Hi Guys,
Thanks for a great class today, here is the link to the video I did not have time to show...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2QHj75Ulmo
What is the message from this about economics? Does this make any connections for you?
See you tomorrow!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
wow, so many post....:p
well, to me this video shows that economist are more conscerned with making a profit than conserving human or animal life and the environment.i think this video raises the question..how good is it really for a countrys GDP to grow?/ since the economist are doing what they beleive is in their best interest for their country economically...they often disregard what they put in risk for the final outcome.
wow that was a pretty strong video..i guess it connects to what some of us said in class today, how economic growth is measured with GDP...and what u said too in class today, how what we study about economics is just a summary of everything thats really happening behind. when we see a country's GDP growing we dont know the whole story about how its happening..maybe this video is trying to say that a growth in GDP is not the only important thng and shouldnt be encouraged blindly, it is also the means in which this increase is achieved that's important.. because even if GDP grows, you can't truly say you are benefitting if more and more deforestation is happening for example..what the video mentioned..could it be connected to marginal social costs?
This video makes it very clear that only because something goes up (GDP, profit, etc) it doesn't necessarily mean that it's all positive. One should look at the downside too. Everythign comes with a consequence, and just because a country is experiencing economic growth and a rise in GDP does not mean that everything is going well in that country. On the contrary, like that video showed, it could be going through environmental catastrophes, wars, and disease. We should really question the constant desire to raise GDP and stop to look at the side effects.
This relates to what we talked about in class when we mentioned the economic situation in Argentina. Just because the economy is experiencing growth doesn't mean that the country is having a succesful economic development.
To answer Debbie's question about whether it could be related to marginal social cost, in some cases I assume it could be mentioned when dealing with specific market activities related to GDP growth (such as industry growth, etc). I'm not completely sure I would classify the video as an accurate example of marginal social costs, since it's not really talking about a product or an industry that's causing the problems. Any thoughts?
Wow, great video. I really liked how it hit two key subjects - deforestation and oil leaks (thus touching on the risky subject as a whole). And to make the final impact, the video states cancer, really refering to death, a subject no one wants to think of. I think adbusters does a great job of recognizing key topics and showing how GDP doesn't show everything. Yes, the economy may be "growing", but as we learned last year, growth doesn't define a country. A country really isn't improving if they aren't developing as well. This clip shows that there is so much more than an increasing GDP when it comes to economics, and so many other factors you must consider. Some countries don't see anything beyond growth of the GDP because it is a numerical and more direct way of showing improvement in a country. Third world countries must learn to sacrifice growth to improve the standard of living for their people which in the long run will consequently lead to improved labor and finally, growth.
This video indeed does a great job in showing the other side of an increase in GDP.
These externalities are things that have be watched out for, and I'm sure it can hurt a specific country or company's public image which might potentially hurt it economically...
As everybody else has already said, this video does a good job of showing how traditional economists are more focused on solely facts, without taking other factors, such as the environment into effect.
I was wondering what the last line of the video actually means... "Economists Must Learn To Subtract." Is adbusters saying actions with negative externalities shouldn't be taken into account when calculating a country's GDP, which is what the words would mean if taken literally; or are they just saying that economists should not be focused only on hard facts.
Most of the post already have said this already but, this video is very strong. It shows us how economist are more focused on hard cold facts but not how they are achieved. Like eze said, it does show a horrible side of what happens if the GDP increases. Economist in this video are shown to not care about health, or the environment.
Adbusters does show how economist do no ttake the negative externalities into account.
Maybe carl that last line suggests that economist must take into account these externalities and reduce the GDP because of them. One knows that if trees are cut, cancer is diagnosed or there is an oil loss, it is not good for th eenvironment, so maybe it shouldnt be good for the GDP.
I´m sort of torn, to be honest. If you are trying to measure the GDP for the sake of theory and figuring out a country´s income, then thats fine--unlike what the AdBusters proposed. However, there are so many kinds of economists, and many who do factor in all these costs and negative externalities--- by measuring development. If they factored it all into the estimated GDP, then it wouldn´t tell us what the GDP was, right?
So in the end I wondering if economists could calculate 2 GDPs. One purely statistical for the traditional economists, and the second including the costs like harming the environment, oil spills, health problems, etc. This should be the Real GDP.
Carl,
Good questions, what they mean by they should subtract is that bad things that happen in the economy...e.g. oil spills should take away from GDP and not add to it. A country that is wrought with environmental disasters should not be considered growing, according to adbusters.
Well I can't really think of anything else to add on since everyone has pretty much mentioned everything, but i suppose all the consequences from the growth of GDP as shown in the video, are actually part and parcel of developing a country. Something else has to be sacrificed in order to gain something.(Eg, forests have to be cleared in order to build factories or other buildings) However, i'm not sure if a country is still considered as growing after they sacrificed their environment and people.
Well, the video was trying to make show how economists don't look at the big picture, and i agree with it. Most economists appear to be solely concerned with numbers but don't often make the connection with where the numbers came from, but this is true with many sciences like advocates for global warming only look at the recent weather patterns and not the weather patterns of the earth throughout history. So this narrow minded thinking is just a common occurrence which i believe is due to mankind's basic need to simplify the complex.
As most people have already said, this is a very provocative video and it does a great job of showing us that there is always two sides of a coin. That a good GDP growth can come at a price... and it is erroneus that nations should judge their economic progress according to the GDP, because it measures the overall production, but not the collateral damage which this production might have been a consequence of.
So i belive most nations should better balance their idea of progress and growth not just baseing it on GDP... but putting more value to the enviorment, and the quality of life of the people, so they truelly get a picture of the economic situation in a coutnry.
Its a really strong video...I guess it brings up a really good question and debate. If economists just care about GDP and profit, and if bad things like cancer and cutting down forests should add or subtract.
Post a Comment