
GDP growth of humanity over the very long run - asm
http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/gdp-growth-over-the-very-long-run/
======
kfk
And if you ask a person in the 18th century if we could grow GDP 30+ folds
while increasing various folds also the world population he would say... you
are going to finish all the Earth resources and die before you even get to a
tenth of that!

It's just to say: 1. productivity is always very misunderstood by people
(hence Malthus); 2. poverty is better fought with growth, not re-distribution
of wealth

~~~
JamesBarney
Redistribution has very little effect on growth except at extreme levels.[0]

Over the last 20 years the U.S. economy has grown 25% but the income for the
bottom quintile has stagnated.[1][2]

I would agree growth is probably the best medicine for the third world but the
IMF shows it's not at odds with redistribution.

I would strongly disagree that we can solve poverty in the 1st world using
growth. We have two options for replacing the $7,000 the bottom quintile
missed out on in the last 20 years because of rising inequality. We could
redistribute $7,000 to the bottom quintile or grow by 25%. Redistributing
$7,000 is doable. I don't know of any policies, or even any set of policies
that would increase the size of the economy by 25%. This is even more
insurmountable given that in recent history the gains from growth have not
been distributed equitably. We would need to see an order of magnitude more
growth, an increase in the economy of 250%-500% before the poor would be
substantially better off.

[0] -
[https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf](https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf)
[1] -
[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA)
[2] -
[https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/famil...](https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/)

~~~
kfk
If you want to look at things from a humanitarian perspective, then sure,
let's talk re-distribution. But it should be in form of education and
competitive markets (free milk quotas, anyone?). I struggle with the idea of
making war to make peace (aka "democratization"). I also struggle with
domestic re-distribution through "citizen income", because it makes life worst
for all that pay taxes and those that are not "citizen" (foreigners,
immigrants, etc.).

If we want to help the "poor", then we should make things more competitive,
starting with relaxing immigration policies as much as possible...

~~~
RobertoG
The issue is far for being so white and black.

Not all the growth come from free markets. More efficient use of resources and
the discovery of new technologies come from improving our knowledge. Sometimes
this is done by business, sometimes no.

Also, there are economic theories (even mainstream economic theories) that
express the view that some kind of redistribution is necessary for keeping the
engines of growth working.

~~~
tn13
As a free market guy, I don't think free market ideas are anti-redistribution.
They are against redistribution through the coercive power of government as
moral principle and utilitarian argument.

I think private charity is far more effective in helping people in need. The
government redistribution is merely a ploy to steal our wealth in the name of
fighting poverty. I am totally surprised to see the amount of money US
government wasted on Iraq war for which no one ever got punished.

~~~
RobertoG
Redistribution and charity are very different things. Redistribution comes
from the idea that societies have goals, and that those goals are better
served by thinking about where to spend resources instead of leaving it to
blind markets.

I can see that you think of the government as 'them' instead of 'us', instead
of something that we do as a society. We differ there.

Also, it worries me that you think (maybe I'm reading you wrong here) that is
the spending of money, of all the things, what is the main problem with the
war on Iraq.

~~~
tn13
We do disagree on the definition of redistribution. I do not accept that
government=society. I also do not accept that society should have any goals
and I would put individual liberty over everything else.

I do think spending money on Iraq war was bigger problem for Americans.I think
you are referring to destabilization of middle east as another problem. We
have essentially borrowed money from our children to simply waste it or rather
on creating even huge problems for our children.

------
Isamu
Good summary.

For readability I recommend a logarithmic graph, it helps to bring out the
structure of the graph more. Not as dramatic maybe for people who are not used
to reading graphs, but I hate to see a graph that is just a thin line stuck to
the bottom followed by a sudden upward rocket. Not very readable to my eyes.

~~~
tantalor
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jTlkr4KqnYBaqxzg5Rte...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jTlkr4KqnYBaqxzg5Rteaqu0mgyv7ExmEUAIislIHTM/edit#gid=967131940)

------
padobson
Optimist: Look how good things are getting, we're only a few generations away
from universal prosperity!

Pessimist: Look how good things have been, we're clearly only a few
generations away from this prosperity bubble bursting.

------
littletimmy
How much of this comes at a cost of people being unhappier?

Back in the time of hunter gatherers, humans "worked" for a few hours a day.
The rest of the time was spent socializing and in leisure. It is fair to say
they were happier compared to, let's say, an African American debt-laden
minimum wage worker in the US today.

Do we really need economic growth?

~~~
a_c_s
Are parents for whom 1/3 of their children die as infants happier than those
with children who live to adulthood?

(Modern USA infant mortality is less than 0.6%)

~~~
codingdave
Loss and grief are part of life. Your parents will die. Your grandparents as
well. You either die young or live long enough to see some of your own
generation die before you. If you are really "lucky", you see all of your
friends die.

Death is a part of life. Everyone hopes that they outlive all their children,
but even if you do not, tragedies during your life do not mean that your
entire life was unhappy.

~~~
D-Coder
We're not measuring this as a binary value happy/unhappy. Not all losses are
equal. Your children dying before you is worse than most other losses.

~~~
littletimmy
In our culture. That might not be the case in every culture. Some cultures
even practiced infanticide, others practiced child sacrifice. Surely it cannot
universally be the worst thing or such practices could never exist.

------
Kinnard
GDP might actually be one of the worst ways to measure collective well-being.

~~~
golergka
Can you back this statement up, please?

~~~
vox_mollis
GDP measures vodka purchased by alcoholics; it measures chemotherapy; it
measures bombs killing civilians; it measures bubble malinvestments; it
measures settlements in police brutality suits; it measures daycare but not
caring for your own kids.

And most importantly, it measures the velocity at which these things occur.

~~~
golergka
So?

Isn't a society that can allow itself better alcohol, expensive medicine,
better weapons, has more liquid cash, pays more in brutality suits (and pays
them at all, to this matter), and spends more on daycare objectivelly better
and more well-off than a society that doesn't have these things?

------
leojg
Its quite interesting to see how latin america gdp fall down during the 1500s
(is the only region to do so, I think)

And how asia is pretty much being the richest region in the world(but the
largest, so maybe its a matter of proportions)

~~~
elthran
I assume that the latin american dip is the Europeans beginning their
invasions and looting of the meso-american civilizations

~~~
RobertoG
Probably is not so much the looting as the fall in the population. Millions of
people died from contact with the diseases from Europe (20 millions by some
estimates).

