Okay I got into an argument with my younger brother and it has gotten a bit confused but I think I am right so I'll ask it for confirmation.
"Can the global economy grow, without some people/developing nations having to suffer to allow other nations to grow and develop?"
I think part of the argument lies in regards to the amount of money, his argument I think law in that you cannot have 500 people each with 1000$ increase their amount of money without some people losing their money or printing more money or both.
My argument is that fundamentally, this doesn't matter, long term the economy of the world can grow relatively and absolutely in a way that no one is "exploited", group A is hired to mine salt, they make money from this, they buy food, cars, homes, computers, etc with that money which fuels the eocnomy, money doesnt stay stagnate it cirulates improve everyone's fortunes. I think that 50 years from now even if there is more people, the proportion of poor people will be far less and the average standard of living will be far higher.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Yes it can. Your argument is basically correct. The economy is not a zero-sum game. Try reading about comparative advantage.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
In fact, just about every time someone makes a voluntary purchase, both parties gained wealth.
If I sell you a shoe I don't need, for five bucks, I gained wealth. And if you had money to spare, but lacked a shoe, then you gained wealth as well.
No, the economy is very much not a zero-sum game.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Thinking about money is a dead end. You need to think about loaves of bread and bikes, and of course the factories and fields that produce them. It's certainly possible to get extra factories or break extra fields to the plow, and voila - economic growth.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What's more, he clearly hasn't thought through his own argument; if that were the way it worked, the economy could never grow at all. If 500 people with 1000 dollars move the dollars around, that's not economic growth.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The problem, Blayne, is confusing wealth and money. Money is a means of measuring wealth, which is why some people think you should have an expanding money supply to match the increase in wealth. They're wrong, of course, but that's a different issue.
Inventions increase wealth. The creation of transistors has increased the wealth of virtually every single person in the world to some degree or other.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I always viewed money as a representation of services. Same with Credit. The more people you add to a system, the more potential services you have to work with (Also the more demand). It's just a question of whether that community is willing to expand to accommodate the newcomers.