In these essays I have used various turns of phrase to describe success in dealing with the permanent problem. Following Keynes, I refer frequently to the quest to “live wisely and agreeably and well.” I’ve also written about reaching “the next level of social development,” one characterized by high levels of dynamism and inclusion. And I’ve used the terms “widespread flourishing” and “mass flourishing”; in particular, I’ve described our current malaise as “the messy and uncertain transition from mass prosperity to mass flourishing.”
A very interesting read. Some miscellaneous contra-musings (inevitable in such a wide ranging essay):
• There are frequent references to Phelps’(and your own) efforts to encompass the nonmaterial and get beyond “the profession’s materialist focus”. As a lay (not a trained) economist I was long ago struck by the profundity of Robbins’ definition: “Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses” which effortlessly encompasses the material and the non-material. Surely all trained economists learn this definition....do they then typically fail to properly take this on board? Truly a ‘dismal science’ if they do not.
• In the discussion of ‘capitalism’s wrong turn’ there is no direct engagement (by either Phelps or you) with the idea of a rampant spread, since the 60s, of mass narcissism....an impoverishment of ‘mass flourishing’ that can (at least arguably) be laid at Capitalism’s door.
• References to “college degrees” seem not to have considered the idea that, as they have spread to an ever greater % of the population, their intrinsic value has markedly diminished.
• A lot of the discussion is quite rightly focussed on Capitalism’s undoubtable virtues...its vitality; its success in turbo-charging man’s capacity for invention, enterprise, ‘creative destruction’ et al. My final observation is that man’s capacity for inventive cleverness is on an ever upward curve but his capacity for greater wisdom is perhaps a flat line at best.
not to undercut phelps' contribution to mid-century economics, but use of term "flourishing" in this context goes back to american pragmatist philosopher john dewey. dewey, in turn, probably was influenced byenglish economist-philospher j. s. mill
whatever it's origin it's a nice way to describe the general goal of liberal economic policy....
I agree that work is not everything, but I'd still like to encourage it by shifting from wage tax to VAT for finance (an expanded) system of life cycle/life circumstances transfers -- pensions, health insurance, unemployment insurance (for the self employed, too) child rearing -- compensating businesses for benefits like sick days, maternity leave, family leave, a more generous and wage-subsidy like EITC.
A very interesting read. Some miscellaneous contra-musings (inevitable in such a wide ranging essay):
• There are frequent references to Phelps’(and your own) efforts to encompass the nonmaterial and get beyond “the profession’s materialist focus”. As a lay (not a trained) economist I was long ago struck by the profundity of Robbins’ definition: “Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses” which effortlessly encompasses the material and the non-material. Surely all trained economists learn this definition....do they then typically fail to properly take this on board? Truly a ‘dismal science’ if they do not.
• In the discussion of ‘capitalism’s wrong turn’ there is no direct engagement (by either Phelps or you) with the idea of a rampant spread, since the 60s, of mass narcissism....an impoverishment of ‘mass flourishing’ that can (at least arguably) be laid at Capitalism’s door.
• References to “college degrees” seem not to have considered the idea that, as they have spread to an ever greater % of the population, their intrinsic value has markedly diminished.
• A lot of the discussion is quite rightly focussed on Capitalism’s undoubtable virtues...its vitality; its success in turbo-charging man’s capacity for invention, enterprise, ‘creative destruction’ et al. My final observation is that man’s capacity for inventive cleverness is on an ever upward curve but his capacity for greater wisdom is perhaps a flat line at best.
what's the optimal balance of traditional and modern values? 20/80? 80/20?
not to undercut phelps' contribution to mid-century economics, but use of term "flourishing" in this context goes back to american pragmatist philosopher john dewey. dewey, in turn, probably was influenced byenglish economist-philospher j. s. mill
whatever it's origin it's a nice way to describe the general goal of liberal economic policy....
I agree that work is not everything, but I'd still like to encourage it by shifting from wage tax to VAT for finance (an expanded) system of life cycle/life circumstances transfers -- pensions, health insurance, unemployment insurance (for the self employed, too) child rearing -- compensating businesses for benefits like sick days, maternity leave, family leave, a more generous and wage-subsidy like EITC.