Joseph Wood Krutch on why the phrase “an economy of abundance” is meaningless

[An] “economy of abundance” is a meaningless phrase unless one asks, “Abundance of what?”. A society could have an abundance of physical space and also an abundance of spiritual space. It could have an abundance of leisure, of contemplation, of intellectuality, and of spirituality. It might even have an abundance of manners. And it might have all these things without having any more of many other things; might indeed find it easier to keep the one abundance if it did not have thrust upon it more of the other.

Yet of this obvious fact few seem ever to think. Most take it for granted that the abundance which is desirable is the abundance which manifests itself most conspicuously in, say, juke boxes, television sets, organized playgrounds, and even, perhaps, of schools and of museums. They seem not even aware of the fact that much has grown scarcer while these things have been becoming more abundant, and that many things threaten to grow even scarcer still.

I am no ascetic and, so at least I believe, no fanatic of any other sort. I am not praising want and I have no romantic notion that distresses should not be relieved. But I do, in all seriousness, question the assumption that endless progress implies the needless multiplication of goods and gadgets, even that “real wages” and “production per man hour” are necessarily an approximate index of welfare. I am not saying that a reduction in the standard of material living automatically brings with it an increase in happiness or nobility, but I do doubt that the converse is true, and I do find it astonishing that this doubt seems so seldom shared.(Quoted in The Life of the Creative Spirit, p. 330.)
                          *        *        *
For a brief biography Joseph Wood Krutch, click here.

Comments

[Dave Iverson]

Great points, Charles

* [An] “economy of abundance” is a meaningless phrase unless one asks, “Abundance of what?”.

I am prone to ask several intertwined follow-up questions whenever people talk about "economy" or "economics." In this case they would be:

Abundance of what?
Abundance for whom?
Abundance for how long?
And then what?

I suspect that the first three are wrapped up in this question, "Abundance as measured by what standard?"

The "And then what?" question is borrowed from Garrett Hardin, and has to be asked repeatedly after each response, until enough future (or "futurity of present decisions," as Peter Drucker used to call it) is built into the conversation that people begin to explore the consequences of decisions.

I began asking the questions first for "efficiency," but lately have worked them into discussions about "productivity" as well.

Economists, like disciples everywhere, are fond of grabbing onto whatever simple-minded concept they can get their minds around and trying to use it to resolve whatever problem is at hand.

Asking them to think about their concepts/problems/resolutions is a first step. But few there are who are willing to even take a first step.