If I were to ask you what metric governments run on, you’d probably say GDP, inflation, or unemployment. I assume you know what those are and how they’re calculated, but I want to touch on the first two briefly—to show just how bizarre they are.

Let’s start with GDP.

  • It measures the health of the economy based on how much is spent. That means two parents working full-time and sending their kids to daycare counts as more valuable than a stay-at-home parent raising their own child. Spending equals growth.
  • Take it further: with the rise in personality disorders, trauma, and emotionally unstable adults—often linked to ‘neglectful’ parenting—the money spent on counselling and therapy is also counted as “good” economic activity.
  • It’s not hard to see how this metric has shaped our society in distorted ways. Unpaid labour and environmental damage don’t factor into the equation. GDP is treated like an absolute truth, but it’s more like a system running on a plug number—or better yet, an axiom—to make the math work.

What we want is not more spending but less by making it cheaper. Lighting and light bulbs used to be expensive, now it’s so cheap we don’t even think about it. Why should we measure progress on expensive lightbulbs? I call this the income-ratio problem.

Then there’s inflation, the main metric central banks focus on.

  • Price stability with modest change is the official goal. But have you ever stopped to ask: why do prices  have  to go up every year? Why do we need inflation at all? You’ll fall into a rather large and scary rabbit hole if you keep asking that question.
  • Take Bitcoin as an example. It’s deflationary because of its fixed supply. I think that sounds like a good thing. But maybe it might take some adjusting to: are we really prepared for a world where you stop getting pay raises and your house stops appreciating?

Underlying all of this is one core idea: growth. Clive Hamilton explored this 20 years ago in his book Growth Fetish. It was a fantastic diagnosis, but his proposed solution—measuring “happiness”—was lacking. I’ve thought about it ever since. And after years of turning it over in my head, I think I’ve landed on an answer.

A Better Solution

We already track two other metrics that should be front and centre in government decision-making: life expectancy and debt-to-GDP.

Why life expectancy? Because it’s the thing that actually matters, right? A long average life expectancy means people are physically  and mentally healthy. Crime is low—they didn’t get shot. Roads are safe—people aren’t dying in car accidents. The healthcare system works. The environment’s probably cleaner. And unlike GDP or unemployment, it’s not based on questionable sampling surveys—it’s grounded in actual death records.

It’s arguably our best proxy for a successful society and growth that’s better focussed on.

Why debt-to-GDP? Because democracies are prone to abusing the credit card. A lower debt-to-GDP ratio can be achieved in different ways: cut spending (reduce the numerator), or boost productivity and exports to grow GDP (increase the denominator). Yes, governments can raise taxes to pay off debt—but overdo it, and you choke the economy. It’s a balancing act. Debt can be useful, but only when used with restraint. And restraint is sorely lacking in today’s democracies—especially under the influence of populism.

Focusing on both debt and GDP creates a more balanced and accountable policy framework. And just like with life expectancy, there’s a hard reality at the end: if a government keeps piling on debt and eventually can’t service it—what do you think happens?