There’s lots of debate about whether the economic crisis is over. One reason the debate doesn’t get resolved is that we don’t have a clear conception of an economy doing well (though we sort of know bad, at least when we see it in extreme forms).

Somewhat disturbingly, what passes for economic news often focuses not on the state of the economy but on the state of stock markets. This isn’t irrelevant to the performance of the economy but it’s not a direct indicator either. It’s a reflection of how the future looks to investors and traders. And the future they consider isn’t so much the overall performance of the economy as the potential profits their investments can earn.

What’s most often taken as an index of overall economic performance is growth. It’s generally held to be bad when an economy gets smaller, good when it expands. We have various indicators that try to measure growth. Gross domestic product (GDP) is the most familiar. Most economists define a recession in terms of shrinking GDP. There’s no consensus on how much the GDP has to shrink and for how long. And there are lots of competing measures. The International Monetary Fund even says that there doesn’t have to be actual shrinkage, global growth of less than 3% per year makes a recession. Then there’s the even vaguer question of what makes the difference between a recession and a depression. The short answer: depression is worse. Or in joke form: it’s recession if it affects someone else, it’s depression if it affects you.

It’s odd to have this vagueness in public discourse about economic issues when the research discipline itself is devoted to mathematical precision. But the problem doesn’t really lie in problems with this pursuit of precision. It lies in failure to ask other questions – and here it is not just economists who are culpable but all of us.

We have grown accustomed to thinking the main question about the economy is simply “up or down?”  But even if we knew for sure what to measure, growth could at best be only an aspect of economic success. It doesn’t tell us whether an economy is creating jobs, distributing wealth equitably, or providing public goods as well as private ones. It doesn’t tell us whether economic activity in a country is primarily benefitting people there, investors elsewhere, or middlemen between the two. It doesn’t tell us about risk or stability. And this is even without considering the possibility that growth – at least in many forms – is actively bad, destroying possibilities for an ecologically sustainable future or simply piling up too much “illth” alongside wealth.

We need a public conversation about what we want and can reasonably expect from the economy. If there is to be a new regulatory regime, it should be guided by goals that have been critically and publicly discussed and that go beyond averting disaster and supporting growth. Economists recognize other benchmarks: employment, inflation, productivity, balance of trade, fiscal deficit, the Gini index of inequality. We could set much more explicit performance targets for the economy.

If we think growth is good because it ought to lead to more jobs, then that should guide policy and we should recognize that growth in stock market indices – or even GDP – doesn’t measure it. Some kinds of growth bring jobs, some kinds don’t (even though they may bring profits). From the jobs perspective (among others), industrial production is better than financial speculation. So is providing high quality care for the sick or elderly. We can ask similar questions about, say, housing – whether our goal is simply quality housing or home ownership (perhaps with a low foreclosure rate). Is the economy providing good living spaces or not? Is it better at providing second or third houses for some or good homes for all? The same goes for food – whether we wish to stress the quality of nutrition, the quantity of production, the safety of products, or the environmental impact of different forms of agriculture. We could even ask questions at a higher level of complexity. If we say we value a free enterprise economy because it supports democracy, for example, then shouldn’t we try to measure how well it does so? Is extreme inequality better for democracy than making sure all citizens share in the fruits of economic production?

I’d like to live (and work and invest) in an economy that reduces poverty and provides health care, education, good housing, and good food for most citizens. I’d like an economy that recognizes the dignity and value of work – paying good wages commensurate with both effort and investment in acquiring skills. I’d like an economy in which prudent risk taking is generally rewarded – yes, some capitalists are better than others – and sheer speculation isn’t. I’d like continued technological innovation but also greater care for the environment. But the point isn’t what I’d like. It’s that citizens in general ought to ask what kinds of economic performance they want and ask the government to target investments and regulation towards that, not just toward growth.

It’s odd that in the United States today we taxpayers are making massive payments to support the economy and not having a real discussion about what we want for our money. And much the same is true around the world. Taxpayers who are contributing thousands of dollar a year to Wall Street bailouts and economic stimulus packages are spending lots of time looking for green beans that cost 10 cents less a can and checking out which cable services offer more value for money without really making clear what they want for their much bigger investment in the economy.

Economists and other social scientists have tools for measuring many different kinds of economic performance besides growth. If there is demand for other indicators they can produce them. If there isn’t, the economists will probably keep producing knowledge for corporate clients. Likewise a key regulatory reform would be simply transparency: hedge funds and other investment firms should have to make clear just what they do. The public ought to demand the knowledge to make good decisions about what kinds of economic performance it wants