Is economic growth inherently a good thing?

Yes but it is not a goal in of itslef

Matters how youre measuring economic growth. GDP increasing isnt always a good thing could just mean the jews are further lining their pockets. I'm not an economics expert though

Organisms either grow, or they die. You can make for yourself whatever "good" you want of that fact.

>inherent good
nice spook

No. It doesn't inherently mean that individuals are getting richer.

It depends on whether that growth is being distributed evenly, or hoarded by a privileged minority.

Few people are willing to sacrifice their lives just for the sake of some rich asshole's margins

Misnomer, because cottage luxury industry workers who would previously get dick are getting a bunch more which then they would also spend on other shit etc etc. To use the democrat's term, tricle-down economics.

Non non biyori is a result of economic growth and modernity. People left the villages to go to the city and there was no one left in the village.

>tricle-down economics.

It's not even a real economic concept, supported by economists. Nobody believes in trickle-down economics other than left-wing ideologues.

Depends on your set of values. and definition of economic growth. Are you referring to nominal, real, total, per capita, USD or local currency?
t. economist

>Only leftists believe in trickle-down economics
It's the basis for the entire US tax code, which was just passed by the far-right republican party.
Right-wingers might not like to call it "trickle-down" and the mentally handicapped don't like to be called "retarded."
The name you give your stupid economic policy doesn't change it.
Would a rose, by any other name, smell as sweet?

>is x good?
>depends on your set of values.
you don't say

no

but to explain that to someone takes a long time.

but the fact that even if you think technology and long-term growth of economies is good, this mindless short-term urgency to grow the gpd and raise wages every year and election cycle is complete madness, is easier to convince someone of.

it's a function of the stock market having to meet quarterly/yearly goals, retarded politicians being held to their even dumber promises and the braindead media allowing or even pushing all of this forward along with them. then it will comes crashing down once in a while once enough hot air and horseshit has been accumulated.

the only nation in the west that deserves an even semi-consistent big economic growth is the US, where the entrepreneuristic spirit is unmatched. the rest of the west is just aping the US but we will never achieve the same results because that same worship of USD isn't in our spirit. if you invest, invest in american.

Inherently, but not unconditionally good. There's a whole lot of negative things you can do at the same time that negate the benefits of economic growth.

Growth< developement

Better have a small nation of happy people than a great country full of miserable individuals

Nope.
The United States is the perfect case study for this.
The economy has only been growing for the past 50 years, and yet the standards of living and social trust have only decreased.

so what are your values and what definition do you use mister smartypants

>
What is trickle down?

Not if you're the guy at the top of the dog pile.

Not in the modern sense. GDP growth has been made a substitute in modern nations for sound economic development. For much of the industrial revolution GDP grew far more slowly than most governments would be willing to tolerate, but the effects were far ranging and on the whole beneficial to mankind. Meanwhile governments try all manor of schemes in order to boost GDP growth only to have their ill conceived schemes backfire and worsen the lives of their people.

Fuck you animefag go back to /int/
Also no because people can still have economic growth and a shitty country (think of the UAE)

>letting the private sector keep more of its money is far right wing
You're not very smart, are you?

Depends on were the growth is.
Is the economy a command economy dominated by state or private entities? Yes, that is inherently bad. This is the sense "economic growth" is always used in.
Is the economy workers with control over their own work? No.
This is what the corporate-media wants you to believe "economic growth" means.
unfortunately the later kind of economy just is not possible with hiearchy. To go any further into this question goes into ethics which is something I avoid discussing with the plebs on Veeky Forums.
Wew lad

>Equating the economy to an organism.
Please be joking

ONLY if it increases the health and well being of the people.

The notion that economic growth is inherently good arises from a value pragmatism, one that places some sort of capricious 'freedom' as its master-signifier. Meaning it takes as its fundamental moral principle the right for people to value what they want and voluntarily make any exchange or contract.

WHY people want what they want is disregarded, because it assumes ultimate freedom and responsibility lies with the individual, so even though Agent A irrationally spends more money on Commodity A instead of Commodity B, and he does this thanks to advertising, growing up seeing a commercial for Commodity A every day, the Pragmatist still assumes he made a rational choice because he obviously must have gotten extra value from his purchase or else he wouldn't have made it. Basically this view tries to hypostasize the practice of ripping people off by arguing that the people who are ripped off still valued their own manipulation and exploitation.

Similarly, real growth only comes from increasing productive forces and technologies, and often an increase in the former is necessary to achieve but also is negated by the latter - but this is different from fake growth in the form of 'financial innovation' and price increases that simply exploit the working class harder to increase the privilege of the ownership class.

>being mean about cute shows
:(

If it translates into people being able to pursue their goals and set higher goals still, yes.

Why have we not seen a general reduction in the work day for the last what 50 years? People used to work 12 hour days. Why haven't we cut down from the standard 8 hour day?

>WHY people want what they want is disregarded, because it assumes ultimate freedom and responsibility lies with the individual, so even though Agent A irrationally spends more money on Commodity A instead of Commodity B, and he does this thanks to advertising, growing up seeing a commercial for Commodity A every day, the Pragmatist still assumes he made a rational choice because he obviously must have gotten extra value from his purchase or else he wouldn't have made it. Basically this view tries to hypostasize the practice of ripping people off by arguing that the people who are ripped off still valued their own manipulation and exploitation.
Right, you should be able to say what people should have to do to get the things you say they should want.

You didn't at all counter the argument for trade adding value, you just accused the argument's defender that he argues in bad faith, like I did above to you.

Transportation. As long as there is someone willing to do those long hours somewhere in the world, it may be cheaper to do the work there are export that work's output to the consumer markets. The global market must eventually exaust it's supply of cheap labour, since the wages that convince people to do those hours tend to uplift them from the conditions that make those wages for long hours seem attractive. We are already seing this in China, where workers are returning to their farms and foreign workers have began to be imported.

What happens the day there aren't dirt poor third worlders to exploit anymore? Or will there always be?

Large agricultural estates were a mistake, the small yeoman farmer is the ideal citizen.

Only to those who benefit from it.

You will then tend towards global purchasing power parity. Unless some states use future technology to set up functional autharky, in which case those populations won't be part of the global market.

Small yeomen farmers get called up to war. They die. Their plots get abandoned. Greedy politicians buy up the land.

Suddenly no more small yeoman farmers. :(

Economic growth is good so long as it is not at the detriment of the environment and the results are actually felt by the society at large.

So ideally yes, but in the real world no, economic growth is a cancer.

>Not having at least six potential heirs to inherit your state

You shootin' blanks there buddy?

and that's a good thing
unironically

Economic growth, will benefit many, but will benefit the richest most. This will in a democracy lead to an oligarci as we see the development of, in USA

What is economic growth

No
The american economy grew but it's harder to have a fullg middle class life than it was 30 years ago

Is this how you treat your veterans?

This guy gets it.

Or will if OP ever defines his terms.

(i doubt it)

Apparently not a real concept judging by the picture you replied to.

When it comes to economics, you start to realize that the right makes no sense. In other words, politics is just plain retarded, but I'm mentioning this so you can understand the metric of judgment I'm reasoning with.

If there is any system of justness, anything prescribed by God, it is clearly some form of socialism. In other words, being morally conservative and a fan of socialist measures is not radical or anything crazy. It's what The Republic is. It's what Acts 4:20 is. It's Tommasso Campanello's City of the Sun is. It's what any divine order maintains itself as.

Marxism, is ultimately founded on atheistic principles, this is the case. However, there are certain ideas, like dissolving the superiority of families in general, that seem like a new system entirely. I don't know what you would call it, but it seems like a radical idea that would make it so everyone treats everyone else like family anyway, like the Republic. After all, Henry George understood a simple basic concept: that people had a propensity to hold on to a portion of a good that was an inflated percentage of its value, and use the productive powers of God, or nature, combined with overpopulation to give them more money. Obviously this was a 'new mentality'. But not so new as saying "this term is not a valid term, rent should not exist because it is being given to people who do no effort to earn it".

It was just the first of the month. I just paid rent. I would always have to pay rent no matter what. But that's not what Geoism is about. Geoism is about lowering the rent I would have to pay, because the owner of the house would worry about less expenses on average.

It's about making sure the inflated successes of the real estate market are checked by reality. It's about making it so the markets are not so speculative.

Just economics is neither left nor right. It just is.