Pfff, it is not the greatest day for the beach. Overcast and windy ( :>(

A bit of revision of GDP: It includes economic activity generated by all sorts of activity, which it shouldn’t include because it simply is not stuff that is taking or economy forward. Things like bushfires, droughts, car accidents, smoking-related illness, and population growth.

This last factor is the biggest by far in Australia. It basically means that our enormous economic growth has been pretty well neutral in real per-capita terms over the last, say ~30 years. And the little bit of an increase in per-capita GDP that we have seen could be accounted for by all the economic activity that gets added to GDP which just damn well shouldn’t be added to it.

In other words: our rapidly increasing GDP, and our slightly increasing per-capita GDP are highly inflated indicators of economic prosperity. That makes them dangerously FALSE indicators!

So, within a paradigm of rapid population growth, we need rapid GDP growth JUST TO STAND STILL. Even with a high rate of GDP growth, we could still be going backwards in real terms.

So if we were to actually have negative GDP growth, we would well and truly be going backwards… and of course such a situation would be accompanied by businesses closing, rising unemployment and all manner of other nasties.

Hope this helps, Pericles.

Round and round we go again, Ludwig.

>>A bit of revision of GDP: It includes economic activity generated by all sorts of activity, which it shouldn’t include because it simply is not stuff that is taking or economy forward. Things like bushfires, droughts, car accidents, smoking-related illness, and population growth.<<

As I have pointed out on many occasions, it is not the role of a GDP calculation to exclude these elements.

>>In other words: our rapidly increasing GDP, and our slightly increasing per-capita GDP are highly inflated indicators of economic prosperity. That makes them dangerously FALSE indicators!<<

As I have also pointed out on many occasions, this argument falls totally flat when you look at the reality, which is, quite simply, increased GDP = good, decreased GDP = bad. You have had numerous opportunities to refute this glaringly obvious fact, but have not done so.

So, once again, if you really believe that these numbers indicate the opposite, please show one single example where a lower GDP has been of benefit.

>>So, within a paradigm of rapid population growth, we need rapid GDP growth JUST TO STAND STILL.<<

The part that you insist on ignoring is that the increase in GDP is actually created by the population growth. It isn't a matter of "we need GDP growth to stand still", it is that without population growth, we would not just stand still, but go backwards.

And it appears that you have finally come to accept what this entails:

>>...if we were to actually have negative GDP growth, we would well and truly be going backwards… and of course such a situation would be accompanied by businesses closing, rising unemployment and all manner of other nasties.<<

I fail to see how someone intelligent enough to recognize that it is not a good idea to go to the beach on a day that is overcast and windy, cannot grasp these equally simple facts.

This, Pericles, I absolutely can not agree with:

>>without population growth, we would not just stand still, but go backwards.<<

We have discussed this before, and I thought we had agreed, that, if the whole world were to adopt such a 'conviction', and pursue it with all haste, then the world would quickly be headed for an overpopulation disaster - famine, wars, mass movement of populations seeking that last blade of grass. Wildlife would be virtually extinguished, and forests razed to plant crops (and ultimately end up with exponentially-diminishing productivity, and thence to dust-bowls or deserts). The oceans would be polluted to destruction and fish stocks virtually elliminated. No whales, no porpoises, no seals, no sea-birds - no nothing (at least of any use).

Hence, if there is to be any quality of life for future generations, there must be a line drawn, a mandatory and uncompromising maximum world population limit. Full Stop. (I personally think we've already exceeded the QOL World Population Sustainability Limit QOLWPSL.)

Furthermore, I can see no reason why at least a modest growth in GDP could not be maintained with a stable, and even a falling population. It just means working smarter, producing more of what is needed (and of what is hopefully actually useful) with less. If smaller populations consume more useful products, build better and more environmentally friendly homes, and are served with better roads, transport, education, healthcare, aged-care, recreation facilities, beautifully maintained national parks and reserves, wildlife and botanical nature walks, better museums, theatre, arts, universal solar power, child-care, NBN Extraordinaire, free phones, and universal productive meaningful occupation ..., why, it would be bliss - and all totally sustainable and superbly environmentally-friendly. Utopia.

As to GDP: Perhaps we need a breakdown of the relevant revenue inputs to GDP, in broad categories, as percentile components;
And, the same sort of breakdown on the expenditure side, showing what percentage of GDP is actually spent on what - roads, hospitals, schools, universities, bureaucracy/government, armed services, policing, welfare services, emergency services, foreign aid, interest on debt ...

We could be thus 'informed'. Maybe such already exists?

<< Round and round we go again, Ludwig. >>

Yeayus. Not getting us very far, is it. But at least it’s fun!! ( :>)

Alright… I admit it: I do get my jollies in weird ways!

<< …it is not the role of a GDP calculation to exclude these elements. >>

CORRECT! It is not the role of GDP to exclude all those things that don’t make a positive contribution to economic prosperity.

This can only mean that it is not the role of GDP to accurately forecast real meaningful economic growth. But of course it is taken as the primary indicator of exactly that!

I note that you do at least accept that economic activity from all those adverse things does indeed to get added to….oow… I mean; included within, GDP.

Pericles, how do you reconcile your virtual worship of GDP as a really good indicator of economic growth or prosperity and your acceptance that it does indeed include economic activity generated by a whole host of economically neutral or negative things?

<< …quite simply, increased GDP = good, decreased GDP = bad. >>

Hells bells, that is extraordinary!

Increasing GDP that is accompanied by high population growth may or may not have a net positive effect. If the demand for resources, goods, infrastructure and services is rapidly increasing at the same time as economic growth is rapidly increasing, then there is a problem. Indeed under that scenario, we could have high GDP growth and be going backwards in real terms at the same time... as I said in my last post!

And I would put it to you that this is exactly what is happening.

Crikey Moses – it is nowhere near as simple as ‘increased GDP = good’. And as for decreased GDP; it would be very bad indeed within a paradigm of rapid population growth.

continued

<< The part that you insist on ignoring is that the increase in GDP is actually created by the population growth. >>

Oh dear, now you are starting sound rather schizophrenic!

One of the main points that I have made over and over is that the rapid economic growth that we have had for the last ~30 years has been very largely predicated on rapid population growth.

OF COURSE GDP is created very largely by population growth!! Thankyou for admitting this.

<< It isn't a matter of "we need GDP growth to stand still", it is that without population growth, we would not just stand still, but go backwards. >>

What??

Rubbish!! How do you figure us going backwards if we didn’t have population growth?

Pericles, you seem to be stealing some of my assertions and trying to play them back against me. That is a very weird strategy. It indicates to me that maybe just maybe, in your own inimitable manner, you are starting to admit that what I have been saying all along has indeed got a lot of merit!

<< I fail to see how someone intelligent enough to recognize that it is not a good idea to go to the beach on a day that is overcast and windy, cannot grasp these equally simple facts. >>

Well… I’ma parrently notarf as smartas you thingk I am. I DIDgo dountha beech today, onan ovrcarst and windey day! (:>|

<< I can see no reason why at least a modest growth in GDP could not be maintained with a stable, and even a falling population. It just means working smarter, producing more of what is needed (and of what is hopefully actually useful) with less. >>

Absolutely, Saltpetre.

And this is EXACTLY what we should be striving to do...

Stabilise our population and thus stop the increase in the demand for resources, goods, services and infrastructure, and start getting smart about our economic growth. Instead of expending so much effort on the duplication of services and infrastructure, and having to deal with the ever-greater pressure being exerted on existing S&I, we could actually start to improve them!

This is the essence of a sustainable society.

But hey, the increase in GDP would be far less than it is now. However, per-capita GDP would be similar to what it now is.

So I wonder how Pericles would view this – as a very bad thing because of much lower GDP growth, or not a bad thing at all if per-capita GDP growth was about the same.