A Reflection On Macroeconomics, Revolutionary Idealism, And The Green New Deal
As I sat in the second row of a 100-person lecture—my attempt at forcing myself to stay focused during my requirement-fulfilling introductory macroeconomics class—one slide caught my attention. In a sea of explanations for how to calculate GDP using the expenditure and income methods, the differences between capital and consumption goods, and the equations for determining rates of labor force participation, one bullet point stood out, hinting at the limitations of these models for understanding our world: “Environmental Quality and Resource Depletion are difficult to value. They have value and that value is omitted from GDP.” It dawned on me that the way this detail was presented, quickly and uncritically, resembled how many of our politicians understand the relationship between our environment and economic success.
Perhaps it’s unfair or naïve for me to expect a nuanced critique of capitalist frameworks from an introductory level economics course. But I do expect more from our political leaders. Thankfully, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Senator Ed Markey have stepped up to the plate with their proposal for the Green New Deal. As soon as the list of resolutions were presented to Congress, critics were quick to brush it off as an idealistic, impractical hodgepodge of every issue that matters to the Left—healthcare, union representation, and the transition to an economy based on renewable energy, among other things.
What is concerning about this criticism is its fundamental lack of understanding of the interconnectedness of all the inequities that the Green New Deal boldly confronts head-on, or the scope of a plan needed to properly address them. Since its founding, America’s GDP, and its global success, has been fueled by the competition inherent in its capitalist economic model, and the exploited labor (enslaved people, migrant workers, the poor) at the base of its profit. The belief that the competition between firms, industries, and multinational corporations, mainly unregulated by governments, will lead to better outcomes for all is reflected in our status as the only developed nation without universal healthcare or paid maternal leave. It is why low-income communities and communities of color carry the burden of toxic waste removal plans, such as the coal ash ponds poisoning the water of Labadie, Missouri. It is why ultra-wealthy CEOs of companies such as Peabody Energy, which currently funds Wash U’s Consortium on “Clean Coal” Utilization, live far away from the dirty extraction sites giving coal workers black lung disease.[su_pullquote align=”right”]Since its founding, America’s GDP, and its global success, has been fueled by the competition inherent in its capitalist economic model, and the exploited labor (enslaved people, migrant workers, the poor) at the base of its profit.[/su_pullquote]
The Green New Deal is revolutionary in its idealism because it dares to believe that America can confront the damage done by its capitalist system. It challenges a world-view in which extreme wealth, enjoyed by a few, is valued above dignity for many. It questions the inequity we have come to accept as part of life, if life can only be imagined where extraction and profit comes before community and restoration. It resets the parameters of possibility.[su_pullquote align=”right”]The Green New Deal is revolutionary in its idealism because it dares to believe that America can confront the damage done by its capitalist system.[/su_pullquote]
It’s no coincidence that those smearing the Green New Deal as impractical are often those who benefit directly from the exploitation it is trying to address. According to a Huffington Post report, Senators that do not back the Green New Deal received on average seven times as much money in donations from fossil fuel companies. These are the same people who make seemingly objective arguments that the Green New Deal is simply unaffordable. This argument falls flat when we consider all the things the government is willing to spend on— such as tax cuts for the wealthy and defense spending roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets in the world—or when we think about the cost of not acting. A U.N. report warns that we have twelve years to make drastic strides in our fight against climate change, before our earth is irrevocably changed for the worse. When we pass the point of no return, how much will we, and our children and grandchildren, wish we had channeled the Green New Deal’s supposed idealism into action – of any kind?[su_pullquote]When we pass the point of no return, how much will we, and our children and grandchildren, wish we had channeled the Green New Deal’s supposed idealism into action – of any kind?[/su_pullquote]
The fact that no other proposal has been put into place suggests that what the Green New Deal’s opponents are really against is the notion that we should be questioning why we don’t deserve more. That we should dare value the resource depletion and the quality of the environment that we are trained to view as a footnote in Macroeconomics 101. That we should try to repair the legacies of America’s racist, capitalist, extractive system which took root via the ethnic cleansing of indigenous lands. It appears to me that many of our leaders have confused idealism with merely having ideals. I hope for our collective future that we, their constituents, remind them otherwise.
Hanna Khalil ’20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at hannakhalil@wustl.edu.