,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
In defence of (arguably) lost causes: have a question / thought on the topic of ‘inclusive growth’. I’d love to hear your take @KateRaworth (Caveat: it’s probably rubbish). Thread:
1/The concept of “inclusive growth” is a valid critique of the fact that most growth today is.. not. Extractive monopolies, share buybacks, rent, instead of reinvestment and shared prosperity. But doesn’t scale as an idea, because it it ignores the limits to growth.
2/ We’re also recognising the flaws in trying to monetise the limits to growth (eg carbon credits) because a. They create perverse incentives and b. Are arguably the moral equivalent of allowing the wealthy to pay to break the law.
3/ So presumably the best tools gov has at present for the outside of the 🍩 are strategic funding/ investment into green open innovation, alongside ambitious gov regulation (ie shape the market by changing what’s possible, then insisting on it.)
4/ But if there is one form of growth that *is* theoretically infinite, wouldn’t it human well-being? Though our definition of it should be always evolving, there is no upper limit to how ‘well’ we can be?
5/ So what would happen if a gov (or govs) were to issue a new currency whose value is indexed to a wide, complex array of different measures of their citizens’ wellbeing?
Then allow taxes to be paid in that currency.
Then allow taxes to be paid in that currency.
6/ Obviously what you wouldn’t want to do is create a perverse incentive to encourage overall human population growth. But you could tie it to what % of the National (or global) population are achieving what levels of wellbeing.
7/... um.. that’s basically it. Haven’t thought this through any further...!
8/ I mean, really this is probably just a massive social impact bond.. Bt essentially the idea is to flip GDP-as-goal, creating markets dedicated to maximising the wellbeing, realisation and protection of every child, adult, old person... giving us all skin in each other’s game.
