Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Tracy Alloway and I'm Jill went Joe. We've said
Speaker 1: this before, but it feels like we've gotten off to
Speaker 1: a really dark start for two thousand and seventeen. And
Speaker 1: doesn't it just feel like everyone is sort of really
Speaker 1: emotional right now and unhappy and quite negative. Wait, when
Speaker 1: you say we've gotten off to a dark start in
Speaker 1: do you mean the world or you're referring to our podcast,
Speaker 1: because I guess they're both kind of true. Maybe, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think you could take your pick. I did mean
Speaker 1: the podcast specifically. I mean we've been um going through
Speaker 1: some not not sunshine and light topics right right, Kidnapping,
Speaker 1: the mafia, the French Revolution. Yeah, I'd say we've had
Speaker 1: several bleak episodes. All right, So do you ever kind
Speaker 1: of wonder about why everyone is so unhappy and so dissatisfied,
Speaker 1: particularly at this moment in time? Now I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about the podcast now, I'm talking about the wider world.
Speaker 1: It certainly does feel like there is some sort of
Speaker 1: deeper crisis that is not something that just started this year,
Speaker 1: that's not something particularly related to politics in any given country.
Speaker 1: That may manifest itself as such from time to time.
Speaker 1: But uh, and it could be narcissism. Maybe everyone just
Speaker 1: sort of feels like their ages in crisis. But you know,
Speaker 1: I remember the nineties. I think people were pretty happy then,
Speaker 1: and it feels like things have turned a darker corner
Speaker 1: in terms of perceptions of the state of the world
Speaker 1: and people's material being. Right, So you mentioned material being,
Speaker 1: But it's weird, right because by most measures, people's standards
Speaker 1: of living have actually increased quite dramatically. Right. Everyone has
Speaker 1: fridges and washing machines, We have Netflix, we can watch
Speaker 1: whatever we want to watch, um lots of entertainment options,
Speaker 1: and everyone still feels economically deprived in some way, right, absolutely.
Speaker 1: And you see these charts, and there are these optimists
Speaker 1: out there who are saying, look, fewer and fewer people
Speaker 1: die of ex disease every year, or we're close to
Speaker 1: curing this, or everybody has this now and they didn't
Speaker 1: have that ten years ago. But strangely, it doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to really satisfy many people, right, And economics hasn't really
Speaker 1: been able to discuss that issue either, because again, if
Speaker 1: you look on a pure economics perspective, like sure, you
Speaker 1: can look at sluggish wage growth, you can look at
Speaker 1: low productivity, but overall things should be reasonably Okay, Uh,
Speaker 1: you'd think so, So what's the answer. How about Buddhism?
Speaker 1: Go on? Okay, So today we are actually going to
Speaker 1: talk about what we can learn from Buddhism when it
Speaker 1: comes to economics. And if you think about it, it's
Speaker 1: a really interesting question because at first glance, you would
Speaker 1: think Buddhism is almost totally different to economics. Right. Economics
Speaker 1: is all about goods, it's all about increasing wealth, and
Speaker 1: Buddhism is pretty much the polar opposite. Yeah. Absolutely, And
Speaker 1: it would not be intuitive that there would be a,
Speaker 1: you know, an episode of this podcast where the two
Speaker 1: are combined. But there's not just an episode. There's actually
Speaker 1: a class being taught called Buddhist economics. And today we
Speaker 1: are going to speak with the professor behind that class.
Speaker 1: She is Claire Brown. She's a professor of economics at
Speaker 1: UC Berkeley. Claire, thanks so much for joining us. I'm
Speaker 1: delighted to join you in on lots to talk about
Speaker 1: Buddhist economics. Well, what's Buddhist? I'm just gonna start with
Speaker 1: the obvious question, what is Buddhist economics. Buddhist economics rest
Speaker 1: upon a lot of economics that's already been done about inequality,
Speaker 1: how it occurs, what we can do about it, about
Speaker 1: sustainability and how to create an economy that can move
Speaker 1: us to clean energy and low carbon emissions, and about
Speaker 1: how to reduce suffering and increase happiness. So Buddhist economics
Speaker 1: basically brings together a lot of economics. It's already out there,
Speaker 1: but it's done in a very fragmented way. So what
Speaker 1: I wanted to do was to bring together a lot
Speaker 1: of the economics that we already know into a system
Speaker 1: where we have equity, we have sustainability, and we simultaneously
Speaker 1: are reducing suffering and increasing happiness. And it's in the
Speaker 1: last part that Buddhism plays a big role, because in
Speaker 1: Buddhism we're all interconnected with each other and with nature,
Speaker 1: and we are supposed to reduce suffering. And so there's
Speaker 1: a way to integrate all of these ideas into an
Speaker 1: economic structure that can make some sense. So, Claire, how
Speaker 1: do you square Buddhism with classical economics? Because economics is
Speaker 1: essentially we set it in the intro right, it's all
Speaker 1: about goods. But even its view of labor is very,
Speaker 1: very specific because in classical economics, employers are always working
Speaker 1: towards increasing output while minimizing employees, right, so how would
Speaker 1: they ever account for things like well being. Let's let's
Speaker 1: step back one minute and say, what are our two
Speaker 1: biggest economic problems. They're inequality and sustainability. And we do
Speaker 1: care about laboring, jobs and technological change, but right now
Speaker 1: we're dealing with enormous inequality that's been growing for the
Speaker 1: last forty years, and we're dealing with the problem of
Speaker 1: global warming where we need to move to a clean
Speaker 1: energy economy. So the way we put together Buddhist economics
Speaker 1: is we say, you know, we know a lot about
Speaker 1: inequality society Pixier level of inequality, and then they can
Speaker 1: set up their institutions or rules and regulations to decrease inequality.
Speaker 1: We know that we can do that, but in fact
Speaker 1: we haven't in the United States. We also know that
Speaker 1: we have the technology, we have the science about how
Speaker 1: to move from a fossil fuel economy to a clean economy.
Speaker 1: We know we can do that, So why are people
Speaker 1: feeling unhappy? Well? From a Buddhist economics viewpoint, people are
Speaker 1: feeling unhappy because when you have increased inequality, people compare
Speaker 1: how well they're doing to the people above them, and
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, the economic growth is going to
Speaker 1: the top one percent, and families across the board are
Speaker 1: feeling less well off. It's like, we don't need to
Speaker 1: have that level of unhappiness, but we are having it
Speaker 1: because our society, in our economy are not willing to
Speaker 1: undertake the policies to actually redistribute income and to help
Speaker 1: the bottom nine. Now, one of the things that you know,
Speaker 1: it strikes for me about economics is and a sort
Speaker 1: of truism that I think extends beyond all beyond just economics,
Speaker 1: is you can get what you measure. So it's easy
Speaker 1: to measure the number of people who are unemployed, and
Speaker 1: it's easy to create a policy in theory that reduces
Speaker 1: the number of unemployed, or if you want to lower
Speaker 1: people's taxes, you can there's a number there. How do
Speaker 1: you measure happiness? I mean, it's a subjective thing. People
Speaker 1: might say, oh, everyone feels so unhappy these days, but
Speaker 1: it's not like there's some obvious statistic out there that
Speaker 1: judges the mood of the nation, So how do you feel?
Speaker 1: Confident saying what we sort of all intuitively feel, which
Speaker 1: is that people are are unhappy and unsatisfied. You're right,
Speaker 1: it's it's very hard to make a good measurement of
Speaker 1: happiness and even a well being, but economists have lots
Speaker 1: of ways we do it. We have many metrics. One
Speaker 1: of them, for example, for happiness, is the control ladder,
Speaker 1: where we ask people Gallop ask people around the world,
Speaker 1: how are you feeling about your life? In the ladder?
Speaker 1: If ten is the highest rank and one is the lowest,
Speaker 1: Right now, what's the best you could given? What's the
Speaker 1: best you could do in your life? Where are you
Speaker 1: on the ladder? What's so interesting is it most people
Speaker 1: just give a perfunctory oh, I'm a five or six,
Speaker 1: and it's really hard to tell from that. I think
Speaker 1: how people are truly feeling because there their their response
Speaker 1: on the Cantral ladder doesn't vary a great deal across
Speaker 1: society or even within society. But we can go once
Speaker 1: up further. In the UK, they've put together Equality of
Speaker 1: Life Index of well Being that's much more objective, not
Speaker 1: just asking how do you feel, but sort of how
Speaker 1: well are you doing? And it has to do with
Speaker 1: your health, with how well you're functioning in society, and
Speaker 1: other measures that really look at people's well being, and
Speaker 1: they pull ten measures into an index, and what they
Speaker 1: find is that when inequality goes up, the social well
Speaker 1: being index goes down. People are actually not doing as
Speaker 1: well in a very objective manner, and so we can
Speaker 1: see that in fact, social well being in inequality go together, unfortunately.
Speaker 1: And versely, is that dissatisfaction? Is that all because of
Speaker 1: income inequality or are people also unhappy about the nature
Speaker 1: of their work because the other thing that's been going
Speaker 1: on for the past few years is this idea that
Speaker 1: we've lost a lot of traditional jobs, manufacturing jobs specifically.
Speaker 1: Um is there a sense that some people just aren't
Speaker 1: happy because they aren't doing the work that they would
Speaker 1: prefer to be doing. I think one of the biggest
Speaker 1: problems with work around the country, especially in the rust belt,
Speaker 1: is that as we've gone, especially into automation and technological change,
Speaker 1: that a lot of jobs have disappeared, but they've disappeared
Speaker 1: in towns where there are no alternatives. And of course,
Speaker 1: one of the things in Buddhist economics it's very important
Speaker 1: is it first of all, everybody has a comfortable life
Speaker 1: with food, clothing, shelter, they can buy the things they
Speaker 1: need for their families to survive well be comfortable. But
Speaker 1: that also in Buddhist economics is Schumacher told us right
Speaker 1: livelihood or the way you make a living matters to
Speaker 1: all of us, so that we care about how we
Speaker 1: spend our time, how we spend our energy, both at
Speaker 1: work but also at home and in the community. So
Speaker 1: in Buddhist economics, well being encompasses not just your consumption,
Speaker 1: because everyone needs a certain amount of consumption, but also
Speaker 1: encompasses how how well you feel about your work and
Speaker 1: your productivity at work and what you're giving to the community,
Speaker 1: and then also how well you feel about your relationships
Speaker 1: and what you're doing outside of work at home with family,
Speaker 1: with friends. So it all comes together and asking how
Speaker 1: well is our economy producing well being for everyone, not
Speaker 1: just how right now. The way we measure economic performance
Speaker 1: as we say, oh, what's the g d P, what's
Speaker 1: the output on average per person, which really doesn't tell
Speaker 1: us very much about well being. So if I sort
Speaker 1: of if I'm trying to get the big picture of
Speaker 1: what you teach and what Buddhist economics is is it
Speaker 1: a sent actually a search for other values that economists
Speaker 1: typically ignore that if they paid more attention to them,
Speaker 1: they might see crises coming. So thinking about happiness as
Speaker 1: a measure, thinking about right livelihood and the importance of
Speaker 1: what one does with their day and how how they
Speaker 1: value that is the idea essentially that if more people
Speaker 1: were aware of all of the importance of all these things,
Speaker 1: then we could have built an economic system or pursudent
Speaker 1: economic system that would lead to greater satisfaction. I think
Speaker 1: I think that's will put Joe, yes. I think here's
Speaker 1: the whole point. Economists know a lot about how to
Speaker 1: improve equality within a society. We also know how to
Speaker 1: make a more sustainable world built upon clean energy. It's
Speaker 1: just in the United States for some reason, the Republicans
Speaker 1: aren't really against this. They say no, no, no, that's
Speaker 1: not the structure we want. And to be honest, now
Speaker 1: we're even moving into a situation where economists aren't even
Speaker 1: allowed to show their studies where we can. We have
Speaker 1: so many studies that we know about how to move
Speaker 1: us from an economy that's just based upon more goods
Speaker 1: and services which are not exactly what people necessarily want
Speaker 1: to be happier or to feel better. To an economy
Speaker 1: where we can create meaningful jobs, we can create meaningful
Speaker 1: experiences for people within a social and economic structure that
Speaker 1: cares about everyone, not just average um income per person.
Speaker 1: So if you were applying Buddhist economics to the real world,
Speaker 1: can you can you give us an example of what
Speaker 1: one like real Buddhist economic policy would be. Okay, that's
Speaker 1: that's great, because actually we have eight steps to get
Speaker 1: to a Buddhist economy, and the most important rule, once
Speaker 1: again is by the government, where we would have more
Speaker 1: progressive taxes, we would build jobs within the rust belt
Speaker 1: that allow people to basically develop their full potential. And
Speaker 1: we would also make sure that all consumers are able
Speaker 1: to move to clean energy, which is basically electricity based
Speaker 1: upon renewable resources. So we would have the government setting
Speaker 1: up and most of these policies are already in effect
Speaker 1: in many countries around the world. It's just we're a
Speaker 1: little slow in the US to getting on board. Then
Speaker 1: we would have companies take one step further and say, okay,
Speaker 1: we actually do need to create jobs that allow people
Speaker 1: enough time to have family and community life. So we
Speaker 1: want to have companies create jobs that aren't just based
Speaker 1: upon the number of hours, but jobs that pay a
Speaker 1: living wage and also provide time for people to care
Speaker 1: for their families. So when I listen to this, it
Speaker 1: all makes a lot of sense, But it sounds to
Speaker 1: me like fairly straightforward leftist or progressive economic policies, or
Speaker 1: at least it doesn't sound that much different. Is there
Speaker 1: something distinct about, you know, as a playing devil's advocate here,
Speaker 1: is there's something distinct about sort of as you see
Speaker 1: in Buddhist economics that isn't sort of what you hear
Speaker 1: um progressives typically talk about. Yes, in some ways that
Speaker 1: because progressives have especially focused on inequality, and Buddhist economics says, no,
Speaker 1: that's not enough inequality we want to reduce. But what
Speaker 1: we really need to care about is our interconnection with
Speaker 1: nature and sustainability. So many economists have actually seen and
Speaker 1: talked and think about nature is just something out there
Speaker 1: that used to increase consumption and that's not the way
Speaker 1: we can actually move forward into a sustainable world as
Speaker 1: we rebuild the infrastructure for clean energy. And then the
Speaker 1: third part is economist think of, oh, we just need
Speaker 1: economic growth, that's all we need to get going again.
Speaker 1: But in fact, in Buddhist economics, and some economists of
Speaker 1: course agree with this more generally, what what you have
Speaker 1: to understand is that economic growth right now just means
Speaker 1: more GDP on average, and it's been going to the rich.
Speaker 1: It hasn't been going to everyone. So we used to
Speaker 1: say in economics, well, if we have economic growth, the
Speaker 1: rising tide brings up all ships. But that's not the
Speaker 1: case now. So in Buddhist economics we were very specifically
Speaker 1: saying we don't want economic growth that focuses on raising
Speaker 1: income and consumption for basically the rich. But economic growth
Speaker 1: is something we care about that increases well being, and
Speaker 1: we want to measure it that way. We've no longer
Speaker 1: want a major economic performance is output per person, but
Speaker 1: we want to measure it in a holistic way. And
Speaker 1: economists have lots of matrix we can use. We have
Speaker 1: the Genuine Progress Indicator or the Better Life Index. We
Speaker 1: have many that we can use, but we need to
Speaker 1: start using them so that economic growth is when we
Speaker 1: help the environment. Economic growth goes up when we reduce
Speaker 1: an equality. Economic growth goes up when we give people
Speaker 1: more time to spend with their families and communities, economic
Speaker 1: growth goes up. So when we look at it that way,
Speaker 1: happiness goes with economic growth, as people feel like the
Speaker 1: things that they care about and are meaningful to them
Speaker 1: are now important and are delivered through the economy. What
Speaker 1: if you get inequality and happiness levels? Like, is that
Speaker 1: an issue? If some people are happier than others? Oh?
Speaker 1: Like a second derivative, Yeah, I'm just curious. Could it
Speaker 1: be a problem? Mainly, what you want to think of
Speaker 1: it this way, Tracy think of it is we want
Speaker 1: to reduce suffering, So we we want everybody to be
Speaker 1: happy in some way, but we aren't trying to compare
Speaker 1: their happiness level. But we are trying to help the
Speaker 1: people at the very bottom who are suffering for various reasons.
Speaker 1: Often it's because they don't have enough food or or
Speaker 1: clean water or what have you. But what we do
Speaker 1: care about is that if your happiness goes up but
Speaker 1: just for a few people, but it goes down for
Speaker 1: most people, then the economy is not producing well being.
Speaker 1: That actually would be seen as is a decline and
Speaker 1: well being. So what we want to do is increase
Speaker 1: the well being of everyone and not just a few.
Speaker 1: And when I say well being, well being, happiness were
Speaker 1: there's somewhat interchangeable. What is the What is the best
Speaker 1: thing to read for people who are more interested in
Speaker 1: this if they wanted to, uh read a book that
Speaker 1: sort of explained Buddhist values that could potentially be applied
Speaker 1: to economic thinking, where would you recommend they start? Well,
Speaker 1: I would recommend, of course, they start with my book
Speaker 1: Buddhist Economics, because we we I do go over basic
Speaker 1: Buddhism and how it applies to economics, and then I
Speaker 1: explained the pre market economy and why we really it's
Speaker 1: not producing what we want. And then we moved to
Speaker 1: the Buddhist economy, which is based upon a Martius Sin
Speaker 1: and Joe Stiglets and many economists, but we integrated. We
Speaker 1: bring them together and say, now, what happens if we
Speaker 1: bring together all the things that economists know but somewhat
Speaker 1: practice in their little niches, how would that then structure
Speaker 1: an economy that provides well being for everyone? Claire, what's
Speaker 1: been the reception to the class that you're teaching at Berkeley?
Speaker 1: Because I think I read somewhere that your students meditate
Speaker 1: as part of the syllabus, and you also have the
Speaker 1: involved of a Tibetan Buddhist priest. It sounds quite unusual. Well,
Speaker 1: Buddhism is experiential, as you pointed out earlier in economics
Speaker 1: as conceptual, so we need to bring them together. And
Speaker 1: also the mindfulness movement of sitting. Everyone who who now
Speaker 1: knows that, Oh, it helps your brain. It sort of
Speaker 1: helps you figure out who you are and how you
Speaker 1: fit into the world. So yeah, we do some sitting
Speaker 1: five to ten minutes. Um, we do field work where
Speaker 1: the students go and actually go to a practice at
Speaker 1: a at a Buddhist temple where they sit and have
Speaker 1: a lesson and uh. And that's field work. So I
Speaker 1: want students to understand the experiential part of Buddhist economics
Speaker 1: as well as the conceptual part, because the conceptual part
Speaker 1: is much easier to teach them. Um, you know, they
Speaker 1: all know how to do economics or they're learning at least.
Speaker 1: And so the students actually, when you ask them at
Speaker 1: the end of class what was most important, they said, oh,
Speaker 1: we love the experiential part. That was great. We also
Speaker 1: love thinking outside the box and uh. And many of
Speaker 1: them have come back and said, do you know, it
Speaker 1: has helped me so much to learn to quiet my
Speaker 1: mind and open my heart when we're sitting. And so
Speaker 1: we the students love the class basically, and so um
Speaker 1: we have to rise in it. But hm, then they
Speaker 1: say go out and help each other, you know, teacher friends,
Speaker 1: which they then do. You know, thinking about this sort
Speaker 1: of current malaise, and you know, we accept that there
Speaker 1: is this deep unhappiness out there around the world. Something
Speaker 1: that I've thought about is how our culture and our
Speaker 1: society really values. You know, if there's one thing that
Speaker 1: our society really values, it's making money. And as long
Speaker 1: as people are generally getting rich, and you certainly it
Speaker 1: felt like everyone was getting rich in the nineties during
Speaker 1: the dot com bubble, and a lot of people felt
Speaker 1: like they were getting rich in the two thousands, then
Speaker 1: it feels like, you know, you're the individual getting rich
Speaker 1: and that society feels like they're achieving the goals and
Speaker 1: the values that society has it out for them. And now,
Speaker 1: in the wake of the financial crisis, I wonder, you know,
Speaker 1: people are maybe they've returned to jobs, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: really feel like they're People don't feel like they're thriving
Speaker 1: and I wonder like if the issue is like we
Speaker 1: don't have a thing that society is for besides being rich,
Speaker 1: and that, you know, besides just anticipating what aspects of
Speaker 1: an economy are going to make people unhappy, that it
Speaker 1: really comes down to sort of these deep values that
Speaker 1: we don't you know, there's not something bigger that people
Speaker 1: can pursue other than sort of individualism and their own
Speaker 1: material well being, and that the sort of more spiritual
Speaker 1: approach and understanding nana non material things is sort of
Speaker 1: the essence of why people are unhappy. Maybe I'm just
Speaker 1: restating it, but I think this sort of really what
Speaker 1: you're talking about really does, I think speak to why
Speaker 1: we see this rise and unhappiness after the economy really
Speaker 1: stalled out. Yes, I think that's really true, Joe, that
Speaker 1: people are looking for a meaningful life and the consumption
Speaker 1: income are just one aspect of it, and they don't
Speaker 1: want to have their whole life focused on that because
Speaker 1: otherwise you say, gee, I'm just working, but I need
Speaker 1: to live also, and I need Relationships are extraordinarily important
Speaker 1: to people and how happy they are, and helping other
Speaker 1: people in fact makes people much happier. So so we
Speaker 1: know that we need to be able to bring these
Speaker 1: all together, and we can within our economic structure. We
Speaker 1: can't just any longer say oh, that's okay, but when
Speaker 1: they maybe you'll be rich. I have just one more question,
Speaker 1: and then we have to let Claire go. Um. But
Speaker 1: it's that there is a theory out there right now,
Speaker 1: which is that if we allow the economy to keep
Speaker 1: working as efficiently as possible, if we develop as much
Speaker 1: technology as possible, will get everything automated. Output will be fantastic.
Speaker 1: We'll have a bunch of robots doing all the work
Speaker 1: for us, and we as human beings will be able
Speaker 1: to sit around and enjoy our leisure time. How does
Speaker 1: that square with economics, and with Buddhist economics in particular,
Speaker 1: right Well, I I know, I read all these are
Speaker 1: my colleagues that are my here in various places, and
Speaker 1: I you know, I think we're a long way from that.
Speaker 1: But I do think that one of the wonderful things
Speaker 1: about our increased productivity and technology is we could lower
Speaker 1: the work week. And we can do that, but to
Speaker 1: do that, we need to do it within a structured framework.
Speaker 1: We're minimum wages and transfers from capital to workers occurs
Speaker 1: in a balanced market system, we can do all those things.
Speaker 1: And in my book I talk about some of the
Speaker 1: policies that are that are suggested and how we might
Speaker 1: move to there. But it's a wonderful opportunity to think,
Speaker 1: you know, we won't have to work as hard, we
Speaker 1: won't have to work as many hours, and we can
Speaker 1: focus on our well being within our families and our
Speaker 1: communities and our country. And that would be a wonderful
Speaker 1: way of seeing the economy delivering well being to everyone. Okay,
Speaker 1: Claire Brown, Professor of Economics of u C. Berkeley, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us today. It was my
Speaker 1: pleasure being an odd lot in talking with you. Thank you. So, Joe,
Speaker 1: are you a convert to Buddhist economics? I think there's
Speaker 1: real value here. I think that there is something uh.
Speaker 1: This idea that economics needs to find new ways of
Speaker 1: measuring the well being of society beyond the traditional ones
Speaker 1: is an important one. And this idea that perhaps there's
Speaker 1: part of the deep unhappiness that a lot of people
Speaker 1: feel is as a result of an economy and society
Speaker 1: that prioritizes some of the wrong numbers, I think is
Speaker 1: also true. So I think there is a there's a
Speaker 1: lot of merit to this approach. Yeah, I completely agree.
Speaker 1: The only thing I'm a little bit frustrated with is
Speaker 1: the policy recommendations, because, as you pointed out, a lot
Speaker 1: of the Buddhist economic policies, so to speak, just sound
Speaker 1: a lot like the traditional progressive policies that we've heard
Speaker 1: from economic thinkers for decades now. I think that's probably correct.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think, as a professor, Brown noted there
Speaker 1: or like a few different things beyond the focus on output,
Speaker 1: and especially I thought that was a really powerful point
Speaker 1: about the fallacy of growing the pie or growing GDP
Speaker 1: as a solution, because if the problem stems from inequality,
Speaker 1: and if growing the pie, you know, if the wealthiest
Speaker 1: get a greater share of that grown pie, then the
Speaker 1: lower classes then even you could imagine a situation which
Speaker 1: an expanded economy leads to less overall happiness by virtue
Speaker 1: of the fact that it's more unequal. So I think,
Speaker 1: you know, reframing the challenge outside of purely material things
Speaker 1: is a hugely important endeavor, and I suspect that economics
Speaker 1: is kind of, you know, just at the beginning of
Speaker 1: rethinking the economy that way. But as you pointed out
Speaker 1: in your last question, these these issues are coming fast
Speaker 1: and furious, with all the concerns about robots and whether
Speaker 1: we'll have any work and stuff like that, so it's
Speaker 1: actually very timely. It's very timely to rethink these things. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Did I ever tell you the story about when I
Speaker 1: met a Russian billionaire and his whole plan was to
Speaker 1: encourage technological development to the point where humans wouldn't have
Speaker 1: to work and we could all focus on our spiritual development.
Speaker 1: That was his plan. Can we get him on a
Speaker 1: future episode? Oh? Oh we should? Yes, Okay, al right, okay,
Speaker 1: all right, I'm going to go work on that. And uh,
Speaker 1: people should check out Claire's book which just came out,
Speaker 1: Buddhist Economics, An Enlightened Approach to the Dismal Science. Thank
Speaker 1: you for tuning in to the latest edition of the
Speaker 1: Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Joe wisn't Thal. You can follow
Speaker 1: me on Twitter at the Stalwart and I'm Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Tracy Alloway. Thanks for listening.