Skip to main content

Two Brain-Dead Dogmas

Read the whole article by Herman Daly: Growth and Free Trade: Brain-Dead Dogmas Still Kicking Hard

The two dogmas reprinted below:

(1) Growth in all micro-economic units (firms and households) is subject to the “when to stop rule” of optimization, namely stop when rising marginal cost equals declining marginal benefit. Why does this not also apply to growth of the matter-energy throughput that sustains the macro-economy, the aggregate of all firms and households? And since real GDP is the best statistical index we have of aggregate throughput, why does it not roughly hold for growth in GDP? It must be because economists see the economy as the whole system, growing into the void — not as a subsystem of the finite and non-growing ecosphere from which the economy draws resources (depletion) and to which it returns wastes (pollution). When the economy grows in terms of throughput, or real GDP, it gets bigger relative to the ecosystem and displaces ever more vital ecosystem functions. Why do economists assume that it can never be too big, that such aggregate growth can never at the margin result in more illth than wealth? Perhaps illth is invisible because it has no market price. Yet, as a joint product of wealth, illth is everywhere: nuclear wastes, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, gyres of plastic trash in the oceans, the ozone hole, biodiversity loss, climate change from excess carbon in the atmosphere, depleted mines, eroded topsoil, dry wells, exhausting and dangerous labor, exploding debt, etc. Economists claim that the solution to poverty is more growth — without ever asking if growth still makes us richer, as it did back when the world was empty, or if it has begun to make us poorer in a world that is now too full of us and our stuff. This is a threatening question, because if growth has become uneconomic then the solution to poverty becomes sharing now, not growth in the future. Sharing is now called “class warfare.”

(2) Countries whose growth has pushed their ecological footprint beyond their geographic boundaries into the ecosystems of other countries are urged by mainline economists to continue to do so under the flag of free trade and specialization according to comparative advantage. Let the rest of the world export resources to us, and we will pay with exports of capital, patented technology, copyrighted entertainment, and financial services. Comparative advantage guarantees that we will all be better off (and grow more) if everyone specializes in producing and exporting only what they are relatively better at, and importing everything else. The logic of comparative advantage is impeccable, given its premises. However, one of its premises is that capital, while mobile within nations, does not flow between nations. But in today’s world capital is even more mobile between countries than goods, so it is absolute, not comparative advantage that really governs specialization and trade. Absolute advantage still yields gains from specialization and trade, but they need not be mutual as under comparative advantage — i.e., one country can lose while the other gains. “Free trade” really means “deregulated international commerce” — similar to deregulated finance in justification and effect. Furthermore, specialization, if carried too far, means that trade becomes a necessity. If a country specializes in producing only a few things then it must trade for everything else. Trade is no longer voluntary. If trade is not voluntary then there is no reason to expect it to be mutually beneficial, and another premise of free trade falls. If economists want to keep the world safe for free trade and comparative advantage they must limit capital mobility internationally; if they want to keep international capital mobility they must back away from comparative advantage and free trade. Which do they do? Neither. They seem to believe that if free trade in goods is beneficial, then by extension free trade in capital (and other factors) must be even more beneficial. And if voluntary trade is mutually beneficial, then what is the harm in making it obligatory? How does one argue with people who use the conclusion of an argument to deny the argument’s premises? Their illogic is invincible!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Paddehoa og plassen min

Kjære plassen min, kvalt du vart, lik ei paddehoe alle paddehannane kasta seg over i dammen om våren.
Dei ville alle bu ved dine grøne enger, då dei tykte det her var so vent og fredeleg. Men dei vørde deg ikkje, og no er du kvalt til daude.
Herr Fossemøllens augnestein stend utan låven sin, her gjeng ikkje lenger dyr og beitar i dine grøne enger. Berre grasklipparar beitar her no.
Dei elska deg til daude, og med deg i grava di tok du den rike
grendearven din.
No stend vi ribba attende.

Hurdalsrosa på Toten

Austlandets perle
i dei djupe skogane
på hi sida av Totenåsen,
var raus då ho gav oss hurdalsrosa,
som her stend og raudner
over venleiken sin,
i veggen på våningshuset
til plassen min.

Kva skal vi med fjerne roser frå Nederland, når den venaste rosa i verda,
alt ved husveggen står? Ei våningshusrose var du, og er du, når eg syklar ikring, eg ser du prydar våningshusveggen, på mang ein staseleg storgardsbygning.

Hurdalsrosa vart like gjev
åt fattig som åt rik,
ho skil ikkje
på kven ho skjenkar
av venleiken sin.
I lag med deg,
sjølv ein husmannsplass,
rik vart.
Eit kjærleikshjarte er kvar ei rose
du oss skjenkar.
År etter år,
inga kulde eller tørke,
tek knekken på kjærleiken din,
du gamle hurdalsrosebusk,
ved gråsteinsmuren åt oldefaren min. Kan vi be om meir?

Gamlevegen over tunet på Holmstadengen

Kommentar hos Steigan:
Hvilket kulturforfall har ikke Norge gjennomgått de siste 100 år! Norge som kulturnasjon var på topp da de to engene etter Kronborgsætergrenda i utkanten av Toten strålte i all sin skjønnhet, lik to smykkestener etter elva, fulle av autonomi, allmenningenes høydepunkt, den gang gårdsbrukene var levende historiemalerier og ikke villaføde for Kjøpesenterlandet!
Så jeg får forte meg å skrive en masse grendepoesi fra denne vidunderlige tiden, før Tine Skei Grande kommer med pekefingeren og hevder at dette er falske nyheter, fordi Hans Rosling har da ettertrykkelig bevist at ingen tid er bedre enn vår, under den vidunderlige og allmektige statens overherredømme!