Jason Hickel is that grand examplar of why we don’t allow anthropologists to do economics.
For example, he had a big and long paper proving that the average Brit was on below subsistence wages for the length of the 19th century. Proved it ‘e did! It was only with the arrival of 20th century redistribution that the average bloke could support, have even, a family. Yay for socialist redistribution and all that.
Complete cock of course as Paul Krugman has pointed out. No, not specifically, more generally - economics adds up. Hickel’s claim was that the average bod was on less than subsistence wages. Less than the amount that would support two adults and two children. This riffs off Ricardo - if the average worker cannot raise enough children to replace, in the next generation, the workers then society’s stuffed, right? And this is obviously true. If we define subsistence as the level of wages that enables the generational replacement of the proles then, obviously and clearly, if wages are below subsistence then the proles disappear. And, of course, the capitalists weep for no more to expropriate.
OK. So, Hickel claims below subsistence and…….hey, wait a minute, what happened to the British population in the 19th cent? Well, actually, it tripled. And migration was, on balance, out migration of some 100% of the original starting population. So, the birthing and raising on these isles was that population quadrupled.
The idea that all, or the majority, were on less than subsistence is cock, isn’t it?
But, you know, anthropologists trying economics.
Another Hickel paper:
A recession is categorically different to degrowth, however. A recession is a shrinkage of the existing economy (an economy that requires growth in order to remain stable), while regrowth calls for a shift to a different kind of economy altogether (an economy that does not require growth in the first place). The literature on degrowth argues that it is possible to reduce aggregate economic activity in high-income nations while at the same time maintaining and even improving indicators of human development and well-being. This can be accomplished with a series of integrated policy reforms. For instance, as dirty and socially unnecessary industries close down and aggregate economic activity contracts, unemployment can be prevented by shortening the working week and redistributing necessary labour (into cleaner, more socially useful sectors) with a job guarantee. Wage losses due to a reduction in working hours can be prevented by increasing hourly wages with a living wage policy. To protect small businesses that may find it difficult to pay significantly higher hourly wages, a universal basic income scheme could be introduced, with dividends funded by taxation on carbon, wealth, land value, resource extraction, and corporate profits.
Anthropologists doing economics again. Sigh.
GDP is, by definition, all incomes. It’s all incomes, or all production, or all consumption, each of the three is equal to either other of the two. By definition. If we reduce production then we must, have to, reduce incomes. If we reduce consumption then lower incomes are the same thing.
He’s saying that we can reduce production but not incomes - bloke’s not got the first clue.
Sigh, but, you know, anthropologists doing economics.
"reduce aggregate economic activity in high-income nations while at the same time maintaining and even improving indicators of human development and well-being."
Could it be that what he's trying to say is: we can reduce inputs while increasing outputs. I.e. productivity growth. But since "growth" is unfashionable in his circles, and he's really confused, he doesn't say that.
Well, to be fair, anthropologists doing anthropology are hardly any better...
I am amused that he can so easily identify "socially unnecessary industries " It doesn't seem to occur to the fatuous twat that those industries serve some human need - whether for steel, concrete, or recreation. If they didn't they never would have emerged in the first place. If they served our needs once, but no longer do, they would be failing - and we wouldn't need anyone like Hickel to shut them down.