There is severe confusion about the meaning of #economicgrowth. Many seem to mistakenly think that it has to do with #GDP or producing stuff. It does not. Economic growth means that an economy's ability to satisfy people's wants, whatever they are--that is, to produce wellbeing--
increases. GDP is a rather terrible way of capturing this using [public] statistics, and is thus corrupted by those benefitting from corrupting such figures. GDP is not growth. Likewise, having more stuff in stores isn't growth. Producing increasing quantities of stuff that
nobody is willing to buy is the very opposite of economic growth: it is wasting our limited productive capacity. But note the word 'willing'. Wellbeing is not about [objective] needs, but about being able to escape felt uneasiness. It can turn out to be right or wrong, but that's
beside the point. Economic growth is the increased *ability* to satisfy whatever wants people have, for whatever reasons they have it. Examples of economic growth aren't the newest iPhone or plastic toy made in China as much as it is the availability of quality housing, food and
nourishment, and the ability to treat disease. One obvious example of economic growth since the days of Malthus is the enormous increase in our ability to produce food. The quantity *and* quality has increased immensely. We use less resources to satisfy more wants--that's the
meaning of economic growth. Economic means simply economizing, or finding the better use of scarce resources (not only natural such). Economic growth is thus better economizing, meaning we have the ability, which means se can *afford*, to satisfy more wants than just the basic
needs. The beautiful thing with economic growth is that it applies to society overall as well as to all individuals: increased productive capacity means more ways of satisfying wants but also cheaper ways of doing so. But this does not, of course, imply that the distribution of
access and ability to consume is equal and instantaneous. It spreads in stepwise fashion and will reach everyone. Also, increased productivity really increases the purchasing power of all money, including (and most importantly) low wages, thus making it much more 'affordable'
to satisfy one's needs and wants. But note that the distribution of such prosperity cannot be equal or instantaneous: any new innovation, new good, new service, etc will be created somewhere, by someone--it cannot be created for seven billion plus people instantaneously. So
anything new, including new jobs and new productive abilities, has to spread--as ripples--across the economy. As new things are created all the time, it means we'll never actually get to a point where everyone enjoys exactly the same standard of living. It cannot be any other
way because economic growth, and the wellbeing it generates through the ability to satisfy wants, is a *process*. Perfect equality is possible only by not having growth: to pull the breaks, not increase wellbeing. In other words, not to increase convenience and living standards,
not figure out how to treat diseases that we would otherwise soon be able to cure. Those are our options, not the fairytale of "equal access to the outcome of growth." This doesn't mean, of course, that we should be satisfied with inequalities. It only means we should recognize
that some inequality is inescapable if we want everyone to enjoy higher living standards. But we should also recognize that much of the inequality we are seeing today is *not* of this 'natural' kind: it's inequality of political rather than economic origin. This comes in two
forms: inherited from privileges enjoyed by a few in the past, reinforced by contemporary political and social structures, and privileges created today through policies creating winners (cronyism, favoritism, rent-seeking, etc.). From the point of view of economic growth as an
economic phenomenon, policy-originated inequality has effects on both the creation and distribution of prosperity. First, policy creates winners by (a) protecting some from the competition of new entrants and future winners and (b) restricting (monopolizing) the use of new
technologies thereby propping up incumbents. Second, policy creates losers by redistributing value and economic capabilities to those favored politically. This means policy has two primary effects on economic growth: it limits the creation of value and distorts its distribution.
Needless to say, this inequality is not beneficial for society overall, but only for those favored. It is the creation of winners *by* creating losers. This is not economic growth, which is accomplished by better economizing: increased ability to satisfy wants. In a sense,
political favoritism and the inequality it causes is the opposite of economic growth, since it creates winners (rich) at the expense of others (generally spread out on a larger population). It's just a redistribution of value already created by, at the same time, introducing
inefficiencies in the system: allocation of productive capabilities that is not based on the creation of wellbeing but on political clout. Over time, the economy is actually worse off because of this, and so the process of economic growth suffers. It is important to keep these
two 'sides' of the inequality coin in mind when discussing the problem. Simply pushing the 'stop' button on economic growth will only accomplish increased influence by politics over economizing. That's hardly beneficial, at least not for others than the political class and
'insiders' in the corporatist system. Rather, a solution would be to get rid of politically created and reinforced privilege and allow economic processes to readjust to reality: to target production of wellbeing instead of favors and influence. This will not do away with
inequality as such, but will significantly decrease it--and will do away with most of its harmful effects. It would mean an economy where entrepreneurs and workers alike would benefit from producing value for others. In other words, economic growth and higher living standards.
The alternatives are rather easy to understand, yet what's commonly on the agenda of pundits and political commentators are made-up alternatives, often ignorant utopias, that distort the meanings of both privilege and economic growth. The alternatives we have are the ones
stated above, nothing else. Make your pick. Striving to realize impossible fairy tales is a waste of time, effort, and resources. That's not how we increase wellbeing and raise the standard of living. To me, the solution is quite obvious. Most people seem to pick the fairy tale.
