Usual stuff: let\’s not have growth, eh? Be all cuddly and nice to fluffy kittens instead.
And it is the usual stuff: they have no clue at all on what they\’re talking about As I commented there:.
\”Our main indicator of progress, GDP, is a measure of economic activity—of money changing hands.\”
No, it isn\’t. It\’s the value of all final goods and services produced at market prices.
For example, $1.5 trillion changes hands every day in the London foreign exchange market. This does not count as part of GDP: obviously not, for UK GDP is only £1.5 trillion for the whole year.
What is part of GDP is the commissions that the brokers charge for the money changing hands. A very much smaller number of course.
GDP simply is not a measure of money changing hands.
\”Perhaps the biggest fear that most people have when they hear \”no growth\” is \”no jobs\”, but the evidence for a relationship between economic growth and job creation is much weaker than you would expect and varies remarkably between countries. In the US, for example, a 3% increase in GDP tends to be accompanied by a 1% fall in unemployment. In France, the same amount of GDP growth reduces unemployment by only half a percent. In Japan, there is no relationship whatsoever. Clearly it is possible to break the connection between economic growth and unemployment; we just need the right economic policies.\”
That\’s a remarkably stupid comment. Without economic growth there would be ever rising unemployment. For labour productivity increases as technology advances. Average rate is 1 to 2% a year. Thus, for a static output we require 1-2% less labour each and every year. If you hold output static then there will be increasing unemployment.
Unless you\’re suggesting that no one ever be allowed to invent anything again?
You\’ve not even understood what steady state means. It doesn\’t mean static output. It means static *inputs*. So we don\’t go off and rape Gaia for ever more stuff to process: and thus the only economic growth we have is that 1-2% that comes from technological advance allowing us to create more value from our static inputs.
It\’s not a good start to a \”new economics\” if you don\’t understand the very basics of that new economics you\’re intending to write about.
Why do people do this? Even I, as the pig running capitalst neoliberal dog that I am, could write a better guide to green economics than this tosh.