6 ms·

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel-winning economist, says end the GDP

37 points by joeyespo 7y ago

mytailorisrich 7y ago
> “The world is facing three existential crises: a climate crisis, an inequality crisis and a crisis in democracy,” This so-called 'crisis' in democracy is not existential if it exists at all. On the other hand, we face a population crisis that is a major cause of the climate and environmental crisis. Population growth, explosion even, is also key to understand the importance of GDP and inequality.
- mc32 7y ago
  Indeed. I don't think the press used to say "crisis in democracy" when the USSR and its satellites were ascendant and were encroaching in on many governments though the 60s and 70s. But now when more countries are practicing democracy, there are crises.
- ilaksh 7y ago
  Hasn't been true for awhile. We are dealing with a population implosion now.
  - mc32 7y ago
    In some advanced economies yes, yet, world pop keeps climbing. At some point it will level off and decline, but it's not there yet.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    Is the world's population decreasing or even just stable? Not at all. It's still seriously growing. There is no population 'implosion' on the horizon...
    - rimliu 7y ago
      Population growth rate peaked in 1960ies and is decline now.
    - MiroF 7y ago
      the second derivative is negative
    - campfireveteran 7y ago
      No, you're completely delusional or misinformed. The inflection point of population occurred around 1962. That's when the second derivative crossed from concave up (positive) to concave down (negative). Whether it crashes naturally or by genocide or famine, it's absolutely going to crash because of math.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    the idea of a 'population implosion' as a crisis rather than a natural or even positive event in the face of climbing literacy, autonomy and as a result more choice and lower rates of reproduction actually reaffirms Stiglitz point. Rather than adjusting our economic system to ecological or human ends, we perceive a change in demographics (which isn't even a decline at this point and won't really be an issue for many generations) as some sort of catastrophic event just because it doesn't serve the need of a largely mindless economic system. I wish all the AI alignment people who are afraid of superintelligence would care about the market and GDP alignment problem because we can't even seem to reign that one in
  - ailideex 7y ago
    > We are dealing with a population implosion now. nope
- MiroF 7y ago
  Population is set to peak by end of century at 10 or so billion.
  - pacala 7y ago
    Source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow... > Projections for after 2050 have usually assumed that fertility rates will have declined by then and the population will be stable or will decrease. However, a study in 2014 found that fertility rates in Africa have leveled off at around 4.6 instead of continuing to decline, and that consequently world population may be as high as 12 billion by 2100. Reasons for the continuing high birth rate include better survival rates with respect to HIV, and contraception shortage.[18][19] Evolutionary biology also suggests the demographic transition may reverse itself; in addition, recent evidence suggests birth rates may be rising in the 21st century in the developed world.[20] UN projections published in 2019 estimate the world population in 2100 to be 11.2 billion
    - adventured 7y ago
      > in addition, recent evidence suggests birth rates may be rising in the 21st century in the developed world There is zero evidence that birth rates are rising organically in the developed world in the 21st century, that part is demonstrably false. It's not close to being true. Birth rates continue to decline across essentially all of the developed world and their populations continue to age at the median (Germany and Japan, two of the largest, are up to 47 at the median now). The only thing propping the figures up at all is some immigration, recent immigrants having slightly larger families. Even that is entirely failing to stem the downward trend in the US (the largest developed nation by population and one that has better demographics re expansion than most other developed nations). Drop out the false shifting of population expansion via larger recent immigrant families and the developed world is in a population plunge. > Reasons for the continuing high birth rate include better survival rates with respect to HIV HIV survival rates going up will decrease population growth over time, not increase it. People have fewer children when their expectations of a very long life and the general chance of survival in their culture is higher. Curing HIV would substantially slow population growth over the span of a century.
ilaksh 7y ago
There is one presidential candidate who is saying the same thing. Yang. Maybe he read Stiglitz's book.
Ericson2314 7y ago
Boring article, but good idea.
mark_l_watson 7y ago
“” His new book, Measuring What Counts: The Global Movement for Well-Being, cowritten with French economists Jean-Paul Fitoussi and Martine Durand, provides a blueprint for how countries can use more appropriate metrics that account for details such as sustainability and—imagine!—how people feel about their lives.”” I read the Introduction to this book on Amazon ‘Look inside’. Really makes a lot of sense, but then most people probably already believe that the GDP is a bad measurement for how a country (or the world) is doing. Anyway, the book looks interesting but I have too long of a reading backlog to put it on my reading list.

37 points by joeyespo 7y ago

> “The world is facing three existential crises: a climate crisis, an inequality crisis and a crisis in democracy,” This so-called 'crisis' in democracy is not existential if it exists at all. On the other hand, we face a population crisis that is a major cause of the climate and environmental crisis. Population growth, explosion even, is also key to understand the importance of GDP and inequality.

mc32 7y ago
Indeed. I don't think the press used to say "crisis in democracy" when the USSR and its satellites were ascendant and were encroaching in on many governments though the 60s and 70s. But now when more countries are practicing democracy, there are crises.
ilaksh 7y ago
Hasn't been true for awhile. We are dealing with a population implosion now.
- mc32 7y ago
  In some advanced economies yes, yet, world pop keeps climbing. At some point it will level off and decline, but it's not there yet.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  Is the world's population decreasing or even just stable? Not at all. It's still seriously growing. There is no population 'implosion' on the horizon...
  - rimliu 7y ago
    Population growth rate peaked in 1960ies and is decline now.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    the second derivative is negative
  - campfireveteran 7y ago
    No, you're completely delusional or misinformed. The inflection point of population occurred around 1962. That's when the second derivative crossed from concave up (positive) to concave down (negative). Whether it crashes naturally or by genocide or famine, it's absolutely going to crash because of math.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  the idea of a 'population implosion' as a crisis rather than a natural or even positive event in the face of climbing literacy, autonomy and as a result more choice and lower rates of reproduction actually reaffirms Stiglitz point. Rather than adjusting our economic system to ecological or human ends, we perceive a change in demographics (which isn't even a decline at this point and won't really be an issue for many generations) as some sort of catastrophic event just because it doesn't serve the need of a largely mindless economic system. I wish all the AI alignment people who are afraid of superintelligence would care about the market and GDP alignment problem because we can't even seem to reign that one in
- ailideex 7y ago
  > We are dealing with a population implosion now. nope
MiroF 7y ago
Population is set to peak by end of century at 10 or so billion.
- pacala 7y ago
  Source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow... > Projections for after 2050 have usually assumed that fertility rates will have declined by then and the population will be stable or will decrease. However, a study in 2014 found that fertility rates in Africa have leveled off at around 4.6 instead of continuing to decline, and that consequently world population may be as high as 12 billion by 2100. Reasons for the continuing high birth rate include better survival rates with respect to HIV, and contraception shortage.[18][19] Evolutionary biology also suggests the demographic transition may reverse itself; in addition, recent evidence suggests birth rates may be rising in the 21st century in the developed world.[20] UN projections published in 2019 estimate the world population in 2100 to be 11.2 billion
  - adventured 7y ago
    > in addition, recent evidence suggests birth rates may be rising in the 21st century in the developed world There is zero evidence that birth rates are rising organically in the developed world in the 21st century, that part is demonstrably false. It's not close to being true. Birth rates continue to decline across essentially all of the developed world and their populations continue to age at the median (Germany and Japan, two of the largest, are up to 47 at the median now). The only thing propping the figures up at all is some immigration, recent immigrants having slightly larger families. Even that is entirely failing to stem the downward trend in the US (the largest developed nation by population and one that has better demographics re expansion than most other developed nations). Drop out the false shifting of population expansion via larger recent immigrant families and the developed world is in a population plunge. > Reasons for the continuing high birth rate include better survival rates with respect to HIV HIV survival rates going up will decrease population growth over time, not increase it. People have fewer children when their expectations of a very long life and the general chance of survival in their culture is higher. Curing HIV would substantially slow population growth over the span of a century.

ilaksh 7y ago

There is one presidential candidate who is saying the same thing. Yang. Maybe he read Stiglitz's book.

Ericson2314 7y ago

Boring article, but good idea.

mark_l_watson 7y ago

“” His new book, Measuring What Counts: The Global Movement for Well-Being, cowritten with French economists Jean-Paul Fitoussi and Martine Durand, provides a blueprint for how countries can use more appropriate metrics that account for details such as sustainability and—imagine!—how people feel about their lives.”” I read the Introduction to this book on Amazon ‘Look inside’. Really makes a lot of sense, but then most people probably already believe that the GDP is a bad measurement for how a country (or the world) is doing. Anyway, the book looks interesting but I have too long of a reading backlog to put it on my reading list.