Posted: Nov 14, 2013 3:16 am
by Thommo
stevecook172001 wrote:
Thommo wrote:That's just not true, there's no such physical, mathematical or logical requirement. This is why the typical expression of GDP growth - the very most basic figure we hear about it on a daily basis - is GDP per capita and the second most basic is inflation-adjusted GDP per capita.

Take a dollar, any dollar, and follow it's trajectory throughout an economic system and you will eventually end up in a field somewhere (or mine or fishing territory or oil well etc).

You are erroneously conflating different forms of economic activity.

Primary - wealth creating

Tertiary - wealth creating/redistributing

Secondary - wealth redistributing

Obviously if you look at a part of a system in isolation, secondary activity can be locally wealth creating and tertiary activity can appear to be far more wealth creating than it actually is at the whole-system level. And, even then, such tertiary activity is entirely dependent on the level of primary activity preceding it. But, when viewing the system in totality, the only kind of economic activity that generates growth is primary. Most of everything else is simply moving the chips around the table.

Yeah, none of that even relates to the untrue claim that "Economic growth, in a system of money creation where money is lent into existence at interest, requires an ever increasing population of consumers to cover the debt and to give all of the new money a home to go to."

Economic growth doesn't require an ever increasing population of consumers. Simple as that - it's not true.

To accuse me of conflating concepts which don't even appear in the post is missing the mark by a spectacularly wide margin.