<< …disasters, illnesses etc. do not themselves "contribute to GDP" >>

Really Pericles?

<< Think of bushfires for a moment… needed 22 million people to fight the fires, what, do you think, would happen to GDP? >>

Depending on the nature and magnitude of a fire or earthquake or whatever, people may no longer be able to work, which would reflect negatively on GDP. But nonetheless, all the economic activity undertaken to get back on track after a disaster would be added to GDP, which of course it shouldn’t, if GDP is to be a meaningful indicator of economic prosperity.

<< This idea that earthquakes increase GDP is sadly such a common fallacy >>

I really think you will find that there is no fallacy here. But please keep trying to convince me.

Much more significantly, I would love to know what you think about the enormous economic growth generated by rapid population growth and how this is reflected in GDP… and how positive or negative it really is for our economy and wellbeing.

<< …it is the economic activity we measure, not the disaster itself. >>

YES! And not the benefit to society either! Just the raw economic activity. Such is the critically flawed nature of GDP.

Ludwig, population increase cannot produce growth,unless perhaps they
are put to work in coal mines, but if they do not produce a net
increase in energy they cannot generate growth.

Agreed Bazz. Population growth doesn’t produce meaningful growth. But it sure as hell does produce a whooooole lot of meaningless growth which makes our GDP and economy look wonderful to all those silly hare-brained pseudoeconomists and politicians!

Seasonally adjusted, of course!

No Ludwig not pseudoeconomists but real economists, and that is the
source of problem. Politicians take notice of economists but only a
very small number of economists have made the connection between energy and growth.
Some might realise that energy affects the economy but they do not
seem to understand that it is the only thing that can give growth.

Everything else is fluff and bluster.

<< …only a very small number of economists have made the connection between energy and growth >>

Agreed Bazz. Or between economic growth here and now and the real benefit of it for the ordinary citizens or for our society in the longer term.

Only a very small number of economists see things in a holistic manner. The rest are pseudoeconomists, false economists or downright anti-economists!

But alas, they are the ones that our politicians listen to.