Why we need to start using the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) over the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) indicator.

    Now that the dust has settled, we can begin to review another year’s black Friday, along with small-business Saturday, and cyber Monday, and the repercussions that come along with these irresponsible consumerism practices. For this year’s black Friday consumers spent approximately $12.24 billion between online and brick and mortar retail, as projected by ShopperTrak and comScore. This $12.24 billon all contributes to the U.S. GDP, which is the Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. economy. This is were the repercussions can be found, but before we go down the rabbit hole, we must first prepare for the journey by defining the key terms necessary to curb this pandemic.

Consumerism: The theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable; Also a preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of consumer goods.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Is a technique to assess the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or service, by:

• Compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental releases.
• Evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with identified inputs and releases.
• Interpreting the results to help you make a more informed decision.

     With the two key terms listed above, we may continue to develop the argument against the foundations of consumerism, the GDP, and economic growth. Let’s begin with the GDP; The GDP was developed to document the movement of monies within the U.S. economy. This means many things, one, when money is spent on health care that is related to environmental degradation, like emphysema, or most forms of cancer, the flow of monies for that contributes to the GDP. This is a VERY big problem, because it is not distinguished as a negative aspect in the economy. Instead it is viewed as just another growth factor. Another issue with the GDP indicator is when the country begins to experience stagnant growth, as happened during the recession, the country views this as a negative experience, which needs a stimulant to promote growth. This is the market failure in my beliefs, because continued growth is not necessary in an economy, what is necessary, is development, and sustainable development at that. That is why we should introduce the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), because as the name states, it indicates the genuine progress of a country. In this manner, pollution, increased spending on medical costs, current consumption habits, and many other aspects that grow the GDP will all be unacceptable in GPI standards. The GPI calls for sustainable development, distributed wealth, and sustainable consumption habits -- if done correctly -- and can revitalize a country’s economy for long-term development and prosperity.

     If the Genuine Progress Indicator is adopted by a country as the main economic indicator, this would require many goods and services to be taken out of the market economy based on their poor sustainability practices. The GPI requires that only actions that will benefit an economy be allowed to operate within it. An example of this would be the sales of guns, as the gun is an obsolete object in a society that exhibits logical critical thinking, the sales of guns would decrease and disappear as an economy based on GPI is developed the need for an outdated technology is no longer needed. This provides that the consumption of meat decreases, the incentives to commit crime would be abolished as resources are provided to every individual, and any other uses for the primitive tool are discontinued as an economy using GPI develops and evolves. The fact is, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of products and services that would find no place in an economy using the GPI, and this would cause the population to evolve in a beneficial way. Using GPI would also decrease the consumption habits of a society, and additionally promote the Life Cycle Assessment of products and services that do find competitiveness within the new economy, both of which would only benefit society.

     Please contest these points if you find logical points of argument, because the only way to find solutions to these pressing problems is to discuss and develop solutions previously untested by society.

It seems history repeats itself in many ways, they scoffed Newton, as they scoff the great minds of today. I am just attempting to disband the ignorance that has clouded our imagination.

Onward,

Hayden