http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/magazine/23clintonism-t ...

He refers to a manifesto that Bill Clinton made, called the New Orleans Declaration, back in 1990, when he had become chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.  One of the principles was:

<<
We believe that economic growth is the prerequisite to expanding opportunity for everyone.  The free market, regulated in the public interest, is the best engine of general prosperity.
>>

It is not clear from this how much attention he was paying, back then, to "energy and resource supply," and "imbalance."  But it is interesting that over 15 years later, commenting on post-Katrina New Orleans, he said that George W. Bush lost an opportunity to rebuild New Orleans as a model prosperous green city.

As for Han Yongwen, what specifically is he afraid of?  Typically in a complex system, some parts are quite up to the challenge of being made to go ever faster, but others are more likely to burn out.  So is "energy and resource supply" just a weak part of the system, which is fixable?  Or has he come to believe that that supply is never again going to be either plentiful or reliable?

Presumably there is no question of chucking economic growth, though.  What underlies that basic, driving aspiration?  Like many Americans, Bill Clinton in 1990 (has he changed at all since then?) connected economic growth to "prosperity."  But "prosperity" is one of those words by which different people mean different things.  Is it possible to speak of prosperity without economic growth?  

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

        You ask a fair question "Is it possible to speak of prosperity without economic growth?"

        This question might make a lot of sense in a developed country (such as the US), where there is enough wealth to end poverty (if people chose to do so, there seems to be no will to do so in America).

         But it doesn't fit in developing countries.  The average Chinese income is 1/33 the average Americans.  Even allowing for purchasing power differences, this is a huge gap.  And within this gap, there is the internal gap.

        If you have any concrete suggestions, please offer them.  I alas have none, but I do know that the poverty in which some of my students live is troubling, and that a good life includes certainly more wealth than most of them have.

Happy New Year,

patrick in Beijing

In what I had written earlier, I was only thinking openly, and asking for information.  I certainly have no concrete suggestions, nor am I implying that anyone deserves criticism.

Well, OK, it is true that everyone everywhere in every state and condition of life would always be better off to examine carefully the evaluative vocabulary that we use, and consider how it is related to what we truly value.  As Michael Pollan noted, in an essay recently brought to the attention of Gristmill-readers, that is the sort of thing that the Confucianists mean by "the rectification of names," a great ethical aspiration of theirs.

Among the many native speakers of Spanish in this world of ours, "Próspero Año Nuevo" is a conventional greeting for New Year's Day.  So what are we doing, in Spanish, when we wish prosperity on someone?  What does "prosperity" mean?  "Getting richer and richer and richer"?  Or, rather, "having the minimum needed to get by, plus a little bit more, enough to enable one to hope"?  

Whatever the GOP and the DLC want to do with the word, it basically has to do with hope, with things turning out according to one's hope.  Presumably the Boy from Hope understands that, with "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" playing in the background.  But one wonders how deeply he has thought about these things.

And one may also wonder how deeply any of us have thought about the sorts of things we may hope for.

(((

FYI:

English "happiness," with adjective "happy," is originally closely equivalent to the classical Greek "eudaimonia," with adjective "eudaimon," in their original sense: "having a favorable supernatural agency on your side, which will make everything turn out to your advantage."  Aristotle (and others) gave "eudaimonia" a more abstract, less materialistic ethical sense, and "happiness" has pretty much followed.

Spanish "feliz," <-- Latin "felix, felicis," is originally about as grossly materialistic as one could want.  The basic element, "fe-," is the same as is found in the Latin verb meaning "to do, to make," "facio, facere, feci, factum."  Not for nothing is the Latin word for "cat" made from the same element: "feles" or "felis," adjective "felinus, -a, -um."  I.e., like some other small mammals, cats are remarkable for reproducing often and bearing many young in a single litter.  So Spanish "felicidad," <-- Latin "felicitas, felicitatis," --> English "felicity," would be nearly equivalent to "getting richer and richer and richer."

)))

As for the poverty of your students, you MUST make careful observations of this, and everything that you are experiencing in China.  And for that matter, you must take careful account of all your experiences in the US too, before you went abroad.  I have exhorted you a couple of times now already, haven't I: WRITE A BOOK!

No one knows the sorrow and frustration quite as a teacher does, what it is to meet everyday with young people, for whom we feel great responsibility and concern, and whom we see to be in hardship of one kind or another, and whom we may be able to help in some limited way, but never adequately in the long term.

But in the case of the students whom you have in mind, "economic growth" would seem to be a red herring.  Or rather, this is connected to what I was getting at earlier: Why in the world does equitable distribution of wealth require economic growth?  Are we seriously supposed to believe that the sense of the common good, or of basic compassion, will not kick in unless and until economic growth is first humming along nicely?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

       I had actually responded to this a while back, but when I pressed the post button, the internet ate the whole thing.  I took it as a sign from the furies and slunk away.

       You ask "Why in the world does equitable distribution of wealth require economic growth?"  

       The simple answer to this is that much of the developed world doesn't believe in an equitable distribution of wealth.  (Okay, almost all in the case of America).  Mention the term, and people call you a marxist and begin to burn crosses on your shoes while trying to drive splinters into your shirt buttons.

        Of course it doesn't.

        Then you asked "Are we seriously supposed to believe that the sense of the common good, or of basic compassion, will not kick in unless and until economic growth is first humming along nicely?"

        Actually, the poor are much more generous than the rich (per capita).  But their share of the pie is so small (think crumbs), that they don't make much difference.

        And it's not all about charity.  Most people want a chance to do something meaningful with their lives, and work is part of that.

        The real problem is that the West (and the US especially) got hooked on two very bad ideas (he who dies with the most toys wins) (and) (never give a sucker an even break).  One of these is related to individualism (the virtue of selfishness) and the other is related to measuring status on the basis of accumulations.

        Look at how many tv shows are about the joys of wealth in the US.  All of the reality shows have people debasing themselves and others for a chance at money.  Life Styles of the Rich and Famous.

        There is a huge propaganda machine that pukes this kind of nonsense out to society.  And it is killing us.

        But for people at the lower end, wealth means access to food, medical care, shelter, a comfortable life style (which is not always luxurious).  They need to get there first, and it will require economic growth for them to do so.

        In the meantime, if Americans have souls (questionable, even if you believe in them), some serious searching might be called for.

        I do write (and take photographs), but at this time, don't publish (okay a couple of short stories and poems locally).  Thanks for thinking kindly of my poor words!!!

Happy Every Day (Chinglish best wishes)

patrick in Beijing