As such, I think Thomas Friedman's claim that 2008 is going to be looked back on as the year that the hoomins woke up and decided to alter the course of society is overstated. I do, however, think he has a damn good point when he says that things cannot just keep growing for growth's sake. I get that the economy is in the shitter, but whenever I read that it is because there was only slight positive growth in a particular sector, my eyes to do not well up with tears. I get that more people are being born, and therefore that we should be on an up-and-to-the-right trajectory on the Chart of Life, but how much growth is enough? Can't we just kind of keep pace, and expect some stops and starts as population numbers change?
In short, what's the deal with the supposed necessity of constant and exponential increases in consumption? I am pretty damn consumption-focused, and I still think we need to chill out.
But then again, I did go pass-fail in Econ to avoid a D. So.
3 comments:
I dropped Econ for the same reason. But I kind of feel you on this. I am sort of disturbed by the idea that the only fix for our economy is for people to start shopping again. Surely there is some kind of equilibrium where people have what they need but excessive consumption isn't required to make things okay? I don't even know....
Paul Krugman is kindof sharp, albeit a little hung up in ideology.
Thomas Friedman, the guy you've linked to, is a retarded clown.
Ooh, good point Ben - corrected now. Just shows you that all Times columnists but Gail Collins are the same to me.
Post a Comment