tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480207999294007243.post3754702127053844577..comments2024-03-28T04:18:16.323-04:00Comments on The Liberal Pulpit: The Myth of Scarcity, Part 5Rev. Meredith Garmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09600609816550758194noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480207999294007243.post-23600680360172522702014-03-26T13:45:00.654-04:002014-03-26T13:45:00.654-04:00Thanks, Tim. So what I'm saying, following Par...Thanks, Tim. So what I'm saying, following Parker Palmer, is that "we create scarcity by fearfully accepting it as law." Which says both that (1) yes, scarcity is real, and (2) Its reality is a product of our fearful belief in it. It's self-fulfillingly real. I went on to mention for instance food supply -- of which there is enough to feed everyone if it were better distributed.<br /><br /><br />Whether to count "sharing" as sufficient would surely depend (wouldn't it?) on how broadly we define sharing. In some sense, all of economic activity could be called various forms of sharing, couldn't it? What is "economic growth" except more stuff changing hands (sharing).<br /><br /><br />What Palmer calls attention to, in various ways in much of his work, is the parallels between the economic and the spiritual. The economic problem of stuff being hoarded (inefficient distribution) has its roots in the same spiritual problems that also lead to, for instance, jealousy that chases away our beloved, or competing for success and thereby never having security, or getting into power struggles.<br /><br /><br />Palmer also, elsewhere, analyses "depression" in the economic sense and in psychological sense as paralleling each other -- they both have to do with getting out of touch with reality and needing to be de-pressed back down to ground on which it is safe to stand.<br /><br /><br />Since I am, now, rather taking up the topic of economic growth, what say you about the two concerns (raised in my previous reply to you) on that topic?Meredith Garmonhttp://www.liberalpulpit.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480207999294007243.post-17067678563382211602014-03-21T21:16:54.120-04:002014-03-21T21:16:54.120-04:00I guess that leads to the natural question: how sh...I guess that leads to the natural question: how should repudiating the "myth of scarcity" affect any action by individuals or by governments? What does this actually mean in how we act in this world? I would be interested in what you would say in response to these questions. <br /><br /><br />My interpretation of your words is based on the notion that part of the reason why economic growth is a good thing, all else equal, is that there is in fact a great deal of scarcity in the world, for many individuals, groups, and nations.<br /><br /><br />So, I don't think scarcity is a myth. It's a reality.<br /><br /><br />Now, how to deal with scarcity -- that is an issue. Sharing helps, but in my opinion, is insufficient -- which is why scarcity is not a myth. We also need economic growth.Tim Bartiknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480207999294007243.post-15239365218318659012014-03-21T16:32:09.952-04:002014-03-21T16:32:09.952-04:00Hi, TIm,
Thanks so much for your thoughts! It was...Hi, TIm,<br /><br />Thanks so much for your thoughts! It wasn't my intent to avoid being understood. It just wasn't my intent to offer a "discussion of economics." (I suppose maybe I do speak of a kind of oikonomika -- with both "household" and "management" in scare quotes -- but not what is generally meant by "economics" today.) <br /><br />You suggest four things that I might mean. In fact, in this series, I do not mean any of them. The first three of the four, you agree with. I agree with them, too -- but they aren't what I was saying in this series. (I do make those points from time to time, but wasn't making them here.) Fourth is the possibility that what I might mean is that economic growth is not important. That's also not what I mean to say in this "Myth of Scarcity" series. I advance no claim for or against the importance of economic growth; what I say does not depend on economic growth being important or on it being unimportant. That's just not my topic here.<br /><br />Were I to take up the topic of economic growth, my first concern would be what I see as the slippage between #3 and #4. That is, even when we get agreement about #3 (that "well-being needs to be defined more broadly than dollars and cents"), once the conversation turns to #4 (the importance of economic growth), it seems that the concessions of #3 too often go out the window, and all we're talking about is GNP and GDP. Indeed, given the current state of public discourse, if one says "economic growth," then GNP and GDP just ARE what is meant -- and Amartya Sen's or Martha Nussbaum's capabilities (or "Gross National Happiness" measures: http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/) are NOT what is meant.<br /><br />My second concern would be the possibility that there is no such thing as reconciling economic growth with environmental sustainability. It's easy to say "we have to reconcile" them -- but maybe it isn't possible to reconcile them. I don't know that it isn't -- but that would be my concern.Meredith Garmonhttp://www.liberalpulpit.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480207999294007243.post-8179878917592820122014-03-21T13:21:31.801-04:002014-03-21T13:21:31.801-04:00Rev. Garmon: I appreciate your discussion of econo...Rev. Garmon: I appreciate your discussion of economics, as a lifelong UU and a career-long economist.<br /><br />However, I find your discussion in this five-part series, while thought-provoking, to be a bit too general for me to feel that I fully understand your meaning. Perhaps that was your intent. <br /><br />If what you mean is that we sometimes are too obsessed with wealth and work and consumerism, who can quarrel with that? At least one famous economist, John Maynard Keynes, would have strongly agreed with you: http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf .<br /><br />If what you mean is that there are potentially gains from cooperative endeavors, then again this is true. For example, there are broad social and economic gains for all through reducing skills inequality through investments in early childhood education: http://www.investinginkids.info/your-taxes-preschool/<br /><br />If what you mean is that economic well-being needs to be defined more broadly than just dollars and cents, and needs to look at how the broad range of all people are benefitted in what capabilities they have, this again is true, and in fact this "capabilities" approach increasingly has been used to think about development policies around the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach<br /><br />But if what you mean is that continued economic growth is not important, then I must disagree. For most of human history, until the Industrial Revolution, almost all the human population existed at the margins of survival, at a subsistence level. Economic growth since 1800 has brought great benefits to many people. In recent years, a big worldwide story is the increase in living standards for many people in China and India, which has helped improve many people's quality of life. <br /><br />Now, a huge problem is the uneven sharing of the benefits of growth, so that inequality both within and across countries is still much too great. But that doesn't mean that economic growth doesn't have great benefits. And we have to reconcile economic growth with environmental sustainability. But that also does not mean that economic growth does not have broad social benefits. <br /><br />We need broadly shared economic growth, both for many people around the world, and for many people in this country. In addition to helping many people more fully achieve their capabilities, economic growth seems in practice to be a necessary condition for a liberal, tolerant society: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/07/the-moral-consequences-of-economic-growth.htmlTim Bartiknoreply@blogger.com