I like the intent and the spirit. But I disagree with the assertion that financial growth is inherently destructive. It's not an indefensible assertion, but I don't think it was adequately defended here. It's plain to see that there is plenty of supporting evidence that financial growth is, in fact, driving forces of inequality and suffering. However, I believe that this result is a perversion (albeit an increasingly popular one) of financial progress and not a fundamental of the pursuit.
Take for instance a non-for-profit organization that serves humanity's basic needs in some third world country. In its infancy, this hypothetical organization was likely conceived by a person, or group of people whose time was given pro-bono. As the organization grew and the demands on these peoples time became greater, they either became full time salaried directors, and/or hired some part-time paid help to handle the administrative duties of the organization. And as they continued to grow, these part time employees became full time, and the directors likely took modest increases to their salaries. Assuming no fraudulent or unethical financial practices, this company has served to create financial growth for its employees as it serves the greater good of humanity.
So while it's fair to say that financial growth certainly can be counter-productive, I think it's unfair to assume that this must always be the case.
On Feb 10, 2012 Taylor Aue wrote:
I like the intent and the spirit. But I disagree with the assertion that financial growth is inherently destructive. It's not an indefensible assertion, but I don't think it was adequately defended here. It's plain to see that there is plenty of supporting evidence that financial growth is, in fact, driving forces of inequality and suffering. However, I believe that this result is a perversion (albeit an increasingly popular one) of financial progress and not a fundamental of the pursuit.
Take for instance a non-for-profit organization that serves humanity's basic needs in some third world country. In its infancy, this hypothetical organization was likely conceived by a person, or group of people whose time was given pro-bono. As the organization grew and the demands on these peoples time became greater, they either became full time salaried directors, and/or hired some part-time paid help to handle the administrative duties of the organization. And as they continued to grow, these part time employees became full time, and the directors likely took modest increases to their salaries. Assuming no fraudulent or unethical financial practices, this company has served to create financial growth for its employees as it serves the greater good of humanity.
So while it's fair to say that financial growth certainly can be counter-productive, I think it's unfair to assume that this must always be the case.