Today's Washington Post: "Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke endorsed government efforts to stimulate the economy yesterday, as congressional leaders and the Bush administration moved closer to agreement on a plan."
What is the difference between an economic stimulus package and the daily economic stimulus of subsidies, protectionist tariffs, bailouts, and billions more in corporate welfare? If economic stimulus really worked, it probably should have already. Maybe there were just too many promises that there would always be a thriving spending class to buy comforting but useless cheap plastic crap.
"A continually growing economy is seen as essential by virtually all economists and politicians, although it should be abundantly clear by now that unlimited expansion in a finite environment can only lead to disaster.
Belief in the necessity of continuing growth is a blatant illustration of the fallacy of linear thinking: the erroneous belief that if something is good for an individual or a group, then more of the same must necessarily be better...The whole is identified with the sum of its parts. The fact that it can be either more or less than this sum, depending on the positive or negative interference among the parts, is ignored. The consequences of this reductionist fallacy are now becoming painfully visible, as economic forces collide with each other with increasing frequency, tear the social fabric, destroy the natural environment, and generate international political tensions."
(Charlene Spretnak and Fritjof Capra, Green Politics: The Global Promise)
1 comment:
Green economics is a wonderful thing, but it often tends to focus on the long-term...years instead of months. When it comes to avoiding a recession, I believe government should enact policies that can be implemented quickly and are short-term. That is why tax breaks to low and middle income households is probably a reasonable proposal.
But, in order to achieve our long-term goals of sustainability and prosperity, Greens should not be trying to convince people to move from their communities into self-contained eco-villages. That ain't happening any time soon.
Instead, Greens should be advocating for a government that invests heavily in public goods (education, health care, environmental protection, etc.), as well as promotes personal responsibility and saving (conservation). Our current fiscal and monetary policies promote high levels of consumption, resulting in a lot of debt for average households.
If, on the other hand, government and the private sector provided incentives for households to save money and invest wisely, I believe communities would see higher levels of economic growth AND households would be better suited to weather the occassional economic storm.
I think Green economics should really focus on the transition from our current short-term, 'big-growth' policies, to long-term, 'sustainable prosperity' policies.
Post a Comment