Comment to NYTimes on China's consumer spending

A New York Times discussion piece is titled "China's next stage - spreading the wealth", available a this link for the next few weeks.
Here's a reply I wrote, which may or may not end up being posted.

==========

This discussion highlights some unstated assumptions which need to be made explicit and re-examined.

One is that raising a "standard of living" is equal to, or even requires inclusion of "going shopping" for "consumer goods." Good schools, good libraries, good health care, good roads, decent rail systems and schedules are equally valuable. Civility, strong and safe neighborhoods, and a culture that succeeds at helping people get even better and stronger at caring for each other's basic needs -- these are values money does not buy directly, and in fact, focusing attention on consumer purchases may undermine in both the short and long term.

A second unstated assumption / assertion which needs to be challenged is that anyone besides economists should care about "the economy", and, even if they did, that the sacred "Gross Domestic Product" is any kind of valid measure of same. Frankly, if the country is strong, economic growth can go to zero, or negative, or to imaginary values, and who cares? A superb must-read timeless 1995 Atlantic Monthly article on how bad the GDP is at capturing anything that actually matters to real people (not economists) is "If the GDP is Up, why is America down?" (available on-line here http://www.economischegroei.net/file/14 )

A case in point of that assumption is the current state in the USA, where there seems to be a belief by those on top that "the economy" is recovering, despite the fact that the job, debt, housing, and health-care situation of the average American is demonstrably getting worse while consumer prices are rising. Don't even start on the bad and visibly deteriorating condition of roads, transportation options, schools, or any social service provided by state government budgets. Or on the barbaric level of discourse that has replaced reasoned discussion in our "governing bodies."

Besides, "standards of living" assume that, for starters, the country continues to exist at all, and has not been invaded, bombed out of existence, torn apart by domestic unrest, destroyed by a series of plagues and public health disasters, consumed by internal corruption, etc. Again, this argues that there are crucial values to which the GDP and "economy" are completely blind.

Steering a country based on the GDP's short-term behavior is a recipe for disaster. Discarding filial piety and love for family, neighbors, community, and country in favor of more Walmart's seems a questionable road upwards to a sustainable and desirable future for China.

"What else could we be doing to help those who don't even have their basic needs met?" seems a better question to be asking, or "Are we growing healthier and wiser and more civil and more civilized as a country and a people?"

In that light "Are we consuming enough consumer goods to keep the economy growing?" seems to be completely off base as a guide to policy.

=========

Comments, criticisms, additional thoughts are welcome!