| Yes. Sarcastic. I appreciate especially this part of your comment: If anyone is on the fence about sustainability vs economic growth, I strongly urge you to do a full accounting with all externalities. If we focus on the full accounting of positives (not even looking at externalities), we already see problems with these economic models. They fail to assign positive economic value to the zoning laws. The economists in the article say something like "these zoning laws are depressing economic output by $1.5 trillion." But, there's another way to look at it: "the value that communities derive from having the power to zone their cities as they see fit is $1.5 trillion." In other words, these local communities are willing to exchange $1.5 trillion in easy-to-value economic activity for the power to create not-so-easy-to-value zoning laws. The fact that these economists choose to ignore that economic value does not eliminate that value. I see it as comparable to a stay-at-home spouse who raises children. Such a person doesn't receive an easy-to-count dollar-value paycheck. But those stay-at-home parents across the country are, without any doubt, working hard and contributing significantly to GDP. It's a matter of measurement, not existence. The economic value definitely exists. How seriously should any of us take an economic model which completely ignores such contributions to GDP? |