What Does Slower Economic Growth Really Mean?

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

During the past several weeks, economists have begun to predict substantially slower growth rates for the world's economy into the foreseeable future. Characteristic of this is the reduction of roughly 100 basis points annually in the expected growth rate of the United States from 2 to 3 percent per year to 1 to 2 percent. Those responsible for the projections tell us that as a result, we can expect substantial reductions in sustainable employment, incomes, and profits, not to mention the standard of living to which people can aspire. You may or may not agree with these projections. But they suggest that it's time that we ask whether we have been using the right measures for growth.

First, when we speak of growth, it usually refers to growth in gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced during a period of time. It makes no assumptions about the usefulness of various types of production. The presumption is that macroeconomic growth translates into greater top line opportunities for individual organizations. With no improvement in productivity, that means a similar increase in jobs and income. (More realistically, it means modest increases in both productivity and jobs.) It also means, even without a change in tax rates, a larger tax base. This is important to the extent that it is a major component of a government's plan to manage its capital accounts, which in turn has important implications for international credit markets and in the case of the U.S., the dollar, and the Treasury's ability to borrow at reasonable rates of interest.

But is all growth similarly useful? For example, is growth in the production of food, steel, or for that matter information the equivalent of growth in the production of financial services? The latter grew so rapidly in the U.S. in recent years (with every mortgage backed security and credit default swap transaction counted, resulting in substantial contributions to growth rates) that, at its peak, it may well have accounted for a substantial portion of the 100 basis point differential between past and projected growth rates. One can argue that each transaction may have produced top line growth for individual companies and tax revenues for the government, but did it create as much value for the individual citizen and the economy as a whole as the production of an equivalent amount of food, steel, or information? If much recent growth has resulted from real estate and financial bubbles, will slower growth really have as profound an impact on our way of life and the corporate business model as some are predicting?

Are our measures of growth flawed? If so, what does slower economic growth mean? As one example, might it actually produce more equitable compensation and penalize the wealthiest more than others in the United States, thus reducing what some have concluded is an unsustainable gap between rich and poor? What do you think?

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：Economic econom Growth Slower really Economic Growth mean really Does

Robert Theobald, economist and futurist, addressed this situation years ago and shortly before his death had produced the book, Healing Century.He and others saw this coming and what we were doing to ourselves and others was unsustainable.

Of course GDP is flawed, duh!; especially when services include our Waste and Waste Management and recycle services. Growth in those things are hardly of value. When just about all we need can be found at the thrift store or garage sale; discards because there is something new, different, or chick, not because something is broken, is unsustainable...and we are living with the consequences of spending and buying because we could, not because we needed.

We need less government and the wealthy 1% to share that wealth more in philanthropy. In seeking grants, I found one philanthropic group indicate an organization had to have a paid executive and revenue of $150,000 to be eligible. If small volunteer non-profits that add value to quality of daily life had that kind of money, they wouldn't be needing the grants in the first place.

We've made our choices as a flawed global community and now we have to live with the consequences. Get over it...but CHANGE NOW, DON'T WAIT FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

Robert Theobald, economist and futurist, addressed this situation years ago and shortly before his death had produced the book, Healing Century.He and others saw this coming and what we were doing to ourselves and others was unsustainable.

Of course GDP is flawed, duh!; especially when services include our Waste and Waste Management and recycle services. Growth in those things are hardly of value. When just about all we need can be found at the thrift store or garage sale; discards because there is something new, different, or chick, not because something is broken, is unsustainable...and we are living with the consequences of spending and buying because we could, not because we needed.

We need less government and the wealthy 1% to share that wealth more in philanthropy. In seeking grants, I found one philanthropic group indicate an organization had to have a paid executive and revenue of $150,000 to be eligible. If small volunteer non-profits that add value to quality of daily life had that kind of money, they wouldn't be needing the grants in the first place.

We've made our choices as a flawed global community and now we have to live with the consequences. Get over it...but CHANGE NOW, DON'T WAIT FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

What you argued,may be right The world can not be predict. However, whether the strategy of dealing crisis is right ,we also can not tell. As a result , all we can do is try what we could  and find some  effective way out. Some times we made mistakes ,which doesn't mean we can not make it.

All growth clearly is not good or even truly growth, especially when it subtracts itself from our accounts in ensuing years as much of the financial services growth has done. How is it growth if it is only sustainable under conditions that are mostly in the past.

Clearly it is time to reevaluate how we define and measure growth. Agreeing on what is REALLY real growth and what is fluff will be the challenge. But getting better at it will smooth GNP, avoid a significant amount of pain and waste of resources.

Some observers are better at it than others. They are mostly those who are willing and able to study the ways that the basic system does not perform optimally. Everything that turns a profit is not good. That is the point of the Health Care article in the New Yorker last week. The difference between high cost health care cities (100%) and low cost cities (33-50%) is not access to healthcare as Alton Brantley would seem to suggest. The author's conclusion is that the real difference is in treating healthcare as a business in which maximizing profits is of greater, or even equal, importance to providing the best care.

All that spending and no gain in outcomes. Perhaps that is where regulation is needed. Perhaps it should be based on aligning incentives to the real value of outcomes.

All growth clearly is not good or even truly growth, especially when it subtracts itself from our accounts in ensuing years as much of the financial services growth has done. How is it growth if it is only sustainable under conditions that are mostly in the past.

Clearly it is time to reevaluate how we define and measure growth. Agreeing on what is REALLY real growth and what is fluff will be the challenge. But getting better at it will smooth GNP, avoid a significant amount of pain and waste of resources.

Some observers are better at it than others. They are mostly those who are willing and able to study the ways that the basic system does not perform optimally. Everything that turns a profit is not good. That is the point of the Health Care article in the New Yorker last week. The difference between high cost health care cities (100%) and low cost cities (33-50%) is not access to healthcare as Alton Brantley would seem to suggest. The author's conclusion is that the real difference is in treating healthcare as a business in which maximizing profits is of greater, or even equal, importance to providing the best care.

All that spending and no gain in outcomes. Perhaps that is where regulation is needed. Perhaps it should be based on aligning incentives to the real value of outcomes.