Well the economic story is moving past the technical debate about how to stop the downward spiral and start moving up again. We are now into a philosophical debate.
The cover story on the latest issue of TIME magazine was a piece by an author who has apparently made his mark as a latter day Savanarola, the 15th Century monk who tried to cleanse Florence, Italy of excess. Savanarola got rid of the Medicis but was soon burned at the stake for heresy. The TIME writer preaches against the excesses of our modern society and believes the current economic downturn will be the genesis of a more prudent society.
I fundamentally reject notions that we are engaged in excess consumption. In my book there is no excess demand, just short supply. What is wrong with all families owning their own home? What is wrong with wanting a modern home with the attendant conveniences? What is wrong with wanting quality education? What is wrong with wanting more leisure time to enjoy life? What is wrong with wanting to travel and explore the world? What is wrong with wanting good food? And on and on.
Again, my definition of economics is "the science of meeting the perceived needs of the people," with the operative word being "perceived." I eschew the endless debate about what constitutes the "proper level" of consumption. If the consumer wants it, how do we provide it? Of course I leave out demands for illegal items.
The salient feature of human history has been the desire to provide more for our heirs than we had for ourselves. We want a better world for our children. The difference between me and other economists is that they prefer that the parents determine what constitutes a better world, I leave it to the kids to determine what they want.
I expect to see more such talk about how to formulate our revived economy. But this is good, since it means that the bottom has been reached - "Been down so long, looks like up to me."
Leo Cecchini
April 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment