Does GNP mean anything?

I just came across Caterina’s post on Robert Kennedy’s GNP speech.  It prompted me to read again A Steady-State Economy by Herman Daly.

Herman Daly says there is no reason that GNP should always increase.  For wealthy countries, a steady-state or zero-growth economy may be better.

One of the problems with GNP is that it counts only the benefits, not the costs, of new technology:

Tetraethyl lead provided the benefit of reducing engine knock, but at the cost spreading a toxic heavy metal into the biosphere; chlorofluorocarbons gave us the benefit of a nontoxic propellant and refrigerant, but at the cost of creating a hole in the ozone layer and a resulting increase in ultraviolet radiation. It is hard to know for sure that growth now increases costs faster than benefits since we do not bother to separate costs from benefits in our national accounts. Instead we lump them together as “activity” in the calculation of GDP.

Daly recommends wealth redistribution to an ideal multiple of 100x, e.g. the richest have 100x the wealth of the poorest.  For comparison’s sake:

  • Plato thought the richest people should have 4x the wealth of the poorest
  • In today’s academia and civil service, the multiple is 10x to 20x
  • In the US corporate sector, the ratio is 500x

This is not to say that pure economic growth isn’t valuable in the developing world:

For poor countries GDP growth still increases welfare, at least if reasonably distributed. The question is, What is the best thing for rich countries to do to help the poor countries? The World Bank’s answer is that the rich should continue to grow as rapidly as possible to provide markets for the poor and to accumulate capital to invest in poor countries. The steady state answer is that the rich should reduce their throughput growth to free up resources and ecological space for use by the poor, while focusing their domestic efforts on development, technical and social improvements, that can be freely shared with poor countries.

It’s a long essay and I’ll post more later.  One question for those of us in the capitalist world is how to measure our success beyond personal wealth creation.  In other words, would we still be contributing to the economy if the true costs/benefits of our work was measured more accurately.

Here’s the link to Robert Kennedy’s speech on GNP.

W9SPTK937VMX

Don't Make Me Think – top 5 takeaways

I just read the updated version of Don't Make Me Think by Steve Krug, the classic web design book.  The book itself is designed according to his principles and has titles and subtitles that summarize the text so you can skim it in a few hours.

My top 5 takeaways:

1) If you have to think about what to do on a web page, there's something wrong.

You should be able to navigate a website without doing any cognitive thinking.

2) You probably scan websites, very few people read text.

Experienced web users just scan a page and notice a few highlighted things.  They will start clicking and use the back button if they don't find what they want.

3) The use of common navigation conventions helps a lot.

Just like you recognize a yield sign or a stop sign when driving, you'll recognize common web conventions.  Logo in upper left, consistent tabs at the top, standardized search boxes, and button labels that are simple and direct.

4) On every page of your site, make it clear what to do.

Keep a common structure for every page, no matter how deep in the hierarchy.  Make sure that someone will know:  a) where they are,  b) what to do.

5) Do a little usability testing, save a lot of pain.

Do quick cycles of video-taped usability testing.  Even if you just invite 1 or 2 friends to test, you will quickly identify your biggest navigational quirks and annoyances.

It occurred to me that these are good guidelines for any visual communication, even email.  I'm going to try writing some emails that are designed so that the recipient doesn't have to think.