Difference between revisions of "Draft GPUS Platform Amendment Measuring Economic Progress"

From CA Greens wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''SECTION SUBTITLE: Improving the measure of our economy'''
'''OUR POSITION: Our current principal measure of economic heath -- the gross domestic product -- is fatally flawed and must be replaced.'''
'''This plank has been merged with the previous plank, Ecological Economics. Look at last edit to see how this read before and that it was quite duplicative of the previous plank.'''
Mainstream American economic policy is premised on the notion that our country becomes richer and better to the extent that we increase our GDP.  But there are a wide variety of social and environmental ills that boost our GDP.  For example, car crashes, the dumping of toxic waste, divorce, obesity, stress and misery are all great for the GDP, because they impel the purchase of more goods and services. Meanwhile, the best things in life are free, of course, and that also means that they do not increase the GDP.
In addition, the GDP does not count so many of our nation's greatest goods and services, such as the work of mothers and volunteers.  Nor does it count such costs as environmental pollution, the decline of neighborhoods, erosion of topsoil, loss of biodiversity or other externalities.
We must set our nation on the right economic and environmental track.  That means we will need new indicators to gauge our progress.
1. End the use of the Gross Domestic Product as the principal measure of the heath of the U.S. economy. Replace it with a broader measure that takes into account our quality of life, and indicators of social, economic and environmental health, as well as the value of non-monetary goods and services.

Latest revision as of 19:44, 27 July 2010


This plank has been merged with the previous plank, Ecological Economics. Look at last edit to see how this read before and that it was quite duplicative of the previous plank.


Economic growth has been a primary goal of American policy. Corporations, politicians beholden to corporations, and economists funded by corporations advocate a theory of unlimited economic growth stemming from technological progress. Based upon established principles of the physical and biological sciences, however, there is a limit to economic growth.

American economic growth is having negative effects on the long-term ecological and economic welfare of the United States and the world. There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and ecological health (for example, biodiversity conservation, clean air and water, atmospheric stability).

We cannot rely on technological progress to solve ecological and long-term economic problems. Rather, we should endeavor to make lifestyle choices that reinforce a general equilibrium of humans with nature. This requires consciously choosing to foster environmentally sound technologies, whether they are newer or older technologies, rather than technologies conducive to conspicuous consumption and waste.

1. Economic growth, as gauged by increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is a dangerous and anachronistic American goal. The most viable and sustainable alternative is a steady-state economy. A steady-state economy has a stable or mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption, and is generally indicated by stable or mildly fluctuating GDP. The steady-state economy has become a more appropriate goal than economic growth in the United States and other large, wealthy economies. A steady-state economy precludes ever-expanding production and consumption of goods and services. However, a steady-state economy does not preclude economic development – a qualitative process not gauged by GDP growth and other measures that overlook ecological effects.

2. One way to measure the economy is to assess the value of non-monetary goods and services and measure the rate of infant mortality, life expectancy of people, educational opportunities offered by the state, family stability, environmental data, and health care for all people. Another measure is to quantify human benefit (in terms of education, health care, elder care, etc.) provided by each unit of output. Measuring the gap between the most fortunate and the least fortunate in our society, for example, tells us how well or poorly we are doing in creating an economy that does not benefit some at the expense of others.

3. For many nations with widespread poverty, increasing per capita consumption (through economic growth or through more equitable distributions of wealth) remains an appropriate goal. Ultimately, however, the global ecosystem will not be able to support further economic growth. Therefore, an equitable distribution of wealth among nations is required to maintain a global steady-state economy. A global economy with inequitable wealth distribution will be subject to continual international strife and conflict. Such strife and conflict, in turn, ensures the economic unsustainability of some nations and threatens the economic sustainability of all.