IANAE, so I might be wrong. My understanding is that GDP represents how much a country produced, in a year, in both services and physical goods. Assuming a normal inflation rate of a few %, if a country produced just as much this year as it did last year, it should see a GDP increase as the number value of those goods and services has increased due to inflation. Hence, infinite GDP growth.
I think you’re right, I just think you’re tying together two concepts under an a assumption of forced inflation - which again is correct because we do force it every year but I think the distinction is important. We could reduce or increase inflation at the government level because it’s inherently controlled by the government.
But maybe this isn’t as helpful of a distinction as I think it is.
Yes, I do assume forced inflation, because under our current economic system that’s a given. Zero inflation or deflation would lead to huge economic instability and no govt in their right mind (ignoring Japan) would choose not to inflate the currency routinely. It just wasn’t very relevant to my original comment.
Your original response was responding to someone saying infinite growth isn’t possible. You were stating it’s 100% supposed to be infinite. I was saying that it’s neither tied to actual resources (not GDP) nor is it 100% necessary. It’s inherently forced and “number go up” is not necessarily good economic policy - which is pretty obvious to see given the state of the world as GDP and the stock markets are increasingly detached from the majority of human metrics and therefore reality.
So I think it’s very relevant to your original comment, especially when considering we’re talking about economic policy on a website that doesn’t assume a massive degree of financial literacy because saying things here out of context become truths to people who don’t know better. This propagates a poor understanding of how our financial system works imo so accuracy is hopefully appreciated.
IANAE, so I might be wrong. My understanding is that GDP represents how much a country produced, in a year, in both services and physical goods. Assuming a normal inflation rate of a few %, if a country produced just as much this year as it did last year, it should see a GDP increase as the number value of those goods and services has increased due to inflation. Hence, infinite GDP growth.
I think you’re right, I just think you’re tying together two concepts under an a assumption of forced inflation - which again is correct because we do force it every year but I think the distinction is important. We could reduce or increase inflation at the government level because it’s inherently controlled by the government.
But maybe this isn’t as helpful of a distinction as I think it is.
Yes, I do assume forced inflation, because under our current economic system that’s a given. Zero inflation or deflation would lead to huge economic instability and no govt in their right mind (ignoring Japan) would choose not to inflate the currency routinely. It just wasn’t very relevant to my original comment.
Your original response was responding to someone saying infinite growth isn’t possible. You were stating it’s 100% supposed to be infinite. I was saying that it’s neither tied to actual resources (not GDP) nor is it 100% necessary. It’s inherently forced and “number go up” is not necessarily good economic policy - which is pretty obvious to see given the state of the world as GDP and the stock markets are increasingly detached from the majority of human metrics and therefore reality.
So I think it’s very relevant to your original comment, especially when considering we’re talking about economic policy on a website that doesn’t assume a massive degree of financial literacy because saying things here out of context become truths to people who don’t know better. This propagates a poor understanding of how our financial system works imo so accuracy is hopefully appreciated.