Isn't flat GDP better than constant growth?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Patents can cause high GDP, regulations increase GDP, corporate bailouts increase GDP, lousy shit that's insanely priced causes high GDP, and govt spending is included in GDP.

Why is economic growth considered desirable by so many? Is it because it will get the govt more tax revenue?

Flat GDP is the natural order and I don't understand why so many people like the "blue pill".
 
Last edited:

dawheat

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
3,132
93
91
At minimum, due to population growth, wouldn't a flat GDP lead to lower quality of life over the long term?
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Patents can cause high GDP, regulations increase GDP, corporate bailouts increase GDP, lousy shit that's insanely priced causes high GDP, and govt spending is included in GDP.

Why is economic growth considered desirable by so many? Is it because it will get the govt more tax revenue?

Flat GDP is the natural order and I don't understand why so many people like the "blue pill".


I dont see much problems with having a high GDP but I definitely agree on the other point. The government and many other advocates want this so they can spend more money for their special causes, government LOVES more tax revenue
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Patents can cause high GDP, regulations increase GDP, corporate bailouts increase GDP, lousy shit that's insanely priced causes high GDP, and govt spending is included in GDP.

Why is economic growth considered desirable by so many? Is it because it will get the govt more tax revenue?

Flat GDP is the natural order and I don't understand why so many people like the "blue pill".


GDP may provide you with a measure of economic activity (along with a good view on inflation/deflation of a currency) in a nation but it doesn't tell the whole story as in where that activity is actually taking place in the economy. High levels of GDP in industries which produce very little tangible hard goods and services for the average citizen/consumer (for example military spending on wars) in a nation aren't that beneficial compared to a modest GDP gain which is focused heavily in sectors of the economy which actually benefit the average person by providing them tangible goods and services that they can acquire and consume.

For example WW2 saw high rates of GDP in the US. However for the average US citizen in WW2 they saw very little of that benefit from our high rates of GDP during that period. In fact it was a period filled with rationing and shortages for the average American consumer because domestic economic production was being directed almost entirely toward the war effort.

Another example would be Japan. Of which on the other hand has experienced low levels of GDP for the last 20 years. However what little GDP has occurred has mainly been in areas of the economy in which tangible goods and services were being made available to the average Japanese citizen and so their standard of living did not decrease one bit. However the sector of the economy in which their diminished GDP has greatly affected happened to be the one area which created the bubble which tanked their economy in the 90's, i.e. their stock market which has not recovered or benefited from not having large amounts of money being poured into it.

Edit: That last part about their stock market however might be changing now that Japan has a embarked on a mission to devalue their currency so their stock market might rise again, along with inflation and risk taking based on their government's inflationary policies.
 
Last edited:

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
At minimum, due to population growth, wouldn't a flat GDP lead to lower quality of life over the long term?

That would depend on where that GDP is occurring.

Is it entirely occurring in segments of the economy which provide you and I consumer goods and services?

Or is it occurring in segments in the economy in which you and I will see very little in the way of tangible and consumable goods and services?

In other words high rates of GDP don't mean much if that economic growth only occurs in areas of our economy which do not benefit the average person. Just as low rates are not always harmful as you would think if that growth is specifically occurring in areas in which the average person is benefiting from and thus is providing goods and services they can acquire and consume.

In addition GDP is a better indicator of inflation or deflation than it is a indicator of where and how that economic activity is occurring.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Patents can cause high GDP, regulations increase GDP, corporate bailouts increase GDP, lousy shit that's insanely priced causes high GDP, and govt spending is included in GDP.

Why is economic growth considered desirable by so many? Is it because it will get the govt more tax revenue?

Flat GDP is the natural order and I don't understand why so many people like the "blue pill".

Flat GDP implies no progress. The GDP of a caveman society would be pretty low and flat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.