Innovating Beyond GDP — Otto Scharmer

MIT Sloan Sr. Lecturer Otto Scharmer

Ask almost any economist or government official about how they measure a nation’s progress and they are likely to answer with three letters: GDP, or gross domestic product. But just as there is growing disenchantment with the way we currently run our economies, there is also now mounting discontent with GDP as the main and sometimes only indicator of social and economic progress.  That’s why I am partnering with others to launch the Global Wellbeing & Gross National Happiness (GNH) Lab to explore new ways of measuring and implementing well-being and progress in societies around the world. Read More »

Erik Brynjolfsson: New e-book outlines promise and peril of digital revolution

MIT Sloan Prof. Erik Brynjolfsson

From Economics of Information Blog

Andy McAfee and I have just released a short e-book, Race Against the Machine. In it, we try to reconcile two important facts. 1) Technology continues to progress rapidly. In fact, the past decade has seen the fastest productivity growth since the 1960s, but 2) median wages and employment have both stagnated, leaving millions of people worse off than before. This presents a paradox: if technology and productivity are improving so much why are millions being left behind?

In the book, we document remarkable advances in digital technologies in particular. Innovations like IBM’s Watson, Google’s self-driving car, Apple’s Siri are turning science fiction into reality. Machines are doing more and more tasks that once only humans could do.

Read More »

Simon Johnson: Is there too much federal debt?

From the New York Times

In the nation’s latest fiscal mood swing, the mainstream consensus has swung from “we must extend the Bush tax cuts” (in November and December 2010) toward “we must immediately cut the budget deficit.” The prevailing assumption, increasingly heard from both left and right, is that we already have far too much government debt — and any further significant increase is likely to ruin us all.

This way of framing the debate is misleading — and at odds with the fiscal history of the United States. It masks the deeper and important issues here, which are more about distribution, in particular how much relatively wealthy Americans are willing to transfer to relatively poor Americans.

Read More »