Nandor on Bradford
September 29th, 2009 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarAn interesting blog post from Nandor Tanczos:
Sue Bradford announced last week that she is leaving Parliament, citing disappointment at losing the co-leadership contest. It’s an honest statement and she is to be admired for that. She did not add that she is unhappy at the direction the Green Party is headed, but there is no doubt that she would have steered a very different course from that intended by the current leadership. Perhaps she saw little place for herself in the new, unaligned, Green Party.
Nandor makes clear there must be considerable tension over direction and leadership.
Sue was a sometimes controversial figure, but there is no doubt that she has played a key role in the early development of the Parliamentary Greens. She has also played an important role in Parliament, but that is all about to change. Despite her brave face, life after Parliament will be hard to adjust to. Once gone, she is unlikely to get any support from the Greens during this difficult transition, and I hope that her personal support system is strong. She will need it.
Ouch. To be fair almost all former MPs find it pretty hard after Parliament.
The Old Left element of the party, once so influential, will be scarcely represented once Sue has left. Keith Locke, considered by many to be the archetypical communist, is actually nothing of the sort. While he is the oldest member of the Green caucus, his mental youthfulness and his sense of empathy have prevented him from becoming sufficiently doctrinaire. With this new influx, the Green Party is likely to become a more emphatically ‘green-wing’ party than has been possible in the past.
A point I made.
Related posts:
- Whoar says Nandor to resign
- Greens abandon Bradford, she claims
- Nandor slates Greens positioning
- St Molesworth: Top 10 reasons Nandor Tanczos got demoted
September 29th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
“Mental youthfulness”??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ..and straight from the horse’s mouth, too!
No wonder they are heading for annihilation on election day.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“Ouch. To be fair almost all former MPs find it pretty hard after Parliament.”
Come come David I thought Helen went very graciously.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Nandor who??……….
……..or should that be Nandor What???
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
“With this new influx, the Green Party is likely to become a more emphatically ‘green-wing’ party than has been possible in the past.”
Nandor’s glaring omission here is whether it will be a “sensible” green-wing.
From a practical pov the Greens cannot be green if they only work with the Left side of the Chamber.
JC
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
” Keith Locke, considered by many to be the archetypical communist, is actually nothing of the sort”
Oh really?
Check out Comrade Locke’s latest attack on the USA.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/09/29/nz-should-avoid-bad-us-customs/
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Hmmm – BB, how is that evidence of communism? It is just that anything you don’t like is communism in your eyes?
JC, that was kind of my point – although we might differ about what should be considered sensible
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
sheesh..!..n..
dpf left out yr best line..
“..It may not be the role of a political party to advocate truly radical solutions..
..but unless the Greens continue to think about them ..
.. they risk being shipwrecked on the shoals of immediacy.”
(gotta luv/watch those ‘shoals of immediacy’..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Nandor
How is it that when OUR border security people take the right precautions Comrade Locke manages to tie the story in with another of his tiresome attacks on the USA?
Comrade Locke never misses a chance to have a crack does he Nandor, one would have thought that old Keith would be in seventh heaven given the idiot the yanks have as their President, in some ways Obamabi makes Comrade Locke look like Sir Roger Douglas yet even then he is not happy.
Comrade Locke is what he has always been, a true communist.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
His Mum and Dad were commies so I guess he is a victim of religious conditioning (as being currently expounded elsewhere on this blog at this very moment). Perhaps we should just feel pity for the poor dumb sod.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Well BB, you never pass up an opportunity to have a crack at the Greens, so does that make you a member of Destiny Church?
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Is this the same “mental youthfulness” that led to his support for Khmer Rouge, Soviet invasion of Afganistan etc. Personally I’d be less inclined to criticise Keith Locke if people he had prevoiusly worked closely with said he lost some of his “mental youthfulness” or to drop the euphemism “naivete”.
Although they undo much of this improvement by having Red Russel as “co-leader alledgedly with a dick”. Greens really need to ditch all these failed communists, and put themselves up as a centrist party -adopting more mainstream defense, foreign policy, social, and economic policy. Their direction must start to indicate some pragmatic realisation that the economy must continue to grow. Historically enviromentalism goes straight out the window when money gets tight, and at least some token acknowledgement of this would go a long way to widening their voting base. As it is, they exist as a fringe party who will never hold the balance of power or gain more than token concessions.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“Well BB, you never pass up an opportunity to have a crack at the Greens, so does that make you a member of Destiny Church?”
Not an elegant way of skirting the questions posed: Does Keith Locke remain an avowed communist or not? Has he renounced his totalitarian past? Why is hatred of the United States his driving force?
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
More than locke being an avowed communist he remains a traitor to this country.
The watermelons still have plenty of left…left, what with locke, norman, delahunty etc.
A party with sometimes laudable values has been hijacked, and that is a fact, and remains a fact.
Remind us all how norman made it into parliament again Nandor, who was it that had to step aside to create the space for norman again???
The fact that bradford spat the dummy, has not diminished the commie influence at all.
I never thought I would say it, but your & jeanettes departure just makes it easier for them to push your beloved party further to the left.
Did you see it coming Nandor and could do nothing about it? Are locke and co. that powerful?
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
An excellent post by Tanczos in my view. Bradford’s departure signals a (welcome) change of direction for the Greens.
The ‘watermelon’ label for the Greens no longer really applies but I am struggling to think of a replacement: green (or brown) on the outside, more green on the inside, a bit unripe (but could change to any colour when it matures) also the taste is a little bland.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
No it does not onehunga, I repeat there is plenty of traction in those still in power in their party.
Change of direction my foot, the old green guard are all leaving or have left or died, (RIP Rod)
when locke & norman at least have up’d picks then I may start to think there may be a change of direction.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
nandor tanczos said: Once gone, she is unlikely to get any support from the Greens during this difficult transition, and I hope that her personal support system is strong.
I presume you are stating that from your personal experience upon leaving Parliament, and if that is the case, it is something that I as an active member of the Green party regret. It is all to easy to get so caught up in the politics that we don’t take enough account of the personal impact it has on our people. The Greens are probably better than other parties in that regard, but I take note of your point. I, for one, will be doing my best to ensure that both Sue and Dave are personally supported through the transition.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Why are you telling us here toad?
Phone not work?
Give him a ring and support him as you obviously did not do when he left.
Nothing like the personal touch.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
“nandor tanczos said: Once gone, she is unlikely to get any support from the Greens during this difficult transition,”
Perhaps she could be composted——– gently and with loving kindness of course!
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Nandor
“Well BB, you never pass up an opportunity to have a crack at the Greens, so does that make you a member of Destiny Church?”
Frankly I thought you could come up with something a bit better than that Nandor, you always struck me as one watermelon who could actually debate an issue without resorting to the tired old left wing tactic of labelling people as god botherers.
As for having a crack at the Greens, damn right!, I will never give up the chance to expose the Greens, they are the most hypocritical bunch or rat bags in the house.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
You can always rely on Toad to come in spinning as hard as possible when ever there is a hint of a scandal.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Nandor: I have a question for you. [Firstly though: Your name always rings in my head as "Tandoori Nachos" (which by the way would be delicious IMHO), so if I accidentally call you "Tandor" my apologies.]
Since Rod died and you (and now Jeanette) left the Greens, the “Green” part of the Greens has been seriously lacking. Now, I am a climate change skeptic (I am a mathematician and a scientist – not a theologian), but I am otherwise quite fond of many environmentalist policies, especially with regard to cleaning up NZ’s waterways and holding polluters responsible.
So my question to you is this: How can the Greens, a party with strong marxist / statist ideals, reach me, an ACT-voting liberal, on environmental issues? If the Greens positioned themselves more towards the centre (and dropped the climate change push – sorry, not budging there) then you would have a far, far broader base of support from which to push for actual environmental change. By positioning themselves to the very far left of the political spectrum, the Greens destroy any chance they may actually have of getting through some actual environmental policy.
I think you’d be surprised to learn that many of us evil, right-wing capitalist bastards are actually serious nature-lovers. Most of my very right-wing friends are trampers, hunters, kayakers etc. and would love to see more protection of our natural environment, but you guys would never even know about them because you are too interested in pushing for so-called “social justice”.
For god’s sake, look at Stephen Franks! Stephen is “Greener” than any Green MP, and yet you will never, ever attract the support of people like him (and after all, Stephen has money, respect and influence – he’d be a handy man to have in your corner) so long as the Greens persist with their Marxist agenda.
So go on Nandor, how are you going to reach me?
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
lofty said: Give him a ring and support him as you obviously did not do when he left.
I commented as above on Nandor’s blog first, but since the issue had also been raised here by DPF, copied my comment from there to here.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
BB (and Manolo) – it wasn’t a personal attack, it was an attempt to show the logical weakness of citing an article in which Keith criticises the way US customs treats visitors (including ones in transit) as proof that he remains a hard left state socialist. Many people criticise the US, few of them are communists.
Christopher – Regarding the main thrust of your question – well I reject the idea that the Greens are “a party with strong marxist / statist ideals”. If you read my reply to Trotter, or any of a number of papers I have written over the past few years, you’d see that I see the Left / Right spectrum as incidental to green politics. I think that true green philosophy shares concerns with both the right (self reliance, suspicion of the state, inherent conservatism) and the left (social justice and equity, suspicion of the untrammelled power of corporations). Green politics is, at best , a synthesis of the best of both world, in pursuit of a more fundamental goal: ecological sustainability.
The real issue is that, IMO, a growth economy is ultimately incompatible with sustainability. We may disagree about when, but its hard to avoid having to deal with that at some stage. (yes I know that Hartwick and economists of his ilk see no problem because of substitution of capital, but I think Daly, Costanza and others have effectively demolished those arguments). That doesn’t mean nationalise the economy, but neither is a bit more eco-efficiency going to solve the problem.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
nandor tanczos wrote: well I reject the idea that the Greens are “a party with strong marxist / statist ideals”
Pure hyperbole.
The Greens are a Marxist Party who have adopted a thin veneer of environmentalism in order to make themselves palatable to the electorate. Environmentalism from the Greens is merely lip service, a means of obfuscating their actual hard-Left agenda.
Fortunately, the electorate has seen through the charade of environmentalism and the true nature of the Greens and the existential threat that they represent to New Zealand and New Zealanders, has been exposed.
So now the Trotskyite faction inside the Greens has gained ascendancy over the Maoist faction and the Greens are using the opportunity to represent themselves as an environmentalist Party; this is pure opportunism in Opposition. Their words now will bare absolutely no correlation to their actions if we’re ever unfortunate enough to have them back in Government.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
There’s no question that they’re a left-wing party. As I understand it, they try not to be statist, but…
a. They’re a political party working within a statist system.
b. Give a guy a hammer and every problem starts looking like a nail.
I personally think they’d do better if they were even clearer about being a left-wing party. They’d be the only one.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Nandor,
“JC, that was kind of my point – although we might differ about what should be considered sensible”
.. only on basics
Nevertheless, the Greens are going to have to accept (as a political party) that they can only influence things at the margin or when there is a groundswell of public opinion going their way. A case in point is Global Warming which I see as dangerous territory for extreme views on either side. A “sensible” Green stance would be to concentrate on “pollution”, not CO2.. pollution is most definitely a baddie but CO2 is a much more complex subject with very high error potential.
Concentrating on pollution is a better return across the political spectrum.
JC
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Nandor>BB (and Manolo) – it wasn’t a personal attack, it was an attempt to show the logical weakness of citing an article in which Keith criticises the way US customs treats visitors (including ones in transit) as proof that he remains a hard left state socialist.
It wasn’t an article criticising the way US Customs treats visitors… It was an article criticising the way NZ Customs treats NZ citizens. But Locke (or someone else in the content management process) managed to stick a snide anti-US headline on it for reasons that aren’t obvious.
It’s a funny way of conveying NZ-relevant news. Perhaps you’d be happy if an article criticising the NZ Greens carbon policies was headlined AL GORE IS A FAT HYPOCRITICAL POLLUTER. Which is accurate, but not particularly relevant.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Nandor, maybe you should make yourself available again?
Vote:Now that the mad Brad is going you will not be walked over as much.
A lot of NZ’ers once had time for the Greens before the Communists hijacked the Party
September 29th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Get rid of Norman, Locke and Delahunty and the Greens may get more votes. Not from me but overall in the Party vote
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“Keith Locke, considered by many to be the archetypical communist, is actually nothing of the sort.”
Keith Locke not a communist?? That has got to be the biggest lie ever reported in this forum.
Bill.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Nandor
” you’d see that I see the Left / Right spectrum as incidental to green politics.”
I really do want to believe that statement Nandor, as Christopher said in his excellent comment at 3:14pm there are many of us on the right (ok, hard right) who are closet environmentalists, and many of us have a part of us that would dearly love to be able to offer the Greens some sort of support.
The problem I have with that statement is that it just does not ring true, you simply cannot ask us to believe that Norman, Locke and Delahunty see ” the left/right spectrum as incidental” when the Green party manifesto reeks of social justice statements and cries from the soon to be departed Bradford for massive increases in benefits.
While I am not a hunter or tramper I do love to fish, I detest the way that dairy farmers and the like can get away with destroying our rivers and lakes, this is the sort of issue that only the Greens will ever be able to do something about, read same for animal cruelty issues, however, as long as they Greens continue to place people like Locke, Norman and Delahunty at the top of their party list they will never get my vote.
I know you are a smart man (even allowing for your stance on drugs) and I know that you must be able to see that the Greens would easily pass the 10% mark should they do away with all the hard left crap, hell, I can see a day when the Greens achieve at least 15-20% if they were smart enough to give the commies the boot.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I note that we have not seen Toad for a while, I suspect he is sticking his head in the sand somewhere or organising a hit squad to take Nandor out for speaking out against the nomenklatura
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Nandor – good on you for standing up. “…a growth economy is ultimately incompatible with sustainability” sums it up. Today’s ODT has a relevant piece from economist Peter Lyons:
http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/75725/we-could-mill-native-trees-and-mine-coast
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Thanks for fronting Nandor. I always thought you were a dickhead till now but I have revised my opinion slightly. Just do what your Mum probably told you and try and stay off the weed. (It will fuck your brain eventually you know).
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Johnboy said:
Thanks for fronting Nandor. I always thought you were a dickhead till now
Why did you think he was a dickhead, Johnboy? (and what on earth made you revise your opinion, even slightly?)
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Big Bruv – you say you know Nandor is a smart man, yet you don’t accept his informed statements.
Vote:Why is that? Do you think he is lying? Do you think he doesn’t know the truth about those Green Mps?
September 29th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
BB, how about resurrecting the Progressive Greens. Improving the environment but accommodating a growth economy.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
For what it is worth, the Melons want to save the world but believe in compulsion, rules, socialism and communism. They also want social justice and call for greater benefits for the unemployed.These people are naive fools that should have died with the dinosaurs. The countries that have the best environmental records and the best welfare systems are the countries that have a strong capitalistic system and RESPECT property rights. The Melons are wrong in their approach to life and always will be when they are happy to remove the rights of those that actually can save the world.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Grizz – you’ll need to help Big Bruv out a bit here – how’s he going to improve the quality of the water in our lowland rivers and still grow the Dairy Industry?
Vote:Bruv (I assume) and I are all ears!
September 29th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I think I hear a troll a-blowing its horn. Three times now and no one is listening.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
You did Johnboy! It was me!
Not frightened to address my question, surely?
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
“Not frightened to address my question, surely?”
Sorry blow-boy. Bigger gefilte fish to fry.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Gelfite, but let’s not quibble, let’s talk Nandor. Why did you think he was a dick, Johnboy?
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Yes Johnboy, its Greenfly, the two line troll.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Bruv! Is Nandor truthful and intelligent, or dishonest and stupid?
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Nandor – why do you say that growth cannot be compatible with sustainability?
A lot of it comes down to how you define growth. Growth in GDP per head is different than growth in raw GDP – you can shrink the population and grow GDP per head without increasing the number of units of output. I’m not sure that everyone who wants growth necessarily feels the need for an increasing population, only that the population is getting more well off.
And then, growth doesn’t have to imply more resource inputs, just more utility output. So, for example, when I shift from buying CDs to downloading music from iTunes, I’m arguably using a lot fewer resources. But if I have more music than before, then I would see that as growth – I am more wealthy than before. If I have a new car (which happens to be smaller and using less fuel than my old one) that doesn’t mean that the economy is shrinking. If I buy goods made partly from recycled inputs, does that mean there is less growth?
Next, we move on to the real drivers of sustainability – energy and raw materials. If, for arguments sake, I invented tomorrow a solar cell that was more than competitive with existing grid power – in fact, it halved the cost of energy. And it was cheap to make with relatively low resource input. So everyone can now put a solar unit on their house, charge their car, run their air con. And there is surplus energy, which we use to recycle more raw materials than we used to (recycling is predominately an energy limited process – if we have more energy we can recycle more). So I now have more output than we used to, and we’re using fewer raw materials than we used to. Is that not sustainable? Are you saying that cannot happen, or just that you don’t see the policy and legislative environment that enables it?
I find the dismal projections of some that human’s time on earth is limited, that we are living beyond our means, to be very interesting. Given that at no time in recent human history (i.e. post industrial revolution) has the environment been cleaner, have people lived longer lives, have we had higher social freedoms and personal satisfaction, than at the present time. And I see no reason to believe that won’t continue, outside the encroachment of government and do gooders into our lives – that is the most likely cause of decreasing utility for most of our population.
The fact remains that the wealthier we get the cleaner our environment gets and the healthier our population gets. The best thing we can do to control our (human) impact on the environment is to help those people who live in poor parts of the world to get wealthy – all the evidence says they’ll then clean up their environment, and reduce their birth rates.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Greenfly
I take it you want me to answer your question?
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Greenfly only answer to new incarnation as idiot now.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Bruv and John – Greenfly can’t log on here. That name has been blocked.
Vote:I’d love to hear your answer to my questiion Bruv, you know that. You too John.
If you would be so kind.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
I know that Johnboy, to be honest I was somewhat shocked, Greenfly has NEVER engaged in a adult conversation on this blog or over at Frogblog as far as I know.
It seems the best that he/she can do is flit in with a one or two line troll, on no account will he/she actually debate an issue.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
True. I’m off.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Village-prize-Idiot seems to know a lot about Greenfly–(Who he does not know of course). Very suspicious I would say BB.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Greenfly
When you learn to act (and play) like an adult then I may consider answering your question, you obviously have a bit to learn about how this works, it is a bit rich to demand an answer when you have steadfastly refused to reply to the many questions I have put to you over the last few months.
Is really is not that hard, Nandor does it and Nandor can be an engaging chap, he is one that we can chat with and he does more good for the Green cause by debating the issues with us, you however come from the very faction of the Green party that will ensure its (the Greens) demise, you are a classic example of the liberal elite who think they know what is good for us, you claim to be interested in social justice yet the reality is that you could not give a fuck about the poor, for you, Toad, Frog and the rest it is all about power, nothing more and nothing less.
So there you go Greenfly, while I know you would “love an answer” the only answer you are going to get from me is one that I learnt during my years in Scotland, it is rather blunt but in this case highly approriate……Get tae fuck.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Pssssst Johnboy!
I am Greenfly!
Cripes!
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Aye BB. Och aye ye gave him one we the heid and twa we the bunnet there laddie.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Keith Locke a ‘commie’ and a ‘traitor’? Russel a ‘red’? The Greens a ‘marxist’ party? One must find out what the majority of the contributors to this thread are imbibing. One could market it, but with a warning about paranoia if too mcuh is taken.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
“Pssssst Johnboy!”
Not yet greenie but a couple more from the Gordons and I will be.
Vote:September 29th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Aye Robbie but whatever we are imbibing even if it was rocket fuel it still wont get the comments off ground zero on your blog.
Vote:September 30th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
PaulL, thanks for the interesting post. You make two points:
1.We can increase per capita GDP while decreasing, or holding steady, aggregate growth
2.We can decouple aggregate GDP growth from resource depletion and environmental degradation
Point one is theoretically correct, and I think that addressing population growth is a difficult but crucial challenge. However your scenario would put us into recession.
Point two is more difficult to sustain. We could maintain growth by spending more on downloaded music than we previously did on CDs. (NB you might feel more wealthy by having more music, but national accounts don’t count it as growth without an increase in dollar transactions.) However this equation only holds for a limited set of immaterial goods or services.
So driving an efficient car WILL decrease your contribution to GDP, unless you drive more (which is what research shows usually happens) or spend all the money saved on other things. Unless these are all immaterial goods or services, resource depletion and pollution increase.
We can slow resource throughput by recycling more, but to increase output (grow) we still need virgin materials and in addition there are very few products that can be made entirely from recycled materials. Recycling also has environmental impacts, hence the hierarchy “reduce, reuse, recycle”.NB I consider recycling an intelligence limited process (rather than energy limited), coupled with a market failure problem. It usually takes less energy to process recyclables than virgin material.
You posit very cheap energy from technology that uses few resources to make and has no major pollution problems. (Maybe the alien brotherhood from Betelgeuse gave it to us, because its rather unlikely otherwise). What do we do with the cheap energy? Either buy more gadgets and toys to use up all the great cheap energy we now have, maintaining growth but depleting resources and causing pollution, or reduce spending.
IMO, it is very difficult to demonstrate that GDP growth can be decoupled from resource throughput and pollution. You compare us with a very selective period of history to suggest there is no intrinsic problem. Reducing from 200kmh to 150kmh is not obeying the speed limit. How much forest was chopped down since this thread began? How much effluent entered rivers? How many species will become extinct this year? How many wetlands drained? I could look it up but you get the point.
The issue is that beyond a certain point (estimated to have been reached by the USA in about the 50′s or 60′s according to some work in this area) human welfare no longer correlates with economic growth. So yes, it is important in utilitarian terms to see the poorest people in the world raise their standards of living (and this will probably affect birthrates), but the pursuit of economic growth as a goal is, in the rich world, counter productive because while it does not itself increase welfare, it does damage other sources of welfare, such as a healthy environment.
Vote: