[DrCaleb]

See, I'm not going to even bother if you are going to be like that.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

No but population growth requires an increase of GDP per capita GDP the same.

That makes no sense. Did you mean to say "Population growth requires an increase in GDP to maintain the same GDP per capita"? If so, that's only true if you think: a) GDP per capita ought to be kept the same; b) there aren't means to keep some people's GDP/capita stable without increasing GDP.

andyt andyt:

What toddlers have to do with this is beyond me. Oh, wait, they require diapers and car seats and what have you, then grow up to drive cars and everything. Is that what you meant? Also, our population grows by immigration - most of those want and do drive cars and use washing machines.

Durable goods would need to grow at least at the same rate as population unless you want fewer people (in relative terms) to have them. I'm sure they would be delighted by that idea. But it better be anybody but you, huh mister F150. You probably have a washing machine too.

I have no idea what you're trying to express here.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

No but population growth requires an increase of GDP per capita GDP the same.

That makes no sense. Did you mean to say "Population growth requires an increase in GDP to maintain the same GDP per capita"? If so, that's only true if you think: a) GDP per capita ought to be kept the same; b) there aren't means to keep some people's GDP/capita stable without increasing GDP.

I guess that's what I mean. decrease per capita GDP and you'll have a lot of unhappy people. And again, unlike the benefits of increasing GDP going to the 1 percent, decreasing GDP will fall on the people at the bottom.

andyt andyt:

What toddlers have to do with this is beyond me. Oh, wait, they require diapers and car seats and what have you, then grow up to drive cars and everything. Is that what you meant? Also, our population grows by immigration - most of those want and do drive cars and use washing machines.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Durable goods would need to grow at least at the same rate as population unless you want fewer people (in relative terms) to have them. I'm sure they would be delighted by that idea. But it better be anybody but you, huh mister F150. You probably have a washing machine too.

I have no idea what you're trying to express here.

Just trying to reply to Caleb's nonsensical post. If our population is increasing, we would need an increase of durable goods unless you want fewer people, relatively speaking, to have them. Who will give theirs up?

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Just trying to reply to Caleb's nonsensical post. If our population is increasing, we would need an increase of durable goods unless you want fewer people, relatively speaking, to have them. Who will give theirs up?

Taunting is not a normal tactic for debate. Unless you are Andy.

Do you really think that a Husband and Wife with a car each needs a third and fourth car when they have 2 kids, or that every single immigrant needs their own washing machine? Or was I correct that population growth does not need to be at the same rate as durable goods growth?

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

I guess that's what I mean. decrease per capita GDP and you'll have a lot of unhappy people. And again, unlike the benefits of increasing GDP going to the 1 percent, decreasing GDP will fall on the people at the bottom.

You wouldn't have "a lot" of unhappy people if only a few of them suffered the loss that dragged down the average. It could be that most people had an increase in their incomes, even if the total GDP (and, therefore, also per capita GDP) fell.

andyt andyt:

Just trying to reply to Caleb's nonsensical post. If our population is increasing, we would need an increase of durable goods unless you want fewer people, relatively speaking, to have them. Who will give theirs up?

There's a lot of not-necessarily true assumptions in that. It could be that, depending on the way the world changes, people may want and need fewer durable goods (ie, less demand/need for cars with improved mass-transit). But your point is taken.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

I guess that's what I mean. decrease per capita GDP and you'll have a lot of unhappy people. And again, unlike the benefits of increasing GDP going to the 1 percent, decreasing GDP will fall on the people at the bottom.

You wouldn't have "a lot" of unhappy people if only a few of them suffered the loss that dragged down the average. It could be that most people had an increase in their incomes, even if the total GDP (and, therefore, also per capita GDP) fell.

Ok, good point. It would have to be the people at the top who would have to suffer the losses to make a meaningful difference. It might be nice to theorize about that, but realistically I don't see it happening any time soon.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

Ok, good point. It would have to be the people at the top who would have to suffer the losses to make a meaningful difference. It might be nice to theorize about that, but realistically I don't see it happening any time soon.

It needn't be people at the top either. Government spending is a component of GDP. You'd make a lot of people happier, rich and poor alike, by lower GDP and GDP/capita as a result of reduced gov't spending. Not all, sure, but lots.