|
||||
|
Ok after that cathartic entry, it's time for some more random musings.
Just read the article "Asia needs to rebalance" in Today, March 13 2009. It talks about Asia needing to boost local and regional demand at the fundamental level (ie. take real steps and do real work, instead of simply tweaking interest rates or exchange rates), improving regional cooperation and taking the lead in leading the world out of recession. This is a recurring theme in my ideas about economics, but it strikes me as somewhat missing the point. Why should it be that you must boost demand to achieve growth rather than suit the supply to the demand? The simple answer would be that it creates jobs. World population is increasing. More people need more goods and money to buy these goods. Money comes from jobs (or stealing, I suppose, but that's beyond the scope of this argument). Thus, growth is good, and by extension increasing demand is good too. I don't agree with this line of thinking. There are a lot of things to consider just below the surface. One, that this would likely result in an increasingly materialistic society and world, ever consuming, ever taking. (USA, anyone? Consumerism gone crazy.) Two, that resources are not infinite. In the craze to produce more, grow more, governments around the world are ignoring the importance of sustainability. What matter that this country or that "grows" (ie. becomes bigger in population size and consumes more) more than another in this short time frame when we're actually depleting the Earth for future generations? At this rate, we won't last another millenium. I know, growth is supposed to fuel innovation and more efficient processes as well, but somehow the innovation is slow to come and doesn't even come close to fighting the depletion of natural resources around the world. In the long run, we're all dead, is that it? Do as much as we can now because it won't be here tomorrow? I don't buy that. I feel that for the economic model to work, sustainability must factor significantly in the equation. The way that my country is run, our leaders seem to view economic growth as an end in itself, constantly pushing for ever higher growth and cautioning that any deviation from this path would lead to Singapore becoming "irrelevant" in the global market. Which is true, I suppose. But it smacks of oneupmanship to me. Does it really matter that Singapore lags behind economically? We are a country, not a business. There are other things to consider: happiness, family, quality of life (which stress and pollution degrade). Case in point: Bhutan. Similar size, radically different lifestyle. I leave it to you to decide which is better. There's more I want to say but time is getting short. I have somewhere else to be. So i guess the rest will have to come later =) ciao. |
|
|||