Does it Matter?

John Maynard Keynes, perhaps the most celebrated economist of our time, once said something to the effect that “in the end it doesn’t matter because we are dead”. He may have said that as an after thought when he was explaining to governments how they could improve their economies. What he meant by that statement is that in the scheme of things it doesn’t real matter what we do to improve our situation because in the end we are dead and we wont know the difference. Nevertheless, I found it an extraordinary thing to say because it does matter what we do while we are alive. And he knew it. Talk about being paradoxical.

What Keyens said makes sense on one level, that in the end it doesn’t really matter. We all understand that. But what about in the interim, before we die, while we are alive? At some point it may not make a difference to the world when we die or whether we accomplish anything. But what about the future and the next generations? I think it makes a difference whether we leave this world with a working legacy or not? So in the end it does matter.

What made me think of Keynes statement is my own writing and whether it matters if I write or not. Who cares? Well, I care. Perhaps it may not mean anything to anyone else whether I write or not or what I write about. Why I write is because I am interested in developing ideas and discussing things that aren't generally thought about. In doing so I can see an enhancing process in me, one which parallels an enhancing process that occurs in society as it does its business and discusses things. What I am trying to say here is that the essence of life is in the doing. So what Keynes said, if taken too literally, is counter productive.

I can’t remember the name of the book, but it is a book that basically said the same thing I said above, that the essence of life is in the doing, in remain engaging and pushing the envelope. The author of this book wrote that when societies work to increase economic production and strive to expand thier lot in life, societies tend to improve and advance. Some might argue the opposite, that expanding our economic capacity and individual wealth, instead, creates more problems for society, like further ruining our environment, creating material shortages and spawning new social ills, rather than advancing us.

The idea that society becomes worse off because of economic expansion and because of our striving for more material wealth was questioned by Julian Simon. He was an optimist. However, as an economist he was also a realist. A colleague of his explained that Simon “believed that the world needs problems because they make us better. Problems make us better off than if they had never occurred.” Simon's conclusion fits right in with my theory that we develop through perverse means. If things were always right, humans wouldn't have to struggle or do anythings. The essence of living is in the doing and resolving, more so than in the final outcome.

Here is one example of Simon's optimism and his not being wrongheaded. In 1980 he bet a group that in ten years the commodity prices of five metals would be below where they were then. During the decade that followed the world's population grew by 800 million, the greatest increase in history, and the store of metals didn't get any larger. And economic production grew during that time. Yet in 1990 the price of those metal dropped by more than half. Shortages and escalating prices brought about a positive effect, conservation, innovations and alternatives. This example turns Malthusian theory on its head, which believed, some 250 years ago, that Civilization would not be here today due to it not being able to sustain itself because of its growing population and increasing consumption of dwindling resources.

I am sure Simon would agree with the author above, whose name I can’t remember, that the expanding of economic activity is good for us because it engages us in new ways, with new problems that require new problem solving. The knowledge gained in one area, like economics, has a way of finding its way to other areas of life, translating itself in other social areas, overall expanding and improving our management and communications skills.

What Keynes said has sort of a defeatist attitude about it. By thinking that way, that in the end it doesn’t matter, because we are dead, sends out a negative signal, like what’s the point of living or trying to resolve problems. I am still puzzled by what he said. However, I think he said it partly in jest and partly in the fact that he knew he was dying.