justice (obviously better in Norge than in the US) which is going to be essential to head off both international and civil strife, as things get seriously hairy. It's always very clear, of course, that you're entirely wedded to the long struggle to bring about that basic justice. So this isn't meant as a hostile, oppositional argument; simply another urging that the idea of economic growth as a continuing good was always questionable, and is now irrelevant anyway, because it's no longer possible, substantially and for any more extended period time. The era of the Long Growth has just died.

Cheers Joe! Keep sluggin' buddy!

Post a Response

Re: Joe this is the old pollsters error of mixing a good idea and a bad one. I'd have to say: 'Yes, but-
Posted by emersberger on October 31, 2011, 6:56 pm, in reply to "Joe this is the old pollsters error of mixing a good idea and a bad one. I'd have to say: 'Yes, but-"

Thanks for answering Rhs.

--Previous Message--
: -No and No.'
:
: Yes to the copying of Norge's social and
: economic policies (some of the economic
: policies anyway); but no, absolutely not to
: the particular highlighting of the higher
: GDP as the cause of this superior
: socio-economic model; and no, absolutely not
: to the pursuit of further growth of GDP.
:
: The source of Norge's much greater
: socio-economic justice is, may I suggest,
: their wisdom in promoting
: socially-responsible and egalitarian
: policies as a fundamental good in their own
: right , which should simply be deemed to
: take precedence over doctrinaire blether
: about 'free' markets and competition (all of
: it just smoke-screening for ruthless
: gangster capitalism anyway).
:
: You know from the conversations that some of
: us have been having recently on this Board
: that I'm dead against the idea that the
: world needs more economic growth; and also
: that I'm fairly certain (along with a whole
: bunch of others, some of them pretty
: distinguished clear-seers) that we're not
: going to get any more growth, much, whatever
: the hell anyone does, because it's no longer
: practically possible (as well as being a
: very bad idea).
:
: However, I think we're on the same side of
: the arguments when it comes to switching
: peoples' endeavours away from exploitative,
: Earth-wrecking commercial/consumerist
: preoccupations towards the growth of more
: non-material, yet much greater real goods,
: and towards a very much fairer and more
: egalitarian sharing of whatever is still
: available in this new era of the Long
: Descent.
:
: So we may as well switch to working out
: economic strategies that can actually work
: in this new era, and that could be tailored
: to promote the basic social/economic justice
: (obviously better in Norge than in the US)
: which is going to be essential to head off
: both international and civil strife, as
: things get seriously hairy. It's always very
: clear, of course, that you're entirely
: wedded to the long struggle to bring about
: that basic justice. So this isn't meant as a
: hostile, oppositional argument; simply
: another urging that the idea of economic
: growth as a continuing good was always
: questionable, and is now irrelevant anyway,
: because it's no longer possible,
: substantially and for any more extended
: period time. The era of the Long Growth has
: just died.
:
: Cheers Joe! Keep sluggin' buddy!
:

Post a Response

Re: Joe this is the old pollsters error of mixing a good idea and a bad one. I'd have to say: 'Yes, but-
Posted by JoeS on November 1, 2011, 12:34 am, in reply to "Joe this is the old pollsters error of mixing a good idea and a bad one. I'd have to say: 'Yes, but-"

"So we may as well switch to working out economic strategies that can actually work in this new era..."

Hi Rhisiart,

Ok, so what are these "strategies"?

Are there any that:

1) persuasively address the urgent need to create jobs?

2) are likely to resonate with the ordinary working man/woman in a time of economic austerity?

I don't ask these to be adversarial. I just haven't seen a "zero growth" argument that persuades on either of the above counts...thus far.

Cheers,

Joe

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by Everyman on October 31, 2011, 6:46 pm, in reply to "please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

Sure, it would mean a much better life for US citizens, which hopefully would translate into a more focused desire to change to a no growth but economically healthy society

I think that's a good question, though I don't think you can compare Norway's growth with the USA's non growth, because of the size, there are probably many states in the US who have more economic activity and growth than Norway.



--Previous Message--
: Norway has had higher per capita GDP growth
: rate than the USA since 1980.
:
: How many of you would therefore say it would
: be a bad thing (yes a bad thing) if the USA
: economic policy moved in the direction of
: Norway's?
:
: Presumably all of you are aware that Norway
: has (compared to the USA) lower inequality,
: higher rate of unionization, higher taxes on
: rich, lower per capita CO2 emissions.
:
: Just trying to determine roughly how
: prevalent, or not, such a view wodl be among
: people who post here.
: Thanks
:
: Joe
:
:

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by emersberger on October 31, 2011, 6:52 pm, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

Thank you for answering.
Yes the USA is much bigger than Norway. That is why comparing per capita GDP growth is important as with other measures such as per capita CO2 emissions.

--Previous Message--
: Sure, it would mean a much better life for US
: citizens, which hopefully would translate
: into a more focused desire to change to a no
: growth but economically healthy society
:
: I think that's a good question, though I
: don't think you can compare Norway's growth
: with the USA's non growth, because of the
: size, there are probably many states in the
: US who have more economic activity and
: growth than Norway.
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Norway has had higher per capita GDP growth
: rate than the USA since 1980.
:
: How many of you would therefore say it would
: be a bad thing (yes a bad thing) if the USA
: economic policy moved in the direction of
: Norway's?
:
: Presumably all of you are aware that Norway
: has (compared to the USA) lower inequality,
: higher rate of unionization, higher taxes on
: rich, lower per capita CO2 emissions.
:
: Just trying to determine roughly how
: prevalent, or not, such a view wodl be among
: people who post here.
: Thanks
:
: Joe
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by GW on October 31, 2011, 7:16 pm, in reply to "please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

Norway is one of the largest exporters of oil (probably the largest per capita after the MidEast); the US is the largest importer of oil, consuming around 22% or so of global production.

(As a corollary, Norway is therefore one of he largest exporters of CO2).

You would need to take oil out of the equation before you could really run a comparative exercise. Consider how both economies might run using 100% renewables. Would Norway be able or willing to provide such a generous welfare system without these revenues? Perhaps it would be worth looking back to pre-1970's before North Sea oil was exploited?

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by GW on October 31, 2011, 7:18 pm, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

Or, better still, use Sweden instead of Norway as a comparison.

--Previous Message--
: Norway is one of the largest exporters of oil
: (probably the largest per capita after the
: MidEast); the US is the largest importer of
: oil, consuming around 22% or so of global
: production.
:
: (As a corollary, Norway is therefore one of
: he largest exporters of CO2).
:
: You would need to take oil out of the
: equation before you could really run a
: comparative exercise. Consider how both
: economies might run using 100% renewables.
: Would Norway be able or willing to provide
: such a generous welfare system without these
: revenues? Perhaps it would be worth looking
: back to pre-1970's before North Sea oil was
: exploited?
:

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by emersberger on October 31, 2011, 8:00 pm, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

GW
Thanks for the observation but how do you answer the question? WOudl you say you are unsure if a shift to Norway's ecnomic policies would be desirable in the USA because of the CO2 emissios export issue that you brig up?

By the way the USA also exports it s CO2 emission through it multinationals that produce overseas. in fact, the USa has a very large trade deficit, so its imprts of all kinds of products esentially export CO2 emissions elsewhere ti where those products are produced - China being one significant example.

Also, as far back as 1960, Norway had a lower child mortality rate then the USA.

http://www.unicef.org/sowc/archive/ENGLISH/The%20State%20of%20the%20World's%20Children%201990.pdf








--Previous Message--
: Or, better still, use Sweden instead of Norway
: as a comparison.
:
: --Previous Message--
: Norway is one of the largest exporters of
: oil
: (probably the largest per capita after the
: MidEast); the US is the largest importer of
: oil, consuming around 22% or so of global
: production.
:
: (As a corollary, Norway is therefore one of
: he largest exporters of CO2).
:
: You would need to take oil out of the
: equation before you could really run a
: comparative exercise. Consider how both
: economies might run using 100% renewables.
: Would Norway be able or willing to provide
: such a generous welfare system without these
: revenues? Perhaps it would be worth looking
: back to pre-1970's before North Sea oil was
: exploited?
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by Plus Ultra on October 31, 2011, 7:56 pm, in reply to "please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

I think it is a good idea for the US to follow the Norwegian model in terms of unionisation, higher taxation, free access to health and greater equality; but i am not sure it is correct to get hung up on 'growth'. An economy should be run on the principle of oikonomia or social provisioning where the greater good is posited above individual self-seeking behaviour. In other words, we need to move away from the current chrematistic model that has led to such more torment and despair; where individuals are pitted against each other and where the right of the strongest prevails. So I would prefer a more augmented Norwegian political economy to the one that you have posited - not that the US will ever move to this model, at least not before experiencing a huge depression.

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by emersberger on October 31, 2011, 8:05 pm, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

ok so if shifting to Norwegian type economic polices increases per capita GDP growth in the USA, would you think that was good or bad overall?

WOuld the GDP per capita growth metric be a factor in your view? Woud lyou ignore it an look to other metrics.

I'm trying to gage how people here generally view the idea of per capita GDP growth.



--Previous Message--
: I think it is a good idea for the US to follow
: the Norwegian model in terms of
: unionisation, higher taxation, free access
: to health and greater equality; but i am not
: sure it is correct to get hung up on
: 'growth'. An economy should be run on the
: principle of oikonomia or social
: provisioning where the greater good is
: posited above individual self-seeking
: behaviour. In other words, we need to move
: away from the current chrematistic model
: that has led to such more torment and
: despair; where individuals are pitted
: against each other and where the right of
: the strongest prevails. So I would prefer a
: more augmented Norwegian political economy
: to the one that you have posited - not that
: the US will ever move to this model, at
: least not before experiencing a huge
: depression.
:

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by Plus Ultra on October 31, 2011, 8:19 pm, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

Yes I think it would be a good thing for the US to follow the Norwegian model. And, no GDP per capita growth would not be a central factor in my view. I think we need to concentrate on a different system of measurement and I rather find the capitalist concentration on constant growth and pro-cyclicality rather disturbing. That's my view - for what it's worth.

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by Chris Shaw on October 31, 2011, 8:19 pm, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

Ok, so apologies I haven't had time to read the above posts but I don't think that would be a good thing, it's a capitalist economy producing emissions which, if they were replicated on a per capita basis throughout the world, would wreak destruction massive suffering. Again and again, GDP reduces the world to numbers in the name of control.

--Previous Message--
: ok so if shifting to Norwegian type economic
: polices increases per capita GDP growth in
: the USA, would you think that was good or
: bad overall?
:
: WOuld the GDP per capita growth metric be a
: factor in your view? Woud lyou ignore it an
: look to other metrics.
:
: I'm trying to gage how people here generally
: view the idea of per capita GDP growth.
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: I think it is a good idea for the US to
: follow
: the Norwegian model in terms of
: unionisation, higher taxation, free access
: to health and greater equality; but i am not
: sure it is correct to get hung up on
: 'growth'. An economy should be run on the
: principle of oikonomia or social
: provisioning where the greater good is
: posited above individual self-seeking
: behaviour. In other words, we need to move
: away from the current chrematistic model
: that has led to such more torment and
: despair; where individuals are pitted
: against each other and where the right of
: the strongest prevails. So I would prefer a
: more augmented Norwegian political economy
: to the one that you have posited - not that
: the US will ever move to this model, at
: least not before experiencing a huge
: depression.
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by Plus Ultra on October 31, 2011, 8:24 pm, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

Hi Chris,

I entirely agree, but it depends on what paradigm we are operating in. If we intend on operating in the current capitalist paradigm, then yes it would be a good thing if the US adopted the policies of Norway. But if we want to get beyond this point and consider a new political economy that does not depend on pointless metrics designed to shore up a system of endless growth and destruction, then you are correct: we must reject the metric of GDP as an example of a sustainable economic principle.


Post a Response

hej Joe, I think your gun - sorry, question - is loaded
Posted by dan on October 31, 2011, 8:24 pm, in reply to "please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"



Asking the question to get what answer?
I would be happy if America's GDP were more like Norway's just like I would be happy to live in a future of eternal energy plenty.
How much of Norway's GDP is based on oil?
How much growth, GDP or otherwise, is going to happen when we fall off the energy availability cliff?



Post a Response

Re: hej Joe, I think your gun - sorry, question - is loaded
Posted by emersberger on October 31, 2011, 10:41 pm, in reply to "hej Joe, I think your gun - sorry, question - is loaded"

Thre are people who equate GDP growth with destruction. It is actually not a totally uncommon view among leftists.
By that logic, on a per capita basis, Norway has been more destructive than the USA since 1980.

I reject that logic myslef, but wanted to get a sense of how many people here accept it.

I don't deny that capturing people's views in one question may be diffcult. A series of questions asking things in different ways is better.

For example, Plus Extra seems to have qualified his original answer signiifcantly after being challenged by Chris Shaw - who says that the USA adopting Norway's economic policies would be destructive i.e. make things worse for the world.



--Previous Message--
:
:
: Asking the question to get what answer?
: I would be happy if America's GDP were more
: like Norway's just like I would be happy to
: live in a future of eternal energy plenty.
: How much of Norway's GDP is based on oil?
: How much growth, GDP or otherwise, is going
: to happen when we fall off the energy
: availability cliff?
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: hej Joe, I think your gun - sorry, question - is loaded
Posted by dan on October 31, 2011, 10:54 pm, in reply to "Re: hej Joe, I think your gun - sorry, question - is loaded"

Production doesn't have to be associated with destruction. I would love to plant an orchard.
My point only is that we lack the resources to sustain growth for us all in the future.

Why does the question perturb you?

--Previous Message--
: Thre are people who equate GDP growth with
: destruction. It is actually not a totally
: uncommon view among leftists.
: By that logic, on a per capita basis, Norway
: has been more destructive than the USA since
: 1980.
:
: I reject that logic myslef, but wanted to
: get a sense of how many people here accept
: it.
:
: I don't deny that capturing people's views
: in one question may be diffcult. A series of
: questions asking things in different ways is
: better.
:
: For example, Plus Extra seems to have
: qualified his original answer signiifcantly
: after being challenged by Chris Shaw - who
: says that the USA adopting Norway's economic
: policies would be destructive i.e. make
: things worse for the world.
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: Asking the question to get what answer?
: I would be happy if America's GDP were more
: like Norway's just like I would be happy to
: live in a future of eternal energy plenty.
: How much of Norway's GDP is based on oil?
: How much growth, GDP or otherwise, is going
: to happen when we fall off the energy
: availability cliff?
:
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: hej Joe, I think your gun - sorry, question - is loaded
Posted by emersberger on November 1, 2011, 2:10 am, in reply to "Re: hej Joe, I think your gun - sorry, question - is loaded"


:
: Why does the question perturb you?
:

I thik the "zero growth" stance is misguided. Bear in mind, ecnomic growth need not be measured by GDP growth but I think even the notion that GDP growth is necessarily detructive is very misguided. I don't think it is that uncommen for leftists to adopt an unwise stance on this.

I think the Eds did in an alert in whic they debated with Larry Elliot of the Guardian som etime back for example. Derek also discussed this at length with me.

The unwise line of reasoning gooes like this. EConomic growth is bad (that is one premise). Capitalist economies use GDP growth to measure ecnomic growth therefore GDP growth is bad.

Norway's polices have led to higher per capita GDP growt than the USA therefore (on a per person basis) Norway's economic policies have been more destructive than the USA. Therefore, we should (notwithstanding all the better social and environmental indicators for Norway) conclude that if the USA shifted in Norway's direction the pace of capitalist destriuction would increase.




: --Previous Message--
: Thre are people who equate GDP growth with
: destruction. It is actually not a totally
: uncommon view among leftists.
: By that logic, on a per capita basis, Norway
: has been more destructive than the USA since
: 1980.
:
: I reject that logic myslef, but wanted to
: get a sense of how many people here accept
: it.
:
: I don't deny that capturing people's views
: in one question may be diffcult. A series of
: questions asking things in different ways is
: better.
:
: For example, Plus Extra seems to have
: qualified his original answer signiifcantly
: after being challenged by Chris Shaw - who
: says that the USA adopting Norway's economic
: policies would be destructive i.e. make
: things worse for the world.
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: Asking the question to get what answer?
: I would be happy if America's GDP were more
: like Norway's just like I would be happy to
: live in a future of eternal energy plenty.
: How much of Norway's GDP is based on oil?
: How much growth, GDP or otherwise, is going
: to happen when we fall off the energy
: availability cliff?
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Norway still costs resources
Posted by Dan on November 1, 2011, 2:13 pm, in reply to "Re: hej Joe, I think your gun - sorry, question - is loaded"


I like and agree with cj post below http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1320115415.html.
I think I fall into the group with Derek and the Eds. Norway's economic reality and social justice is a league ahead of the US but it's still bad for the planet.
It's economy has been dependent on drilling oil out of the ground. CJ is right cuba maybe a better example but it has had it's growth limited externally?
happier with per capita gdp growth if the population of norway was 50,000 though.
Sorry if I seem confused Joe. It's a novel question for me.
My basic problem is I can't see how you can be arguing for gdp growth when we have reached the limits of resource utilisation. You seem to be arguing for rearranging the deck chairs to me. However, I have no economics or math training and mustn't really be understanding the concept properly if you are giving so much weight to it.
Best wishes
Dan

--Previous Message--
:
:
: Why does the question perturb you?
:
:
: I thik the "zero growth" stance is
: misguided. Bear in mind, ecnomic growth need
: not be measured by GDP growth but I think
: even the notion that GDP growth is
: necessarily detructive is very misguided. I
: don't think it is that uncommen for leftists
: to adopt an unwise stance on this.
:
: I think the Eds did in an alert in whic they
: debated with Larry Elliot of the Guardian
: som etime back for example. Derek also
: discussed this at length with me.
:
: The unwise line of reasoning gooes like
: this. EConomic growth is bad (that is one
: premise). Capitalist economies use GDP
: growth to measure ecnomic growth therefore
: GDP growth is bad.
:
: Norway's polices have led to higher per
: capita GDP growt than the USA therefore (on
: a per person basis) Norway's economic
: policies have been more destructive than the
: USA. Therefore, we should (notwithstanding
: all the better social and environmental
: indicators for Norway) conclude that if the
: USA shifted in Norway's direction the pace
: of capitalist destriuction would increase.
:
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Thre are people who equate GDP growth with
: destruction. It is actually not a totally
: uncommon view among leftists.
: By that logic, on a per capita basis, Norway
: has been more destructive than the USA since
: 1980.
:
: I reject that logic myslef, but wanted to
: get a sense of how many people here accept
: it.
:
: I don't deny that capturing people's views
: in one question may be diffcult. A series of
: questions asking things in different ways is
: better.
:
: For example, Plus Extra seems to have
: qualified his original answer signiifcantly
: after being challenged by Chris Shaw - who
: says that the USA adopting Norway's economic
: policies would be destructive i.e. make
: things worse for the world.
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: Asking the question to get what answer?
: I would be happy if America's GDP were more
: like Norway's just like I would be happy to
: live in a future of eternal energy plenty.
: How much of Norway's GDP is based on oil?
: How much growth, GDP or otherwise, is going
: to happen when we fall off the energy
: availability cliff?
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

--Previous Message--
:
:
: Why does the question perturb you?
:
:
: I thik the "zero growth" stance is
: misguided. Bear in mind, ecnomic growth need
: not be measured by GDP growth but I think
: even the notion that GDP growth is
: necessarily detructive is very misguided. I
: don't think it is that uncommen for leftists
: to adopt an unwise stance on this.
:
: I think the Eds did in an alert in whic they
: debated with Larry Elliot of the Guardian
: som etime back for example. Derek also
: discussed this at length with me.
:
: The unwise line of reasoning gooes like
: this. EConomic growth is bad (that is one
: premise). Capitalist economies use GDP
: growth to measure ecnomic growth therefore
: GDP growth is bad.
:
: Norway's polices have led to higher per
: capita GDP growt than the USA therefore (on
: a per person basis) Norway's economic
: policies have been more destructive than the
: USA. Therefore, we should (notwithstanding
: all the better social and environmental
: indicators for Norway) conclude that if the
: USA shifted in Norway's direction the pace
: of capitalist destriuction would increase.
:
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Thre are people who equate GDP growth with
: destruction. It is actually not a totally
: uncommon view among leftists.
: By that logic, on a per capita basis, Norway
: has been more destructive than the USA since
: 1980.
:
: I reject that logic myslef, but wanted to
: get a sense of how many people here accept
: it.
:
: I don't deny that capturing people's views
: in one question may be diffcult. A series of
: questions asking things in different ways is
: better.
:
: For example, Plus Extra seems to have
: qualified his original answer signiifcantly
: after being challenged by Chris Shaw - who
: says that the USA adopting Norway's economic
: policies would be destructive i.e. make
: things worse for the world.
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: Asking the question to get what answer?
: I would be happy if America's GDP were more
: like Norway's just like I would be happy to
: live in a future of eternal energy plenty.
: How much of Norway's GDP is based on oil?
: How much growth, GDP or otherwise, is going
: to happen when we fall off the energy
: availability cliff?
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: Norway still costs resources
Posted by emersberger on November 1, 2011, 4:12 pm, in reply to "Norway still costs resources"



--Previous Message--
:
: I like and agree with cj post below
: http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1320115415.html
: .
: I think I fall into the group with Derek
: and the Eds. Norway's economic reality and
: social justice is a league ahead of the US
: but it's still bad for the planet.

What I am disputing is tha falacy of looking at GDP and based on that that ranking countries as bad or worse. By that very flawed logic, we should conclude that the USA, on a per capita basis, has been (since 1980) less destructve to the planet than Norway - a problematic conclusion to put it mildly.

Look at per capita CO2 emissions for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Norway's per capita emissions are far lower (though not low enough I'd fully agree). Some people have argued that Norway exports its CO2 emiiions through it oil exports. True, but so does the USA through its massive imports of products produced overseas and then transported back to the USA.


: It's economy has been dependent on drilling
: oil out of the ground. CJ is right cuba
: maybe a better example but it has had it's
: growth limited externally?

Yes, massive fall in GDP in 1990 along with fall in Co2 emissions, but the emissions have not gone back up as GDP growth resumed. See the chart in link abobe.

: My basic problem is I can't see how you can
: be arguing for gdp growth when we have
: reached the limits of resource utilisation.

What I actually argue for is full employment, very high taxtation the rich to reduce inequality and make funds avaible for employing people in sectors of the economy like health and education that provide useful and non destructive services. Overwhelming evidence suggests such polices would result in GDP growth. HOWEVER, GDP growth is not the goal becaseu it can be achieved in very destrctive ways as well.





: You seem to be arguing for rearranging the
: deck chairs to me. However, I have no
: economics or math training and mustn't
: really be understanding the concept properly
: if you are giving so much weight to it.


Actually it is people who equate GDP growth with destruction who are giving undue weight to it. It is not a reliable measure of well being but neither is it a reliable measure of destruction.

The doctors and nurses who tend to a sick child contribute to GDP. So do the people who make missiles. GDP is therefore an ambiguous measure. reaing too much into it (either positively or negativey) can lead to serious error.

"Econmoic growth" is a more general concept. People often take it to mean GDp growth but there is not reason that GDP has to be taken as the measure of it. We could just as easily make it life expectancy - or healthy life expectancy or anything else.







: Best wishes
: Dan
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: Why does the question perturb you?
:
:
: I thik the "zero growth" stance is
: misguided. Bear in mind, ecnomic growth need
: not be measured by GDP growth but I think
: even the notion that GDP growth is
: necessarily detructive is very misguided. I
: don't think it is that uncommen for leftists
: to adopt an unwise stance on this.
:
: I think the Eds did in an alert in whic they
: debated with Larry Elliot of the Guardian
: som etime back for example. Derek also
: discussed this at length with me.
:
: The unwise line of reasoning gooes like
: this. EConomic growth is bad (that is one
: premise). Capitalist economies use GDP
: growth to measure ecnomic growth therefore
: GDP growth is bad.
:
: Norway's polices have led to higher per
: capita GDP growt than the USA therefore (on
: a per person basis) Norway's economic
: policies have been more destructive than the
: USA. Therefore, we should (notwithstanding
: all the better social and environmental
: indicators for Norway) conclude that if the
: USA shifted in Norway's direction the pace
: of capitalist destriuction would increase.
:
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Thre are people who equate GDP growth with
: destruction. It is actually not a totally
: uncommon view among leftists.
: By that logic, on a per capita basis, Norway
: has been more destructive than the USA since
: 1980.
:
: I reject that logic myslef, but wanted to
: get a sense of how many people here accept
: it.
:
: I don't deny that capturing people's views
: in one question may be diffcult. A series of
: questions asking things in different ways is
: better.
:
: For example, Plus Extra seems to have
: qualified his original answer signiifcantly
: after being challenged by Chris Shaw - who
: says that the USA adopting Norway's economic
: policies would be destructive i.e. make
: things worse for the world.
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: Asking the question to get what answer?
: I would be happy if America's GDP were more
: like Norway's just like I would be happy to
: live in a future of eternal energy plenty.
: How much of Norway's GDP is based on oil?
: How much growth, GDP or otherwise, is going
: to happen when we fall off the energy
: availability cliff?
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: Why does the question perturb you?
:
:
: I thik the "zero growth" stance is
: misguided. Bear in mind, ecnomic growth need
: not be measured by GDP growth but I think
: even the notion that GDP growth is
: necessarily detructive is very misguided. I
: don't think it is that uncommen for leftists
: to adopt an unwise stance on this.
:
: I think the Eds did in an alert in whic they
: debated with Larry Elliot of the Guardian
: som etime back for example. Derek also
: discussed this at length with me.
:
: The unwise line of reasoning gooes like
: this. EConomic growth is bad (that is one
: premise). Capitalist economies use GDP
: growth to measure ecnomic growth therefore
: GDP growth is bad.
:
: Norway's polices have led to higher per
: capita GDP growt than the USA therefore (on
: a per person basis) Norway's economic
: policies have been more destructive than the
: USA. Therefore, we should (notwithstanding
: all the better social and environmental
: indicators for Norway) conclude that if the
: USA shifted in Norway's direction the pace
: of capitalist destriuction would increase.
:
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Thre are people who equate GDP growth with
: destruction. It is actually not a totally
: uncommon view among leftists.
: By that logic, on a per capita basis, Norway
: has been more destructive than the USA since
: 1980.
:
: I reject that logic myslef, but wanted to
: get a sense of how many people here accept
: it.
:
: I don't deny that capturing people's views
: in one question may be diffcult. A series of
: questions asking things in different ways is
: better.
:
: For example, Plus Extra seems to have
: qualified his original answer signiifcantly
: after being challenged by Chris Shaw - who
: says that the USA adopting Norway's economic
: policies would be destructive i.e. make
: things worse for the world.
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: Asking the question to get what answer?
: I would be happy if America's GDP were more
: like Norway's just like I would be happy to
: live in a future of eternal energy plenty.
: How much of Norway's GDP is based on oil?
: How much growth, GDP or otherwise, is going
: to happen when we fall off the energy
: availability cliff?
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Thanks Joe.
Posted by dan on November 1, 2011, 5:36 pm, in reply to "Re: Norway still costs resources"

Well then to answer your poll.
I'm for full employment, universal provision of free education, healthcare and pensions.
Actually I think I'm for abolition of nations so I think that would take care of the GDP.
If not I don't care what the GDP is but I think it's essential that we have perpetual reduction in resource utilisation and population for all nations.

Post a Response

Re: Thanks Joe.
Posted by emersberger on November 1, 2011, 6:00 pm, in reply to "Thanks Joe."

thank you Dan

--Previous Message--
: Well then to answer your poll.
: I'm for full employment, universal provision
: of free education, healthcare and pensions.
: Actually I think I'm for abolition of
: nations so I think that would take care of
: the GDP.
: If not I don't care what the GDP is but I
: think it's essential that we have perpetual
: reduction in resource utilisation and
: population for all nations.
:

Post a Response

Re: hej Joe, I think your gun - sorry, question - is loaded
Posted by Plus Ultra on November 1, 2011, 12:41 am, in reply to "Re: hej Joe, I think your gun - sorry, question - is loaded"

With respect, Joe, I think both of my comments are very much consistent. In the first I suggested that the US should embrace some measures taken by the Norwegians - greater unionisation, greater equality, higher taxation etc - and that we should not be over-concerned with concepts like GDP [evidently the problem is not merely 'growth' but 'how' that growth is used for the benefit of society at large]. My second point clarified the first point in many respects but added that I was speaking from within the current capitalist paradigm. In other words, I do not especially appreciate the metrics used in the capitalist model and would prefer that we considered a new political economy that focuses on an old principle - that of oikonomia. I merely thought that you wanted us to work within the capitalist frame around which the question was based.

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by George_HK on October 31, 2011, 9:34 pm, in reply to "please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

Norway is not a member of the European Union.

Funny that... Europhobes tell us if we left the EU we'd become a basket case with mass unemployment....

--Previous Message--
: Norway has had higher per capita GDP growth
: rate than the USA since 1980.
:
: How many of you would therefore say it would
: be a bad thing (yes a bad thing) if the USA
: economic policy moved in the direction of
: Norway's?
:
: Presumably all of you are aware that Norway
: has (compared to the USA) lower inequality,
: higher rate of unionization, higher taxes on
: rich, lower per capita CO2 emissions.
:
: Just trying to determine roughly how
: prevalent, or not, such a view wodl be among
: people who post here.
: Thanks
:
: Joe
:
:

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by Chris Shaw on October 31, 2011, 10:09 pm, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

I think you mean Europhiles.

Plus ultra, I think it is very necessary to maintain a language which describes a world outside of the logic of industrial modernity, to be authentic and true to one's beliefs. My instinct is for green anarchy (can there actually be any other sort of anarchy?) and I feel comfortable arguing for that, I don't feel comfortable or at home arguing for a reformed system of GDP measurements.

--Previous Message--
: Norway is not a member of the European Union.
:
: Funny that... Europhobes tell us if we left
: the EU we'd become a basket case with mass
: unemployment....
:
: --Previous Message--
: Norway has had higher per capita GDP growth
: rate than the USA since 1980.
:
: How many of you would therefore say it would
: be a bad thing (yes a bad thing) if the USA
: economic policy moved in the direction of
: Norway's?
:
: Presumably all of you are aware that Norway
: has (compared to the USA) lower inequality,
: higher rate of unionization, higher taxes on
: rich, lower per capita CO2 emissions.
:
: Just trying to determine roughly how
: prevalent, or not, such a view wodl be among
: people who post here.
: Thanks
:
: Joe
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by JoeS on October 31, 2011, 11:56 pm, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

Hi Chris,

What does the "green anarchist" perspective offer as an alternative to neoliberal austerity?

What would a "green anarchist" society look like, and how do we get there from where we are now?

Will "green anarchism" have traction for the swathes of ordinary people recently made or about to be made redundant?

Thanks,

Joe

--Previous Message--
: I think you mean Europhiles.
:
: Plus ultra, I think it is very necessary to
: maintain a language which describes a world
: outside of the logic of industrial
: modernity, to be authentic and true to one's
: beliefs. My instinct is for green anarchy
: (can there actually be any other sort of
: anarchy?) and I feel comfortable arguing for
: that, I don't feel comfortable or at home
: arguing for a reformed system of GDP
: measurements.
:
: --Previous Message--
: Norway is not a member of the European
: Union.
:
: Funny that... Europhobes tell us if we left
: the EU we'd become a basket case with mass
: unemployment....
:
: --Previous Message--
: Norway has had higher per capita GDP growth
: rate than the USA since 1980.
:
: How many of you would therefore say it would
: be a bad thing (yes a bad thing) if the USA
: economic policy moved in the direction of
: Norway's?
:
: Presumably all of you are aware that Norway
: has (compared to the USA) lower inequality,
: higher rate of unionization, higher taxes on
: rich, lower per capita CO2 emissions.
:
: Just trying to determine roughly how
: prevalent, or not, such a view wodl be among
: people who post here.
: Thanks
:
: Joe
:
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by Chris Shaw on November 1, 2011, 8:38 am, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

Hi Joe

No easy questions there, and I wish I had the time to provide answers that would do them justice. As I very carefully wrote, my +instinct+ is for green anarchy (because I don't see how one can have a highly industrial anarchist society), I did not write I have a blueprint for convincing people of the need to moven to that society.

However, a green anarchist society would trump a neoliberal society on the basis of absence of lies and an unalienated existence.

The idea of redundancy, which positions working in a factory/driving a bus/serving burgers as the pinnacle of human achievement and pity those who are denied that chance seems to me a capitualtion to he orthodoxy of neoliberalism which is at the root of my rejection of Emesbergers claims for an enlightened GDP.

How would anyone convince the neoliberal elites of even such a minor change as the shift in the metrics of 'progress' suggested by Emesberger? If you are going to fight for that might as well fight for something meaningful, for example a truly deemocrratic socialist future, which is at least on the way to anarchism.

--Previous Message--
: Hi Chris,
:
: What does the "green anarchist"
: perspective offer as an alternative to
: neoliberal austerity?
:
: What would a "green anarchist"
: society look like, and how do we get there
: from where we are now?
:
: Will "green anarchism" have
: traction for the swathes of ordinary people
: recently made or about to be made redundant?
:
: Thanks,
:
: Joe
:
: --Previous Message--
: I think you mean Europhiles.
:
: Plus ultra, I think it is very necessary to
: maintain a language which describes a world
: outside of the logic of industrial
: modernity, to be authentic and true to one's
: beliefs. My instinct is for green anarchy
: (can there actually be any other sort of
: anarchy?) and I feel comfortable arguing for
: that, I don't feel comfortable or at home
: arguing for a reformed system of GDP
: measurements.
:
: --Previous Message--
: Norway is not a member of the European
: Union.
:
: Funny that... Europhobes tell us if we left
: the EU we'd become a basket case with mass
: unemployment....
:
: --Previous Message--
: Norway has had higher per capita GDP growth
: rate than the USA since 1980.
:
: How many of you would therefore say it would
: be a bad thing (yes a bad thing) if the USA
: economic policy moved in the direction of
: Norway's?
:
: Presumably all of you are aware that Norway
: has (compared to the USA) lower inequality,
: higher rate of unionization, higher taxes on
: rich, lower per capita CO2 emissions.
:
: Just trying to determine roughly how
: prevalent, or not, such a view wodl be among
: people who post here.
: Thanks
:
: Joe
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by dereklane on November 1, 2011, 8:52 am, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

"How would anyone convince the neoliberal elites of even such a minor change as the shift in the metrics of 'progress' suggested by Emesberger? If you are going to fight for that might as well fight for something meaningful, for example a truly deemocrratic socialist future, which is at least on the way to anarchism."

Yes, I think I saidf something similiar in the tomes of stuff I wrote on the previous thread to this. GDP is indeed a measure, but its a measure commandeered by the world's elite/powerful to push growth and economic gain and build their own riches. It may have another purpose, but if the goal is to find a measure that shows how people are doing, it would make more sense to use something a bit more wholistic (is that even a word?) like the HPI, or something similiar.

Trying to take GDP back for a useful measure vs what it is actually used for (measuring global bargaining power for resources) is such a small win, even if it could be managed, you have to wonder if its worth it. I don't think it is.

cheers,

--Previous Message--
: Hi Joe
:
: No easy questions there, and I wish I had
: the time to provide answers that would do
: them justice. As I very carefully wrote, my
: +instinct+ is for green anarchy (because I
: don't see how one can have a highly
: industrial anarchist society), I did not
: write I have a blueprint for convincing
: people of the need to moven to that society.
:
: However, a green anarchist society would
: trump a neoliberal society on the basis of
: absence of lies and an unalienated
: existence.
:
: The idea of redundancy, which positions
: working in a factory/driving a bus/serving
: burgers as the pinnacle of human achievement
: and pity those who are denied that chance
: seems to me a capitualtion to he orthodoxy
: of neoliberalism which is at the root of my
: rejection of Emesbergers claims for an
: enlightened GDP.
:
: How would anyone convince the neoliberal
: elites of even such a minor change as the
: shift in the metrics of 'progress' suggested
: by Emesberger? If you are going to fight for
: that might as well fight for something
: meaningful, for example a truly deemocrratic
: socialist future, which is at least on the
: way to anarchism.
:
: --Previous Message--
: Hi Chris,
:
: What does the "green anarchist"
: perspective offer as an alternative to
: neoliberal austerity?
:
: What would a "green anarchist"
: society look like, and how do we get there
: from where we are now?
:
: Will "green anarchism" have
: traction for the swathes of ordinary people
: recently made or about to be made redundant?
:
: Thanks,
:
: Joe
:
: --Previous Message--
: I think you mean Europhiles.
:
: Plus ultra, I think it is very necessary to
: maintain a language which describes a world
: outside of the logic of industrial
: modernity, to be authentic and true to one's
: beliefs. My instinct is for green anarchy
: (can there actually be any other sort of
: anarchy?) and I feel comfortable arguing for
: that, I don't feel comfortable or at home
: arguing for a reformed system of GDP
: measurements.
:
: --Previous Message--
: Norway is not a member of the European
: Union.
:
: Funny that... Europhobes tell us if we left
: the EU we'd become a basket case with mass
: unemployment....
:
: --Previous Message--
: Norway has had higher per capita GDP growth
: rate than the USA since 1980.
:
: How many of you would therefore say it would
: be a bad thing (yes a bad thing) if the USA
: economic policy moved in the direction of
: Norway's?
:
: Presumably all of you are aware that Norway
: has (compared to the USA) lower inequality,
: higher rate of unionization, higher taxes on
: rich, lower per capita CO2 emissions.
:
: Just trying to determine roughly how
: prevalent, or not, such a view wodl be among
: people who post here.
: Thanks
:
: Joe
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by CJ on November 1, 2011, 2:43 am, in reply to "please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

I don’t follow US or Norwegian economic statistics but the question needs to be understood from two points of view :
1.would this be better for US residents and
2.would this be better for the rest of the world.

1.The top 10% of the USA would be worse off because of tax rates on the wealthy and also because of asset ownership differences – I believe the oil is owned by the Norwegian State and not by independent companies. Similarly I believe prisons are all State owned so this would destroy the security businesses. The State spend on defence would drop like a stone and so would the defence businesses which would probably have a knock on effect on media ownership.
The bottom 90% would benefit from free health services not just in health and stress terms but also in terms of massively reduced bankruptcies. The growth rate would be spread more evenly through society and the improvement in equality would lift up their position in the happiness index.

2. If the US adopted the same budget proportions as Norway then I assume the empire would die overnight without the necessary funding and the resource wars would peter out and the World would be a better and safer place.
The damaging US free trade agreements would also go since these would not fit with Norway’s employment and social economic policy – this would benefit the second and third world economies drastically.
How this move would change the Green position I don’t know – but in general this is not just a product of GDP and economics it is also a result of political decisions. If you want to eliminate CO2 emissions then just make it a criminal offence to exceed the limit and make the chief executives of corporations liable for the prison time ( you would not be surprised how well this would focus the corporate mind ).

By my reckoning the answer by a mile is that it would NOT be a bad thing to copy Norway.
I would also say copy Venezuela and Cuba if you really wanted to benefit the majority of US residents but I suspect you know more about these countries than I do.

Cheers.



Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by dereklane on November 1, 2011, 8:15 am, in reply to "please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

"Norway has had higher per capita GDP growth rate than the USA since 1980."

...But the US has a *much* higher GDP, therefore a *much* higher GDP per capita. Per capita, according to CIA factbook, of $47000. From 2009 to 2010 2.8% growth. GDP of $14.66 trillion.

Norway has a GDP of $255 billion, with a growth rate of 0.4% and per capita of $54000. It appears it has a higher per capita GDP, but *not* a higher *growth* rate of GDP. As I said, if the US produced nothing in a year and everyone stopped consuming, the GDP would not sit at $14 T, it would zip back to zero:

Y = C + I + E + G

where

Y = GDP

C = Consumer Spending

I = Investment made by industry

E = Excess of Exports over Imports

G = Government Spending

So the US' *vastly higher* GDP is *more* destructive than Norway's tiny GDP. Percentage growth is *only* relevant if the country is one of those kept poor by the supremacy that high GDP affords rich nations to exploit poor ones. If a tiny island off the coast of Oz has a positive gdp growth, it might mean its people are finally getting full meals. For you in Canada, or me in the UK, it means our richest are turning the thumbscrews on the poorest globally another turn.
It a poor measure to use, and opens the door, or jams it open, to *increased* exploitation of the world's people and resources. We don't need *more* of that, but less.

"Presumably all of you are aware that Norway has (compared to the USA) lower inequality, higher rate of unionization, higher taxes on rich, lower per capita CO2 emissions."

Joe, you must know after we've talked that this statement is loaded. These things don't (for an oil country like Norway) happen in isolation. *Internal* quality of life may be higher, but at whose cost? I'd like you to agree or disagree to this statement:

Norway's quality of life is determined not just by internal policies but by the continued exploitation of the poor foreign market, marine animals, and oil. True or false?

In other words, the funneling of international resources for its own economic gain, which is inherently unsustainable *and* reprehensible (though the US is worse, because it doesn't even look after its own people). Do the people of Norway currently suffer? Do they need more? It is unlikely. So what drives the 'growth'? I would say, the fear of being left behind. If they don't continue to grow, like poor nations with little or no bargaining power, they would shrink. (In fact, once the oil peters out, they probably will.)

cheers,

Post a Response

Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers
Posted by dereklane on November 1, 2011, 9:20 am, in reply to "Re: please take this quick unscientic poll of Medialensers"

BTW Joe, I responded to you over the page. I don't mind continuing it there, or here. It feels like your understandi
Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:56 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
toastkid



Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 393

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Clear Graphics from the NYT
Posted by Ken Waldron on November 2, 2011, 11:32 am



Post a Response

thanks for posting this - nm
Posted by gabriele on November 2, 2011, 11:50 am, in reply to "Clear Graphics from the NYT"



--Previous Message--
:
:

Post a Response

Ditto: thanks for posting this - nm
Posted by MikeD on November 2, 2011, 1:58 pm, in reply to "thanks for posting this - nm"



--Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Ditto: thanks for posting this - #Joe Eme. This is up your street..nm
Posted by alquds43 on November 2, 2011, 2:13 pm, in reply to "Ditto: thanks for posting this - nm"


Cheers.

--Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--




Post a Response

Re: Ditto: thanks for posting this - #Joe Eme. This is up your street..nm
Posted by dereklane on November 2, 2011, 2:48 pm, in reply to " Ditto: thanks for posting this - #Joe Eme. This is up your street..nm"

Yes, definitely an interesting graphic. Illustrates exactly the last point I was making in that previous discussion! Productivity (GDP equates closely to that) is not tied to better conditions, improvements, etc (therefore not supporting growth does *not* equate to opposing positive social change! Obviously..). Sometimes social govts *may* tether the two, but it doesn't go hand in hand.

cheers,

--Previous Message--
:
: Cheers.
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: Ditto: thanks for posting this - #Joe Eme. This is up your street..nm
Posted by emersberger on November 2, 2011, 3:55 pm, in reply to "Re: Ditto: thanks for posting this - #Joe Eme. This is up your street..nm"

Derek,
GDP per capita growth was 2.5% per year in the USA in the 1961-1908 period. It was even higher in the 2 post-war decades prior to that.

GDP per capita has avergaged 1.6% in the 1980-2010 period.

That the trend that has been observed arounfd the world - in rich and poor countries alike.

Productivity (as I recall) measures GDp per hour worked. As you cast people off and coerive thsoe who remain to work harder for less you can boost productivity - as the chart shows.

Wouldn't be that bad a measure of well being in a society that democratically decided on what to do with productivity gains.




--Previous Message--
: Yes, definitely an interesting graphic.
: Illustrates exactly the last point I was
: making in that previous discussion!
: Productivity (GDP equates closely to that)
: is not tied to better conditions,
: improvements, etc (therefore not supporting
: growth does *not* equate to opposing
: positive social change! Obviously..).
: Sometimes social govts *may* tether the two,
: but it doesn't go hand in hand.
:
: cheers,
:
: --Previous Message--
:
: Cheers.
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: Ditto: thanks for posting this - #Joe Eme. This is up your street..nm
Posted by dereklane on November 2, 2011, 6:29 pm, in reply to "Re: Ditto: thanks for posting this - #Joe Eme. This is up your street..nm"

The 2.5% period was their oil boom. That was the easy resource tapping. 1.6% growth on a *massive* GDP is *massive* resource use, obviously, and the GDP grows exponentially each year, because its not growing 1.6% of a fixed amount yearly, but on *last* year's amount. That's unsustainable, and critically damaging.

Not sure what measure you're referring to with productivity per hour worked, but the productivity I'm referring to *is* GDP, on the basis of the equation which calculates GDP (productivity in different areas of an economy summed).

I really didn't think the graph was a bad one for explaining the fact that where there *appears* to be a correlation between rising GDP and better personal welfare, there really isn't. A change in style following the easy money from oil riches meant that the productivity scale continued to climb sharply (and you could evidence this by plotting GDP on a graph rather than percentage GDP rises):
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230
(nominal GDP, which is likely the data you would then convert to per capita, since it looks better on paper), and yet, ordinary conditions crawled.

They are not linked, sometimes they merely look it.

I spend a lot of my job juggling statistics. You can be 'honest' and not tell the real story if you know how to milk the data.

cheers,
--Previous Message--
: Derek,
: GDP per capita growth was 2.5% per year in
: the USA in the 1961-1908 period. It was even
: higher in the 2 post-war decades prior to
: that.
:
: GDP per capita has avergaged 1.6% in the
: 1980-2010 period.
:
: That the trend that has been observed
: arounfd the world - in rich and poor
: countries alike.
:
: Productivity (as I recall) measures GDp per
: hour worked. As you cast people off and
: coerive thsoe who remain to work harder for
: less you can boost productivity - as the
: chart shows.
:
: Wouldn't be that bad a measure of well being
: in a society that democratically decided on
: what to do with productivity gains.
:
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Yes, definitely an interesting graphic.
: Illustrates exactly the last point I was
: making in that previous discussion!
: Productivity (GDP equates closely to that)
: is not tied to better conditions,
: improvements, etc (therefore not supporting
: growth does *not* equate to opposing
: positive social change! Obviously..).
: Sometimes social govts *may* tether the two,
: but it doesn't go hand in hand.
:
: cheers,
:
: --Previous Message--
:
: Cheers.
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: Ditto: thanks for posting this - #Joe Eme. This is up your street..nm
Posted by dereklane on November 2, 2011, 6:34 pm, in reply to "Re: Ditto: thanks for posting this - #Joe Eme. This is up your street..nm"

BTW Joe, I really think we're going to have to disagree on this and just acknowledge the broad range of things we do agree on on these issues. We may end up continually clogging the mb otherwise!

I wish PeteF would contribute something on this; he's spent a lot of time on these economic issues. I'd be interested in his take too... at the back of my mind (with everything!) is *always* the possibility that I have it hopelessly wrong, but I just don't think your explanations/information are sufficient evidence for your position.

cheers,
Derek

--Previous Message--
: The 2.5% period was their oil boom. That was
: the easy resource tapping. 1.6% growth on a
: *massive* GDP is *massive* resource use,
: obviously, and the GDP grows exponentially
: each year, because its not growing 1.6% of a
: fixed amount yearly, but on *last* year's
: amount. That's unsustainable, and critically
: damaging.
:
: Not sure what measure you're referring to
: with productivity per hour worked, but the
: productivity I'm referring to *is* GDP, on
: the basis of the equation which calculates
: GDP (productivity in different areas of an
: economy summed).
:
: I really didn't think the graph was a bad
: one for explaining the fact that where there
: *appears* to be a correlation between rising
: GDP and better personal welfare, there
: really isn't. A change in style following
: the easy money from oil riches meant that
: the productivity scale continued to climb
: sharply (and you could evidence this by
: plotting GDP on a graph rather than
: percentage GDP rises):
:
: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230
: (nominal GDP, which is likely the data you
: would then convert to per capita, since it
: looks better on paper), and yet, ordinary
: conditions crawled.
:
: They are not linked, sometimes they merely
: look it.
:
: I spend a lot of my job juggling statistics.
: You can be 'honest' and not tell the real
: story if you know how to milk the data.
:
: cheers,
: --Previous Message--
: Derek,
: GDP per capita growth was 2.5% per year in
: the USA in the 1961-1908 period. It was even
: higher in the 2 post-war decades prior to
: that.
:
: GDP per capita has avergaged 1.6% in the
: 1980-2010 period.
:
: That the trend that has been observed
: arounfd the world - in rich and poor
: countries alike.
:
: Productivity (as I recall) measures GDp per
: hour worked. As you cast people off and
: coerive thsoe who remain to work harder for
: less you can boost productivity - as the
: chart shows.
:
: Wouldn't be that bad a measure of well being
: in a society that democratically decided on
: what to do with productivity gains.
:
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Yes, definitely an interesting graphic.
: Illustrates exactly the last point I was
: making in that previous discussion!
: Productivity (GDP equates closely to that)
: is not tied to better conditions,
: improvements, etc (therefore not supporting
: growth does *not* equate to opposing
: positive social change! Obviously..).
: Sometimes social govts *may* tether the two,
: but it doesn't go hand in hand.
:
: cheers,
:
: --Previous Message--
:
: Cheers.
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

Re: Ditto: thanks for posting this - #Joe Eme. This is up your street..nm
Posted by emersberger on November 2, 2011, 7:17 pm, in reply to "Re: Ditto: thanks for posting this - #Joe Eme. This is up your street..nm"

Derek
I don't think this analysis is a statisical mirage,

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-scorecard-on-globalization-1980-2000-20-years-of-diminished-progress/

nor is the simple consideration that GDP includes the money value of very essential goods and services that can hardly be said to be destroying the planet. Hence the undeniable links between GDP growth and important quality of life indicators established in the paper above.

Moreover, the slowdown in GDP growth is very strongly linked to policy changes that really took off after 1980 - not the end of an oil boom. The same (disastrous) trends are seen in the region that used to be the Soviet Union after 1990. Hence the rival of GDP growth in countries throughtout Latin America where neoliberaism has lost ground. No sane progressive (ahtever they claim about GDP growth) would oppose those develoments. I am assuming the same will be true if OWS wins significant policy changes and revives the USA's GDP growth rates.










--Previous Message--
: BTW Joe, I really think we're going to have to
: disagree on this and just acknowledge the
: broad range of things we do agree on on
: these issues. We may end up continually
: clogging the mb otherwise!
:
: I wish PeteF would contribute something on
: this; he's spent a lot of time on these
: economic issues. I'd be interested in his
: take too... at the back of my mind (with
: everything!) is *always* the possibility
: that I have it hopelessly wrong, but I just
: don't think your explanations/information
: are sufficient evidence for your position.
:
: cheers,
: Derek
:
: --Previous Message--
: The 2.5% period was their oil boom. That was
: the easy resource tapping. 1.6% growth on a
: *massive* GDP is *massive* resource use,
: obviously, and the GDP grows exponentially
: each year, because its not growing 1.6% of a
: fixed amount yearly, but on *last* year's
: amount. That's unsustainable, and critically
: damaging.
:
: Not sure what measure you're referring to
: with productivity per hour worked, but the
: productivity I'm referring to *is* GDP, on
: the basis of the equation which calculates
: GDP (productivity in different areas of an
: economy summed).
:
: I really didn't think the graph was a bad
: one for explaining the fact that where there
: *appears* to be a correlation between rising
: GDP and better personal welfare, there
: really isn't. A change in style following
: the easy money from oil riches meant that
: the productivity scale continued to climb
: sharply (and you could evidence this by
: plotting GDP on a graph rather than
: percentage GDP rises):
:
:
: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230
: (nominal GDP, which is likely the data you
: would then convert to per capita, since it
: looks better on paper), and yet, ordinary
: conditions crawled.
:
: They are not linked, sometimes they merely
: look it.
:
: I spend a lot of my job juggling statistics.
: You can be 'honest' and not tell the real
: story if you know how to milk the data.
:
: cheers,
: --Previous Message--
: Derek,
: GDP per capita growth was 2.5% per year in
: the USA in the 1961-1908 period. It was even
: higher in the 2 post-war decades prior to
: that.
:
: GDP per capita has avergaged 1.6% in the
: 1980-2010 period.
:
: That the trend that has been observed
: arounfd the world - in rich and poor
: countries alike.
:
: Productivity (as I recall) measures GDp per
: hour worked. As you cast people off and
: coerive thsoe who remain to work harder for
: less you can boost productivity - as the
: chart shows.
:
: Wouldn't be that bad a measure of well being
: in a society that democratically decided on
: what to do with productivity gains.
:
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Yes, definitely an interesting graphic.
: Illustrates exactly the last point I was
: making in that previous discussion!
: Productivity (GDP equates closely to that)
: is not tied to better conditions,
: improvements, etc (therefore not supporting
: growth does *not* equate to opposing
: positive social change! Obviously..).
: Sometimes social govts *may* tether the two,
: but it doesn't go hand in hand.
:
: cheers,
:
: --Previous Message--
:
: Cheers.
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Post a Response

GROWTH : Cartoon from the Indy (UK) ...
Posted by alquds43 on November 2, 2011, 3:01 pm, in reply to "Clear Graphics from the NYT"

02-11-2011

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/the-daily-cartoon-760940.html

-

Post a Response

AI thought it a brilliantly clear illustration of the ressurection of "Debt Peonage".(nm)
Posted by Ken Waldron on November 2, 2011, 6:09 pm, in reply to "Clear Graphics from the NYT"



--Previous Message--
:
:

Post a Response

thanks archived in forum - prosperity and regression
Posted by dan on November 2, 2011, 7:21 pm, in reply to "Clear Graphics from the NYT"


http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11445#11445

Post a Response


«Back to thread[/img]
Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:30 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
toastkid



Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 393

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

growth in argentina, connected to discussions below
Posted by Everyman on November 1, 2011, 9:21 pm

So, how can we be AGAINST what has been happening in Argentina? Not me, not able to justify 'no growth'..........

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29569.htm

Argentina: Why President Fernandez Wins and Obama Loses

By James Petras

November 01, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- On October 23rd of this year, President Cristina Fernandez won re-election receiving 54% of the vote, 37 percentage points higher than her nearest opponent. The President’s coalition also swept the Congressional, Senatorial, Gubernatorial elections as well as 135 of the 136 municipal councils of Greater Buenos Aires.
In sharp contrast President Obama, according to recent polls is trailing leading Republican Presidential candidates and is likely to lose control of both houses of Congress in the upcoming 2012 election. What accounts for the monumental difference in voter preferences of incumbent presidents? A comparative historical discussion of socio-economic and foreign policies as well as responses to profound economic crises is at the center of any explanation of the divergent results.

Methodology

In comparing the performance of Fernandez and Obama it is necessary to locate them in an historical context. More specifically, both presidents and their immediate predecessors, George Bush in the US and Nestor Kirchner (deceased husband of Fernandez) in Argentina confronted major economic and social crises. What is telling, however, are the diametrically opposing responses to the crises and the divergent results. On the one hand sustained growth with equity in Argentina and deepening crises and failed policies in the US.

Historical Context: Argentina: Depression, Revolt and Recovery

Between 1998 – 2002, Argentina experienced the worse socio-economic crises in its history. The economy nose-dived from recession to full scale depression, culminating in double digit negative growth in 2001 – 2002. Unemployment reached over 25% and in many working class neighborhoods, over 50%. Tens of thousands of impoverished middle class professional lined up to receive bread and soup only blocks away from the Presidential palace. Hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers, ‘piqueteros’ (picketers), blocked major highways and some raided trains shipping cattle and grain overseas. Banks closed depriving millions of depositors of their savings. Millions of middle class protestors organized radical neighborhood councils and linked up with unemployed assemblies. The country was heavily indebted, the people deeply impoverished. The popular mood was moving toward a revolutionary uprising. Incumbent President Fernando De la Rua was overthrown (2001) scores of protestors were killed and wounded, as a popular rebellion threatened to seize the Presidential palace. By the end of 2002, hundreds of bankrupt factories were ‘occupied’, taken over and run by workers. Argentina defaulted on its external debt. In early 2003, Nestor Kirchner was elected President, in the midst of this systemic crisis and proceeded to reject efforts to enforce debt payment or repress the popular movements. Instead he inaugurated a series of emergency public works programs. He authorized payments to unemployed workers (150 pesos per month) to meet the basic needs of nearly half the labor force.

The most popular slogan, of the multitudinous movements occupying the financial districts, factories, public buildings and the streets was “Que se vayan todos” (“All politicians get out’). The entire political class, parties and leaders, Congress and presidents were rejected outright. But while the movements were vast, militant and united in what they rejected, they had no coherent program for taking state power, nor national political leadership to lead them. After two years of turmoil, the populace turned to the ballot box and elected Kirchner with a mandate to produce or perish. Kirchner heard the message, at least the part which demanded growth with equity.

Context: The US under Bush-Obama

The last years of the Bush administration and the Obama presidency presided over the worse socio-economic crises since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Unemployment and underemployment rose to almost a third of the labor force by 2009. Millions of homes were foreclosed. Bankruptcies multiplied and banks were on the verge of collapse. Negative growth rates and a sharp decline in income, increased poverty and multiplied the number of food stamp recipients. Unlike Argentina, discontented citizens took to the ballot box. Attracted by the demagogic “change” rhetoric of Obama, they placed their hopes in the new president. The Democrats won the Presidency and a majority in both houses of Congress. The first priority of Obama and Congress was to pour trillions of dollars in bailing out the banks, even as unemployment deepened and the recession continued. Their second priority was to deepen and expand overseas imperial wars.

Obama increased the number of troops in Afghanistan by 30,000; expanded the military budget to $750 billion dollars; launched new military operations in Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan and elsewhere; augmented military aid to Israeli colonial armed forces; signed military pacts with Asian countries (India, Philippines, Australia) proximate to China.

In sum Obama gave maximum priority to expanding the militarized empire, depleting the public treasury of funds to finance the recovery of the domestic economy and reducing unemployment.

In contrast, Kirchner/Fernandez curtailed the power of the military, cut military spending and channeled state revenues toward employment programs, productive investments and non-traditional exports.

Under Obama the crises became an opportunity to revive and consolidate the financial power of Wall Street. The White House augmented the military budget to expand imperial wars by deepening the budget deficit and then proposed to cut essential social programs to ‘reduce the deficit’.

Argentina from Crises to Dynamic Growth

In Argentina the economic catastrophe and popular uprising provided Kirchner with an opportunity to bring about a basic shift from militarism and speculative pillage to social programs and sustained economic growth.

The electoral victories of both Kirchner and Fernandez reflect their success in creating a ‘normal’ capitalist welfare state. After 30 years of US backed predator neo-liberal regimes, this was a great positive change. Between 1966 and 2002, Argentina suffered brutal military dictatorships culminating in the genocidal generals who murdered 30,000 Argentines from 1976to 1982. From 1983to 1989 Argentina’s suffered under a neo-liberal regime (Raul Alfonsin) which failed to deal with the dictatorial legacy and which presided over triple digit hyper-inflation. >From 1989 – 1999 under President Carlos Menem Argentina witnessed the biggest sell-off of its most lucrative public firms, natural resources (petrol included), banks, highways, zoo and public toilets to foreign investors and kleptocratic cronies for bargain basement prices.

Last but not least, Fernando De la Rua (2000 – 2001), promised change and proceeded to deepen the recession that led to the final catastrophic crash of December 2001 and the closing of the banks, the bankruptcy of 10,000 firms and the collapse of the economy.

Against this background of total and unmitigated failure and the human disaster of US – IMF promoted “free-market” policies, Kirchner/Fernandez defaulted on the external debt, re-nationalized several privatized firms and the pension funds, intervened the banks and doubled social spending, expanded public investment in production and increased popular consumption, on the road to economic recovery. By the end of 2003 Argentina turned from negative to 8% growth.

Human Rights, Social Programs and Independent Foreign Economic Policy

Argentina’s economy has grown over 90% from 2003 – 2011, over three times that of the United States. Its recovery has been accompanied by a tripling of social spending, especially on programs reducing poverty. The percentage of poor Argentines has declined from over 50% in 2001 to less than 15% in 2011. In contrast US poverty has risen over the same decade from 12% to 17% and is on an upward trajectory over the same period.

The US has become the country with the greatest inequalities in the OECD with 1% controlling 40% of the country’s wealth, (up from 30% in less than a decade). In contrast, Argentina’s inequalities have shrunken by half. The US economy has failed to recover from the deep recession of 2008-2009, during which it declined by over 8%. In contrast Argentina declined less than 1% in 2009, and has been growing at a healthy 8% (2010-2011). Argentina has nationalized pension funds, doubled basic pensions and introduced a universal child welfare program to counter malnutrition and guarantee school attendance.

In contrast 20% of children in the US are now suffering from poor diets, drop-out rates are increasing for adolescents and malnutrition affects over 25% of minority children. With more social cuts in health/education under way, social conditions can only worsen. In Argentina the income of wage and salaried workers has increased over 50% over the decade in real terms, while in the US they have declined by nearly 10%.

Argentina’s dynamic growth of GNP has been fueled by growing domestic consumption and dynamic export earnings. Argentina has a consistent large trade surplus based on favorable market prices and increased competitiveness. In contrast domestic consumption has stagnated in the US, the trade deficit is close to $1.5 trillion dollars and revenues are wasted on non-productive military expenditures of over $900 billion a year.

While in Argentina the impulse for a policy of default with growth came about because of a popular rebellion and mass movements, in the US popular discontent was channeled toward the election of a Wall Street financial con-man named Obama. He proceeded to pour resources into rescuing the financial elite instead of letting them go bankrupt and funding growth, competitiveness and social consumption.

The Argentine Alternative to Bailouts and Poverty

The Argentine experience goes counter to all the precepts of the international financial agencies (the IMF, World Bank), their political backers, and publicists in the financial press. From the first year (2003) of Argentina’s recovery to the present, the economic experts have “predicted” that its growth was “not sustainable” – it has continued robustly for over a decade. The financial writers claimed the default would lead to Argentina being shut out of financial markets and that its economy would collapse. Argentina relied on self-financing based on export earnings and re-activation of the domestic economy and confounded the prestigious economists.

As growth continued, the critics in the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal claimed it would end once “unused capacity was exhausted”. Instead growth earnings financed the expansion of the domestic market and created new capacity for growth especially to new markets in Asia and Brazil.

Even as late as October 25, 2011, Financial Times columnists still prattle about “the coming crises” in the manner of messianic fundamentalists who predict the pending apocalypse. They harp on “high inflation”, “unsustainable social programs”, “overvalued currency”, and more predictions of “the end of prosperity”. All these dire warnings occur in the face of continued growth of 8% in 2011 and the overwhelming electoral victory of President Fernandez. Anglo-American financial scribes should focus on the demise of their free market regimes in Europe and North America instead of denigrating an economic experience from which they might learn.

In refutation of the Wall Street critics, Mark Weisbrot and his associates point out (“The Argentina Success Story”, Center for Economic Bad Policy Research, Oct. 2011) that Argentina’s growth was based on the expansion of domestic consumption, increased manufacturing exports to regional trading partners as well as traditional agro-mineral exports to Asia. In other words Argentina is not totally dependent on primary exports; it has balanced trade and is not over dependent on commodity prices. In regard to high inflation, Weisbrot points out that “inflation may be high in Argentina but it is real growth and income distribution that matter with regard to the well-being of the vast majority of population”, (page 14) (my emphasis).

The US under Bush-Obama has pursued a totally perverse and divergent path to that of Kirchner-Fernandez. They have prioritized military spending and expanded the security apparatus over the productive economy. Obama and Congress have vastly increased the police state apparatus, reinforced their political influence over regressive budgetary policies while increasingly violating human and civil rights. In contrast Kirchner/Fernandez have prosecuted dozens of human rights violators in the military and police and weakened the military’s political power.

SNIP GO TO LINK ABOVE

Post a Response

Re: growth in argentina, connected to discussions below
Posted by emersberger on November 2, 2011, 2:16 am, in reply to "growth in argentina, connected to discussions below"

Similar point could be made about Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.

GDP growth (unfortunatey called "economic growth")
captures a signifacnt amount of constructive and destrutive activity - and not even consistently because it varies from country to country depending on the policy mix.

Globally, GDP growth has correlated with falling child mortality rates, but also with rising CO2 emissions.

It is important to look at many other metrics to access the impact of economic policy.






--Previous Message--
: So, how can we be AGAINST what has been
: happening in Argentina? Not me, not able to
: justify 'no growth'..........
:
:
: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29569.htm
:
: Argentina: Why President Fernandez Wins and
: Obama Loses
:
: By James Petras
:
: November 01, 2011 "Information Clearing
: House" -- On October 23rd of this year,
: President Cristina Fernandez won re-election
: receiving 54% of the vote, 37 percentage
: points higher than her nearest opponent. The
: President’s coalition also swept the
: Congressional, Senatorial, Gubernatorial
: elections as well as 135 of the 136
: municipal councils of Greater Buenos Aires.
: In sharp contrast President Obama, according
: to recent polls is trailing leading
: Republican Presidential candidates and is
: likely to lose control of both houses of
: Congress in the upcoming 2012 election. What
: accounts for the monumental difference in
: voter preferences of incumbent presidents? A
: comparative historical discussion of
: socio-economic and foreign policies as well
: as responses to profound economic crises is
: at the center of any explanation of the
: divergent results.
:
: Methodology
:
: In comparing the performance of Fernandez
: and Obama it is necessary to locate them in
: an historical context. More specifically,
: both presidents and their immediate
: predecessors, George Bush in the US and
: Nestor Kirchner (deceased husband of
: Fernandez) in Argentina confronted major
: economic and social crises. What is telling,
: however, are the diametrically opposing
: responses to the crises and the divergent
: results. On the one hand sustained growth
: with equity in Argentina and deepening
: crises and failed policies in the US.
:
: Historical Context: Argentina: Depression,
: Revolt and Recovery
:
: Between 1998 – 2002, Argentina experienced
: the worse socio-economic crises in its
: history. The economy nose-dived from
: recession to full scale depression,
: culminating in double digit negative growth
: in 2001 – 2002. Unemployment reached over
: 25% and in many working class neighborhoods,
: over 50%. Tens of thousands of impoverished
: middle class professional lined up to
: receive bread and soup only blocks away from
: the Presidential palace. Hundreds of
: thousands of unemployed workers,
: ‘piqueteros’ (picketers), blocked major
: highways and some raided trains shipping
: cattle and grain overseas. Banks closed
: depriving millions of depositors of their
: savings. Millions of middle class protestors
: organized radical neighborhood councils and
: linked up with unemployed assemblies. The
: country was heavily indebted, the people
: deeply impoverished. The popular mood was
: moving toward a revolutionary uprising.
: Incumbent President Fernando De la Rua was
: overthrown (2001) scores of protestors were
: killed and wounded, as a popular rebellion
: threatened to seize the Presidential palace.
: By the end of 2002, hundreds of bankrupt
: factories were ‘occupied’, taken over and
: run by workers. Argentina defaulted on its
: external debt. In early 2003, Nestor
: Kirchner was elected President, in the midst
: of this systemic crisis and proceeded to
: reject efforts to enforce debt payment or
: repress the popular movements. Instead he
: inaugurated a series of emergency public
: works programs. He authorized payments to
: unemployed workers (150 pesos per month) to
: meet the basic needs of nearly half the
: labor force.
:
: The most popular slogan, of the
: multitudinous movements occupying the
: financial districts, factories, public
: buildings and the streets was “Que se vayan
: todos” (“All politicians get out’). The
: entire political class, parties and leaders,
: Congress and presidents were rejected
: outright. But while the movements were vast,
: militant and united in what they rejected,
: they had no coherent program for taking
: state power, nor national political
: leadership to lead them. After two years of
: turmoil, the populace turned to the ballot
: box and elected Kirchner with a mandate to
: produce or perish. Kirchner heard the
: message, at least the part which demanded
: growth with equity.
:
: Context: The US under Bush-Obama
:
: The last years of the Bush administration
: and the Obama presidency presided over the
: worse socio-economic crises since the Great
: Depression of the 1930’s. Unemployment and
: underemployment rose to almost a third of
: the labor force by 2009. Millions of homes
: were foreclosed. Bankruptcies multiplied and
: banks were on the verge of collapse.
: Negative growth rates and a sharp decline in
: income, increased poverty and multiplied the
: number of food stamp recipients. Unlike
: Argentina, discontented citizens took to the
: ballot box. Attracted by the demagogic
: “change” rhetoric of Obama, they placed
: their hopes in the new president. The
: Democrats won the Presidency and a majority
: in both houses of Congress. The first
: priority of Obama and Congress was to pour
: trillions of dollars in bailing out the
: banks, even as unemployment deepened and the
: recession continued. Their second priority
: was to deepen and expand overseas imperial
: wars.
:
: Obama increased the number of troops in
: Afghanistan by 30,000; expanded the military
: budget to $750 billion dollars; launched new
: military operations in Somalia, Yemen,
: Libya, Pakistan and elsewhere; augmented
: military aid to Israeli colonial armed
: forces; signed military pacts with Asian
: countries (India, Philippines, Australia)
: proximate to China.
:
: In sum Obama gave maximum priority to
: expanding the militarized empire, depleting
: the public treasury of funds to finance the
: recovery of the domestic economy and
: reducing unemployment.
:
: In contrast, Kirchner/Fernandez curtailed
: the power of the military, cut military
: spending and channeled state revenues toward
: employment programs, productive investments
: and non-traditional exports.
:
: Under Obama the crises became an opportunity
: to revive and consolidate the financial
: power of Wall Street. The White House
: augmented the military budget to expand
: imperial wars by deepening the budget
: deficit and then proposed to cut essential
: social programs to ‘reduce the deficit’.
:
: Argentina from Crises to Dynamic Growth
:
: In Argentina the economic catastrophe and
: popular uprising provided Kirchner with an
: opportunity to bring about a basic shift
: from militarism and speculative pillage to
: social programs and sustained economic
: growth.
:
: The electoral victories of both Kirchner and
: Fernandez reflect their success in creating
: a ‘normal’ capitalist welfare state. After
: 30 years of US backed predator neo-liberal
: regimes, this was a great positive change.
: Between 1966 and 2002, Argentina suffered
: brutal military dictatorships culminating in
: the genocidal generals who murdered 30,000
: Argentines from 1976to 1982. From 1983to
: 1989 Argentina’s suffered under a
: neo-liberal regime (Raul Alfonsin) which
: failed to deal with the dictatorial legacy
: and which presided over triple digit
: hyper-inflation. >From 1989 – 1999 under
: President Carlos Menem Argentina witnessed
: the biggest sell-off of its most lucrative
: public firms, natural resources (petrol
: included), banks, highways, zoo and public
: toilets to foreign investors and
: kleptocratic cronies for bargain basement
: prices.
:
: Last but not least, Fernando De la Rua (2000
: – 2001), promised change and proceeded to
: deepen the recession that led to the final
: catastrophic crash of December 2001 and the
: closing of the banks, the bankruptcy of
: 10,000 firms and the collapse of the
: economy.
:
: Against this background of total and
: unmitigated failure and the human disaster
: of US – IMF promoted “free-market” policies,
: Kirchner/Fernandez defaulted on the external
: debt, re-nationalized several privatized
: firms and the pension funds, intervened the
: banks and doubled social spending, expanded
: public investment in production and
: increased popular consumption, on the road
: to economic recovery. By the end of 2003
: Argentina turned from negative to 8% growth.
:
: Human Rights, Social Programs and
: Independent Foreign Economic Policy
:
: Argentina’s economy has grown over 90% from
: 2003 – 2011, over three times that of the
: United States. Its recovery has been
: accompanied by a tripling of social
: spending, especially on programs reducing
: poverty. The percentage of poor Argentines
: has declined from over 50% in 2001 to less
: than 15% in 2011. In contrast US poverty has
: risen over the same decade from 12% to 17%
: and is on an upward trajectory over the same
: period.
:
: The US has become the country with the
: greatest inequalities in the OECD with 1%
: controlling 40% of the country’s wealth, (up
: from 30% in less than a decade). In
: contrast, Argentina’s inequalities have
: shrunken by half. The US economy has failed
: to recover from the deep recession of
: 2008-2009, during which it declined by over
: 8%. In contrast Argentina declined less than
: 1% in 2009, and has been growing at a
: healthy 8% (2010-2011). Argentina has
: nationalized pension funds, doubled basic
: pensions and introduced a universal child
: welfare program to counter malnutrition and
: guarantee school attendance.
:
: In contrast 20% of children in the US are
: now suffering from poor diets, drop-out
: rates are increasing for adolescents and
: malnutrition affects over 25% of minority
: children. With more social cuts in
: health/education under way, social
: conditions can only worsen. In Argentina the
: income of wage and salaried workers has
: increased over 50% over the decade in real
: terms, while in the US they have declined by
: nearly 10%.
:
: Argentina’s dynamic growth of GNP has been
: fueled by growing domestic consumption and
: dynamic export earnings. Argentina has a
: consistent large trade surplus based on
: favorable market prices and increased
: competitiveness. In contrast domestic
: consumption has stagnated in the US, the
: trade deficit is close to $1.5 trillion
: dollars and revenues are wasted on
: non-productive military expenditures of over
: $900 billion a year.
:
: While in Argentina the impulse for a policy
: of default with growth came about because of
: a popular rebellion and mass movements, in
: the US popular discontent was channeled
: toward the election of a Wall Street
: financial con-man named Obama. He proceeded
: to pour resources into rescuing the
: financial elite instead of letting them go
: bankrupt and funding growth, competitiveness
: and social consumption.
:
: The Argentine Alternative to Bailouts and
: Poverty
:
: The Argentine experience goes counter to all
: the precepts of the international financial
: agencies (the IMF, World Bank), their
: political backers, and publicists in the
: financial press. From the first year (2003)
: of Argentina’s recovery to the present, the
: economic experts have “predicted” that its
: growth was “not sustainable” – it has
: continued robustly for over a decade. The
: financial writers claimed the default would
: lead to Argentina being shut out of
: financial markets and that its economy would
: collapse. Argentina relied on self-financing
: based on export earnings and re-activation
: of the domestic economy and confounded the
: prestigious economists.
:
: As growth continued, the critics in the
: Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal
: claimed it would end once “unused capacity
: was exhausted”. Instead growth earnings
: financed the expansion of the domestic
: market and created new capacity for growth
: especially to new markets in Asia and
: Brazil.
:
: Even as late as October 25, 2011, Financial
: Times columnists still prattle about “the
: coming crises” in the manner of messianic
: fundamentalists who predict the pending
: apocalypse. They harp on “high inflation”,
: “unsustainable social programs”, “overvalued
: currency”, and more predictions of “the end
: of prosperity”. All these dire warnings
: occur in the face of continued growth of 8%
: in 2011 and the overwhelming electoral
: victory of President Fernandez.
: Anglo-American financial scribes should
: focus on the demise of their free market
: regimes in Europe and North America instead
: of denigrating an economic experience from
: which they might learn.
:
: In refutation of the Wall Street critics,
: Mark Weisbrot and his associates point out
: (“The Argentina Success Story”, Center for
: Economic Bad Policy Research, Oct. 2011)
: that Argentina’s growth was based on the
: expansion of domestic consumption, increased
: manufacturing exports to regional trading
: partners as well as traditional agro-mineral
: exports to Asia. In other words Argentina is
: not totally dependent on primary exports; it
: has balanced trade and is not over dependent
: on commodity prices. In regard to high
: inflation, Weisbrot points out that
: “inflation may be high in Argentina but it
: is real growth and income distribution that
: matter with regard to the well-being of the
: vast majority of population”, (page 14) (my
: emphasis).
:
: The US under Bush-Obama has pursued a
: totally perverse and divergent path to that
: of Kirchner-Fernandez. They have prioritized
: military spending and expanded the security
: apparatus over the productive economy. Obama
: and Congress have vastly increased the
: police state apparatus, reinforced their
: political influence over regressive
: budgetary policies while increasingly
: violating human and civil rights. In
: contrast Kirchner/Fernandez have prosecuted
: dozens of human rights violators in the
: military and police and weakened the
: military’s political power.
:
: SNIP GO TO LINK ABOVE
:

Post a Response

This is absolutely right. I back such revolutionary shifts 100%. But-
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on November 2, 2011, 7:45 am, in reply to "Re: growth in argentina, connected to discussions below"

- such socio-economic upheavals, followed by a period of social-democratic reconstruction is -- of course -- going to show at least a short period of upsurge in GNP or GDP or some sort of sensible measure of what the national economy is doing.

And I can't tell you how much I'd welcome that sort of brief growth spurt, tearing down neo-liberal gangster policies (and rulers) and then vigorously re-building towards a positively Cuban/Venezuelan level of socialist reconstruction. Jeez that would be great to see!

And yes of course: In the short term that would show a shortish period of positive, constructive growth in local economic activity. Within such a positive-change burst, such things are profoundly to be welcomed. Probably they would even assist us to begin to look soberly at the larger global picture, as it really is, and to begin to do something appropriate to prepare for the hard times coming.

To this degree, Joe and Everyman, I reckon that there's no disagreement at all between us.

The fact remains, though, that cogent, very persuasive indicators are shouting ever more persistently that large-scale global economic growth is now both savagely inappropriate and impossible anyway.

What lot's of growthniks have taken to calling 'negative growth' -- meaning shrinkage -- is now a fact of life, and will be with us for quite a while, I suggest, no matter what we do. And eventually the whole obsession with the idea of sacred growthforever as an article of faith will be dumped, as it must be.

My point always in these discussions is that the reform towards social, economic and ecological justice and wisdom which we all support passionately simply HAS to operate within this new reality, because -- as Nicole Foss says drolly in response to Dick Cheney's canard about the American way of life being non-negotiable -- that's exactly right, because reality will not negotiate with you.

But within that over-arching global reality, it's possible, and right, and pretty certainly a wise approach too to what's happening, to promote vigorous and thoroughgoing socio-economic revolutions such as Argentina's -- and maybe such as Iceland's more recently. They too have told the holders of hallucinatory 'debt' in the financial cesspit to get lost. The Icelandic people are simply not going to pay off debt 'obligations' which were never their responsibility in the first place.

And waddya know! Iceland has suddenly dropped out of Western 'news' headlines, because this wise move hasn't actually meant the collapse and disappearance of the Icelandic nation after all. When you look carefully, it actually looks as if it has been a very wise move so far. And the same will go for Greece, when it's de facto default is finally admitted, and for Eire, and for all the others who are there already, or nearly there.

Sure, we should off the financial blood-suckers, take back control of our own countries, and begin a flurry of active reconstructions. But that will be bound to take place WITHIN the overall fact of the Long Descent. We have no choice about that, I suggest.

Shrinkage is the new growth.

Cheers guys, Keep sluggin'!

Post a Response

Re: This is absolutely right. I back such revolutionary shifts 100%. But-
Posted by emersberger on November 2, 2011, 11:32 am, in reply to "This is absolutely right. I back such revolutionary shifts 100%. But-"

Again Rhs,
To avoid confusion and needless division, it woudl be best to indentify metrics, like Co2 emissions, that really capture destruction.

If you elevate "economic growth" as measured by GDP to being the ultimate measure of destructivenes and unsustainability, then, to be logically consistent, you must put yourself in opposition to very positive changes around the world (and in support of very terrible ones that took place after 1980).

I doubt the people who take the anti-GDP or anti-growth stance (for lack of better terms) would ever really do this in practice, but it is worth bearing the implication in mind.

Unless you trust elites blinkered by unearned privledge to bring about sustainability, then we must so all we can to support deleopments that challenge their authority.





--Previous Message--
: - such socio-economic upheavals, followed by a
: period of social-democratic reconstruction
: is -- of course -- going to show at least a
: short period of upsurge in GNP or GDP or
: some sort of sensible measure of what the
: national economy is doing.
:
: And I can't tell you how much I'd welcome
: that sort of brief growth spurt, tearing
: down neo-liberal gangster policies (and
: rulers) and then vigorously re-building
: towards a positively Cuban/Venezuelan level
: of socialist reconstruction. Jeez that would
: be great to see!
:
: And yes of course: In the short term that
: would show a shortish period of positive,
: constructive growth in local economic
: activity. Within such a positive-change
: burst, such things are profoundly to be
: welcomed. Probably they would even assist us
: to begin to look soberly at the larger
: global picture, as it really is, and to
: begin to do something appropriate to prepare
: for the hard times coming.
:
: To this degree, Joe and Everyman, I reckon
: that there's no disagreement at all between
: us.
:
: The fact remains, though, that cogent, very
: persuasive indicators are shouting ever more
: persistently that large-scale global
: economic growth is now both savagely
: inappropriate and impossible anyway.
:
: What lot's of growthniks have taken to
: calling 'negative growth' -- meaning
: shrinkage -- is now a fact of life, and will
: be with us for quite a while, I suggest, no
: matter what we do. And eventually the whole
: obsession with the idea of sacred
: growthforever as an article of faith will be
: dumped, as it must be.
:
: My point always in these discussions is that
: the reform towards social, economic and
: ecological justice and wisdom which we all
: support passionately simply HAS to operate
: within this new reality, because -- as
: Nicole Foss says drolly in response to Dick
: Cheney's canard about the American way of
: life being non-negotiable -- that's exactly
: right, because reality will not negotiate
: with you.
:
: But within that over-arching global reality,
: it's possible, and right, and pretty
: certainly a wise approach too to what's
: happening, to promote vigorous and
: thoroughgoing socio-economic revolutions
: such as Argentina's -- and maybe such as
: Iceland's more recently. They too have told
: the holders of hallucinatory 'debt' in the
: financial cesspit to get lost. The Icelandic
: people are simply not going to pay off debt
: 'obligations' which were never their
: responsibility in the first place.
:
: And waddya know! Iceland has suddenly
: dropped out of Western 'news' headlines,
: because this wise move hasn't actually meant
: the collapse and disappearance of the
: Icelandic nation after all. When you look
: carefully, it actually looks as if it has
: been a very wise move so far. And the same
: will go for Greece, when it's de facto
: default is finally admitted, and for Eire,
: and for all the others who are there
: already, or nearly there.
:
: Sure, we should off the financial
: blood-suckers, take back control of our own
: countries, and begin a flurry of active
: reconstructions. But that will be bound to
: take place WITHIN the overall fact of the
: Long Descent. We have no choice about that,
: I suggest.
:
: Shrinkage is the new growth.
:
: Cheers guys, Keep sluggin'!
:

Post a Response

Re: This is absolutely right. I back such revolutionary shifts 100%. But-
Posted by dereklane on November 2, 2011, 1:38 pm, in reply to "Re: This is absolutely right. I back such revolutionary shifts 100%. But-"

Hi Joe,

This will be the third time I've posted this, but here goes:

Y = C + I + E + G

where

Y = GDP

C = Consumer Spending

I = Investment made by industry

E = Excess of Exports over Imports

G = Government Spending

#######################

Now study this statement:

"If you elevate "economic growth"
as measured by GDP to being the ultimate
measure of destructivenes and
unsustainability, then, to be logically
consistent, you must put yourself in
opposition to very positive changes around
the world"

Firstly, no one says (so far as I am aware) it is the *ultimate* measure of destructiveness and unsustainability, but rather more cautiously, it is an effective measure. Look again at the factors that determine GDP.

1. Consumer spending (what on? Utilities, homes, cars, food, gadgets, clothing, taxes)

You could reasonable determine that 90% (thereabouts) of consumer spending is on consumables, physical things that needed to be created. Or, physical 'resources'.

2. Investment made by industry. This means 'the purchases made by industry in new productive facilities, or, the process of "buying new capital and putting it to use'. In other words, greater resource usage. We're not talking about intellectual stuff here, but physical stuff. A new office, a new truck. etc, for the purpose of increasing production.

3. Excess of exports over imports; How much did we physically produce and then sell on the global market? That's all the stuff you see on cargo ships traversing the globe every day.

4. Government spending. This could be on you, or it could be on themselves, and it could be physical stuff, or just payrises and financial speculation. It is no measure of your well being. That is down to internal policies.

Just to reiterate Joe, saying GDP measures destructiveness does not put me in direct opposition to positive change happening around the world. In fact, this sort of argument strikes me as the same insulting kind that puts me as a friend of tyrants for rejecting western invasions, and appears to be a last ditch and desperate attempt to discredit the views of those still not with you rather than seriously attempting to understand why so few appear to agree with you. We are not all stupid!

Depending, *entirely* on the ratio of C to I to E to G (how much consumer spending vs how much tax vs how much corporate excess) you *might* find some indicator in the mess to suggest positive changes for ordinary folk. Or you might not.

For example, you might have high consumer spending, because of high taxes (high fuel prices), alongside the usual business growth as usual (more money invested and more exports) which would lead to a conclusion that per capita, the nation was doing well, and even per capita, up from last year by 2%, and yet still have low individual disposable income past necessities, and non-existent benefit to individuals from tax revenue expenditure.

Or, you might have the opposite, and people seeing tangible positive change. Its not related to GDP *growth* but what the leadership chooses to do with its GDP, particularly in relation to govt spending.

Sometimes, *sometimes* they may be related because in capitalism, booms means work for Johnny when last year there was none. And next year, there'll be none either (someone posted that passage from the Raggy trousered on this very subject, it is exceedingly relevant:

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3032)

Busts mean no work for Johnny, even though GDP conceivably continues to rise. Aly mentioned this exact point re Sainsbury's.

But, your ultimatum is not showing the logical consistency you accuse me of not having, by suggesting that opposition to growth (specifically in wealthy western countries) leads to opposition of positive changes. Your argument attempts to make a causal link between GDP and *wellbeing* when the evidence shows (in terms of trends) nothing of the sort. What the evidence shows is that GDP is a measuring tool for the rich and the powerful, it pushes for upward production (or economic growth) and ignores the well being of everyone except the very rich. Occassionally, the poor may be fooled into believing they've hit good times resultant from GDP growth, but if, after they've paid their bills they are more or less where they started, all you've really shown is the self-protective nature of capitalism, which is related not not intrinsically linked.

In many cases, the poverty of many countries is directly used to increase the wealth of few countries (like IKEA builders in SE Asia, for example), and consequently, hike the GDP of these rich nations, but not the poor, who have no actual product and sufficiently small incomes to mean they must work as hard or harder next year doing the same to make ends meet.

It is a poor tool to show social justice; that we agree on. There are far better ones; you cannot convert the wealth of a country to a per capita figure and expect to get something sensible from it without knowing firstly about the social welfare strengths of the country in question. Those social welfare strengths are an entirely separate issue. If they were not, there would be no poor people in the UK or the US, and yet, in fact, there are many.

If it is a truly egalitarian society, this might just work. But it seems you are not suggesting we retrospectively apply this measure once we've fed in metrics which determine the type of nation we're dealing with, but rather that GDP per capital *growth* is used to determine these things in the first place.

I would ask you to *seriously* look into the 4 variables that determine GDP (and their associated definitions) and try to explain how all those things combine to show a measure (good or otherwise) of social welfare, or well being.

If you do that, I will definitely read it, and put some thought into my response. I look forward to a reply!

cheers,
Derek

Post a Response

Re: This is absolutely right. I back such revolutionary shifts 100%. But-
Posted by emersberger on November 2, 2011, 3:11 pm, in reply to "Re: This is absolutely right. I back such revolutionary shifts 100%. But-"

: Just to reiterate Joe, saying GDP measures
: destructiveness does not put me in direct
: opposition to positive change happening
: around the world. In fact, this sort of
: argument strikes me as the same insulting
: kind that puts me as a friend of tyrants for
: rejecting western invasions, and appears to
: be a last ditch and desperate attempt to
: discredit the views of those still not with
: you rather than seriously attempting to
: understand why so few appear to agree with
: you. We are not all stupid!
:
Derek,
I'm not calling you or anyone else on this board stupid. In fact, for what little is its worth, I believe quite the opposite. I simply disagree with you and a few others about your interpretation of what GDP growth means and I cited evidence for my biew.

For example
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-scorecard-on-globalization-1980-2000-20-years-of-diminished-progress/

As shown by the CEPR study, there is a significant correlation between GDP growth and progress in undeniable indicators of well being like child mortality, literacy and life expectancy. It is by no means a perfect correlation. That is why 2 countries with identical levels of per capita GDP growth over the last 30 yerears (USA and Sweden) for example can achieve it with drastically differnet results both socially and environmentally. Hence the same observation applies to the correlation between GDp growth and destructive activity.

As for the components of GDP, as I've stated repeatedly, the dollar value of the services of doctors, nurses, health inspectors, garbage collectors, teachers are all counted in GDP. It is not credible to argue that the work they do is destroying the planet. However, GDP does also measure the $ output of people who make cigarttes, weapons and airplanes.

That is why countries like Sweden, Norway, Argenina Venezuela can all achieve as high or higher levels of GDP growth with far different social and environmental results than the USA.

If you want to measure destruction, I recommend measuring it directly using metrics that are far less ambiguous, like Co2 emissions.






Post a Response

Re: This is absolutely right. I back such revolutionary shifts 100%. But-
Posted by dereklane on November 2, 2011, 3:29 pm, in reply to "Re: This is absolutely right. I back such revolutionary shifts 100%. But-"

Thanks Joe,

"As for the components of GDP, as I've stated repeatedly, the dollar value of the services of doctors, nurses, health inspectors, garbage collectors, teachers are all counted in GDP."

The weighting in terms of calculating GDP is significantly lower for people providing *just* services vs actual physical production. Again, look at the sum which defines GDP for evidence of this. Only consumer spending and govt spending relate to potential services, only truly govt spending if you get down to the nitty gritty of it.

I strongly suspect that the lion's share of weighting in GDP calculations are exports-imports + business investment. Following that, govt spending on military and elite interests (not social services), following that, consumer spending, following that services. At least, that seems to be the weighting here in the UK. To suggest then that GDP measures services without qualifying *how much* of GDP measures services is to fiddle the stats, in my opinion.

"If you want to measure destruction, I recommend measuring it directly using metrics that are far less ambiguous, like Co2 emissions."

I agree. But CO2 emissions metrics are flawed too, because they often appear to measure only internally. Tesco's bond slaves in SE Asia and their CO2 emissions that stay in SE Asia as a result of their work is not measured in the UK, but all the benefits of that work reach here, for one example.

In that respect, GDP does a better job as an indicator of that destruction, since in the current economic global market, high GDP *means* huge production, and isn't so disguised by foreign labour as CO2 emissions can be.

cheers,


Post a Response


«Back to thread
Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:13 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker