5 ms·

I agree with this article personally, but don’t economies (which comprise of businesses) have to grow to either compete or reduce inequality? Seeing how China

I agree with this article personally, but don’t economies (which comprise of businesses) have to grow to either compete or reduce inequality? Seeing how China is continuously growing at a higher rate, eventually that growth will outpace other economies proving the country a higher standard of living, technological advancement, and power. Vietnam just reported 3% growth which is good in 2020 when countries had negative growth, however, but it was growing at 7% the last few years. If it can’t sustain growth, the labour market won’t be healthy. In turn, inequality will rise, and social mobility will be depressed. In the article it mentions Japan a lot. I love Japan, but the stagnating economy (and aging population) is a very visible reason why 0 growth is a big issue.

ghoward 6y ago
I'm no expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt. There are two ways economies can grow: * More customers. * More value. The first is obvious, just grow the population (and it's one reason a shrinking population is bad), but the second is more subtle. When someone invents a new product, say when the vacuum cleaner was invented, whether or not it adds value is determined by how much the product helps its user either: 1) Save time (so that more time can be spent creating something else of value). 2) Make something else of value possible. 3) Increase the quality of life. In the case of the vacuum, it does at least 2 and 3 (less dust is definitely better quality of life). But when it comes to growing economies, things that do number 1 and number 2 are huge. That was why the Industrial Revolution and Computer Revolution were so huge; both produced things that did 1 and 2. And because time was saved and not things became possible, those things started to get done, growing the economy. And all of that included companies growing big, but in the presence of 1 and 2, the growth of companies isn't necessary to grow the economy.
- antoniuschan99 6y ago
  Very cool. Thank you for your explanation :)
  - ghoward 6y ago
    You're welcome. :)

ghoward 6y ago

I'm no expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt. There are two ways economies can grow: * More customers. * More value. The first is obvious, just grow the population (and it's one reason a shrinking population is bad), but the second is more subtle. When someone invents a new product, say when the vacuum cleaner was invented, whether or not it adds value is determined by how much the product helps its user either: 1) Save time (so that more time can be spent creating something else of value). 2) Make something else of value possible. 3) Increase the quality of life. In the case of the vacuum, it does at least 2 and 3 (less dust is definitely better quality of life). But when it comes to growing economies, things that do number 1 and number 2 are huge. That was why the Industrial Revolution and Computer Revolution were so huge; both produced things that did 1 and 2. And because time was saved and not things became possible, those things started to get done, growing the economy. And all of that included companies growing big, but in the presence of 1 and 2, the growth of companies isn't necessary to grow the economy.

antoniuschan99 6y ago
Very cool. Thank you for your explanation :)
- ghoward 6y ago
  You're welcome. :)