Your commentary on financial waste made me think of Notre Dame. They threw untold mountains of money to repair it, and it’s so beautiful. The cathedral will continue to be cherished for centuries because people were willing to “waste” that money.
I am experiencing this first hand. The small coastal town I live in has suddenly been overtaken by massive cruise ships. One enterprising local built a private dock and in the last 2 years we have had 580,000 people come from April-October. Most days, the population of tourists in town exceeds the population of locals. Our main road is shut down on cruise days so the tourists can wander, but we then are cut off from our banks and other businesses. We only have 16 miles of road total and those roads are filled all hours with huge tour busses and vans. We also have tourists on Ebikes everywhere, blocking traffic and trespassing. As a result, half of the population wants to set limits on the number of ships that can come here to a reasonable, safe amount, the other half is getting wealthy from those cruise tourists and wants to increase the numbers without any regard for the pollution and hazards they are causing. It has turned our once peaceful town into an extremely stressful place to live and the wonderful community we have always enjoyed spends their days and nights online at each other's throats. It's very sad. And supremely disappointing to see former friends and neighbors destroying each other online over mammon. The worst of human nature truly does come to light when sudden wealth arrives.
I worked in a wealthy Native American tribal community. Lucrative casinos, that are exempt from US taxation, bring a lot of money to the tribes. One of the elders thought all the money was a curse saying that now the young people can just buy drugs, whereas in her day, they at least had to figure out a way to get them. The money has not solved the problems of diabetes, suicide, drug addiction, and violence. To their credit, they do host lavish potlatches and spend a lot of money on salmon restoration.
That is a great (though tragic) example Alissa. I remember reading about some of the reservations and how they have been plagued by these problems. So much injustice is also wrapped up in this.
Thanks for another thoughtful and well written piece, Hadden! I love Steinbeck’s novels, especially Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden, but I haven’t read The Pearl, so I’ll add it to my list. You might also enjoy Angle of Repose by Wallace Stegner. His writing is exquisite!
One thought I might add to your post is—I agree that most people and communities are unprepared for a windfall of cash, but I think that is often connected to their lack of financial vision and stewardship for their current money. Many people and communities are not as intentional as they could be with their money, so when their money grows exponentially, their lack of intentionality gets magnified. Part of my own personal financial planning involves setting guidelines for what I do with unexpected cash. Therefore, whenever money does fall in my lap (which is not often), I’m able to not be overwhelmed by it. Perhaps, larger communities need to take a step back and ask themselves how they are using their money today, so that they are better prepared for the future. I don’t think money is an evil in an of itself, instead I think it’s one of God’s good gifts that can be used for ill or good.
I just read The Pearl last month and this was a very thought-provoking follow-up. I have never heard of the issue of the sudden wealth and I’m really intrigued by the idea of wasting part or most of it intentionally. Thank you for sharing!
I enjoy most books. Even those that are painful in story. I'm my life I have experienced hardship, and I still enjoy books that make me cry with empathy. That is a gift too. I enjoy your writing, have been following along for a year or so. Thanks again
I've seen with our adopted daughter how government agencies meant to alleviate the sufferings of the orphaned are spent on programs that rarely work and, in many cases, contribute to generational problems. Rural poverty is a real problem where I live so just being in the country doesn't solve all the questions around money and community.
This is a thought provoking article of values. It is easy to imagine what we would do if we took the pearls we have collected in our lives and invested them in wisely. Our time on earth is limited. We must invest wisely. It is sobering to think of how easily we become distracted by collecting and not see the beauty of those people and communities we can impact for today for all those tomorrows when we no longer exist.
I couldn't help thinking of the woman anointing Christ with the ridiculously expensive perform just prior to his crucifixion and Judas' criticism of the waste.
Perhaps this is why I should read classics. As a teenager, I read an abridged version of this book - only to be mildly entertained by the story and to completely miss this wisdom.
Thank you for this post and for introducing me to many new ideas.
I’ve been on a fiction kick lately too and I have to say, it’s great. I just finished Lonesome Dove, a profound tragedy dressed up as a lighthearted western cowboy story. If you’re looking for another story, I definitely recommend this one.
I really enjoyed this piece and like the reference to Lean Logic. It looks like we have a significant overlap in our reading!
Lean Logic is one of those books that has become fundamental to my philosophy. Absolutely revolutionary - and I am not surprised it is on your shelf, Brett!
I don’t think economists would say you’re wrong to spend wealth on a garden. Do you know any?
Consumption is always arbitrary and subject to taste and preferences. Whether you give everyone in the village a dividend from discovering the pearl, Kino keeps it or the village expropriates it and spends it as the council sees fit has little to do with being ‘intentionally wasteful’. We might each choose to create gardens; Kino might build a private garden - there are many in the world, and they’re gorgeous. The council, sadly, is the least likely to create anything beautiful, which raises the question as to why you would want the decision as to how to spend the wealth to be a collective decision. These tend to be the decisions that are least likely to result in anything that isn’t blandly utilitarian. Also, can I ask what happens to the wealth of folks who’ve worked for their wealth, rather than found it? That’s by far and away how the majority of people build wealth. Do you know anyone who has found a magic pearl or won the lottery? I don’t. You can of course expropriate workers' wealth too, with whatever story you need to tell to justify it, but suffice to say it’ll be a one-off. When you knock on my door the following year, I will not have been so foolish to have spend my days working for wealth you’re going to let a committee decide how to spend. Which will be super bland and utilitarian.
And how could it not be? I might prefer roses and you tulips, but we can agree that a new bus lane would help us both get to the nursery. If you want more ‘intentionally wasteful’ spending, you’re going to need to tolerate or even frankly encourage private wealth. Much of the art in the world exists because of private wealth. Leave decisions to the public committee, and we’ll have be enjoying mass produced propaganda prints and driving Ladas. This is especially so in large liberal democracies with barely any common views anymore.
More broadly, there’s obviously a de-growth current here. But I am not persuaded you or the other de-growthers understand what you're saying. The only way to reduce growth is to reduce productivity; otherwise, you’re always generating wealth, whether it’s a hand knit sweater, a secretary’s pay check, organic jam or a factory producing ball bearings. When folks talk up de-growth, what they really mean is they wish people would spend their wealth differently, on, say bicycles instead of SUVs. Often there’s a degree of wishing people would spend more on what the de-growthers produce, like farm-to-table food or, er, substacks and books. But even if you succeed in that goal, which is likely to involve a fair amount of coercion, you will not have de-growthed anything. The wealth they’ve consumed to buy your jam still needs to be generated. If bicycles are less pricey than SUVs, they still have their ‘excess’ wealth (minus the cost of the bike), in the form of cash, stockpiles of jam or chests full of hand knit sweaters. The only way you get to de-growth is for them to produce less. You can try this yourself if you like: work less, be less productive. You might not find it so much fun.
Lastly, if you find yourself adopting a philosophy that puts Notre Dame in the bucket of wasteful - intentional or not - I’d really recommend taking a step back and reconsidering that worldview.
Hello Ansis, thank you for this pushback which I always value. I won't have the time to respond to all of your concerns here but will tackle a few.
Firstly, with regard to your last comment. My philosophy would classify the rebuilding as Notre Dame as wasteful - BUT only from an economic growth perspective (this is in line with Fleming's definition of intentional waste). It would have made much more economic sense for the French state to have used cheaper materials, employed more modern craftsmen etc in the rebuilding process. But they wisely (and rightly) chose not to. It may have been less efficient, more costly, and less productive to rebuild Notre Dame in the traditional way but the benefits to society were so much greater for doing so.
Thus, the rebuilding was economically "wasteful", but culturally, socially, and aesthetically productive. It all depends on what values one is foregrounding. In this essay, I argue we foreground wealth/economy far too much in our modern societies to the detriment of social, aesthetic, community, and cultural capital. A quick glance at the manifestos of most political parties would show this: arts, culture, traditions, local services, etc can all be cut in funding to boost economic growth. That's what the politicians and mainstream economists would say (and actively do).
Thus, I am defining waste in this essay in an unorthodox sense, partly for its provocative effect which makes people think. I wouldn't necessarily use this in everyday speech for fear of misinterpretation (as I fear has happened here with your response).
Secondly, this essay is not touching private wealth so to speak (thought the example of Kino in Steinbeck's story is referring to private wealth). I am talking about communal wealth here. And not collective wealth either. Collectivisation is a project doomed to fail in my opinion, except under incredibly rare circumstances. As you rightly note, collective projects gravitate towards utilitarianism and sterile blandness.
However, local scale "communal" (or better "community") projects and wealth stewardship often avoids this trap. And this is the scale of the council I am talking about: parish level, where the members of the council are themselves local residents deeply invested into their local (small) communities (whether that be a small village or a small urban ward). Because they are invested in their local community and have affection for it, and direct responsibility for it, they are likely to steward excess wealth in a way which preserves and cultivates beauty, conviviality, neighbourliness, and projects that the local community needs (like bus routes).
Councils or politicians higher up the bureaucratic ladder (e.g. at county level or national level), don't have this same level of investedness in local, embodied places. Thus they all to easily fall into utilitarianism and economic mismanagement - or valuing the wrong things. I would want to keep excess wealth far away from such people!
As to degrowrth, my thoughts on this issue are still too immature to offer judgement. It is something I need to continue to explore. Though I am sympathetic to degrowth arguments (I am of the opinion that the economy cannot for ever grow, due to fundamental biophysical constraints - I ascribe to ecological economics per Herman Daly), I view degrowth as practically impossible without huge societal upheaval. Plus, no politician is ever going to say that they are pro-degrowth.
However, I do not think that being less productive is necessarily a bad thing. We all make this decision everyday (e.g. by not working late into the night or overtime) because we value other things more than mere wealth accumulation. As a society I fear that we have lost sight of what is truly valuable (beauty, creation, art, community, nature, faith etc) and have blindly equated economic growth with progress and value. However, excess economic growth can break down what is truly valuable e.g. the Industrial Revolution, for all the good it achieved, was ecologically disastrous in many areas, broke rural communities, facilitated the creation of slums, and relied on a poor view of the human worth of the worker (treated often as mere cogs in a machine).
Thus, economic growth, though it achieves much good (and necessary good) does come at a cost - it is these costs I wish we were better at accounting for and avoiding the worst of. Thus sometimes rather than using excess wealth to fuel further capital growth, I argue that we as a society and as individuals should consider "wasting" it by doing economically irrational, but culturally rational things like creating "unnecessary" beauty (there is no utilitarian need for a house to be beautiful - only for it to be livable; but there is all the reason in the world for it to be beautiful from a cultural, aesthetic, and quality of life perspective).
Growth stops when we no longer increase in number or productivity. That’s all. It won’t stop because we decide to build churches instead of motels. Even the excess cash, if any, the church generates beyond its expenses is donated which has same impact. If it funds more churches or a parish hall - well, there you go, same as motels. The salaries and upkeep it pays similarly involve growth because most people generate a profit, however small, from their labor. If the church needs funding to operate, other activities will need to generate the profit to keep it running. No loss making activity can persist without an offsetting gain somewhere in the system. You either decay or grow, like in biology. There is no magical land where neither happens because we build beautiful rather than utilitarian things. It’s fine to say “let’s build beautiful” but it’s not about growth or lack thereof.
Ok, I think we will have to agree to disagree going forward.
But my last comment is to say (keeping with the church vs motel example), that though the function of the church does lead to a small degree of growth, there is a huge difference between this and the growth caused by a motel. For the motel, growth is the point - the reason for existence. For the church, it is a secondary, even tertiary motive/by-product. Economic growth is not the primary aim for the church.
Thus, if one had some excess capital and wanted to grow their wealth, the last thing they would build or invest in is a church (let alone a beautiful costly one). They would build a motel instead. Thus, by building a church instead of a motel, a community or (more likely) an individual "wastes" the potential for significant economic growth from their capital.
Fair enough but the purpose of a motel is to house travelers, a church to praise God. No one would do either if no one came even if one charges per use and the other by tithe or donation (both of which can only be generated by, well, a motel chain perhaps). You can in fact run a motel for generations without the kind of growth you’re talking about. See Japan for thousand year old inns. Just run it at enough of a profit you can operate.
Really you’re just saying we should consume more and invest less or perhaps more accurately consume differently: buy more books or build gardens or churches. Fair enough. I’d agree. It just doesn’t have anything to do with battling growth. After all, someone has to make a profit providing you with those things.
This is an argument about what we do with the wealth we generate through our productivity. It is not about how we shouldn’t be productive or shouldn’t generate wealth. And that’s really all economic growth means.
Thanks. This is interesting but i don’t think it really works to frame utility versus beauty as growth versus waste. They’ve nothing to do with one another. There was no less growth because of using better materials; probably the opposite as more raw materials and labor were transformed into a building. I think the problem is whomever advocates this is afraid to state the truth: a book is better than a gossip magazine, a gothic cathedral is better than a cheap motel. But these judgments have nothing to do with economics or growth. That’s just being thrown around because we’re afraid to made the more teleological point: this end is better than that. Economics is generally indifferent to whether you build one church or ten motels: growth happens equally all the same. I think we end up in similar places, but I’m sceptical of attempts to frame them in terms of economic growth. Maybe utility.
Agreed that growth happens all the same (sort of) when you build a church vs 10 motels but it is what happens AFTER which is what Fleming is touching on with his use of waste/what the project enables to continue to happen.
The church is a dead-end project. It is not going to contribute to ongoing wealth creation (if a church was doing so I would question whether it a "church" or if it a business - like mega churches sometimes are!). The motels, however, serve a purpose of continued economic growth and wealth accumulation. People pay to use the motel. If it is popular enough, the capital might be raised to build another motel, and another, and another... When does it stop? All too often it stops well beyond where it should have stopped (most likely, the growth stops when the motel chain has outcompeted most other independent motels). This is toxic and harmful growth in terms of society.
This is the heart of the matter. Do we just invest in projects that have the capacity to increase future economic growth or do we invest in dead-end (but immensely valuable) projects like a church, beautiful dwellings, art, or a massive feast. I want us all to do a lot more of the latter.
Not everyone will agree with Fleming's use of "waste" here. I personally have found it conceptually helpful, but I admit others won't. That's why I'm careful in using it, but not willing to forsake using it.
Your commentary on financial waste made me think of Notre Dame. They threw untold mountains of money to repair it, and it’s so beautiful. The cathedral will continue to be cherished for centuries because people were willing to “waste” that money.
Indeed, the example of Notre Dame is exactly the kind of example David Fleming would point to.
I am experiencing this first hand. The small coastal town I live in has suddenly been overtaken by massive cruise ships. One enterprising local built a private dock and in the last 2 years we have had 580,000 people come from April-October. Most days, the population of tourists in town exceeds the population of locals. Our main road is shut down on cruise days so the tourists can wander, but we then are cut off from our banks and other businesses. We only have 16 miles of road total and those roads are filled all hours with huge tour busses and vans. We also have tourists on Ebikes everywhere, blocking traffic and trespassing. As a result, half of the population wants to set limits on the number of ships that can come here to a reasonable, safe amount, the other half is getting wealthy from those cruise tourists and wants to increase the numbers without any regard for the pollution and hazards they are causing. It has turned our once peaceful town into an extremely stressful place to live and the wonderful community we have always enjoyed spends their days and nights online at each other's throats. It's very sad. And supremely disappointing to see former friends and neighbors destroying each other online over mammon. The worst of human nature truly does come to light when sudden wealth arrives.
I am so sorry to hear that. It sounds utterly infuriating and it is tragic how an event like this can rip a community apart.
I hope a convivial solution is found for your community and thank you for sharing your experience.
This is a tragedy. I hope that "the market" doesn't end up being the final court of appeal as is so often the case. I hope the localists win.
I worked in a wealthy Native American tribal community. Lucrative casinos, that are exempt from US taxation, bring a lot of money to the tribes. One of the elders thought all the money was a curse saying that now the young people can just buy drugs, whereas in her day, they at least had to figure out a way to get them. The money has not solved the problems of diabetes, suicide, drug addiction, and violence. To their credit, they do host lavish potlatches and spend a lot of money on salmon restoration.
That is a great (though tragic) example Alissa. I remember reading about some of the reservations and how they have been plagued by these problems. So much injustice is also wrapped up in this.
Thanks for another thoughtful and well written piece, Hadden! I love Steinbeck’s novels, especially Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden, but I haven’t read The Pearl, so I’ll add it to my list. You might also enjoy Angle of Repose by Wallace Stegner. His writing is exquisite!
One thought I might add to your post is—I agree that most people and communities are unprepared for a windfall of cash, but I think that is often connected to their lack of financial vision and stewardship for their current money. Many people and communities are not as intentional as they could be with their money, so when their money grows exponentially, their lack of intentionality gets magnified. Part of my own personal financial planning involves setting guidelines for what I do with unexpected cash. Therefore, whenever money does fall in my lap (which is not often), I’m able to not be overwhelmed by it. Perhaps, larger communities need to take a step back and ask themselves how they are using their money today, so that they are better prepared for the future. I don’t think money is an evil in an of itself, instead I think it’s one of God’s good gifts that can be used for ill or good.
I just read The Pearl last month and this was a very thought-provoking follow-up. I have never heard of the issue of the sudden wealth and I’m really intrigued by the idea of wasting part or most of it intentionally. Thank you for sharing!
Very thoughtful and thought-provoking. Truly, there is much wisdom in stories.
I haven't yet read The Pearl, I have loved Steinbeck when I read grapes of wrath as a kid. I will add this to my list!
Another lovely author to visit in this time is Willa Cather. Lovely writing.
Thanks for sharing. Your writing always leaves an impact on me. I appreciate the time sharing your thoughts.
Thanks Melissa, I hope you enjoy The Pearl (though enjoy probably is the wrong word!) I will have to keep Willa Cather on my radar.
And thank you for your kind words, that means a great deal to me.
Hadden
I enjoy most books. Even those that are painful in story. I'm my life I have experienced hardship, and I still enjoy books that make me cry with empathy. That is a gift too. I enjoy your writing, have been following along for a year or so. Thanks again
A story of similar power is ‘How Much Land Does a Man Need’ by Tolstoy.
I've seen with our adopted daughter how government agencies meant to alleviate the sufferings of the orphaned are spent on programs that rarely work and, in many cases, contribute to generational problems. Rural poverty is a real problem where I live so just being in the country doesn't solve all the questions around money and community.
This is a thought provoking article of values. It is easy to imagine what we would do if we took the pearls we have collected in our lives and invested them in wisely. Our time on earth is limited. We must invest wisely. It is sobering to think of how easily we become distracted by collecting and not see the beauty of those people and communities we can impact for today for all those tomorrows when we no longer exist.
I couldn't help thinking of the woman anointing Christ with the ridiculously expensive perform just prior to his crucifixion and Judas' criticism of the waste.
Perhaps this is why I should read classics. As a teenager, I read an abridged version of this book - only to be mildly entertained by the story and to completely miss this wisdom.
Thank you for this post and for introducing me to many new ideas.
Another story that takes a look at money, communities, and values is Joan Aiken's short story "A Long Day Without Water".
I’ve been on a fiction kick lately too and I have to say, it’s great. I just finished Lonesome Dove, a profound tragedy dressed up as a lighthearted western cowboy story. If you’re looking for another story, I definitely recommend this one.
I really enjoyed this piece and like the reference to Lean Logic. It looks like we have a significant overlap in our reading!
Thanks Brett,
Lean Logic is one of those books that has become fundamental to my philosophy. Absolutely revolutionary - and I am not surprised it is on your shelf, Brett!
I don’t think economists would say you’re wrong to spend wealth on a garden. Do you know any?
Consumption is always arbitrary and subject to taste and preferences. Whether you give everyone in the village a dividend from discovering the pearl, Kino keeps it or the village expropriates it and spends it as the council sees fit has little to do with being ‘intentionally wasteful’. We might each choose to create gardens; Kino might build a private garden - there are many in the world, and they’re gorgeous. The council, sadly, is the least likely to create anything beautiful, which raises the question as to why you would want the decision as to how to spend the wealth to be a collective decision. These tend to be the decisions that are least likely to result in anything that isn’t blandly utilitarian. Also, can I ask what happens to the wealth of folks who’ve worked for their wealth, rather than found it? That’s by far and away how the majority of people build wealth. Do you know anyone who has found a magic pearl or won the lottery? I don’t. You can of course expropriate workers' wealth too, with whatever story you need to tell to justify it, but suffice to say it’ll be a one-off. When you knock on my door the following year, I will not have been so foolish to have spend my days working for wealth you’re going to let a committee decide how to spend. Which will be super bland and utilitarian.
And how could it not be? I might prefer roses and you tulips, but we can agree that a new bus lane would help us both get to the nursery. If you want more ‘intentionally wasteful’ spending, you’re going to need to tolerate or even frankly encourage private wealth. Much of the art in the world exists because of private wealth. Leave decisions to the public committee, and we’ll have be enjoying mass produced propaganda prints and driving Ladas. This is especially so in large liberal democracies with barely any common views anymore.
More broadly, there’s obviously a de-growth current here. But I am not persuaded you or the other de-growthers understand what you're saying. The only way to reduce growth is to reduce productivity; otherwise, you’re always generating wealth, whether it’s a hand knit sweater, a secretary’s pay check, organic jam or a factory producing ball bearings. When folks talk up de-growth, what they really mean is they wish people would spend their wealth differently, on, say bicycles instead of SUVs. Often there’s a degree of wishing people would spend more on what the de-growthers produce, like farm-to-table food or, er, substacks and books. But even if you succeed in that goal, which is likely to involve a fair amount of coercion, you will not have de-growthed anything. The wealth they’ve consumed to buy your jam still needs to be generated. If bicycles are less pricey than SUVs, they still have their ‘excess’ wealth (minus the cost of the bike), in the form of cash, stockpiles of jam or chests full of hand knit sweaters. The only way you get to de-growth is for them to produce less. You can try this yourself if you like: work less, be less productive. You might not find it so much fun.
Lastly, if you find yourself adopting a philosophy that puts Notre Dame in the bucket of wasteful - intentional or not - I’d really recommend taking a step back and reconsidering that worldview.
Hello Ansis, thank you for this pushback which I always value. I won't have the time to respond to all of your concerns here but will tackle a few.
Firstly, with regard to your last comment. My philosophy would classify the rebuilding as Notre Dame as wasteful - BUT only from an economic growth perspective (this is in line with Fleming's definition of intentional waste). It would have made much more economic sense for the French state to have used cheaper materials, employed more modern craftsmen etc in the rebuilding process. But they wisely (and rightly) chose not to. It may have been less efficient, more costly, and less productive to rebuild Notre Dame in the traditional way but the benefits to society were so much greater for doing so.
Thus, the rebuilding was economically "wasteful", but culturally, socially, and aesthetically productive. It all depends on what values one is foregrounding. In this essay, I argue we foreground wealth/economy far too much in our modern societies to the detriment of social, aesthetic, community, and cultural capital. A quick glance at the manifestos of most political parties would show this: arts, culture, traditions, local services, etc can all be cut in funding to boost economic growth. That's what the politicians and mainstream economists would say (and actively do).
Thus, I am defining waste in this essay in an unorthodox sense, partly for its provocative effect which makes people think. I wouldn't necessarily use this in everyday speech for fear of misinterpretation (as I fear has happened here with your response).
Secondly, this essay is not touching private wealth so to speak (thought the example of Kino in Steinbeck's story is referring to private wealth). I am talking about communal wealth here. And not collective wealth either. Collectivisation is a project doomed to fail in my opinion, except under incredibly rare circumstances. As you rightly note, collective projects gravitate towards utilitarianism and sterile blandness.
However, local scale "communal" (or better "community") projects and wealth stewardship often avoids this trap. And this is the scale of the council I am talking about: parish level, where the members of the council are themselves local residents deeply invested into their local (small) communities (whether that be a small village or a small urban ward). Because they are invested in their local community and have affection for it, and direct responsibility for it, they are likely to steward excess wealth in a way which preserves and cultivates beauty, conviviality, neighbourliness, and projects that the local community needs (like bus routes).
Councils or politicians higher up the bureaucratic ladder (e.g. at county level or national level), don't have this same level of investedness in local, embodied places. Thus they all to easily fall into utilitarianism and economic mismanagement - or valuing the wrong things. I would want to keep excess wealth far away from such people!
As to degrowrth, my thoughts on this issue are still too immature to offer judgement. It is something I need to continue to explore. Though I am sympathetic to degrowth arguments (I am of the opinion that the economy cannot for ever grow, due to fundamental biophysical constraints - I ascribe to ecological economics per Herman Daly), I view degrowth as practically impossible without huge societal upheaval. Plus, no politician is ever going to say that they are pro-degrowth.
However, I do not think that being less productive is necessarily a bad thing. We all make this decision everyday (e.g. by not working late into the night or overtime) because we value other things more than mere wealth accumulation. As a society I fear that we have lost sight of what is truly valuable (beauty, creation, art, community, nature, faith etc) and have blindly equated economic growth with progress and value. However, excess economic growth can break down what is truly valuable e.g. the Industrial Revolution, for all the good it achieved, was ecologically disastrous in many areas, broke rural communities, facilitated the creation of slums, and relied on a poor view of the human worth of the worker (treated often as mere cogs in a machine).
Thus, economic growth, though it achieves much good (and necessary good) does come at a cost - it is these costs I wish we were better at accounting for and avoiding the worst of. Thus sometimes rather than using excess wealth to fuel further capital growth, I argue that we as a society and as individuals should consider "wasting" it by doing economically irrational, but culturally rational things like creating "unnecessary" beauty (there is no utilitarian need for a house to be beautiful - only for it to be livable; but there is all the reason in the world for it to be beautiful from a cultural, aesthetic, and quality of life perspective).
Growth stops when we no longer increase in number or productivity. That’s all. It won’t stop because we decide to build churches instead of motels. Even the excess cash, if any, the church generates beyond its expenses is donated which has same impact. If it funds more churches or a parish hall - well, there you go, same as motels. The salaries and upkeep it pays similarly involve growth because most people generate a profit, however small, from their labor. If the church needs funding to operate, other activities will need to generate the profit to keep it running. No loss making activity can persist without an offsetting gain somewhere in the system. You either decay or grow, like in biology. There is no magical land where neither happens because we build beautiful rather than utilitarian things. It’s fine to say “let’s build beautiful” but it’s not about growth or lack thereof.
Ok, I think we will have to agree to disagree going forward.
But my last comment is to say (keeping with the church vs motel example), that though the function of the church does lead to a small degree of growth, there is a huge difference between this and the growth caused by a motel. For the motel, growth is the point - the reason for existence. For the church, it is a secondary, even tertiary motive/by-product. Economic growth is not the primary aim for the church.
Thus, if one had some excess capital and wanted to grow their wealth, the last thing they would build or invest in is a church (let alone a beautiful costly one). They would build a motel instead. Thus, by building a church instead of a motel, a community or (more likely) an individual "wastes" the potential for significant economic growth from their capital.
I'll end it at that.
Fair enough but the purpose of a motel is to house travelers, a church to praise God. No one would do either if no one came even if one charges per use and the other by tithe or donation (both of which can only be generated by, well, a motel chain perhaps). You can in fact run a motel for generations without the kind of growth you’re talking about. See Japan for thousand year old inns. Just run it at enough of a profit you can operate.
Really you’re just saying we should consume more and invest less or perhaps more accurately consume differently: buy more books or build gardens or churches. Fair enough. I’d agree. It just doesn’t have anything to do with battling growth. After all, someone has to make a profit providing you with those things.
This is an argument about what we do with the wealth we generate through our productivity. It is not about how we shouldn’t be productive or shouldn’t generate wealth. And that’s really all economic growth means.
Thanks. This is interesting but i don’t think it really works to frame utility versus beauty as growth versus waste. They’ve nothing to do with one another. There was no less growth because of using better materials; probably the opposite as more raw materials and labor were transformed into a building. I think the problem is whomever advocates this is afraid to state the truth: a book is better than a gossip magazine, a gothic cathedral is better than a cheap motel. But these judgments have nothing to do with economics or growth. That’s just being thrown around because we’re afraid to made the more teleological point: this end is better than that. Economics is generally indifferent to whether you build one church or ten motels: growth happens equally all the same. I think we end up in similar places, but I’m sceptical of attempts to frame them in terms of economic growth. Maybe utility.
Agreed that growth happens all the same (sort of) when you build a church vs 10 motels but it is what happens AFTER which is what Fleming is touching on with his use of waste/what the project enables to continue to happen.
The church is a dead-end project. It is not going to contribute to ongoing wealth creation (if a church was doing so I would question whether it a "church" or if it a business - like mega churches sometimes are!). The motels, however, serve a purpose of continued economic growth and wealth accumulation. People pay to use the motel. If it is popular enough, the capital might be raised to build another motel, and another, and another... When does it stop? All too often it stops well beyond where it should have stopped (most likely, the growth stops when the motel chain has outcompeted most other independent motels). This is toxic and harmful growth in terms of society.
This is the heart of the matter. Do we just invest in projects that have the capacity to increase future economic growth or do we invest in dead-end (but immensely valuable) projects like a church, beautiful dwellings, art, or a massive feast. I want us all to do a lot more of the latter.
Not everyone will agree with Fleming's use of "waste" here. I personally have found it conceptually helpful, but I admit others won't. That's why I'm careful in using it, but not willing to forsake using it.