Measuring the new prosperity, Jack Layton, prosperity, cost, economic, environment, people, social
Prosperity always comes with a cost. If prosperity is to be questioned due to the existence of costs, there is no real prosperity. According to Jack Layton's essay, "Measuring the New Prosperity" (hereinafter referred to as "the Essay"), prosperity must consider the social costs that were incurred. Although profit cannot be calculated without deducting costs, profits cannot exist without costs. In addition to the inaccurate focus on the economy, the Essay fails to persuade the readers due to the inadequate comparison between the two economic measures; the incomplete illustrations against the current system; and the extreme reasoning for justifying change. For these reasons, the Essay is unable to assure the readers of a definitive proposal for the measuring of prosperity.
[...] It attempts to change the criteria for prosperity in order to promote equity, but it deviates from this as it progresses. Aside from the bias toward the current system, the comparison does not assist in convincing its readers; the illustrations does not demonstrate the arguments; and the causation of the GDP's inaccuracy does not logically reinforce itself. In effect, the Essay is suggesting unnecessary changes. Although the Essay might act as a framework for development, its ideas are not matured enough to be a direct course-of- action. [...]
[...] If the Essay's thesis is on equity, it would have focused on the education and social awareness of it. Since the economy is the outcome of the accumulated effect of every individuals' actions, Layton cannot use the economy to change individuals. However, actions can be molded through knowledge and morals. By neglecting the morals that drive society, prosperity has no meaning. Regardless of the “income distribution unemployment rates, and net capital investment,” society cannot prosper without peace and unity (165). [...]
[...] the group that sets the values for each factor). Thus, the Essay does not create persuasion; instead, it creates uncertainty. Not only is it an overhaul of the current economic system, it is too dependent on individualistic values. Although the illustrations about “family breakdown unpaid housework and child care” are relevant to families, it is not applicable to everyone (165). If the GPI succeeds the GDP and these values manifest itself into the new system, there is still no equity, because the calculations are not inclusive of the entire population. [...]
[...] More importantly, the Essay is distorted by narrow-thinking. That is, Layton forces the relationship between the economic measure and social costs. The “horrible events” that he mentions is not the only logical causation of economic growth (164). This shocking introduction may attract readers, but it also misleads them. While “creating direct jobs” may be good for the economy, the write-off of property and the casualties of human life would exceed the alleged profits (164). Despite Layton's attempt, a reasonable person would have acknowledged the obvious losses from these illustrations. [...]
using our reader.