The Problem With GDP

A major difference between the mainstream "grey" political parties (the Lib Dems, Labour, the Tories) and the Green Party is our attitude towards the economy.

Our economic system only counts certain things. It doesn't recognise the value of unpaid labour, and it doesn't recognise the value of environmental resources.

When the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred, the clean-up costs, media activity, legal expenses and salvage operations made a huge contribution to Alaska's economic "growth" -- on paper, the spill contributed to economic prosperity.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) doesn't account for qualitative changes, in the mix of economic activity, or in the quality of our goods and services. Pollution, crime, sickness, accidents, and natural disasters can register as contributing to prosperity. Bottled water, rather than free and clean tap water, is literally “better for the economy”, simply because more money is spent on the former.

Part of our uphill struggle is to convince the public that spending more for ethically-sourced goods makes sense, since their value (not the monetary, but their societal value) is greater than non-ethical goods.

Similarly, the hundreds of millions of pounds spent each month on new automobiles, on petrol, on road building -- these show up as "adding value" to the GDP, to how we keep track, quantitatively, of the economy's progress. We now realise that carbon emissions are slowly cooking the planet, and car use is part of the problem. If it's part of the problem, it shouldn't be seen as adding value to the economy.

Everytime you see an "economic" decision, ask yourself, is it adding value to the real economy -- the economy that you know and I know exists -- an economy where people matter and the environment matters and quality of life matters.