Carl Remick takes a pop at me, since I am in trouble for saying that Americans are not starving. But what does Carl say about the impoverished yanks?
[WS:] I'm pretty sure that Carl is perfectly capable of defending himself, but this is getting really silly. What is the point that you are trying to argue? That the world on average is better of today than it was 50 years ago, and still better than 500 years ago. There is, after all a secular growth in economic output, so arguing that this output is consumed somehow is rather trivial and true by definition.
A far more interesting discussion, which you seem to evade, is about different rates of that growth for (i) different segments of the population, (ii) different classes of products or (iii) effectiveness in addressing various problems that our society face. The focus on "more stuff" does not quite cut it.
If you are trying to argue that a "rising tide lifts all boats," and the wealth produced by a healthy economy will eventually "trickle down," why do not you just say so instead of engaging in silly sniping and semantic arguments.
So assuming that this indeed is your position - let me counter that with the following:
- Is this growth in output at the optimal rate or suboptimal one? If you invested your money in stocks performing at, say 5% annually, you would be quite unhappy if other stocks were yielding 10%, would not you? O r would you just say, 5% is good enough I am still better off that I was before?
- What evidence do you have that higher output/consumption translates into more "use value." If I build a brick house that last for generations, and you build three suburban McMansions of plywood and plastic siding that will fall apart in 30 years - who has more of a house here? If I build a railway for $1 billion carrying 1 million passengers a year, and you built a highway system and cars worth $10 billion and carrying 1 million people per year, who has more of a transportation system here? Have you considered what _else_ I can get for the $9 billion that I saved by building a railway instead of individuals autos? How much better off would that 9 billion make other people?
I think looking into relative growth rates, the distributions of those rates among populations and classes of products, and considering the use value of those products instead of its exchange value would be far more productive here than silly competition who has "more stuff."
Wojtek