5 ms·

> America's economic growth has peaked I assume you mean, the size of the economy has peaked. The rate of growth was never thought to be increasing (i.e., it d

> America's economic growth has peaked I assume you mean, the size of the economy has peaked. The rate of growth was never thought to be increasing (i.e., it didn't grow 4% one year, 4.1% the next, etc.). This question is answered by well-known data, GDP growth. That popular number represents, effectively, the increase in the economy's size every year. The U.S. economy has grown and continues to grow every year since 1950, with the only exception being 2008, the worst year of the Great Recession. http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

101km 9y ago
I believe parent is saying "Peak GDP".
- hackuser 9y ago
  What does that mean? If it means, literally, U.S. Gross Domestic Product has reached its peak, then my point that the GDP has grown every year but one since 1950 answers the question. To be clear: Every year since 1950, except one, the U.S. GDP has been larger than the year before.
  - 101km 9y ago
    It is similar to "Peak Oil". Things are finite, nothing grows forever.
    - Pokepokalypse 9y ago
      Well, in the case of oil, the limiter is a physical thing - accessible petroleum deposits. (which; things like fracking and shale oil were able to somewhat mitigate or replace). In the case of economic growth, it's productivity (which is a function of automation), and monetary supply (which is a function of fiscal policy guys playing chicken with the banks). It's not clear that there is a hard physical limit on either of these quantities. In fact: the innovation represented by automation, might also be seen as similar to the factors against peak oil: as fracking and shale oil are also technical innovations.
tboyd47 9y ago
I'm not talking about the rate of growth peaking. I'm talking about the size of the economy. You've only illustrated my point. Everyone is very highly incentivized to believe that the growth of the economy is infinite. I mean, just look at the numbers! It only grows, never shrinks. Is it really possible for economic activity in a country to grow forever with no upper limit? If not, then what's the upper limit?
- hackuser 9y ago
  An interesting question, but I think theoretical at this point. The evidence is very strong, not only in the U.S. but in other advanced economies who all perform similarly. In addition to the evidence, expert opinion (economists) seem unanimous; that is, I've never heard one say otherwise. Fundamentally, the size, i.e., the output of the economy is easy to compute: Inputs (resources, such as labor and capital) x Productivity (how much benefit is wrung from the same resources). The inputs generally increase. One major input that increases is labor. As the population grows, there are more people doing productive work. Productive workers, which is almost everyone with a paying job and very many without one (homemakers, volunteers, etc.), produce more than they consume - an important point. It's not a zero-sum situation; adding people doesn't reduce everyone's slice of the pie, it makes the pie bigger. Productivity also increases. You see it in SV every day, with better and better software, as one simple example. Every improvement in knowledge and technology, in every field, adds to productivity. Is there a limit to productivity? It's hard to imagine, but if there is then we're nowhere near it. > Everyone is very highly incentivized Or maybe the evidence is very strong. For example, is everyone is incentivized to believe the theory of gravity, or is the evidence very strong?
  - tboyd47 9y ago
    I appreciate that business is not zero-sum, but what happens to a non-zero sum when parts start getting subtracted from it? The population is growing at a rate of about 1%, but labor participation is down around 14 million people since 2002, and has not started to bounce back. And how does widespread underemployment, a growing deficit, and billions of dollars in debt owned to foreign countries play into the picture? Call me Chicken Little but I don't see how economists can be optimistic about growth until all or at least some of these trends start going in reverse. Economic growth doesn't just result from coming up with snazzier software - it requires citizens to acquire and deploy capital.

101km 9y ago

I believe parent is saying "Peak GDP".

hackuser 9y ago
What does that mean? If it means, literally, U.S. Gross Domestic Product has reached its peak, then my point that the GDP has grown every year but one since 1950 answers the question. To be clear: Every year since 1950, except one, the U.S. GDP has been larger than the year before.
- 101km 9y ago
  It is similar to "Peak Oil". Things are finite, nothing grows forever.
  - Pokepokalypse 9y ago
    Well, in the case of oil, the limiter is a physical thing - accessible petroleum deposits. (which; things like fracking and shale oil were able to somewhat mitigate or replace). In the case of economic growth, it's productivity (which is a function of automation), and monetary supply (which is a function of fiscal policy guys playing chicken with the banks). It's not clear that there is a hard physical limit on either of these quantities. In fact: the innovation represented by automation, might also be seen as similar to the factors against peak oil: as fracking and shale oil are also technical innovations.

tboyd47 9y ago

I'm not talking about the rate of growth peaking. I'm talking about the size of the economy. You've only illustrated my point. Everyone is very highly incentivized to believe that the growth of the economy is infinite. I mean, just look at the numbers! It only grows, never shrinks. Is it really possible for economic activity in a country to grow forever with no upper limit? If not, then what's the upper limit?

hackuser 9y ago
An interesting question, but I think theoretical at this point. The evidence is very strong, not only in the U.S. but in other advanced economies who all perform similarly. In addition to the evidence, expert opinion (economists) seem unanimous; that is, I've never heard one say otherwise. Fundamentally, the size, i.e., the output of the economy is easy to compute: Inputs (resources, such as labor and capital) x Productivity (how much benefit is wrung from the same resources). The inputs generally increase. One major input that increases is labor. As the population grows, there are more people doing productive work. Productive workers, which is almost everyone with a paying job and very many without one (homemakers, volunteers, etc.), produce more than they consume - an important point. It's not a zero-sum situation; adding people doesn't reduce everyone's slice of the pie, it makes the pie bigger. Productivity also increases. You see it in SV every day, with better and better software, as one simple example. Every improvement in knowledge and technology, in every field, adds to productivity. Is there a limit to productivity? It's hard to imagine, but if there is then we're nowhere near it. > Everyone is very highly incentivized Or maybe the evidence is very strong. For example, is everyone is incentivized to believe the theory of gravity, or is the evidence very strong?
- tboyd47 9y ago
  I appreciate that business is not zero-sum, but what happens to a non-zero sum when parts start getting subtracted from it? The population is growing at a rate of about 1%, but labor participation is down around 14 million people since 2002, and has not started to bounce back. And how does widespread underemployment, a growing deficit, and billions of dollars in debt owned to foreign countries play into the picture? Call me Chicken Little but I don't see how economists can be optimistic about growth until all or at least some of these trends start going in reverse. Economic growth doesn't just result from coming up with snazzier software - it requires citizens to acquire and deploy capital.