3 ms·

I don't know, I read the interview and it honestly wasn't clear what he was saying. He never mentions any particular policy that should be enacted (other than t

by bnralt 4y ago

I don't know, I read the interview and it honestly wasn't clear what he was saying. He never mentions any particular policy that should be enacted (other than tariffs against other countries that don't follow our lead), and the interviewer doesn't seem interested, opting instead to ask questions about cosmology. It's a bizarre interview. His issue seems to be mostly with overconsumption of resources. But instead of creating a sustainable economy that can achieve growth through other areas (increased efficiency, increased use of renewable resources), he instead comes out against any growth and advocates a steady-state economy. But again, no specifics, just vague generalities and digressions into cosmology (arguing that economics should take into account religious questions). I was honestly shocked by the low quality of the interview. If this was presented as an exchange between teenagers on Reddit, I would have believed it.

throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
This kind of topic is where podcasts shine, especially if the host is literate on the topic being discussed. Or even the raw transcript of this interview versus the content that ended up being published. I would be curious how population and demographic changes play into his model of a steady state economy.
strongpigeon 4y ago
I do share your gripes with the interviewer. However, I think that Daly’s questions regarding the ultimate end (meaning purpose) of economic growth are worth pondering. Basically what are we trying to achieve through economic growth? Growth for the purpose of growth is kind of meaningless. But if growth is for improving welfare, why isn’t that the focus, rather than GDP numbers? (And if it isn’t for welfare, what is it for?) That being said, the interviewer then asking “what’s the meaning of life” was really pointless and unnecessarily edgy. I also agree that not trying to come up with any policy proposal is kind of intellectually lazy and has some strong “I’m just the idea guy” vibes.
- bnralt 4y ago
  I definitely agree that it's worth thinking about things like scarcity, our ultimate goals, what kind of societies we're creating, etc., and that an over focus on GDP growth or personal wealth is a problem. I've often talked about how much of our GDP is wasted on things that have a net negative value for society (but a positive value for GDP). The issues I have with Daly's approach, though, is in placing the blame on growth and acting as if a steady-state economy is the answer. Even if we froze the economy today, we'd still be emitting too much CO2 and we'd still be wasting tons of time and resources on things that have a net negative value on society. Being simply opposed to growth doesn't solve the real issues. It just unnecessarily alienates people who would otherwise be willing to address the actual problems, and also places you in opposition to good forms of growth that don't cause these problems (and may help solve them). And while I think it's important to think about the big questions, I don't think it should the focus of economists. The role of economists isn't to decide what our values and goals are, it's to give us an insight into how we can best pursue them after we decide those values and goals ourselves.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
kareemsabri 4y ago
He's saying that growth (GDP) is an absolute measure that is only a sum without any costs. As one economist I can't recall put it "the hero of GDP is a cancer patient going through a costly divorce". GDP measures economic activity, with no consideration of the benefit obtained from that activity. The interview was pretty bad, I agree. It's not clear what a "steady state economy" would look like, or what measures are held steady.
- dorgo 4y ago
  Is cancer treatment not a benefit? And I guess some people regard a divorce (even a costly one) as a benefit, or they wouldn't do it. Economic activity is an indication for benefit for people. I see no need to make a distinction between economic activity and a benefit obtained from that activity.
  - kareemsabri 4y ago
    This is a reductive definition of benefit. A rise in cancer treatments is probably not a good thing, all else equal.
arisAlexis 4y ago
It's a red flag when there are adjectives such as pioneering in the title

by bnralt 4y ago

throw_nbvc1234 4y ago

This kind of topic is where podcasts shine, especially if the host is literate on the topic being discussed. Or even the raw transcript of this interview versus the content that ended up being published. I would be curious how population and demographic changes play into his model of a steady state economy.

strongpigeon 4y ago

I do share your gripes with the interviewer. However, I think that Daly’s questions regarding the ultimate end (meaning purpose) of economic growth are worth pondering. Basically what are we trying to achieve through economic growth? Growth for the purpose of growth is kind of meaningless. But if growth is for improving welfare, why isn’t that the focus, rather than GDP numbers? (And if it isn’t for welfare, what is it for?) That being said, the interviewer then asking “what’s the meaning of life” was really pointless and unnecessarily edgy. I also agree that not trying to come up with any policy proposal is kind of intellectually lazy and has some strong “I’m just the idea guy” vibes.

bnralt 4y ago
I definitely agree that it's worth thinking about things like scarcity, our ultimate goals, what kind of societies we're creating, etc., and that an over focus on GDP growth or personal wealth is a problem. I've often talked about how much of our GDP is wasted on things that have a net negative value for society (but a positive value for GDP). The issues I have with Daly's approach, though, is in placing the blame on growth and acting as if a steady-state economy is the answer. Even if we froze the economy today, we'd still be emitting too much CO2 and we'd still be wasting tons of time and resources on things that have a net negative value on society. Being simply opposed to growth doesn't solve the real issues. It just unnecessarily alienates people who would otherwise be willing to address the actual problems, and also places you in opposition to good forms of growth that don't cause these problems (and may help solve them). And while I think it's important to think about the big questions, I don't think it should the focus of economists. The role of economists isn't to decide what our values and goals are, it's to give us an insight into how we can best pursue them after we decide those values and goals ourselves.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

kareemsabri 4y ago

He's saying that growth (GDP) is an absolute measure that is only a sum without any costs. As one economist I can't recall put it "the hero of GDP is a cancer patient going through a costly divorce". GDP measures economic activity, with no consideration of the benefit obtained from that activity. The interview was pretty bad, I agree. It's not clear what a "steady state economy" would look like, or what measures are held steady.

dorgo 4y ago
Is cancer treatment not a benefit? And I guess some people regard a divorce (even a costly one) as a benefit, or they wouldn't do it. Economic activity is an indication for benefit for people. I see no need to make a distinction between economic activity and a benefit obtained from that activity.
- kareemsabri 4y ago
  This is a reductive definition of benefit. A rise in cancer treatments is probably not a good thing, all else equal.

arisAlexis 4y ago

It's a red flag when there are adjectives such as pioneering in the title