3 ms·

Yes, why not? We continue to discover new things, make things faster and cheaper, become more efficient and automated, and scale globally. Why wouldn’t we conti

Yes, why not? We continue to discover new things, make things faster and cheaper, become more efficient and automated, and scale globally. Why wouldn’t we continue to see economic growth? We aren’t anywhere close to tapping out, if that’s even possible.

stavros 4y ago
If you sell ten widgets that cost $100 each, and then you make them faster and cheaper so you can sell a hundred widgets that cost $10 each, you have not achieved any economic growth, as the latter is defined as "the increase or improvement in the inflation-adjusted market value of the goods and services produced by an economy over a certain period of time".
- smrk007 4y ago
  Do widgets not provide any utility to consumers?
- ciphol 4y ago
  If you got the price of widgets down from $100 to $10, that's because directly or indirectly you figured out how to make them with less labor/materials. That labor and materials can be redirected to other purposes, aka economic growth.
- imtringued 4y ago
  If we assume that people only want ten widgets and you sit on your 90 extra widgets the yes there is no economic growth.
88840-8855 4y ago
That is one part. The second part why capitalism was so successful in post ww2 was exponential global population growth. This is NOT sustainable, especially when you want to reduce resource consumption per person. The post ww2 capitalism led to growth because the resource consumption per person increased. Stagnating populations and the goal of sustainability will lead to economic stagnation. To add to the actual article: Well, this is the price of democracy. People voted, now they have to pay. This is democracy! Populism instead of technocracy. Instead of doing the right thing, the majority decides the direction. And further, you want to support corrupt Ukraine and punish evil Russia? Then you gotta pay, too. We will see how long this "value driven politics" approach will work with the Western majorities and how long it takes until yet another populist is elected fully democratically who promises so much good stuff and in the end just delivery crap like Brexit. I personally lost the trust in our Western system and stopped voting.
imtringued 4y ago
Productivity increases are not the same thing as economic growth. Let's assume there is a magic technology that makes us 1000 times more productive. The economy wouldn't grow at all if people don't buy the additional products. If people decide to become self sufficient the economy would actually decline!
- rowanajmarshall 4y ago
  > Let's assume there is a magic technology that makes us 1000 times more productive. The economy wouldn't grow at all if people don't buy the additional products. It's not just about buying more stuff, it's about the quality of stuff produced. Like, in a desperately poor country there isn't enough labour or capital to effectively sanitise drinking water. But as productivity goes up, there is. Poor places don't drink more water than rich places, but the quality goes up dramatically.

stavros 4y ago

If you sell ten widgets that cost $100 each, and then you make them faster and cheaper so you can sell a hundred widgets that cost $10 each, you have not achieved any economic growth, as the latter is defined as "the increase or improvement in the inflation-adjusted market value of the goods and services produced by an economy over a certain period of time".

smrk007 4y ago
Do widgets not provide any utility to consumers?
ciphol 4y ago
If you got the price of widgets down from $100 to $10, that's because directly or indirectly you figured out how to make them with less labor/materials. That labor and materials can be redirected to other purposes, aka economic growth.
imtringued 4y ago
If we assume that people only want ten widgets and you sit on your 90 extra widgets the yes there is no economic growth.

88840-8855 4y ago

That is one part. The second part why capitalism was so successful in post ww2 was exponential global population growth. This is NOT sustainable, especially when you want to reduce resource consumption per person. The post ww2 capitalism led to growth because the resource consumption per person increased. Stagnating populations and the goal of sustainability will lead to economic stagnation. To add to the actual article: Well, this is the price of democracy. People voted, now they have to pay. This is democracy! Populism instead of technocracy. Instead of doing the right thing, the majority decides the direction. And further, you want to support corrupt Ukraine and punish evil Russia? Then you gotta pay, too. We will see how long this "value driven politics" approach will work with the Western majorities and how long it takes until yet another populist is elected fully democratically who promises so much good stuff and in the end just delivery crap like Brexit. I personally lost the trust in our Western system and stopped voting.

imtringued 4y ago

Productivity increases are not the same thing as economic growth. Let's assume there is a magic technology that makes us 1000 times more productive. The economy wouldn't grow at all if people don't buy the additional products. If people decide to become self sufficient the economy would actually decline!

rowanajmarshall 4y ago
> Let's assume there is a magic technology that makes us 1000 times more productive. The economy wouldn't grow at all if people don't buy the additional products. It's not just about buying more stuff, it's about the quality of stuff produced. Like, in a desperately poor country there isn't enough labour or capital to effectively sanitise drinking water. But as productivity goes up, there is. Poor places don't drink more water than rich places, but the quality goes up dramatically.