Whichever
How often I have wished that public economic decision-making could be done in the manner of common sense, which is to say, in the opposite way to what most think necessary. Unlike me, for instance, the majority will consistently vote “forwards.” My own sensible preference for “backwards” never wins.
“We are all Keynesians now,” as Richard Nixon used to tell us, paraphrasing some genius or other. In other words, the habit of voting “forwards,” for progressive lunatics, has come to describe our habitual faux pas.
“Economic growth” should never be the ambition of the state, as opposed to the preference for “whichever.” Of course, this does not apply to private life where, owing to the mysterious phenomenon of “freedom,” individual people and their families may continue to grow rich, or begin to do so if they haven’t before, within the laws (as the state ought to prefer). Others might, by comparative good fortune, grow poorer, or begin to do so, more by fate than by choice: but within the laws. One may be fatalistic, or indulge in other adventures, but consistently within the laws.
The state, however, should always consider itself neutral, and need not care how much wealth its citizens have amassed, or failed to amass. It isn’t the business of the state to favour success, or failure. It is for “the citizens” to pursue such illusory and fictitious things. Note: the keeping of statistics has always been vile and ungodly.
Consider Japan. The national income (“GNP” or “GDP” is the outrageous way they like to measure this) has been failing to grow for the last three or four decades. Before that, it was growing rather quickly, even though before that again, there was a nationalist firestorm and “the people” were rather seriously burnt. These things happen.
And very well: you work a bit harder to recover from disasters (almost all of which are instances of self-harm), and the population naturally recovers afterwards (when those people once again merrily resume reproducing, or at least, not being killed at such an untypically high rate). They eat more food, as those who are living become more numerous, and would, even if the quality of the food hasn’t improved. Indeed, the goodness of food is not only a question of wealth, but a case of real alimentary decision: some people like fine food they prepare, others prefer junk from cans. Let each of them decide, within his means. It isn’t a political question.
At least one clever Japanese economist points out, the overall population has been declining, even without a war, for several decades. But the income per person has nevertheless been increasing. “GNP per capita” is still rising, no matter what the government does. And when, owing to the very low birth rate, the country becomes extinct (apparently less quickly than China or Korea), all will continue to be well. For a people that has ceased to exist does not consume anything at all.
Truly, we live in the best of all possible worlds: whether we are moving forwards or backwards.