I can't help but suspect that the McNamara fallacy is the far more pressing issue than the quality of the data available. Wouldn't it be lovely though for tech-types and mainstream-economics-types to imagine that all we need is "better data", or "more data".
In the words of Roger Hallam, the problem, in reality, is that "it's all f*ked".
Our realities are warped. We're trapped in economic and social systems invented 400 years ago when we thought resources were infinite. We're "educated" (belittled and cajoled and propagandised) into believing that it'd be madness to try anything too different, as what we have is "less bad" than the alternatives.
We collectively refuse to take the risks involved in seriously and creatively experimenting with other ways of organising human societies, and instead pass the time indulging ourselves with the fantasy that our tech overlords will save us.
We need to update our economic theories to match reality, urgently, as a first step. Rags like the economist are the opposite of helpful when it comes to this.
In the words of Roger Hallam, the problem, in reality, is that "it's all f*ked".
Our realities are warped. We're trapped in economic and social systems invented 400 years ago when we thought resources were infinite. We're "educated" (belittled and cajoled and propagandised) into believing that it'd be madness to try anything too different, as what we have is "less bad" than the alternatives.
We collectively refuse to take the risks involved in seriously and creatively experimenting with other ways of organising human societies, and instead pass the time indulging ourselves with the fantasy that our tech overlords will save us.
We need to update our economic theories to match reality, urgently, as a first step. Rags like the economist are the opposite of helpful when it comes to this.