The Top 1% is Stalling the Economy

[cybercoma]

The problem is quality of life and sustainability is purely subjective which means any attempt at quantification will depend entirely on the biases of the people creating the measures. That makes it a useless measurement.

Right. Purely subjective. Just like the subjective idea that GDP relates to quality of life.

[bush_cheney2004]

Right. Purely subjective. Just like the subjective idea that GDP relates to quality of life.

Don't care if GDP correlates to quality of life...apple vs. oranges comparison.

[TimG]

Right. Purely subjective. Just like the subjective idea that GDP relates to quality of life.

Increasing GDP is a relatively unsubjective measure and it means:

1) Businesses expanding;

2) Employment increasing;

Now these things may not always mean better 'quality of life' but the opposite (business shrinking, employment dropping) will always lead to a poorer quality of life.

[eyeball]

Not if it leads to better quality ecosystems. Increasing GDP all to often leads to an overdrawn natural capital account which can make everyone and everything else that lives there poorer.

Edited January 21, 2014 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

Increasing GDP is a relatively unsubjective measure and it means:

1) Businesses expanding;

2) Employment increasing;

Now these things may not always mean better 'quality of life' but the opposite (business shrinking, employment dropping) will always lead to a poorer quality of life.

And the other measures introduced in the article are "unsubjective" [sic] as well.

[carepov]

The problem is quality of life and sustainability is purely subjective which means any attempt at quantification will depend entirely on the biases of the people creating the measures. That makes it a useless measurement.

Quality of life and sustainability indicators are more subjective than GDP but this does not mean that they are "purely subjective".

Often there is a trade-off:

1. A measurement that is objective but does not relate to the goal very well

2. A measurement that better related to the goal but is less objective

Edited January 21, 2014 by carepov

[cybercoma]

Quality of life is a subjective term itself, but that doesn't mean we should be ignoring it.

[TimG]

2. A measurement that better related to the goal but is less objective

The trouble with subjective measures is one must trust the people constructing the measure. Since we live in a polarized society there is little chance that a subjective measure will be broadly accepted. Different sides will adopt different subjective measures that suit their political agendas. In the end the measure will be useless.

[cybercoma]

The trouble with subjective measures is one must trust the people constructing the measure. Since we live in a polarized society there is little chance that a subjective measure will be broadly accepted. Different sides will adopt different subjective measures that suit their political agendas. In the end the measure will be useless.

Oh, it'll be "broadly accepted," just as anthropogenic global warming is broadly accepted. It won't be "universally accepted" because there will always be a few people that like to be contrarians for the sake of it.

[carepov]

The trouble with subjective measures is one must trust the people constructing the measure. Since we live in a polarized society there is little chance that a subjective measure will be broadly accepted. Different sides will adopt different subjective measures that suit their political agendas. In the end the measure will be useless.

Yes, this does pose problems and challenges but no this does not necessarily mean "the measure will be useless".

There are degrees of subjectivity, if a measurement becomes too subjective it may be useless. However, if your measurement is perfectly objective, but not measuring the goal, it may also be useless.

[bush_cheney2004]

There are degrees of subjectivity, if a measurement becomes too subjective it may be useless. However, if your measurement is perfectly objective, but not measuring the goal, it may also be useless.

Measurements are data, not analysis and subjective spin. I don't want to change the International System of Units because it won't tell me the quality of a banana.

[TimG]

Oh, it'll be "broadly accepted," just as anthropogenic global warming is broadly accepted.

AGW "broadly accepted"? What planet are you living on? The majority of people don't care about the issue and only express nominal support because it is considered impolite to say otherwise. If people support action the support is limited entirely to actions that impose pain on other people. No one has any interest in making personal sacrifices for this issue even if they claim to believe in it.

More importantly, the AGW issue is good example of how subjective manipulation of data by advocates can be used rationalize their desired policies instead of using the data to determine the policies.

[carepov]

Measurements are data, not analysis and subjective spin. I don't want to change the International System of Units because it won't tell me the quality of a banana.

OK, I agree about the banana, but don't you think that it would be useful to have a measurement to indicate "progress".

[bush_cheney2004]

OK, I agree about the banana, but don't you think that it would be useful to have a measurement to indicate "progress".

Not necessarily, as this would imply striking some artificial baseline and subjective metric for "progress" from that baseline. Progress is a a politically loaded word and concept. When the U.S. was confiscating land for TVA hydro projects, a lot of people didn't think it was "progress".

[Michael Hardner]

AGW "broadly accepted"? What planet are you living on? The majority of people don't care about the issue and only express nominal support because it is considered impolite to say otherwise.

Here are the numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country

[TimG]

Here are the numbers:

I don't see how those numbers tell us how many people don't care about the issue and are only responding according to how they feel obligated to respond. I think this group of people is large because the policies put in place by democratic governments show there is very little support. Edited January 21, 2014 by TimG

[carepov]

Not necessarily, as this would imply striking some artificial baseline and subjective metric for "progress" from that baseline. Progress is a a politically loaded word and concept. When the U.S. was confiscating land for TVA hydro projects, a lot of people didn't think it was "progress".

How would you define "progress" for a society?

[cybercoma]

I don't see how those numbers tell us how many people don't care about the issue and are only responding according to how they feel obligated to respond. I think this group of people is large because the policies put in place by democratic governments show there is very little support.

Better call a moving company to help you with those goalposts. Wouldn't want you throwing your back out.

[bush_cheney2004]

How would you define "progress" for a society?

That's the problem....the attributes of progress will differ between individuals and societies. All that really matters is that a society has the resources and capability to affect change, regardless of what form that change may take. Progress is a road traveled, not a final destination.

[carepov]

That's the problem....the attributes of progress will differ between individuals and societies.

Surely some measurements of progress of societies are common to all reasonable people, no?

All that really matters is that a society has the resources and capability to affect change, regardless of what form that change may take. Progress is a road traveled, not a final destination.

Change? How do you know if you make a change for the better or a change for the worse?

If progress is a road traveled, how do you know you are headed in the right direction?

[bush_cheney2004]

Change? How do you know if you make a change for the better or a change for the worse?

If progress is a road traveled, how do you know you are headed in the right direction?

There is no "right" direction, only change. No change...no "progress".

[carepov]

There is no "right" direction, only change. No change...no "progress".

What's the difference then between progression and regression?

[TimG]

Better call a moving company to help you with those goalposts. Wouldn't want you throwing your back out.

Read what I said:

The majority of people don't care about the issue and only express nominal support because it is considered impolite to say otherwise.

Meaning I knew of the polls that Michael referenced when I wrote the comment. I explained why people saying they think AGW is a problem is meaningless if they then only support policies that impose pain on other people. Edited January 21, 2014 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

What's the difference then between progression and regression?

The difference is cetaceans in oceans or on land. Take your pick.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't see how those numbers tell us how many people don't care about the issue and are only responding according to how they feel obligated to respond.

To recap: you indicate that there isn't widespread support, I provide the numbers, you say that people lie to the pollsters.

This seems to be a form of conspiracy theory: ie. people say they support it, but they really don't. Of course, like a wide government conspiracy, it can't be disproven. But if we aren't supposed to listen to polls, who are we supposed to listen to ?