4 ms·
"You have to wonder what the economic impact would be if government policy were driven by a top ten list of quality-of-life issues. " Not all issues boil down
by zo1 12y ago
"You have to wonder what the economic impact would be if government policy were driven by a top ten list of quality-of-life issues. "
Not all issues boil down to "economic impact". Nor is it the only determining factor when deciding on such matters. You have to take into account peoples willingness, or lack thereof to do these things you speak of. Otherwise, you'll have to concede that all you're trying to do is maximize peoples' output for the purpose of benefiting the country, as if it were a farm.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> Not all issues boil down to "economic impact". Arguably, they really do, but you have to remember that economics is about the distribution of scarce things (both material goods and services) connected to experienced utility (money is just a -- rather poor in many respects, but also very convenient -- proxy for utility.)
- gress 12y agoSome kind of platonic ideal of economics may be about experienced utility, but in practice it's just more politics.
- dragonwriter 12y agoI think you are confusing the study of economics with the talking heads discussing economics in the mainstream media. But even if you were right, and "economic" was just a code word for "political", it would be even more true (though for a different reason) that all issues of government policy boil down to economic impact.
- gress 12y agoThe academic study of economics is no different. There is not a science of economics.
- Zigurd 12y agoI wholeheartedly agree that there is a lot wrong with GDP. It sure isn't directly equivalent to quality of life. BUT when the issue is morbidity and mortality among the working-age population, GDP isn't that bad a metric. And it has the advantage of appealing to greed.