Rethinking Economics

  • Mark E. Clark


Though couched in the esoteric language of economics, this perceptive statement simply means that it is not consumption which provides economic well-being, but the use of things like cars, shoes and houses that give long-lasting service. Yet most economists encourage precisely the opposite: ‘economic growth’ — an ever-expanding rate of production and consumption, with all the negative environmental outcomes they entail. Why are they unable to reconcile their understanding of economics with the realities of a finite Earth — our ‘spaceship Earth’ as Kenneth Boulding first called it? Without reconstructing in detail the tenets of conventional economic thinking, which in any case is in considerable disarray, this chapter examines some of its major fallacies, so that economic ideas about the world can be re-created on a sounder base.


Capital Stock Multinational Corporation Economic Decision Economic Thinking Export Earning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. †.
    Kenneth Boulding, ‘Income or Welfare’, Review of Economic Studies, 17 (1949) pp. 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 1.
    S.S. Wolin, ‘The New Public Philosophy’, democracy, 1 (4) (1981) pp. 27–8.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    M.A. Lutz and K. Lux, The Challenge of Humanistic Economics (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings, 1979) p. 77.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    L. Thurow, The Zero-Sum Society (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1981) p. 118. Mr Thurow made a similar statement in testimony to Congress: ‘The Implications of Zero Economic Growth’, in U.S. Prospects for Growth, Vol. 5, The Steady-State Economy, Joint Economic Committee of Congress, (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2 December 1976) p. 46.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    H.E. Daly, Steady-State Economics (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1977) pp. 118–19. For detailed economic analysis of many of the major points in this chapter this text is an excellent resource.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    D. Harrop, ‘Who Makes What $’, People (25 March 1985) pp. 92–101.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    F. Soddy, Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1926) pp. 69–70. A valuable resource for understanding the relationships between money and wealth.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Soddy, Wealth, p. 106.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    Soddy, Wealth p. 157.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Soddy, Wealth, p. 123.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Soddy, Wealth, p. 152.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    A.L. Malabre, Jr, Beyond Our Means (New York: Random House, 1987) p. 133.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    Malabre, Beyond our Means, pp. 155–6; figures cited in preceding para- graphs are from this book.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    A.N. Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: Free Press, 1978). See pp. 7, 20, 93, 94. The fallacy of misplaced concreteness, he says, results from ‘neglecting the degree of abstraction involved when an actual entity is considered merely so far as it exemplifies certain categories of thought’, p. 7. In other words, we mistake our simplified models for the whole of reality.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    H.E. Daly, ‘The Circular Flow of Exchange Value and the Linear Throughput of Matter/Energy: A Case of Misplaced Concreteness’, Review of Social Economy 43 (1985) pp. 279–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 14.
    The text quoted is R. Heilbroner and L. Thurow, The Economic Problem (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1981) p. 127 and p. 135, respectively.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    S. Burns, quoted by Hazel Henderson, The Politics of the Solar Age (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, Doubleday, 1981) p. 9.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    K. Valaskakis, P. Sindell, J.G. Smith and M.I. Fitzpatrick, The Conserver Society (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) p. 181.Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    For an analysis of the ways in which GNP and other money measures of economic value are regularly distorted, see the unpublished article ‘Money Value vs. Economic Value: Why Aggregate Economic Indices Mislead’, by L. J. Dumas, Dept. of Economics, University of Texas, Dallas.Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    Henderson, The Politics of the Solar Age, pp. 100–101.Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    Lutz and Lux, The Challenge, p. 226.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    High-Tech: The Limits to Growth’, Dollars and Sense (September 1985) II- 5.Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    C. Froman, The Two American Political Systems: Society, Economics, and Politics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984) p. 64.Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    Froman, The Two American Political Systems, p. 68 and p.78. Dye’s estimate is taken from his book Who’s Running America? The Carter Years (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979).Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    D. Noble, ‘Tools of Repression’, Dollars & Sense (October 1984) p. 16.Google Scholar
  26. 23.
    See also D. Noble, Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985).Google Scholar
  27. 24.
    Henderson, The Politics of the Solar Age, p. 245.Google Scholar
  28. 25.
    J. Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964, first published 1937) p. 221.Google Scholar
  29. 26.
    Keynes, The General Theory, p. 376.Google Scholar
  30. 27.
    Froman, The Two American Political Systems Chapter 1, ‘Politics and Property’, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  31. 28.
    Economic Justice for All: Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy (Washington, DC: US Catholic Conference, 1986) 204 pp.Google Scholar
  32. 29.
    Malabre, Beyond Our Means Chapter 8, ‘Beyond Our Means’, pp. 144–62.Google Scholar
  33. 30.
    W. Leontief, ‘Letter: Academic Economics’, Science, 217 (1982) pp. 104–7. See also follow-up correspondence in Science (8 October 1982) p. 108, (10 December 1982) p. 1070 and (25 February 1983) p. 904. Martin Baily of the Brookings Institution also severely criticises the short-comings of modern economic thinking (Science, 216 (1982) pp. 859–62). Like Leontief, he is highly dubious of the validity of General Equilibrium Theory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 30.
    For a lighter treatment of economists’ theoretical curves, see Martin Gardner, ‘Mathematical Games: The Laffer Curve and Other Laughs in Current Economics’, Scientific American (December 1981) pp. 18–31C.Google Scholar
  35. 31.
    R.L. Heilbroner, An Inquiry into the Human Prospect (New York: W.W. Norton, 1975) p. 170.Google Scholar
  36. 32.
    See D. Ford, The Cult of the Atom: The Secret Papers of the Atomic Energy Commission (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1982) p. 183 f.Google Scholar
  37. 33.
    D.M. Rust, ‘Solar Flares, Proton Showers and the Space Shuttle’, Science 216 (1982) pp. 939–46; ‘Weakness Found in Space Rats’, San Diego Union (7 September 1985) p. A-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 34.
    Froman, The Two American Political Systems Chapter 8, ‘The Individual Political System’, pp. 123–44.Google Scholar
  39. 35.
    See the Samizdat book by ‘Boris Komarov’, The Destruction of Nature in the Soviet Union (White Plains, NY: Sharpe, 1980) and P. Pryde, ‘The Decade of the Environment in the U.S.S.R.’, Science 220 (1983) pp. 274–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 36.
    C. Lindblom, Politics and Markets (New York: Basic Books, 1977) p. 356.Google Scholar
  41. 37.
    Soddy, Wealth, p.270f. As already noted (references 25 and 26) John Maynard Keynes looked forward to the day when capital would not be privately ‘owned’. More recently, Cornell University economist Jaroslav Vanek has proposed this scheme in detail as a means for financing worker-managed cooperatives in Self-Management (Economic Liberation of Man) (Baltimore: Penguin, 1975).Google Scholar
  42. 38.
    G. Alperovitz and J. Faux, Rebuilding America (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984) p. 262.Google Scholar
  43. 39.
    Alperovitz and Faux, Rebuilding America, pp. 56–7.Google Scholar
  44. 40.
    Lutz and Lux, The Challenge, pp. 261–3. In the United States, the cooperative movement has been in the forefront of economic democracy and community self-sufficiency.Google Scholar
  45. 41.
    E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful (London: Sphere Books, Abacus, 1974) pp. 76–83.Google Scholar
  46. 42.
    F.M. Lappé, ‘Sweden’s Third Way to Worker Ownership’, The Nation (19 February 1983) pp. 203–4.Google Scholar
  47. 42.
    H.M. Christman, ‘Swedish Buy-Out’, The Nation (4 February 1984) p. 117.Google Scholar
  48. 43.
    G. Medard (with others), Regenerating America: Meeting the Challenge of Building Local Economies (Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, 1985).Google Scholar
  49. 43.
    See also G.J. Coates, Resettling America: The Movement Toward Local Self Reliance (Andover, MA: Brick House Publishing, 1982).Google Scholar
  50. 44.
    The following articles in the unconventional press indicate this so far little publicised trend: B. Schmiechen, L. Daressa and L. Adelman, ‘Waking from the American Dream’, The Nation (3 March 1984) p. 241 f. (quote on p. 258: ‘How can we utilize the existing resources of the area and the skills of the people in order to produce things society needs?’).Google Scholar
  51. 44.
    C. Bass and P. Bass, ‘Employee Buy-Out Stops Plant Closing’, In These Times (30 January-5 February 1985) p. 5 (quote: ‘This gives people the security of being in charge of their own destiny’.).Google Scholar
  52. 44.
    C. Cox, ‘Living Our Dreams: How Communities Are Creating an Economic Base for Their Values’, Building Economic Alternatives (A quarterly publication of Co-op America) (Summer 1985) pp. 18–21 (quote p. 21: ‘Building a strong community [as in Minneapolis’ West Bank] will take a commitment both to values and to change’.).Google Scholar
  53. 44.
    D. Morse, ‘The Campaign to Save Dorothy Six’, The Nation (7 September 1985) pp. 174–6 (quote p. 176: ‘We like to refer to this as reindustrialization from below’.).Google Scholar
  54. 44.
    J. Gilbrecht, ‘Sewing on Their Own: A Corporate Campaign Nixes Plant Closing’, Dollars & Sense (September 1985) pp. 12–14 (quote p. 14: ‘The concept of a worker co-op captured the imagination of the local community. Suddenly, worker ownership was featured on the six o’clock news and as the subject of in depth articles in major papers’.).Google Scholar
  55. 44.
    L. Compa, ‘Fighting Back: Workers Challenge Plant Shut-Downs’, The Progressive (October 1985) pp. 32–4 (quote p. 34: ‘Unfortunately, corporate executives still hold the trump card — the legal right to shut down facilities regardless of objections from workers, unions, or communities. Unions lost the combative influence of communists, socialists, and other radicals in their Cold War rush to conformity, and now the mainstream labor movement fights over workers’ share of the economic pie without challenging the system that bakes it’.) See also Daniel Zwerdling’s Democracy at Work published by the Association for Self-Management, 1414 Spring Rd NW, Washington, DC, 20010, for numerous similar case histories of community economic self-help.Google Scholar
  56. 45.
    For information on conversion projects see WIN Magazine, 1 July 1981.Google Scholar
  57. 46.
    British-born Michael Linton invented the Local Exchange Trading System (LETS) and first established it in British Columbia. For information write him c/o Landsman Community Services Ltd., 304576 England Ave., Courtenay, BC, V9N 5M7, Canada.Google Scholar
  58. 47.
    Schumacher, Small is Beautiful, p. 184.Google Scholar
  59. 48.
    H. Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought (New York: Viking Press, 1954) p. 9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mark E. Clark 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark E. Clark
    • 1
  1. 1.San Diego State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations