Luke Shimada
Contributing Writer
Re: “Economic inequality and our planet” by Ethan Hunt (Jan. 26)
Hunt’s article is absolutely riveting, and much like a rivet, they’re a dime a dozen. Hunt begins by posing a hypothetical, “Haven’t we all fantasized about being rich…?”, a generalizing statement that appeals to a collective socioeconomic culture, then leads into the following: “To satisfy our deepest desires…governments have implemented policies to grow Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita…Isn’t it a good thing that governments try to make us all richer?”
Unfortunately, this sentiment is misguided, and implements what is known as assumption bias, an unconscious bias formulated from preconceived notions. In this case, the preconceived notion is that governments naturally work for our best interests; while tempting to assume, this is untrue in the neoliberal socioeconomic model, as Hunt himself later mentions, and ignorant of the heterogeneous nature of what constitutes desires.
If you are familiar with economics, you probably understand that GDP per capita is a measure of economic output per person, something Hunt overlooks, only stating, “…GDP is an atrocious measure to serve as a goal for modern society.” Aside from being reductive, this statement is also false, hinging on what is called a false dichotomy, a fallacy that erroneously limits the options available, presenting them as contradictory, when in reality they are merely contraries.
This is perhaps most clear when Hunt states, “economic policy focusing on economic growth has created an unequal, resource scarce and dirty planet.” This statement assumes that the cause of these afflictions, such as inequality, is growth-oriented economics, when in reality — as far as modern research has concluded — the causation of these maladies is the recurring, unchanging patterns of destructive financial behaviors, what contemporary psychologists call disordered money behaviors in relation to individuals.
These financial behaviors are often associated with neoliberalism, an ideology which often advocates for privatizations, globalization and an increase in the role of the private sector in both society and the economy, which has been the predominant model since the end of the Cold War in 1991. As such, what Hunt terms “Reaganomic policy” is simply a subset of neoliberalism; Reaganomics is confined to the USA, while neoliberalism has sprawled all around the globe.
Similarly, it is not only the definition of terms that seem to be disjunct in Hunt’s writing, but also their own stance on the issue as well. Initially, Hunt claims that GDP-oriented policies have festered “an unequal, resource scarce and dirty planet,” only to then state that “the existing economic system has, arguably, contributed to the depletion of our…natural resources and the pollution of our planet.” Arguably. Hunt, contravening their own established claims, argues that it is not policy orientation that harms multitudes, but instead the entire economic system. In the same thought, Hunt conjures consumption figures provided by the UN International Resource Panel, but does not mention the year these figures were projected.
Furthermore, the idea popularized by economist Herman Daly of a steady-state economy is nonsensical. Hunt claims that “it is a system by which governments…recognize our ecological limitations, such as finite natural resources, plants and animal stocks.” What Hunt fails to mention is that Daly and Daly’s predecessor John Stuart Mill both drew from Malthusian economic theory, which is founded on population control policies, such as the draconian one-child policy that was previously active in the People’s Republic of China.
It is obvious to most that Malthusianism is a threat to civil liberties, not to mention its association with imperialist and colonialist ideology. Those who do not wish to regress to an age of empires would benefit from refraining to indulge such idiocies. Malthusianism has also been rebuked by Stewart Brand, environmentalist founder of ecomodernism, who exposed damning flaws in Malthusian predictions regarding population growth and fertility levels.
Hunt’s argument simply fails to come to terms with reality. Hunt claims that “regardless of your knowledge of economics or political leaning, we can all collectively agree that we would rather not live…in an increasingly inequitable…and polluted world,” which not only contradicts their previous statements, but is entirely fantasized as well.
