3 ms·

> Germany's GDP is where it was in 2008; GDP in 2014 3,852,556 million $, growth 1.6%, which is not bad, given that the population growth is negative. GDP in

by lispm 11y ago

> Germany's GDP is where it was in 2008; GDP in 2014 3,852,556 million $, growth 1.6%, which is not bad, given that the population growth is negative. GDP in 2008 3,764,675 million $ Balanced budget. Debt reduction. Record employment. Record exports. Record tax income. Everybody picks the numbers he or she likes.

adventured 11y ago
The 1.6% positive is actually negative if you account for even very low level inflation over those years. Also, the Euro just lost a ton of value due to QE, which will ultimately drop every Eurozone member's GDP by at least 20% in real terms. In dollar terms, Germany's economy has plunged since 2008 due to this effect. It's the same effect the US suffered as US budget deficits hammered the dollar from 2001-2009 or so. If you look at any country's GDP priced in dollars, they all universally skyrocket at the exact same time, all courtesy of the devalued dollar (the US lost a lot of ground to the rest of the world over that time due to the dollar devaluation). Population growth is not a requirement for GDP growth. It also doesn't always help, plenty of countries have historically shown vast population growth with mediocre economic growth. Germany's population has hardly budged since 1970. Their economy has increased several fold in that time. Productivity / output gains are far more important than population gains.
- lispm 11y ago
  > Population growth is not a requirement for GDP growth. It also doesn't always help, plenty of countries have historically shown vast population growth with mediocre economic growth. In developed countries most GDP growth is linked to population growth. See the US. Not taking into account that the US has an artificial inflated GDP. > Their economy has increased several fold in that time Long ago, different situation. Besides that, the limits of using the GDP as a useful number have long been shown. The Iraq war with its trillion dollar cost helped the GDP a lot...

by lispm 11y ago

adventured 11y ago

The 1.6% positive is actually negative if you account for even very low level inflation over those years. Also, the Euro just lost a ton of value due to QE, which will ultimately drop every Eurozone member's GDP by at least 20% in real terms. In dollar terms, Germany's economy has plunged since 2008 due to this effect. It's the same effect the US suffered as US budget deficits hammered the dollar from 2001-2009 or so. If you look at any country's GDP priced in dollars, they all universally skyrocket at the exact same time, all courtesy of the devalued dollar (the US lost a lot of ground to the rest of the world over that time due to the dollar devaluation). Population growth is not a requirement for GDP growth. It also doesn't always help, plenty of countries have historically shown vast population growth with mediocre economic growth. Germany's population has hardly budged since 1970. Their economy has increased several fold in that time. Productivity / output gains are far more important than population gains.

lispm 11y ago
> Population growth is not a requirement for GDP growth. It also doesn't always help, plenty of countries have historically shown vast population growth with mediocre economic growth. In developed countries most GDP growth is linked to population growth. See the US. Not taking into account that the US has an artificial inflated GDP. > Their economy has increased several fold in that time Long ago, different situation. Besides that, the limits of using the GDP as a useful number have long been shown. The Iraq war with its trillion dollar cost helped the GDP a lot...