adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Economy

How to grieve the old economy – Marketplace

Published

 on


We’re heading into July 4th weekend, but many people might not feel like celebrating as the world and the economy keep changing. Part of that change involves grieving – and that’s all right.

Megan Devine is a psychotherapist and author of the book, “It’s OK That You’re Not OK.

“Marketplace Morning Report” talked to her about grief and what it has to do with the economy.

300x250x1

Kimberly Adams : When we talk about grief and loss, especially in the moment we’re in, how can we use that language around what’s happening to the economy?

Megan Devine: If we think about how we use the language of loss to talk about pain and grief around joblessness, it’s like we sort of have to have a bigger conversation of how do we talk about grief at all. And certainly in our culture, we tend to look at grief as sort of a problem to be solved. You have to be resilient, you have to be strong and look on the bright side, and that’s not going to fly right now. What’s really important here is to acknowledge that this is hard. That is true for any kind of loss across that entire [grief] continuum, from those smaller everyday losses through job loss, through concerns about being able to pay your mortgage or find childcare, through the death of somebody you care about.

Adams: Grieving the loss of a way of life, that kind of shows up in so many ways, given what we’re going through. Not just people who lost their jobs, but maybe [you’re] working from home when you don’t want to be, wishing your kids could be in camps so that your work can get done, or even just missing the before times.

Megan Devine, psychotherapist and author. (Courtesy photo)

Devine: There’s so much to grieve. I don’t think we’ve ever really had a time, certainly in sort of recent history, of such compound and cascading losses. And I think you’re right to call it a loss of a way of life. We can’t rush back to normal. We can’t rush back to the way life used to be because that life doesn’t exist anymore. I think another really tricky part of this is the new normal hasn’t arrived. That story is still unfolding. And that’s really hard for people when they want to be able to hold on to something stable, and I think that’s also why we sort of rush to [the idea of] let’s reopen the economy, let’s be resilient, find another way to be strong.

Adams: If we use the language of grief and loss to talk about the changes that are happening in the economy right now and how we’re dealing with them, what does that mean for the eventual recovery?

Devine: I think that we’ve sort of built this idea that resilience is good for business, right? This might be a little bit of a stretch, but that sort of American economic narrative of being strong and resilient, that way of doing business and that way of life has also sort of been turned on its head during all of this. So it’s a loss and it’s also an opportunity. I’m really careful about using opportunity in the same sentence as grief because we rush into that transformation narrative, [which is] here’s this really difficult thing that happened and how can we very quickly turn it around so that things are even better than before. That’s not going to work here. I think that sort of transformation narrative of grief does a real disservice to those who have lost so much, not just their jobs, but they’re concerned for health care, they’re concerned for their families, and the ongoing ripple effects that will play out for a very long time in a lot of different sectors for a lot of different people.

Thinking about that idea of, times of crisis are also times of great opportunity, is going to be really tricky. What we can pull from the grief language is acknowledgement. That seems really weird, but we can’t build a new life until we tell the truth about what’s happening. Naming the loss and allowing yourself to have your feelings about it. Not so that you say stay sort of stuck in those feelings and rumination. There’s a difference between acknowledging your experience so that you can see your clear path forward versus ruminating about your feelings. That’s sort of an amorphous how we take the skills of grief to address job loss and economic uncertainty, but the the foundation is the same. Acknowledging what is real, allowing yourself to state that and to validate the truth of that situation, and then looking at creative ways forward while standing in that truth of your own experience.

Adams: Changes we’re experiencing in the economy and to some extent, even a lot of these job losses, it’s a collective loss. Does that make a difference in how we’re processing the grief around all of this loss?

Devine: I think it does make a difference. Very often when there is a mass tragedy, we as bystanders, as people not affected by that tragedy, sort of are like, “We’re with you. You’re not alone.” And the reality for the people who actually directly experience it, they’re like, “We actually are alone, you know. You’re not with me.” This pandemic and all of the things that have rippled out and happened because of and within this pandemic, nobody has been immune. There are no bystanders. That means we are actually all affected by this and we’re all in this together. So that idea, you’re not alone, in this [pandemic], isn’t lip service this time. That’s powerful.

Adams: Given how the American culture handles grief, specifically, what does that mean for how we’re processing this moment of what’s happening in the economy?

Devine: I think we tend to separate the “economy,” from the human scale. And that’s sort of an odd quirk here, where we elevate the economy above the culture. There’s a great astrologer, Caroline Casey, who talks about, do we have an economy or do we have a culture? And a culture is what we cultivate together. What do we grow together as a community. That’s a really interesting way to frame thinking about how do we move forward with this new economy in this new world that is still forming.

There’s this sort of idea around branding and marketing — just to take that that segment of the business world for a moment — marketers tell stories. The old story of the world is gone now. The new world story hasn’t yet arrived. How are we going to talk about that middle space, the world that is still dissolving and still forming? That sounds like sort of metaphysical and woo, but the truth is we don’t know how this story is going to be in six months, or a year from now, or 18 months from now. What do we want to cultivate together? What sort of culture do we want to create? What do we want to grow together? And how does our economy reflect what we have cultivated? What have we cultivated in the past? And how do we want that to change for the future? If we want to create a community that is more equitable, more just across a lot of different segments of of humanity and the world itself? It’s an important question to ask how does the economy serve the culture, and as a culture, what do we want to cultivate together? What do we grow in this new world, given that we have to rebuild?

As a nonprofit news organization, our future depends on listeners like you who believe in the power of public service journalism.

Your investment in Marketplace helps us remain paywall-free and ensures everyone has access to trustworthy, unbiased news and information, regardless of their ability to pay.

Donate today — in any amount — to become a Marketplace Investor. Now more than ever, your commitment makes a difference.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Climate Change Will Cost Global Economy $38 Trillion Every Year Within 25 Years, Scientists Warn – Forbes

Published

 on


Topline

Climate change is on track to cost the global economy $38 trillion a year in damages within the next 25 years, researchers warned on Wednesday, a baseline that underscores the mounting economic costs of climate change and continued inaction as nations bicker over who will pick up the tab.

Key Facts

Damages from climate change will set the global economy back an estimated $38 trillion a year by 2049, with a likely range of between $19 trillion and $59 trillion, warned a trio of researchers from Potsdam and Berlin in Germany in a peer reviewed study published in the journal Nature.

300x250x1

To obtain the figure, researchers analyzed data on how climate change impacted the economy in more than 1,600 regions around the world over the past 40 years, using this to build a model to project future damages compared to a baseline world economy where there are no damages from human-driven climate change.

The model primarily considers the climate damages stemming from changes in temperature and rainfall, the researchers said, with first author Maximilian Kotz, a researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, noting these can impact numerous areas relevant to economic growth like “agricultural yields, labor productivity or infrastructure.”

Importantly, as the model only factored in data from previous emissions, these costs can be considered something of a floor and the researchers noted the world economy is already “committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years,” regardless of what society now does to address the climate crisis.

Global costs are likely to rise even further once other costly extremes like weather disasters, storms and wildfires that are exacerbated by climate change are considered, Kotz said.

The researchers said their findings underscore the need for swift and drastic action to mitigate climate change and avoid even higher costs in the future, stressing that a failure to adapt could lead to average global economic losses as high as 60% by 2100.

!function(n) if(!window.cnxps) window.cnxps=,window.cnxps.cmd=[]; var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’); t.display=’none’,t.onload=function() var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’); c.src=’//cd.connatix.com/connatix.playspace.js’,c.setAttribute(‘defer’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c) ,n.head.appendChild(t) (document);

(function()
function createUniqueId()
return ‘xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx’.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) 0,
v = c == ‘x’ ? r : (r & 0x3 );

const randId = createUniqueId();
document.getElementsByClassName(‘fbs-cnx’)[0].setAttribute(‘id’, randId);
document.getElementById(randId).removeAttribute(‘class’);
(new Image()).src = ‘https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=546f0bce-b219-41ac-b691-07d0ec3e3fe1’;
cnxps.cmd.push(function ()
cnxps(
playerId: ‘546f0bce-b219-41ac-b691-07d0ec3e3fe1’,
storyId: ”
).render(randId);
);
)();

How Do The Costs Of Inaction Compare To Taking Action?

Cost is a major sticking point when it comes to concrete action on climate change and money has become a key lever in making climate a “culture war” issue. The costs and logistics involved in transitioning towards a greener, more sustainable economy and moving to net zero are immense and there are significant vested interests such as the fossil fuel industry, which is keen to retain as much of the profitable status quo for as long as possible. The researchers acknowledged the sizable costs of adapting to climate change but said inaction comes with a cost as well. The damages estimated already dwarf the costs associated with the money needed to keep climate change in line with the limits set out in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, the researchers said, referencing the globally agreed upon goalpost set to minimize damage and slash emissions. The $38 trillion estimate for damages is already six times the $6 trillion thought needed to meet that threshold, the researchers said.

Crucial Quote

“We find damages almost everywhere, but countries in the tropics will suffer the most because they are already warmer,” said study author Anders Levermann. The researcher, also of the Potsdam Institute, explained there is a “considerable inequity of climate impacts” around the world and that “further temperature increases will therefore be most harmful” in tropical countries. “The countries least responsible for climate change” are expected to suffer greater losses, Levermann added, and they are “also the ones with the least resources to adapt to its impacts.”

What To Watch For

The fundamental inequality over who is impacted most by climate change and who has benefited most from the polluting practices responsible for the climate crisis—who also have more resources to mitigate future damages—has become one of the most difficult political sticking points when it comes to negotiating global action to reduce emissions. Less affluent countries bearing the brunt of climate change argue wealthy nations like the U.S. and Western Europe have already reaped the benefits from fossil fuels and should pay more to cover the losses and damages poorer countries face, as well as to help them with the costs of adapting to greener sources of energy. Other countries, notably big polluters India and China, stymie negotiations by arguing they should have longer to wean themselves off of fossil fuels as their emissions actually pale in comparison to those of more developed countries when considered in historical context and on a per capita basis. Climate financing is expected to be key to upcoming negotiations at the United Nations’s next climate summit in November. The COP29 summit will be held in Baku, the capital city of oil-rich Azerbaijan.

Further Reading

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Canada's budget 2024 and what it means for the economy – Financial Post

Published

 on


THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

  • Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O’Connor, Gabriel Friedman, Victoria Wells and others.
  • Daily content from Financial Times, the world’s leading global business publication.
  • Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.
  • National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
  • Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.

SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES

300x250x1

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

  • Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O’Connor, Gabriel Friedman, Victoria Wells and others.
  • Daily content from Financial Times, the world’s leading global business publication.
  • Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.
  • National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
  • Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.

REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

  • Access articles from across Canada with one account.
  • Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
  • Enjoy additional articles per month.
  • Get email updates from your favourite authors.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Opinion: Canada's economy has stagnated despite Trudeau government spin – Financial Post

Published

 on


Article content

Growth in gross domestic product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services produced in the economy annually, is one of the most frequently cited indicators of economic performance. To assess Canadian living standards and the current health of the economy, journalists, politicians and analysts often compare Canada’s GDP growth to growth in other countries or in Canada’s past. But GDP is misleading as a measure of living standards when population growth rates vary greatly across countries or over time.

Article content

Federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland recently boasted that Canada had experienced the “strongest economic growth in the G7” in 2022. In this she echoes then-prime minister Stephen Harper, who said in 2015 that Canada’s GDP growth was “head and shoulders above all our G7 partners over the long term.”

300x250x1

Article content

Unfortunately, such statements do more to obscure public understanding of Canada’s economic performance than enlighten it. Lately, our aggregate GDP growth has been driven primarily by population and labour force growth, not productivity improvements. It is not mainly the result of Canadians becoming better at producing goods and services and thus generating more real income for their families. Instead, it is a result of there simply being more people working. That increases the total amount of goods and services produced but doesn’t translate into increased living standards.

Let’s look at the numbers. From 2000 to 2023 Canada’s annual average growth in real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) GDP growth was the second highest in the G7 at 1.8 per cent, just behind the United States at 1.9 per cent. That sounds good — until you adjust for population. Then a completely different story emerges.

Article content

Over the same period, the growth rate of Canada’s real per person GDP (0.7 per cent) was meaningfully worse than the G7 average (1.0 per cent). The gap with the U.S. (1.2 per cent) was even larger. Only Italy performed worse than Canada.

Why the inversion of results from good to bad? Because Canada has had by far the fastest population growth rate in the G7, an average of 1.1 per cent per year — more than twice the 0.5 per cent experienced in the G7 as a whole. In aggregate, Canada’s population increased by 29.8 per cent during this period, compared to just 11.5 per cent in the entire G7.

Starting in 2016, sharply higher rates of immigration have led to a pronounced increase in Canada’s population growth. This increase has obscured historically weak economic growth per person over the same period. From 2015 to 2023, under the Trudeau government, real per person economic growth averaged just 0.3 per cent. That compares with 0.8 per cent annually under Brian Mulroney, 2.4 per cent under Jean Chrétien and 2.0 per cent under Paul Martin.

Recommended from Editorial

  1. inflation

    Opinion: Taming inflation won’t bring prices back down

  2. Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada Carolyn Rogers, seen here in 2023. “You’ve seen those signs that say, ‘in emergency, break glass.’ Well, it’s time to break the glass,” she said.

    Philip Cross: Bank of Canada is right. Weak productivity is a national crisis

  3. Marc Miller, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, waits to appear before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in Ottawa, on Wednesday, March 20, 2024.

    Terence Corcoran: Immigration is all about freedom

Canada is neither leading the G7 nor doing well in historical terms when it comes to economic growth measures that make simple adjustments for our rapidly growing population. In reality, we’ve become a growth laggard and our living standards have largely stagnated for the better part of a decade.

Ben Eisen, Milagros Palacios and Lawrence Schembri are analysts at the Fraser Institute.

Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the business news you need to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here.

Share this article in your social network

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending