Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell."
And stagnation is akin to death.
It is very possible for people to continue to improve their lives and living standards (with higher GDP), while reducing resource consumption. Many developed countries are already on this path.
The resistance mostly comes from entrenched businesses that do not want to see their action diminished in any way, and the propaganda they support that greatly influences what people think they "want".
I think the percapita GDP of the USA is bout $60K, and the world as a whole is $16K,which is a factor of about four.
Okay, no disagreement. Your post is a little murky but I can see what you meant, and your claim is accurate enough.
I still don't think it's a very meaningful figure. GDP itself is such a complex figure that just averaging it across the spectrum of countries, from Macau to Cuba, just does the econ hat trick - produces an unassailable figure that means next to nothing.
If you just want to argue that the US is a wealthy country, by pretty much any measure, I wouldn't dispute that, either. But to discuss it meaningfully, you have to use meaningful metrics - at least something that indexes local incomes to local COL and represents something like comparable living. Simple averages conceal far more than they reveal.
Last edited by Quietude; 03-08-2018 at 10:17 AM..
Reason: typo
It is very possible for people to continue to improve their lives and living standards (with higher GDP), while reducing resource consumption. Many developed countries are already on this path.
The resistance mostly comes from entrenched businesses that do not want to see their action diminished in any way, and the propaganda they support that greatly influences what people think they "want".
It is certainly possible to improve lives and living standards, without consuming more oil or clearing more forests or burning more coal etc. The solution is in better technology and more intelligent marshaling of presently-available methods, let alone research into improved methods. This is why, for example, to argue that either we curtail global-warming, or facilitate continued growth - but not both! - is a false dichotomy.
However, I very much do contend, that "stagnation is akin to death" - whether or not this is the "ideology of the cancer cell". Expansion need not mean burning more stuff, digging more stuff out, releasing more stuff into the atmosphere, dumping more stuff into landfills. But it does mean producing more and consuming mere - realizing, of course, that the "more" could be services, or knowledge-enhancement/transmission/storage, or the like. We can not, for example, freeze the literature that we currently have, writing no more books, limiting ourselves to reading and studying the books that have already been written. It is essential to write more books, even if the classics of the past may never be equaled, even of most of the books currently being written are driven and dross.
But I wonder is this is "good". Maybe I should buy health care stocks to offset the higher premiums. I can imagine it going up to 15K per person per year (currently close to 11K).
If we reformed out health care system, people would be healthier, live longer, have money to spend on other things AND our GDP would suffer. Of course, we won't do that...because the whole idea of our economy is to move the costs onto someone else (our kids, debt, deficit, etc.).
But I wonder is this is "good". Maybe I should buy health care stocks to offset the higher premiums. I can imagine it going up to 15K per person per year (currently close to 11K).
If we reformed out health care system, people would be healthier, live longer, have money to spend on other things AND our GDP would suffer. Of course, we won't do that...because the whole idea of our economy is to move the costs onto someone else (our kids, debt, deficit, etc.).
We talk about GDP, growth and all, but few ever discuss or try to place value on production, what we do in medicine. We can measure spending, but output in so many cases is better health, happiness, contentment and security. Better quality of life and longer life. Personal and family. Not easy to place a dollar number on that sort of production.
We talk about GDP, growth and all, but few ever discuss or try to place value on production, what we do in medicine. We can measure spending, but output in so many cases is better health, happiness, contentment and security. Better quality of life and longer life. Personal and family. Not easy to place a dollar number on that sort of production.
Firstly, we are living far fewer years than many who spend 1/3 of what we do on health care - and, many of those last years are suffering, so the happiness is not coming from spending 2X or 3X what the rest of the world is. Given current trends, China will surpass us in life expectancy soon.
Heck, people in Chile, Ireland, Costa Rica, Spain, Japan, etc. all live longer...
If this country was happy and healthy suicides of our soldiers, mass shooting and the opiate crisis would be tamped down a bit.
Well, here is a way GDP is going way up - 90% increases in health care due to Trump Changes:
I don't know if you don't read or don't care. But I'll try for the 3rd time.
WASTEFUL SPENDING ON "X" DOES NOT INCREASE GDP!!!!
There is more than one variable in the equation. Wasteful spending reduces the amount we have to spend on everything else. It most definitely reduces our living standard. And it might even reduce GDP. But it certainly doesn't raise it.
We can measure spending, but output in so many cases is better health, happiness, contentment and security. Better quality of life and longer life. Personal and family. Not easy to place a dollar number on that sort of production.
I don't know if you don't read or don't care. But I'll try for the 3rd time.
WASTEFUL SPENDING ON "X" DOES NOT INCREASE GDP!!!!
There is more than one variable in the equation. Wasteful spending reduces the amount we have to spend on everything else. It most definitely reduces our living standard. And it might even reduce GDP. But it certainly doesn't raise it.
Explain.
Say we borrow 1.5 TRILLION like we just did. We hand out all that money and people spend a good percentage of it on health care.
Doesn't GDP increase.
I see what you are saying - but that is only if the money supply stayed equal. When we give away new money and that is spent, GDP would seem to increase.
Conversely, if we spent 1/2 of what we do on health care and didn't steal 1.5 T from our children, it might go down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
