Faith. Faith in what? You see if you study macro-economic theory a picture starts to unfold and it all revolves around technology and innovation. People who put faith in the human mind believe that the market is one of the pinnacle points in human invention and that it fosters health, competition, universal benefit based on excellence and most importantly, increased wealth for everyone etc, etc.
The key point that they believe is that no matter we fuck up the planet and no matter how many resources or species we use up, the human mind is so inventive and so creative that it will be able to think of ways to get out of problems. This spawned the novel that is a feature of economists who believe that we are on the right track, "the ultimate resource". For example, if you look at the oil crisis that were predicted 30 years ago or shortages in things like copper, or the great lakes disaster, economists would point out that we 'thought' our way out of it. We found new ways of drilling for oil and started looking into alternative energy sources, we stopped using copper in wires and switched to fiber optic cables, and hey, the Great lakes have made an environmental recovery because of one reason, human innovation.
A butchered quote from Julain Simon, Ronald Reagan's chief economist: "The fact of the matter is, is that we have been hearing for years warnings about resources drying up and being lost, and if you look at the data, it did not happen. We are finding new oil and thinking up more innovative and efficient ways of doing it all the time. The economy and population can keep growing and will keep growing, forever."
Government, in Canada at least, is buying it. If you look at the main research granting abilities of the federal government these days, money is being taken out of social science funding (SHERC) and poured into science and medical research funding (NSERC). The largest contribution to funding came in the form of the council for innovation, that will now match funding that you must get from industry in order to apply. In other words, research will be done only in conjunction with industry and only on things that will benefit a market edge or gain. Research and innovation now become solely tied to ensuring that environment will turn out OK.
There are a few ways to poke holes in this theory. The response comes from David Suzuki and a bunch of other economists (Lester Brown most notoriously) who state that this is actually science fiction. Our economy cannot keep growing because we do not live in a land of infinite resources. We live in a world where things are in a tight balance and at some point things are going to start fucking up. Most environmentalists talk of the coming apocalypse and it's likely not going to be that drastic, but who knows. The reason why the economists who don't buy the 'ultimate resource' theory has to do with the fact that they are noticing some really bad and troubling ecological things that are happening right now. New York paved over their wetlands and ended up having to build a filtration system that costed about a billion. If they had kept the wetland it would have done it for them naturally. Economists that do not put their faith in technology believe that our economic theory is wrecked and really needs to start taking other things into account like biodiversity, environmental health etc. A province in China is currently using something called Green GDP, which looks at how well the economy is doing and then calculates how much the economy is suffering due to environmental degredation. Needless to say they found out they weren't doing to well. The thing that I would like to point out is that the market is not and will never be an independent system that is not open to manipulation. Even if you set up self-checks and balances, if human innovation is so good, people will find a way to manipulate it for themselves.
2 other key points are as follows: if one really does believe that human innovation will be the key to solving our problems, does it not follow that human innovation could bring us out of the current system we have? I believe most economists would say that the market is going to do this, but I have not seen any conclusive evidence that doesn't resemble Swiss cheese it has so many holes in it. I think if they are right, why haven't we been able to tackle malaria and environmental degradation for example, which I'm sorry, is getting far worse than they would like to believe, end of story, talk about it all you want (I've flown over Borneo).
Second, the current market reforms that have been championed by for example the Fraser institute in BC have actually had the exact opposite effect on innovation. A study that recently looked into the 'eureka' moment that is often associated with innovation has been found to be a highly creative process. Most education streams that encourage a variety of subjects, creative approaches to doing things etc. involve education systems that are very complex and multi-layered. IF you don't get what I mean, imagine where you would be if you had only taken one subject in high school or college or whatever. The value that one gets in studying politics from having a background in law, ecology, media, sociology, economics, etc. is invaluable, just in the same way it would for an engineer. This is being changed and streaming in education is becoming more common. The market does not foster innovation. Art does. And this has been one of the major flaws in economic theory and Communism together.