Chronicles of Asu: Let's use a magnifying glass

Hughes, Moritz, Miller, Seidita 

When we look through the magnifying glass of our country,
we see smaller parts moving that could be outrageously improved

Any economist will tell you that economic growth is a young concept in terms of its place and existence in societies across the globe. Furthermore, they’ll tell you that an “invention” of economic growth was spurred by the Industrial Revolution, during which changes in industry were made for the sake of efficiency. At the time, the solution to efficiency, the idea that bred so many new technologies, concepts and processes, is the idea of making things smaller. Take a look at Taylor’s assembly line (the breaking down of a process into smaller steps); take a look at cell phone progression from clunky bricks of with antennas to sleek, slim iPhones, and take a look at nanotechnologies and microtechnologies. Smaller was the solution then, smaller is the solution now. Making big things smaller. To increase efficiency- to create faster economic growth (the American goal at the time)- people simply made things smaller. In his article “Deep Economy,” Bill McKibben cites President Roosevelt’s remarks during the Great Depression: “Our task now is not discovery or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand . . . of adapting economic organizations to the service of the people." Both McKibben and Roosevelt have the same idea, and that last part of the quote is essential, so I’ll repeat it again and make my point: “adapting economic organizations to service the people.” It is time to readapt the entities that control the growth of the economy to service the people. I say readapt because the previous American goal of making economic growth bigger is not (or rather, should not be) the current goal of America society to improve its standings. The goal should be to enhance the quality of results that economic growth (of any size) yields. Parts of this new America goal include improvements to the environment, the creation of jobs, and improved quality of life. These conditions can all be tackled by following the age-old principle of making things smaller. Furthermore, if efficiency is “the best way to obtain success,” we need to change the way we look at effective ways to obtain these results, as the desired results is no longer the finding the best way to get bigger. . Luckily for Americans, these means do not have to change completely; the goals have changed but the means by which to obtain them are the same in a sense. The optimal societal conditions will be yielded from the simplification and reduction of large entities into smaller entities. Efficiency should now be defined as finding the best way to accomplish these new optimum societal conditions for the current America.

Our country has a one-track minded approach to economic growth. We focus on increasing efficiency, and not the consequences. In terms of the environment, we completely neglect and disregard sustainability. Daly describes the economy as “a subsystem of the finite biosphere that supports it.” The problem exists in that resources that we use to fuel our so called growth are finite. Thus, “The economic status quo cannot be maintained long into the future. If radical changes are not made, we face loss of well-being and possible ecological catastrophe.” (Daly, Economics in a Full World) If this “ecological catastrophe” were to occur, our standards of living would be forced to be dramatically lowered. Simply, “an ever growing economy, is biophysically impossible.” (Daly, Economics in a Full World) The solution is to not rush to optimize all of our resources as quickly as possible, but to “[determine] the environment’s capacity for supplying each raw resource and…  [absorb] the end waste products.” (Daly, Economics in a Full World) This is how Daly defines sustainability. A powerful image that exemplifies this system is presented by Daly: “Strong sustainability recognizes that more fishing boats are useless if there are too few fish in the ocean and insists that catches must be limited to ensure maintenance of adequate fish populations for tomorrow’s fishers.” So, how can we got a move on respecting the limited resources and ensuring a sustainable economy? The plan is to stay small and limit resource consumption to promote a healthy society. The cap-and-trade system is doing so, already. The Environmental Protection Agency is one institution in our society that is trying to reign in economic growth for the well-being of our society. Daly offers a solution: “[One could] tax the throughput flow, preferably at the point  where resources are taken from the biosphere.” As well, pollution is another important aspect of how uncontrolled economic growth and resource depletion can negatively impact the society. Lawrence summers states that our country “cannot and will not accept any ‘speed limit’ on American economic growth.” But, this being said, the fact of the matter is that “we do not have the energy needed to keep the magic going” and in the same breathe, “we [can’t] deal with the pollution it creates.” (McKibben, Deep Economy) “Fossil fuel is [essentially] a slave at our beck and call” and with every inch our economy grows, we get “closer [and closer] to the bottom of the bucket.” (McKibben, Deep Economy) Thus, according to McKibben, we must “[change] our habits and… [change] to new energy sources.]” We must shift away from a “growth-centered, efficiency-obsessed economy” to a smaller- scaled, sustainable economic system. McKibben states, “Growth is no longer making us happy” and it sure isn’t being helpful to the environment. We, as a society, must change our ways before, “scarcity wreaks havoc on our economies.” (McKibben, Deep Economy)  

For years we have grown on a pace that “is likely to surpass the wildest estimates” (Deep Economy), a quote shared with President Roosevelt back in 1943 by the National Resources Planning board. And today, the growth continues into an area not seen ever, by anyone. The area of growth that we have reached is too big to succeed, too big to complete our country’s goals and too big to operate. Where we have seen power in unstoppable growth, for a while, we failed to see the wholesome effects of smaller, more compact approaches. But today, we move in that direction, with confidence. The achievement of compact approaches to our countries operation centers around “bringing everything back” to ourselves- a reassessment, if you will, to observe the incredible improvements we are able to make, in effect immediately.

In our country, everything is just massive and we have a huge emphasis on ‘efficiency’ where we believe the secret to this is grow bigger, faster. What would our country look like if we followed the true meaning of efficiency? Well, first off, everything in our country would run together, through each other and with each other. Each of our systems would be compatible with one another. When we work with one another, as a team, a level of chemistry is created and this gives a support system for the communities that we live in. In Manifesto for a Post-Growth Economy, we read, “Psychologists have pointed out, for example, that while economic output per person in the US rose sharply in recent decades, there has been no increase in life satisfaction. Meanwhile, levels of distrust and depression have increased substantially.” (Manifesto) Well that seems a little bit off, if you ask me! Progression that breeds negativity is not efficient. However, progression that breeds positive reactions- that is good. Here’s how we move to a compact progression that brings about positivity: cut back on international interaction, bring our focus to our homeland and encourage local growth. This action can be known as “deglobalization”. With a focus on local growth on the inside and pull the attention that we have on the outside that spreads us too thin, we improve our “team initiative” and grow a community that bounces energy within ourselves. “The surest, and also the most cost-effective, way to that end is direct government spending, investments and incentives targeted at creating jobs in areas where is high social benefit, such as:

• …
• environmental and community restoration
• local banking
• and public works and childhood education”

(Manifesto)

Where we feel like we get power from spreading our influences internationally, it turns out we get power and energy from solving these patches on the inside first. This is as if to say that we have made progress very fast and have missed important, smaller parts that give the foundation for the success of a country of our magnitude. Of course we have the ability to go back and fill in these patches. It is a holistic improvement that we are seeking and moving toward, with emphasis on efficiency the right way. Bringing together a community that bounces energy off each other coupled with local business and local money-making, local advertising getting across messages of education and benefits of a wholesome community, this is where we can experience true power, if that is what the U.S. so desires. Power in growth and power in locality, the balance brings true efficiency. It is a movement we have already put in motion- let’s make sure we get it right this time around. I believe we are. 

The quote “ Bigger is not alway better” resonates with the article Manifesto for a Post-Growth Economy. Throughout the entire article, James Gustave Speth talks about the path that America should head towards. He had a similar perspective on economic growth as Robert Reich. Invest in our own country, “We’ve had tons of growth in recent decades”,  but there has also been repercussions as well. Here we are: "wages have stagnated, employment rates have declined and life satisfaction flatlined." (Manifesto) This is all due to our societies urge to keep improving in bigger and better ways. But if we invest in the issues that matter, many things would improve. Of these improvements a big one would be our nation's standard of living. However with every action, there is a reaction. The manner in which taxation is handled would drastically change. There would be booms in education, the number of good jobs available to poor income families would move these families away from this notion- they might be able to move themselves into a higher social class, finally.

To make the various improvements McKibben, Speth and Worster all emphasized on, they proposed similar courses of action. If we change the way we look at what it means to be successful from “bigger/ more is better” to “quality over quantity” the results will be just that: less of what we have, but what we have will improve the lives of more people than what the current is meeting. The only way to improve our lives is to realize that we no longer have the same needs that we did when economic growth was born. Our needs have changed, but the means by which to meet them don’t have to.