The Nobel Prize Committee has posted this on Twitter (X):
So here are my questions:
- Has technological growth run its course, then, as growth clearly has?
- How could growth do anything but run out on a finite planet?
- Doesn't growth depend on the equitable distribution of the gains from growth?
- Has there been an equitable sharing of gains from growth of late?
- If not, what are the consequences?
- How are those consequences addressed?
- What happens if growth:
- is intended to destroy jobs?
- does actually destroy jobs?
- denies resources such as water and power to those who will be left in absolute need as a result?
- threatens the future viability of life on much of Earth, at the very least?
Answering those questions could be worth a Nobel prize.
Suggesting “Today economists widely agree that long-term economic growth is powered through technological progress” looks horribly like another dud Nobel prize to me.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
That reminds me of Exodus Ch 5, when the Egyptians, under Pharaoh’s direction, upped the brick production quota required from their Israeli slave force, but stopped supplying them with straw, meaning that much of their working day was spent trying to find straw rather than making bricks.
Pyramid growth stalled.
Pharaoh, like modern economists wasn’t open to reason.
It’s worth remembering that he, according to the story, soon came to a watery end, as the Israeli work force started a 40yr long hike around the Sinai desert.
The field of economics has always been an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
We need to move from a system of competition & exchange logic to one of cooperation & mutual aid.
technology, including AI, is already destroying jobs. There are many people, especially amongst the young, who are highly qualified, who want to work in a meaningful job, but who cannot find appropriate employment – such a sad waste of talent. Do you believe that any of these science laureates could (or would) answer your questions?
I doubt it….
I could….
“especially amongst the young, who are highly qualified, who want to work in a meaningful job”
In truth, if they were replaced by current AI then the jobs were not that meaningful, often, entry-level professional jobs doing what their more experienced colleagues think of as donkey work and don’t want to. However, if all their entry-level professional jobs are replaced by AI, then where will they get future experienced staff from? They probably need to rethink the nature of their graduate entry jobs for their own benefit, if nothing else.
The way growth is measured- usually GDP- is arguably the worst possible way to do it since it only considers economic output or the income produced from that output. That is tradition, not common sense.
For many years, various people, economists and other organisations have suggested using other factors such as living standards, income distribution and quality of life. These may be more difficult to quantify than GDP alone, but they are surely more indicative of our growth as a nation of contented citizens.
What’s it all about anyway? No use having increased output, if it isn’t fairly shared out. In that case, more growth might mean more misery for most and happiness for a fortunate minority.
I’m fairly sure this subject has been well covered here over the years with due scepticism towards growth as increase in GDP only.
Look at the glossary on GDP.
Thanks
all changed withthe industrial revolution. It is now the IT revolution, You haveto fit .simple Your skills have to fit