Is economic growth the greatest thing since oxygen?

[little graham]

 

[Power Raid]

I don't see many people arguing against economic growth.

I do see most democratic people arguing that economic growth alone tells us very little about how well an economy is going, in particular how it is distributed across society is of far more value.

Many of the south east asian nations are booming and have been for well over a decade, enjoying economic growth in the double figures year on year. Yet it isn't "trickling down" the way the free market extremists said it would - this is causing a backlash all over the globe, whether Brexit, Trump 16, One Nation etc. people are turning away from free market ideology because it isn't benefiting most people.

Economic growth is just a reflection of trade. Everyone likes trade. The way we measure ecocnomic growth is just not really accurate if we're trying to figure out if it's actually benefiting our people or not.

tl;dr economic growth doesn't really tell us anything of value if you believe in democracy

I won't argue that the wealth spread in SE Asia isn't horrendous but the improved wealth in 20 years has been amazing.

The next 10 years will be amazing for the people with proper tax systems being implemented, amnesties and settlements, bank transparency, anti money laundering etc. hopefully a wealth tax and land taxes are introduced and corruption ended (reduced).

I have never been more bullish on Asia

 

[Lebbo73]

Of course not. Tribes used to kill other tribes. It was a wonderful existence!

 

[Seeds]

You are correct, we would have enough food if we waved a magic wand and all the food across the globe was evenly distributed. But that's not how the world works, and instead we have 800 million people who don't have access to sufficient food to live healthily. If growth was the answer this problem could have been fixed by now, we have the production capabilities, instead we grow at their expense.

By the time we've flogged the death out of fossil fuels the world is going to have tipped over the edge in terms of what it is capable of withstanding. Climate change, ocean acidification, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, and global freshwater stocks. In all these areas we are reaching a tipping point. Flooded coastal cities, eradication of ecosystems/extinction of species (the full impact of this we won't understand until too late due to the complexity of ecosystems), freshwater scarcity (and the resulting impact on food production), the list goes on.

We can't rely on the miracle of technology to be our saviour. If anything, cleaner or more efficient fuels just encourage more production. It is incompatible with a system based on growth to take a step back because you're becoming more efficient. Instead, now that the horse has more to give you flog it harder.

If we have clean renewable fuels than what is the problem with more production?

Food distributions problems are a separate problem mostly related to corrupt governments and poor institutions in poor countries making it unprofitable or impossible to both trade food and grow food. Food distribution hasn't always been the problem with poverty though. In the past when economies were a lot lot smaller there sometimes wasn't enough food to go around at all. There was a lack of food supplies.

We may as a civilisation fail to adopt clean energy quickly enough to prevent serious environmental damage. But this isn't an issue with economic growth. Economies already have the technologies to go completely clean and in the grand scheme of things the costs aren't that high. If we don't adopt them it will be a grand failure of our system of democratically elected (in most cases) national governments with only minor and largely ineffectual global integration. Our world political system probably gives too much incentive to free ride to encourage global climate change action. The only way to fix it is to have a more united global political system. This however creates its own problems.

 

[medusala]

Yet despite all this there are still people who hate economic growth and wish governments stopped encouraging it. Surely these people have to be atleast 2 standard deviations to the evil side of a normal distribution ranking humans on their level of goodness? Am I right?

Pursuit of economic growth (as measured by gdp) by itself in isolation is idiotic. We could let in a million people tomorrow and gdp would grow because of that. Does that mean everyone in Australia would be better off? No chance.

 

[Seeds]

Pursuit of economic growth (as measured by gdp) by itself in isolation is idiotic. We could let in a million people tomorrow and gdp would grow because of that. Does that mean everyone in Australia would be better off? No chance.

Gees. Economic growth per capita is the only thing that matters as a measure, albeit very incomplete, measure of living standard. Do I have to put per capita on the end every time I use the word. Thought it was pretty obvious.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

Gees. Economic growth per capita is the only thing that matters as a measure, albeit very incomplete, measure of living standard. Do I have to put per capita on the end every time I use the word. Thought it was pretty obvious.

You probably should because every almost single country and economist only really focuses on GDP as a whole, which is also all that matters to the ratings agency.

Per capita is important, but not as important how that growth is distributed amongst the populace. Just because the top 1% of the country have seen, for example, a 10% increase on paper of their wealth, if that hasn't also correlated with an increase to the median worker's wage - then what's the point of it and how is it beneficial to the 99%?

Likewise the way GDP is measured is in itself problematic. It has no measure for how educated our children are, only what we spend on educating them.

Its an indicator, and not a particularly good one.

 

[Seeds]

Ok if you are actually interested in hunter gatherer lifestyle then get some real knowledge from those that study them rather from silly memes. There is actually a lot going for the hunter gatherer lifestyle as it is the lifestyle that we are evolved for. But violence, rape and the concept of lawyers is a huge part of living as a hunter and gatherer. The conscious minds primariy goal is to act as a lawyer for our own intuitions and past actions and that self conscious mind evolved because of its benefits to the hunter gatherer lifestyle.

 

[Seeds]

You probably should because every almost single country and economist only really focuses on GDP as a whole, which is also all that matters to the ratings agency.

Per capita is important, but not as important how that growth is distributed amongst the populace. Just because the top 1% of the country have seen, for example, a 10% increase on paper of their wealth, if that hasn't also correlated with an increase to the median worker's wage - then what's the point of it and how is it beneficial to the 99%?

Likewise the way GDP is measured is in itself problematic. It has no measure for how educated our children are, only what we spend on educating them.

Its an indicator, and not a particularly good one.

Every economics report that looks at gdp as a standard of living uses per capita measures and usually in purchasing power parity terms.

The argument of this thread by the way isn't that gdp per capita is the measure of living standard that we should use. The argument is simply that our standard of living is highly positive correlated with gdp.

Many things unrelated to economic growth also determine our overall level of happiness. The most important being how we choose to give meaning to our own existence and how we intrepret our external stimuli. Externally there is amount of leisure time, the communities we develop, level of tolerance, relationships we form with others, level of safety, level of pollution, availability of tools we have to reduce household chores or entertain us at home (these things aren't counted in gdp) and many more. Ofcourse many of these things are also correlated with economic output but it's by no means a perfect correlation.

Over the long run economies will only grow if there is a certain degree of equality. Economies that are too equal or too unequal simply stop growing. Thus there is no real need to look at inequality seperate from economic growth as the two can not co-exist. Growth in developed economies is already struggling and inequality and the corruption behind it is part of the reason.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

Every economics report that looks at gdp as a standard of living uses per capita measures and usually in purchasing power parity terms.

The argument of this thread by the way isn't that gdp per capita is the measure of living standard that we should use. The argument is simply that our standard of living is highly positive correlated with gdp.

Many things unrelated to economic growth also determine our overall level of happiness. The most important being how we choose to give meaning to our own existence and how we intrepret our external stimuli. Externally there is amount of leisure time, the communities we develop, level of tolerance, relationships we form with others, level of safety, level of pollution, availability of tools we have to reduce household chores or entertain us at home (these things aren't counted in gdp) and many more. Ofcourse many of these things are also correlated with economic output but it's by no means a perfect correlation.

Over the long run economies will only grow if there is a certain degree of equality. Economies that are too equal or too unequal simply stop growing. Thus there is no real need to look at inequality seperate from economic growth as the two can not co-exist. Growth in developed economies is already struggling and inequality and the corruption behind it is part of the reason.

Oh.

Well you're simply wrong and stupid.

Sorry.

 

[medusala]

Every economics report that looks at gdp as a standard of living uses per capita measures and usually in purchasing power parity terms.

No, rarely. See fanboi argument re "stimulus" and avoiding recession. How often do you hear we had a recession in per capita terms?

Thats why politicians love immigration. It may cause huge issues and do little if anything on a per capita basis but it allows gross gdp to look good and thats what the media reports (and your two bob academic economists)

 

[VineyIsLORD]

No, rarely. See fanboi argument re "stimulus" and avoiding recession. How often do you hear we had a recession in per capita terms?

Thats why politicians love immigration. It may cause huge issues and do little if anything on a per capita basis but it allows gross gdp to look good and thats what the media reports (and your two bob academic economists)

We're rarely in agreement. This is one of those times.

 

[Seeds]

Oh.

Well you're simply wrong and stupid.

Sorry.

Super intelligent argument there. Like a toddler suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance.

 

[Seeds]

No, rarely. See fanboi argument re "stimulus" and avoiding recession. How often do you hear we had a recession in per capita terms?

Thats why politicians love immigration. It may cause huge issues and do little if anything on a per capita basis but it allows gross gdp to look good and thats what the media reports (and your two bob academic economists)

who is is talking about media reports or what uneducated people on an internet type? Actual economic reports (including ones from 2 bob academics) looking at using gdp as a standard of living all use per capita terms. Stop reading papers aimed at the idiot bogans and read actual reports.

 

[madmug]

It's development that gives people the chance to improve their lives. Sadly there are people like those in the green movement that don't want people to develop and improve their lives. Our lives have improved greatly because of development, the average life expectancy has increased and also the quality of life due to technology. Imagine if people in undeveloped places in Africa were able to develop their natural resources and generate wealth? Why should we deny them the opportunity to have what we have?

I think a blanket criticism of the Greens is a bit passe'. I know some deep greens are idiots but green economics has some legitimacy. Consumerism is slowly consuming the planet with a desire for more 'stuff' which doesnt really add to our own welfare, or the welfare of future generations.
The idea of everyone living the 'Western Lifestyle is an illusion. I did see a comment that the if the current Worlds population were to live like 'we' do, we'd need a planet 9 times the size of Earth!!
So living 'economically' is where its at & yes technology can & will help. But we all need to live differently & share beneficial technology. That is a fact.

 

[Pie eyed]

Ok if you are actually interested in hunter gatherer lifestyle then get some real knowledge from those that study them rather from silly memes. There is actually a lot going for the hunter gatherer lifestyle as it is the lifestyle that we are evolved for. But violence, rape and the concept of lawyers is a huge part of living as a hunter and gatherer. The conscious minds primariy goal is to act as a lawyer for our own intuitions and past actions and that self conscious mind evolved because of its benefits to the hunter gatherer lifestyle.

Dark Emu Black Seeds is a great book.
I recommend it to anyone who wants an opinion on Australia's indigenous.

 

[Seeds]

I think a blanket criticism of the Greens is a bit passe'. I know some deep greens are idiots but green economics has some legitimacy. Consumerism is slowly consuming the planet with a desire for more 'stuff' which doesnt really add to our own welfare, or the welfare of future generations.
The idea of everyone living the 'Western Lifestyle is an illusion. I did see a comment that the if the current Worlds population were to live like 'we' do, we'd need a planet 9 times the size of Earth!!
So living 'economically' is where its at & yes technology can & will help. But we all need to live differently & share beneficial technology. That is a fact.

Agree on the consumerism point. if everyone's gdp per capita was at the same levels as a Western person then we would not need nine planets as the composition of that gdp would be different. Our energy would come from renewable clean sources and we would have converted a lot more of our empty agricultural land. This land may not be as productive as our current agricultural land but there is still more than enough to supply the food needed for the world to have awestern life style, it would just cost a bit more. Thus the whole world could effectively consume like a westerner if they wanted to and we would have more than enough room and supplies. However, there are better ways to consume that will be more beneficial to our well being. The over indulgence in status serving stuff like giant houses, fancy cars, fancy clothes, jewellry, excess furniture all adds little to nothing to our well being.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Any chance some of you guys investing in an avatar, so we can tell you apart?....It really isn't all that difficult.

 

[Total Power]

Any chance some of you guys investing in an avatar, so we can tell you apart?....It really isn't all that difficult.

Can i suggest you an avatar

 

[SBYM]

Imagine if people in undeveloped places in Africa were able to develop their natural resources and generate wealth? Why should we deny them the opportunity to have what we have?

Coz those of us not in Africa need our diamonds, ivory, and rhinoceros penis.

 

[Pie eyed]

Coz those of us not in Africa need our diamonds, ivory, and rhinoceros penis.

You did not answer the question....
Should we deny those less advanced the right to advance themselves?
If not why not?

Jut guessing but you're probably from migrant stock, probably peasant stock who escaped abject poverty to give you the life you lord over those like your forebears......
Would they approve?malice?

 

[QuietB]

Of course not. Tribes used to kill other tribes. It was a wonderful existence!

Has anything changed there?

 

[Scotland]

Any system founded on perpetual growth is flawed from the outset.

 

[Run n Spread]

Population growth is slowing and we have technology to provide plenty of energy, food and water. Humans are smart enough to adapt and do all the time.
There won't be doom and gloom, we'll keep improving as we always have and we'll adapt to any changes.

Uuummmm no it isn't.

 

[madmug]

Any system founded on perpetual growth is flawed from the outset.

I guess the only thing that may allow for anything like that is technological advancement.
Human creativity is potentially the best source of environmentally safe & sustainable growth.
Growth based on population growth must eventually fail.