As a lowly third-year literature major, I can’t even pretend to be nearly as schooled in the area of economics or math as an economist is, but I have spent some time studying culture. When I listen to economists talk about cultural and social issues as if they are things only fit for simpletons to discuss, I can’t help but be reminded of Oscar Wilde’s description of a cynic: the man who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing.
The intrinsic value of real things, their essential character which remains unchanged even when their price on the market fluctuates, doesn’t appear to concern most economists.
(And I know, I know. You are probably saying to yourself, “I can't determine the intrinsic value of things, this is why the market must decide.”)
Yet, since the market always needs consumers in order to grow, it will tend to court those in the population who are restless, dissatisfied, or in need of artificial stimulants to cheer up their lives. As consequence, an item's market price may be a flawed reflection of its real value.
I am currently reading a book entitled, “Small is Still Beautiful,” by Joseph Pearce. In it he writes:
“Few would dispute that most people in the developed world are better off in monetary terms or in terms of the number of things they possess. The problem arises once one goes deeper than the monetary or the material. Other questions must be asked before a judgment can be reached on the benefits or otherwise of economic growth, for example:
• What is wealth?
• Is it quantitative or qualitive?
• If it is qualitive, can it be measured economically?
• If it is quantitive, what does wealth cost? Does it cost more than it is worth?
• Does money buy happiness?
• Can material possessions prevent personal sorrow or suffering?
• Does everything have its price or are some things priceless?
• Is there a difference between price and value? If there is, does price distort value?
At root, the problem lies with the mechanistic materialism of most economists. Implicitly at least, they work on the assumption that, as a general rule, if someone is 10 percent richer in monetary terms, they will be approximately 10 percent richer in qualitive terms.”
It seems to me that the worth of an act cannot be judged solely on how economic or uneconomic it is. For example, a family who generally cooks meals at home certainly contributes less to the overall economy than a family who generally eats out. Same goes for the adult-child who chooses to care for their elderly parents inside their own home instead of putting them in a nursing home. However, the degree to which those decisions enhance the quality of each family’s lives cannot be calculated.
The more self-sufficient a family is and the more they enjoy life’s simple pleasures, over pleasures produced by expensive and artificial stimulants, the happier they may be as persons, but they are considered bad consumers.
While it seems more obvious to me that economic freedom is connected to happiness, I am not so sure that economic growth is. Nor does it seem accurate to measure every good or service's right to exist based on the effect that it has on economic growth.
“The growth it measures is often malignant and it is worshiped by those who know how to count but have forgotten how to see. They have forgotten that it is not the quantity of things possessed but the quality of life that matters.”
Things such as natural beauty, self-respect, simplicity, and love within families seem to be of no relevance to the concept of economic growth; yet, I believe they are immeasurably relevant to the quality of life.
