4 Comments
User's avatar
Alex Potts's avatar

There was, of course, a quite recent British Prime Minister who made a desperate "dash for growth" the hill should would die on - and indeed she died on it.

The problem with growth is that while it's evidently a good thing, it's really hard to actually make happen, and you can fall into the trap of justifying every policy you have with by just yelling "growth", something which voters are rightly sceptical of.

Expand full comment
Jim O's avatar

Yes. Utilitarianism (neoclassical economics) doesn't do distribution - if gdp increases by 10bn but it all goes to Mr Musk? Secondly, unwanted growth is called cancer. Thirdly, whilst slavery was undoubtedly positive for US growth, was this a 'good' thing?

Expand full comment
Quentin Lowe's avatar

Growth Ok but what does it mean without a fairer distribution of assets

Expand full comment
Tom Bowker's avatar

Thank you for this. I'd go further - maybe we don't need growth! - but you're absolutely right that RR should explain why growth is her priority, in terms of what it'll do for people. IMO she should have other priorities, measures of actually raising living standards, and make the case that growth is needed to achieve that. But there we go.

Expand full comment