Growth Isn’t Good Enough
President Obama’s economic pragmatism is said to be a commitment to “whatever works.” This is in one way a refreshing change from the approach of his predecessor, who always seemed sure that he already knew what worked (for problems at home, lower taxes for the rich; for problems abroad, invasion).
No one would deny that a president ought to be interested in empirical evidence and ready to adjust to it. But economic pragmatism, like the phrase “whatever works,” is vacuous until we have some sense what it means for an economy to work. Was the economy working at the height of the bubble? Can any economy be said to work when its success at one moment entails its failure the next? The record profits for investment firms three years ago were a reward for recklessness. Now the wreck. The bust followed the boom not as sorrow follows happiness — unpredictably, unevenly — but as a hangover follows a bender. Enjoy the one and you must suffer the other.
This is not the only kind of economy that is possible. One can imagine an economy whose growth is valued and controlled according to some set of goods besides growth itself. For not all growth is good. Both plants and cancer grow. The good growth of the one is better than the bad growth of the other not because it is faster but because it serves life. If economic growth is to serve the life of the country, then it must be subordinate to economic goods that are always good, principally justice. It is a measure of our confusion, and a source of our desperation, that the word “justice” now seems out of place in discussions about economic policy. Justice means that people get what they deserve, where what they deserve is understood to mean something other than whatever they happen to get. In a just economy, people who work diligently do not live in constant fear of having their jobs outsourced, and they are adequately compensated for their labors.
There are other economic goods that are even harder than justice to count, and impossible to enter on a corporate balance sheet. Among these is the satisfaction proper to good work, to a worthwhile job well done (where “worthwhile” is understood to mean something more than whatever someone will pay you for). This is what the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre means when he writes about the “internal goods” of an activity. There is also the satisfaction of social usefulness, of providing others in one’s community with what they need, as opposed to what they can be convinced by an advertiser to buy. Fewer and fewer people in the United States have jobs that provide them with these kinds of satisfaction. Many “jobs of the twenty-first century” are no better in this regard than the jobs that are now being lost in shopping malls or car dealerships.
The word “work” always suggested difficulty, but now it usually suggests tedium as well. Unless we are lucky enough to find ourselves in the “creative class” or in one of those small pockets of the American economy where necessary things are still made — or unless we are doctors, nurses, or teachers — we usually do what we do because of how well it pays, or because no one will pay us to do anything else. Social satisfaction is for the weekend, justice for the afterlife.
Matthew,
For a person who is usually on point you appear to be rambling here. By its very nature the subject does demand provisos. We must seek social justice but we cannot take away private property. Any job can be made holy but we should work to place people in their suitable positions. Etc. etc.
And then there is the inevitable….I can buy a bottle of wine which you cannot, I make more than you, one of these days I will have to have you out to the Hamptons….
And then there is the mustard seed and the fact that Jesus even promised (mostly illiterates at the time) a life more abundantly.
How does one build what you are suggesting? Conservatives and liberals sought a better Gemany in the 1920′s and they hailed Adolf Hitler. America was to be the new religious saviour and we got W. Bush.
So it might be unfair to call this president vacuous. Some very bright and reputable minds are on a learning curve in this near depression. Obama is dirtying his hands while he gets his feet wet. He is not at all saying let them eat cake.
Too early to tell but he is giving it all he has.
“One can imagine an economy whose growth is valued and controlled according to some set of goods besides growth itself.”
Hi, Matthew, very interesting reflection, and I share your desire to see a more just and rewarding economy.
As you probably anticipated, the word “control” is a red flag. By “control” do you mean the sorts of constraints on economic activity imposed by, for example, contract law and government regulation of financial markets?
” Some very bright and reputable minds are on a learning curve in this near depression. Obama is dirtying his hands while he gets his feet wet. ”
I agree with this. The brightest person who ever lived (at least, who wasn’t also the Son of God :-)) may not be smart enough to reverse the course of a global economy. Sometimes the storm tosses the ship, and there is very little the captain can do.
I’m sorry, but it is the thought that this kind of thinking might actually be going on with our current policy makers that scares the bejeezes out of me.
Is growth good.? Growth is growth. Generally, in an economic sense, growth is better than no growth, but asking whether growth is good is like asking whether heat is good. Might be if you suffering from hypothermia, might not if you are in a house fire.
All these collateral issue of justice – who decides?
You say as to labor – “worthwhile” is understood to mean something more than whatever someone will pay you for. What other measure is there? Is a plumber’s work more worthwhile than a plastic surgeon’s? Were it up to me, all the money being paid to ballerinas and most of what goes to college professor’s ought to go to plumbers. The owner of a Roto-Rooter franchise does a whole lot more good for society than Ward Churchill ever did.
The problem with pondering these imponderables is that you might just get the bright idea that you can “fix” them. You can’t.
“I’m sorry, but it is the thought that this kind of thinking might actually be going on with our current policy makers that scares the bejeezes out of me.”
In that case, I’d say you have nothing to worry about, Mr. Hannaway.
“Is growth good.? Growth is growth. Generally, in an economic sense, growth is better than no growth, but asking whether growth is good is like asking whether heat is good. Might be if you suffering from hypothermia, might not if you are in a house fire.”
Yes, exactly. You make my point well — though I thought I made it pretty well myself.
“You say as to labor – ‘worthwhile’ is understood to mean something more than whatever someone will pay you for. What other measure is there? Is a plumber’s work more worthwhile than a plastic surgeon’s? Were it up to me, all the money being paid to ballerinas and most of what goes to college professor’s ought to go to plumbers. The owner of a Roto-Rooter franchise does a whole lot more good for society than Ward Churchill ever did.”
If you believe your plumber deserves more than he gets, you’re free to pay him more, no? And what does Ward Churchill have to do with any of this?
“The problem with pondering these imponderables is that you might just get the bright idea that you can ‘fix’ them. You can’t.”
Good to get that learned.
Hi, Matthew,
I suppose one practical way that the Obama Administration could build the kind of economy you’re envisioning would be to invest in education.
Peggy Noonan’s piece in the WSJ today ties together growth, the moral purpose of business, and Wall Street:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123931350977306375.html