FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Economic Growth

Jump to newest
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk

Is this really needed? What is wrong with a stable GDP as long as inflation is close to zero? Is inflation a natural by product of growth? You can have inflation without growth of course but can you have growth without inflation?

Politicians always talk about growing the economy yet they never talk about reducing overall national debt (and those that do never achieve it). And levelling the balance of payments deficit is all but impossible unless we invent a few hundred products that the world can’t do without and actually make them here.

Which leaves increasing the population to increase GDP. Basic logic of more people spending more money means economic growth right? And as long as those people work and pay more in tax than they receive any form of benefits the logic is sound.

But with the increase in population comes an increase in the demand for infrastructure. More schools, more hospitals, more doctors surgeries, more water supply and sewage disposal, higher energy requirements, more waste disposal, more recycling processing, more social services, more police, more prisons, more courts, more housing. Then there’s the transport infrastructure, more roads, more trains, more trucking moving more stuff about. Then there’s the ongoing costs of maintaining that extra infrastructure.

What is it we’re actually achieving with all this growth they talk about? Is the life we live as people any better because of this growth? We have more stuff, but on the whole it’s stuff we never knew we needed until someone told us we did.

This mentality that we need to grow the economy so we can spend more on ____________ (fill in the blank with whatever). If we don’t expand the population we wouldn’t need more of whatever it is you want the government to spend more money on.

Then the stuff that naturally costs the government more over time can be managed with smaller tax tweaks.

Your thoughts?

I’m not an economist and happy to be proven wrong

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
1 week ago

Gilfach

Very basically - economic growth means more money for the government. More stuff being sold means more profits being made and so more corporation tax being paid. Equally there will be more people buying more stuff so more VAT gets paid.

That means more tax for the government to spend. Depending on the flavour of government, that means more services, or the chance to cut tax rates. Either of those will please the voters for that sort of government.

Plus of course, people like stuff. More stuff to buy, and more money to buy it with, makes people happy, and happy people don't vote out the current government.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *0shadesOfFilthMan
1 week ago

nearby


"

But with the increase in population comes an increase in the demand for infrastructure. More schools, more hospitals, more doctors surgeries, more water supply and sewage disposal, higher energy requirements, more waste disposal, more recycling processing, more social services, more police, more prisons, more courts, more housing. Then there’s the transport infrastructure, more roads, more trains, more trucking moving more stuff about. Then there’s the ongoing costs of maintaining that extra infrastructure.

"

For the state yes more gdp.

One trillion a year treasury receipts is not enough, your list plus pension liabilities, climate change, increased military etc

We’ve maxed out on tax collection, increased gdp the only method of revenue available for the state.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ennineTopMan
1 week ago

York

Growth in itself is not inherently desirable. However, to pay off the nation's debt and to attempt to improve peoples' lives, money needs to come from somewhere.

We also need a balance in age demographics as retired people don't pay much tax yet need and deserve support.

There aren't any silver bullets. We need a range of measures and these have to evolve as worldwide situations change. In short - it's complicated.

This is why simplistic ideas such as those promoted by people like Trump and Farage are very unlikely to deliver what they promise.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk


"Very basically - economic growth means more money for the government. More stuff being sold means more profits being made and so more corporation tax being paid. Equally there will be more people buying more stuff so more VAT gets paid.

That means more tax for the government to spend. Depending on the flavour of government, that means more services, or the chance to cut tax rates. Either of those will please the voters for that sort of government.

Plus of course, people like stuff. More stuff to buy, and more money to buy it with, makes people happy, and happy people don't vote out the current government."

I agree. But you can only buy more stuff yourself compared to how much you usually buy, if you have more money. Pay rises equal inflation which equal prices rises so we are no better off.

No government will ever do either of the hard 2, so they go for migration.

But do we need growth?

Telling the public there will be a recession is closely followed by? You guessed it. How about if they weren’t told? Northern Rock was brought down mainly by the publicity. Spread a rumour that a bank is failing, what happens? And that triggered a global banking crisis.

Yes of course there was loads of unserviceable debt but it was the media that did most of the damage.

Is zero economic growth a bad thing if we have close to zero inflation and zero population growth? Wouldn’t it be great to never have to ask for a pay rise and stuff always cost the same?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ennineTopMan
1 week ago

York


"Wouldn’t it be great to never have to ask for a pay rise and stuff always cost the same? "

Only if you feel comfortable with the status quo and clearly millions of people do not feel comfortable at the moment.

Then one has to ask is the status quo stable? I'd say the answer is no. All kinds of things can change that are beyond our control, so we need headroom. Being massively in debt is the opposite of headroom.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk


"

But with the increase in population comes an increase in the demand for infrastructure. More schools, more hospitals, more doctors surgeries, more water supply and sewage disposal, higher energy requirements, more waste disposal, more recycling processing, more social services, more police, more prisons, more courts, more housing. Then there’s the transport infrastructure, more roads, more trains, more trucking moving more stuff about. Then there’s the ongoing costs of maintaining that extra infrastructure.

For the state yes more gdp.

One trillion a year treasury receipts is not enough, your list plus pension liabilities, climate change, increased military etc

We’ve maxed out on tax collection, increased gdp the only method of revenue available for the state. "

Why isn’t it enough? It’s only not enough if they want to spend more? But the things they need to do to stimulate growth actually cost money, the infrastructure I mentioned as an example.

It’s a vicious circle that never gets anywhere and based on the never ending increasing of borrowing, i suggest that growth actually costs more than it generates

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oubleswing2019Man
1 week ago

Colchester

I think if you were to speak to virtually every CEO of the Fortune 500, the key word their shareholders demand is GROWTH.

CEO's live or die on that word, and those that do not deliver are booted out.

.

Few are interested in growth inertia or maintaining equilibrium. Shareholders won't tolerate inertia. They want to see their investments grow. Not stagnate. Their own costs go up every year, so treading water is not on their radar. They need bigger and bigger profits every year.

.

Rightly or wrongly, this then feeds in to the whole of the economic system and affects it accordingly.

.

Are there alternatives ? Yes ofc there are. Are the top 1% going to want to change the model ? No, of course they are not.

.

Can 1% hold 99% to ransom ? Clearly yes they can and do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hirleyMan
1 week ago

somewhere

Gdp growth is stupid, it doesn't look at the actual spending power of people and is skewed by the top end.

I've said before and I will say it again, until governments control the rapid growing wealth inequality and stop money flowing upwards then economies will stagflate further. US and UK governments want to grow their economies, they will fail and the poor and middle earners will be the only sufferers. Not the wealthiest 1%.

Again, garys economics isn't the only one out there warning of this, but I find it's the easiest to understand, relatable and explains it in laymans.

https://youtu.be/XCnImxVWbvc?si=l03b8Za3whAlDA1i

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk


"I think if you were to speak to virtually every CEO of the Fortune 500, the key word their shareholders demand is GROWTH.

CEO's live or die on that word, and those that do not deliver are booted out.

.

Few are interested in growth inertia or maintaining equilibrium. Shareholders won't tolerate inertia. They want to see their investments grow. Not stagnate. Their own costs go up every year, so treading water is not on their radar. They need bigger and bigger profits every year.

.

Rightly or wrongly, this then feeds in to the whole of the economic system and affects it accordingly.

.

Are there alternatives ? Yes ofc there are. Are the top 1% going to want to change the model ? No, of course they are not.

.

Can 1% hold 99% to ransom ? Clearly yes they can and do."

Completely different! Unless they hold a monopoly, companies are competing for a bigger share of the whole market or to create a new with a new product or service. Their growth is at another companies expense.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ellhungvweMan
1 week ago

Cheltenham


"Is zero economic growth a bad thing if we have close to zero inflation and zero population growth? Wouldn’t it be great to never have to ask for a pay rise and stuff always cost the same? "

That sounds wonderful. There is a slight downside in that if you have a steady state economy then nothing new can be invented. If something is invented then it will generate new resource opportunities and that will mean you get economic growth. Proper GDP growth (ie the per capita variety) can only really occur if productivity goes up and that requires inventing new things and processes.

If we don’t want that growth then we must just make sure we don’t invent anything new. Or have new tastes, fashions or desires.

That does then raise the question as to what year we decided to stop inventing new stuff - did we stop growing the economy in 2024? Or 1998? Or 1952? 1847? 1415? The quality of your life might vary depending on when you decided to go for GDP utopia….

What might be invented tomorrow that you will now never get to see?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk


"Is zero economic growth a bad thing if we have close to zero inflation and zero population growth? Wouldn’t it be great to never have to ask for a pay rise and stuff always cost the same?

That sounds wonderful. There is a slight downside in that if you have a steady state economy then nothing new can be invented. If something is invented then it will generate new resource opportunities and that will mean you get economic growth. Proper GDP growth (ie the per capita variety) can only really occur if productivity goes up and that requires inventing new things and processes.

If we don’t want that growth then we must just make sure we don’t invent anything new. Or have new tastes, fashions or desires.

That does then raise the question as to what year we decided to stop inventing new stuff - did we stop growing the economy in 2024? Or 1998? Or 1952? 1847? 1415? The quality of your life might vary depending on when you decided to go for GDP utopia….

What might be invented tomorrow that you will now never get to see?"

I wasn’t advocating for a state economy, quite the opposite in fact.

And inventing new products could happen all the time. Most inventions are just better versions of existing products or a new way of doing something we already do. Creating a whole new market such as a mobile phone happens quite rarely. But ultimately the mobile phone replaced the landline.

I’m not saying to stifle growth, just to not try to artificially create it as that in and of itself just increases other costs. Natural growth through productivity gains is the goal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
1 week ago

Gilfach


"Very basically - economic growth means more money for the government. More stuff being sold means more profits being made and so more corporation tax being paid. Equally there will be more people buying more stuff so more VAT gets paid.

That means more tax for the government to spend. Depending on the flavour of government, that means more services, or the chance to cut tax rates. Either of those will please the voters for that sort of government.

Plus of course, people like stuff. More stuff to buy, and more money to buy it with, makes people happy, and happy people don't vote out the current government."


"I agree. But you can only buy more stuff yourself compared to how much you usually buy, if you have more money. Pay rises equal inflation which equal prices rises so we are no better off."

The only sustainable way for economic growth is value creation. This essentially creates money out of nothing, increasing the supply of money, without increasing the demand for it. That means that more money is pushed into the economy, without any corresponding inflation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ellhungvweMan
1 week ago

Cheltenham


"Is zero economic growth a bad thing if we have close to zero inflation and zero population growth? Wouldn’t it be great to never have to ask for a pay rise and stuff always cost the same?

That sounds wonderful. There is a slight downside in that if you have a steady state economy then nothing new can be invented. If something is invented then it will generate new resource opportunities and that will mean you get economic growth. Proper GDP growth (ie the per capita variety) can only really occur if productivity goes up and that requires inventing new things and processes.

If we don’t want that growth then we must just make sure we don’t invent anything new. Or have new tastes, fashions or desires.

That does then raise the question as to what year we decided to stop inventing new stuff - did we stop growing the economy in 2024? Or 1998? Or 1952? 1847? 1415? The quality of your life might vary depending on when you decided to go for GDP utopia….

What might be invented tomorrow that you will now never get to see?

I wasn’t advocating for a state economy, quite the opposite in fact.

And inventing new products could happen all the time. Most inventions are just better versions of existing products or a new way of doing something we already do. Creating a whole new market such as a mobile phone happens quite rarely. But ultimately the mobile phone replaced the landline.

I’m not saying to stifle growth, just to not try to artificially create it as that in and of itself just increases other costs. Natural growth through productivity gains is the goal. "

You asked for zero economic growth - which is steady state

Your point about productivity growth is spot on. It is the only real way to increase gdp per capita. The problem we have in the UK is that productivity growth has flatlined over the last decade or so. Historically, productivity growth has been 2-3% a year in the UK but since 2010 it has only been 0.5% per year here. That’s the real reason why living standards etc haven’t shifted in the UK whilst everywhere else is doing better - we are basically not improving our ways of working and so we are falling behind. No one really knows why productivity growth has stalled.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffelskloofMan
1 week ago

Lunenburg, Nova Scotia

Politicians have been loving immigration in recent years because it’s pretty much the only way that they can get any growth. As you point out more bodies equals more consumption.

The problem is that many of the lower end immigrants, which the Uk attracts in spades, take more out of the system than they put in, and suppress wages at the lower end of the employment market which just causes resentment. That’s if you see immigration from a purely economic perspective, which of course ignores the cultural and societal damage that is being caused.

The problem the UK has, particularly since July 2024, is that quality people are leaving and being replaced by low quality immigrants.

Plus the population has been increasing relentlessly by hundreds of thousands a year, without any proportionate GDP increase, hence GDP per capita has been going down. We are all getting poorer, as more and more people share the same pie.

UK productivity is pretty grim, particularly in the public sector where it has hardly grown at all in decades, and since March 2020 has actually fallen by 5% odd. Which is quite an achievement given the technological advances in the workplace over the past thirty years.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
1 week ago

Terra Firma

Wage stagnation: Socialists hate it

Career stagnation: Socialists despise it

Massive public debt: Socialists are strangely for it

Innovation dies: Socialists are not bothered by this, as you were

Japan is a working example of what happens without growth and why growth matters.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arakiss12TV/TS
1 week ago

Bedfuck

The figures they give out are supposed motivate/kick up the arse the country.

It's all pie in the sky.

I wouldn't trust any figures broadcast via the media.

If you haven't got enough money after working hard or need a job or made redundant that's the truth not .5% this or 9% that.

If the government want to squeeze more money out of you they're gonna give out a figure that causes the effect.

Manipulation is the name of the game.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffelskloofMan
1 week ago

Lunenburg, Nova Scotia

I suppose if GDP isn’t important then look at the countries at the top and bottom of the GDP per capita table (annual estimate in USD):

Top:

Luxembourg $140k

Ireland $108k

Switzerland $104k

Bottom:

South Sudan $251

Afghanistan $409

Yemen $417

Which of these countries would one have a better life in?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk


"I suppose if GDP isn’t important then look at the countries at the top and bottom of the GDP per capita table (annual estimate in USD):

Top:

Luxembourg $140k

Ireland $108k

Switzerland $104k

Bottom:

South Sudan $251

Afghanistan $409

Yemen $417

Which of these countries would one have a better life in?

"

The situation in those countries is more about civil wars than GDP.

GDP in 1976 was $233billion, now it’s $3.3 trillion. Is life 15 times better now than it was back then?

I believe Luxembourg has quite a few global headquarters due to low corporation tax. 16% compared to 25% here. In Ireland it’s 12.5% and 14.6% in Switzerland. I’m seeing a trend here.

This brings in global money that has actually been earned around the world. So perhaps we should reduce tax, not increase it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
1 week ago

Terra Firma

GDP is a measure an indicator.

Production, what we sell minus the cost to make.

Income, total earned through all income streams.

Expenditure, the total spent on consumption (rent food etc), investment (business spend), government services, and net exports (- imports).

Improving or growing any of these components (not imports) will increase GDP, which in turn allows the government to spend on infrastructure, public services etc. If GDP stagnates while inflation and debt continue to rise, the real value of government revenue recedes.

Think of it as a £10 note that has been sitting in a draw for 5 years, it doesn't have the same buying power today as it did the day you put in the draw. However if you put the money into a productive investment that grows faster than inflation your purchasing power increases. A growth in GDP allows the government to increase spending without resorting to increasing taxes or implementing cuts.

If we bring the above into todays government you will begin to see why they are pushing on the message, Reeves fiscal rules will be undone if the economy is not growing quick enough and tax hikes will be inevitable. This is why I struggle to understand their policies, such as increasing NI payments for business, it stifles investment and job creation.

My last point on your OP, is your reference to not growing the population and how that could remove the need for constant growth. That is not a viable option. We are reproductive by nature, and when we do reduce reproduction naturally it has a damaging effect on society. An ageing population with low birth rates leads to economic stagnation, workforce shortages, and unmanageable public expenditure. Japan is a perfect example, it has one of the lowest birth rates in the world which has led to low growth, wage stagnation, high public debt, and a huge strain on healthcare and pensions. We are already seeing signs of the same here.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk


"GDP is a measure an indicator.

Production, what we sell minus the cost to make.

Income, total earned through all income streams.

Expenditure, the total spent on consumption (rent food etc), investment (business spend), government services, and net exports (- imports).

Improving or growing any of these components (not imports) will increase GDP, which in turn allows the government to spend on infrastructure, public services etc. If GDP stagnates while inflation and debt continue to rise, the real value of government revenue recedes.

Think of it as a £10 note that has been sitting in a draw for 5 years, it doesn't have the same buying power today as it did the day you put in the draw. However if you put the money into a productive investment that grows faster than inflation your purchasing power increases. A growth in GDP allows the government to increase spending without resorting to increasing taxes or implementing cuts.

If we bring the above into todays government you will begin to see why they are pushing on the message, Reeves fiscal rules will be undone if the economy is not growing quick enough and tax hikes will be inevitable. This is why I struggle to understand their policies, such as increasing NI payments for business, it stifles investment and job creation.

My last point on your OP, is your reference to not growing the population and how that could remove the need for constant growth. That is not a viable option. We are reproductive by nature, and when we do reduce reproduction naturally it has a damaging effect on society. An ageing population with low birth rates leads to economic stagnation, workforce shortages, and unmanageable public expenditure. Japan is a perfect example, it has one of the lowest birth rates in the world which has led to low growth, wage stagnation, high public debt, and a huge strain on healthcare and pensions. We are already seeing signs of the same here."

You misquoted me. I didn’t say not growing the population removes the need for economic growth. I questioned the need for artificial economic growth brought about by artificially increasing the population.

You are right to suggest a falling population size has consequences such as a smaller workforce supporting an aging population. But that is simply cured by people providing for their own retirement rather that relying on the state to do so.

Every government forecasts growth and spends based on the forecast rather than the actual numbers. And every government gets it wrong and has to borrow the difference.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
1 week ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 27/05/25 15:29:43]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
1 week ago

Terra Firma


"GDP is a measure an indicator.

Production, what we sell minus the cost to make.

Income, total earned through all income streams.

Expenditure, the total spent on consumption (rent food etc), investment (business spend), government services, and net exports (- imports).

Improving or growing any of these components (not imports) will increase GDP, which in turn allows the government to spend on infrastructure, public services etc. If GDP stagnates while inflation and debt continue to rise, the real value of government revenue recedes.

Think of it as a £10 note that has been sitting in a draw for 5 years, it doesn't have the same buying power today as it did the day you put in the draw. However if you put the money into a productive investment that grows faster than inflation your purchasing power increases. A growth in GDP allows the government to increase spending without resorting to increasing taxes or implementing cuts.

If we bring the above into todays government you will begin to see why they are pushing on the message, Reeves fiscal rules will be undone if the economy is not growing quick enough and tax hikes will be inevitable. This is why I struggle to understand their policies, such as increasing NI payments for business, it stifles investment and job creation.

My last point on your OP, is your reference to not growing the population and how that could remove the need for constant growth. That is not a viable option. We are reproductive by nature, and when we do reduce reproduction naturally it has a damaging effect on society. An ageing population with low birth rates leads to economic stagnation, workforce shortages, and unmanageable public expenditure. Japan is a perfect example, it has one of the lowest birth rates in the world which has led to low growth, wage stagnation, high public debt, and a huge strain on healthcare and pensions. We are already seeing signs of the same here.

You misquoted me. I didn’t say not growing the population removes the need for economic growth. I questioned the need for artificial economic growth brought about by artificially increasing the population.

You are right to suggest a falling population size has consequences such as a smaller workforce supporting an aging population. But that is simply cured by people providing for their own retirement rather that relying on the state to do so.

Every government forecasts growth and spends based on the forecast rather than the actual numbers. And every government gets it wrong and has to borrow the difference. "

I was referring specifically to this line from your original comment.

“If we don’t expand the population we wouldn’t need more of whatever it is you want the government to spend more money on.”

That seemed to imply that by not growing the population, we could avoid the need for further economic expansion or public spending.

What did you mean by it?

As for forecasting it’s essential for setting budgets and planning longterm projects. A positive growth outlook helps secure borrowing on better terms and builds confidence in both markets and public services. Another positive reason for growth.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk


"GDP is a measure an indicator.

Production, what we sell minus the cost to make.

Income, total earned through all income streams.

Expenditure, the total spent on consumption (rent food etc), investment (business spend), government services, and net exports (- imports).

Improving or growing any of these components (not imports) will increase GDP, which in turn allows the government to spend on infrastructure, public services etc. If GDP stagnates while inflation and debt continue to rise, the real value of government revenue recedes.

Think of it as a £10 note that has been sitting in a draw for 5 years, it doesn't have the same buying power today as it did the day you put in the draw. However if you put the money into a productive investment that grows faster than inflation your purchasing power increases. A growth in GDP allows the government to increase spending without resorting to increasing taxes or implementing cuts.

If we bring the above into todays government you will begin to see why they are pushing on the message, Reeves fiscal rules will be undone if the economy is not growing quick enough and tax hikes will be inevitable. This is why I struggle to understand their policies, such as increasing NI payments for business, it stifles investment and job creation.

My last point on your OP, is your reference to not growing the population and how that could remove the need for constant growth. That is not a viable option. We are reproductive by nature, and when we do reduce reproduction naturally it has a damaging effect on society. An ageing population with low birth rates leads to economic stagnation, workforce shortages, and unmanageable public expenditure. Japan is a perfect example, it has one of the lowest birth rates in the world which has led to low growth, wage stagnation, high public debt, and a huge strain on healthcare and pensions. We are already seeing signs of the same here.

You misquoted me. I didn’t say not growing the population removes the need for economic growth. I questioned the need for artificial economic growth brought about by artificially increasing the population.

You are right to suggest a falling population size has consequences such as a smaller workforce supporting an aging population. But that is simply cured by people providing for their own retirement rather that relying on the state to do so.

Every government forecasts growth and spends based on the forecast rather than the actual numbers. And every government gets it wrong and has to borrow the difference.

I was referring specifically to this line from your original comment.

“If we don’t expand the population we wouldn’t need more of whatever it is you want the government to spend more money on.”

That seemed to imply that by not growing the population, we could avoid the need for further economic expansion or public spending.

What did you mean by it?

As for forecasting it’s essential for setting budgets and planning longterm projects. A positive growth outlook helps secure borrowing on better terms and builds confidence in both markets and public services. Another positive reason for growth."

Again you’re putting the cart before the horse. I’ll try one last time….

Population rises, however attained, usually trigger economic growth. More people spending more money and paying more in tax. If a town of 10,000 people needs 20 hairdressers and those 20 can all be profitable, it’s logical to follow that a 10% increase in population requires 10% more hair salons and they too can be profitable.

We don’t need to get more people in because the economy has grown which is the way you’re saying I’m saying it. That’s like saying “hey we’ve got more money, do you want a share?”

If we discovered a copper mine under the Humber Estuary that could be extracted cheaper than imported copper, that would grow the economy naturally. And as we have lots of people out of work we don’t need to bring people in to mine it. We now have thriving business paying lots of corporation tax and workers paying income tax.

The treasury benefits and therefore has more to spend, but the same number of people to spend it on. No extra school places to pay for, NHS appointments, etc.

By comparison if we need to pay for 1,000 school places for the child component of the 10,000, we’d likely need to pay for an extra 100 places if the population increases by 10%. So education spending increases by 10%. Add all the other infrastructure costs in and are we any better off? Or is all that’s happened is all the numbers are higher?

We are struggling to find the space for the 1.5 million new homes. By the time they are built, assuming they are, we’ll need another 2 million homes. And on and on. The global population is set to double before the end of the century. That’s close to 150 million people in the UK, twice as many homes, twice as many hospitals, schools, retail parks, supermarkets etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
1 week ago

Terra Firma


"GDP is a measure an indicator.

Production, what we sell minus the cost to make.

Income, total earned through all income streams.

Expenditure, the total spent on consumption (rent food etc), investment (business spend), government services, and net exports (- imports).

Improving or growing any of these components (not imports) will increase GDP, which in turn allows the government to spend on infrastructure, public services etc. If GDP stagnates while inflation and debt continue to rise, the real value of government revenue recedes.

Think of it as a £10 note that has been sitting in a draw for 5 years, it doesn't have the same buying power today as it did the day you put in the draw. However if you put the money into a productive investment that grows faster than inflation your purchasing power increases. A growth in GDP allows the government to increase spending without resorting to increasing taxes or implementing cuts.

If we bring the above into todays government you will begin to see why they are pushing on the message, Reeves fiscal rules will be undone if the economy is not growing quick enough and tax hikes will be inevitable. This is why I struggle to understand their policies, such as increasing NI payments for business, it stifles investment and job creation.

My last point on your OP, is your reference to not growing the population and how that could remove the need for constant growth. That is not a viable option. We are reproductive by nature, and when we do reduce reproduction naturally it has a damaging effect on society. An ageing population with low birth rates leads to economic stagnation, workforce shortages, and unmanageable public expenditure. Japan is a perfect example, it has one of the lowest birth rates in the world which has led to low growth, wage stagnation, high public debt, and a huge strain on healthcare and pensions. We are already seeing signs of the same here.

You misquoted me. I didn’t say not growing the population removes the need for economic growth. I questioned the need for artificial economic growth brought about by artificially increasing the population.

You are right to suggest a falling population size has consequences such as a smaller workforce supporting an aging population. But that is simply cured by people providing for their own retirement rather that relying on the state to do so.

Every government forecasts growth and spends based on the forecast rather than the actual numbers. And every government gets it wrong and has to borrow the difference.

I was referring specifically to this line from your original comment.

“If we don’t expand the population we wouldn’t need more of whatever it is you want the government to spend more money on.”

That seemed to imply that by not growing the population, we could avoid the need for further economic expansion or public spending.

What did you mean by it?

As for forecasting it’s essential for setting budgets and planning longterm projects. A positive growth outlook helps secure borrowing on better terms and builds confidence in both markets and public services. Another positive reason for growth.

Again you’re putting the cart before the horse. I’ll try one last time….

Population rises, however attained, usually trigger economic growth. More people spending more money and paying more in tax. If a town of 10,000 people needs 20 hairdressers and those 20 can all be profitable, it’s logical to follow that a 10% increase in population requires 10% more hair salons and they too can be profitable.

We don’t need to get more people in because the economy has grown which is the way you’re saying I’m saying it. That’s like saying “hey we’ve got more money, do you want a share?”

If we discovered a copper mine under the Humber Estuary that could be extracted cheaper than imported copper, that would grow the economy naturally. And as we have lots of people out of work we don’t need to bring people in to mine it. We now have thriving business paying lots of corporation tax and workers paying income tax.

The treasury benefits and therefore has more to spend, but the same number of people to spend it on. No extra school places to pay for, NHS appointments, etc.

By comparison if we need to pay for 1,000 school places for the child component of the 10,000, we’d likely need to pay for an extra 100 places if the population increases by 10%. So education spending increases by 10%. Add all the other infrastructure costs in and are we any better off? Or is all that’s happened is all the numbers are higher?

We are struggling to find the space for the 1.5 million new homes. By the time they are built, assuming they are, we’ll need another 2 million homes. And on and on. The global population is set to double before the end of the century. That’s close to 150 million people in the UK, twice as many homes, twice as many hospitals, schools, retail parks, supermarkets etc.

"

It has taken a while but I think I understand your point now, are you talking about immigration? Is this what you mean by "we do not need to bring people in?"

I will leave it here until you tell me if I have understood the position you are taking ref the population.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ennineTopMan
1 week ago

York

The UK population was about 34 million in 1879 and doubled to 68 million by 2023.

In the last decade it grew by about 6%.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ennineTopMan
1 week ago

York

For anyone not into maths, 6% per decade population growth means it would take about 120 years for the current UK population to double in size.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssexPerv80Man
1 week ago

Essex & London


"For anyone not into maths, 6% per decade population growth means it would take about 120 years for the current UK population to double in size.

"

I can see that occurring as climate change forces communities north away from uninhabitable equatorial regions, but wouldn’t like to guess at the timescale

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk


"GDP is a measure an indicator.

Production, what we sell minus the cost to make.

Income, total earned through all income streams.

Expenditure, the total spent on consumption (rent food etc), investment (business spend), government services, and net exports (- imports).

Improving or growing any of these components (not imports) will increase GDP, which in turn allows the government to spend on infrastructure, public services etc. If GDP stagnates while inflation and debt continue to rise, the real value of government revenue recedes.

Think of it as a £10 note that has been sitting in a draw for 5 years, it doesn't have the same buying power today as it did the day you put in the draw. However if you put the money into a productive investment that grows faster than inflation your purchasing power increases. A growth in GDP allows the government to increase spending without resorting to increasing taxes or implementing cuts.

If we bring the above into todays government you will begin to see why they are pushing on the message, Reeves fiscal rules will be undone if the economy is not growing quick enough and tax hikes will be inevitable. This is why I struggle to understand their policies, such as increasing NI payments for business, it stifles investment and job creation.

My last point on your OP, is your reference to not growing the population and how that could remove the need for constant growth. That is not a viable option. We are reproductive by nature, and when we do reduce reproduction naturally it has a damaging effect on society. An ageing population with low birth rates leads to economic stagnation, workforce shortages, and unmanageable public expenditure. Japan is a perfect example, it has one of the lowest birth rates in the world which has led to low growth, wage stagnation, high public debt, and a huge strain on healthcare and pensions. We are already seeing signs of the same here.

You misquoted me. I didn’t say not growing the population removes the need for economic growth. I questioned the need for artificial economic growth brought about by artificially increasing the population.

You are right to suggest a falling population size has consequences such as a smaller workforce supporting an aging population. But that is simply cured by people providing for their own retirement rather that relying on the state to do so.

Every government forecasts growth and spends based on the forecast rather than the actual numbers. And every government gets it wrong and has to borrow the difference.

I was referring specifically to this line from your original comment.

“If we don’t expand the population we wouldn’t need more of whatever it is you want the government to spend more money on.”

That seemed to imply that by not growing the population, we could avoid the need for further economic expansion or public spending.

What did you mean by it?

As for forecasting it’s essential for setting budgets and planning longterm projects. A positive growth outlook helps secure borrowing on better terms and builds confidence in both markets and public services. Another positive reason for growth.

Again you’re putting the cart before the horse. I’ll try one last time….

Population rises, however attained, usually trigger economic growth. More people spending more money and paying more in tax. If a town of 10,000 people needs 20 hairdressers and those 20 can all be profitable, it’s logical to follow that a 10% increase in population requires 10% more hair salons and they too can be profitable.

We don’t need to get more people in because the economy has grown which is the way you’re saying I’m saying it. That’s like saying “hey we’ve got more money, do you want a share?”

If we discovered a copper mine under the Humber Estuary that could be extracted cheaper than imported copper, that would grow the economy naturally. And as we have lots of people out of work we don’t need to bring people in to mine it. We now have thriving business paying lots of corporation tax and workers paying income tax.

The treasury benefits and therefore has more to spend, but the same number of people to spend it on. No extra school places to pay for, NHS appointments, etc.

By comparison if we need to pay for 1,000 school places for the child component of the 10,000, we’d likely need to pay for an extra 100 places if the population increases by 10%. So education spending increases by 10%. Add all the other infrastructure costs in and are we any better off? Or is all that’s happened is all the numbers are higher?

We are struggling to find the space for the 1.5 million new homes. By the time they are built, assuming they are, we’ll need another 2 million homes. And on and on. The global population is set to double before the end of the century. That’s close to 150 million people in the UK, twice as many homes, twice as many hospitals, schools, retail parks, supermarkets etc.

It has taken a while but I think I understand your point now, are you talking about immigration? Is this what you mean by "we do not need to bring people in?"

I will leave it here until you tell me if I have understood the position you are taking ref the population. "

No! Don’t worry, you’re clearly not getting it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
1 week ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 27/05/25 20:41:59]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
1 week ago

Terra Firma


"GDP is a measure an indicator.

Production, what we sell minus the cost to make.

Income, total earned through all income streams.

Expenditure, the total spent on consumption (rent food etc), investment (business spend), government services, and net exports (- imports).

Improving or growing any of these components (not imports) will increase GDP, which in turn allows the government to spend on infrastructure, public services etc. If GDP stagnates while inflation and debt continue to rise, the real value of government revenue recedes.

Think of it as a £10 note that has been sitting in a draw for 5 years, it doesn't have the same buying power today as it did the day you put in the draw. However if you put the money into a productive investment that grows faster than inflation your purchasing power increases. A growth in GDP allows the government to increase spending without resorting to increasing taxes or implementing cuts.

If we bring the above into todays government you will begin to see why they are pushing on the message, Reeves fiscal rules will be undone if the economy is not growing quick enough and tax hikes will be inevitable. This is why I struggle to understand their policies, such as increasing NI payments for business, it stifles investment and job creation.

My last point on your OP, is your reference to not growing the population and how that could remove the need for constant growth. That is not a viable option. We are reproductive by nature, and when we do reduce reproduction naturally it has a damaging effect on society. An ageing population with low birth rates leads to economic stagnation, workforce shortages, and unmanageable public expenditure. Japan is a perfect example, it has one of the lowest birth rates in the world which has led to low growth, wage stagnation, high public debt, and a huge strain on healthcare and pensions. We are already seeing signs of the same here.

You misquoted me. I didn’t say not growing the population removes the need for economic growth. I questioned the need for artificial economic growth brought about by artificially increasing the population.

You are right to suggest a falling population size has consequences such as a smaller workforce supporting an aging population. But that is simply cured by people providing for their own retirement rather that relying on the state to do so.

Every government forecasts growth and spends based on the forecast rather than the actual numbers. And every government gets it wrong and has to borrow the difference.

I was referring specifically to this line from your original comment.

“If we don’t expand the population we wouldn’t need more of whatever it is you want the government to spend more money on.”

That seemed to imply that by not growing the population, we could avoid the need for further economic expansion or public spending.

What did you mean by it?

As for forecasting it’s essential for setting budgets and planning longterm projects. A positive growth outlook helps secure borrowing on better terms and builds confidence in both markets and public services. Another positive reason for growth.

Again you’re putting the cart before the horse. I’ll try one last time….

Population rises, however attained, usually trigger economic growth. More people spending more money and paying more in tax. If a town of 10,000 people needs 20 hairdressers and those 20 can all be profitable, it’s logical to follow that a 10% increase in population requires 10% more hair salons and they too can be profitable.

We don’t need to get more people in because the economy has grown which is the way you’re saying I’m saying it. That’s like saying “hey we’ve got more money, do you want a share?”

If we discovered a copper mine under the Humber Estuary that could be extracted cheaper than imported copper, that would grow the economy naturally. And as we have lots of people out of work we don’t need to bring people in to mine it. We now have thriving business paying lots of corporation tax and workers paying income tax.

The treasury benefits and therefore has more to spend, but the same number of people to spend it on. No extra school places to pay for, NHS appointments, etc.

By comparison if we need to pay for 1,000 school places for the child component of the 10,000, we’d likely need to pay for an extra 100 places if the population increases by 10%. So education spending increases by 10%. Add all the other infrastructure costs in and are we any better off? Or is all that’s happened is all the numbers are higher?

We are struggling to find the space for the 1.5 million new homes. By the time they are built, assuming they are, we’ll need another 2 million homes. And on and on. The global population is set to double before the end of the century. That’s close to 150 million people in the UK, twice as many homes, twice as many hospitals, schools, retail parks, supermarkets etc.

It has taken a while but I think I understand your point now, are you talking about immigration? Is this what you mean by "we do not need to bring people in?"

I will leave it here until you tell me if I have understood the position you are taking ref the population.

No! Don’t worry, you’re clearly not getting it "

Clearly unless you can put “we don’t need to bring in anymore into more”, into perspective I’m well and truly lost

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ennineTopMan
1 week ago

York


"I can see that occurring as climate change forces communities north away from uninhabitable equatorial regions, but wouldn’t like to guess at the timescale"

I just wanted to add a bit of perspective to the numbers as it seems that many people, particularly those on the right, think that population growth in the UK has been far greater than it has actually been.

But on the prospect of climate change and more general political turmoil driving population movements, I agree. It's impossible to come up with realistic long-term projections. This is partly why the relatively modest costs involved in foreign aid and global diplomacy are worthwhile investments.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk


"I can see that occurring as climate change forces communities north away from uninhabitable equatorial regions, but wouldn’t like to guess at the timescale

I just wanted to add a bit of perspective to the numbers as it seems that many people, particularly those on the right, think that population growth in the UK has been far greater than it has actually been.

But on the prospect of climate change and more general political turmoil driving population movements, I agree. It's impossible to come up with realistic long-term projections. This is partly why the relatively modest costs involved in foreign aid and global diplomacy are worthwhile investments.

"

Historical figure from the turn of the 20th century up until the turn of the 21st century create a misleading narrative. There was two world wars that killed millions during that period.

A more representative figure would be what the actual growth is at the moment. Around 1% per year and rising. Not gonna go back and check but I’m pretty sure I’d have used words like “roughly” and/or “around. Nobody knows what the figure will be but with figures of AROUND (lol) a million a year over 75 years….. wanna do your math again?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ennineTopMan
1 week ago

York


"Historical figure from the turn of the 20th century up until the turn of the 21st century create a misleading narrative. There was two world wars that killed millions during that period.

A more representative figure would be what the actual growth is at the moment. Around 1% per year and rising. Not gonna go back and check but I’m pretty sure I’d have used words like “roughly” and/or “around. Nobody knows what the figure will be but with figures of AROUND (lol) a million a year over 75 years….. wanna do your math again? "

I could be wrong but I don't think you actually made a prediction. I was just posting what the offical statistics for the last decade were.

Yes, there were significant drops around the times of the world wars. You can see the dips in this graph...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281296/uk-population/AC

On current growth I was going by the official ONS mid-year data set...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/timeseries/ukpop/pop

The most recent data was released in October 2024 and is for the year 2023.

Population in 2013 = 64,138,700

Population in 2023 = 68,265,200

Growth over 10 years = 4,126,500

In percentage terms this is about 6.4% per decade.

Growth between 2022 and 2023 was a bit higher at 662,400.

But as you say nobody really knows what the future holds.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ecretivechappyMan
3 days ago

manchester


"Is this really needed? What is wrong with a stable GDP as long as inflation is close to zero? Is inflation a natural by product of growth? You can have inflation without growth of course but can you have growth without inflation?

Politicians always talk about growing the economy yet they never talk about reducing overall national debt (and those that do never achieve it). And levelling the balance of payments deficit is all but impossible unless we invent a few hundred products that the world can’t do without and actually make them here.

Which leaves increasing the population to increase GDP. Basic logic of more people spending more money means economic growth right? And as long as those people work and pay more in tax than they receive any form of benefits the logic is sound.

But with the increase in population comes an increase in the demand for infrastructure. More schools, more hospitals, more doctors surgeries, more water supply and sewage disposal, higher energy requirements, more waste disposal, more recycling processing, more social services, more police, more prisons, more courts, more housing. Then there’s the transport infrastructure, more roads, more trains, more trucking moving more stuff about. Then there’s the ongoing costs of maintaining that extra infrastructure.

What is it we’re actually achieving with all this growth they talk about? Is the life we live as people any better because of this growth? We have more stuff, but on the whole it’s stuff we never knew we needed until someone told us we did.

This mentality that we need to grow the economy so we can spend more on ____________ (fill in the blank with whatever). If we don’t expand the population we wouldn’t need more of whatever it is you want the government to spend more money on.

Then the stuff that naturally costs the government more over time can be managed with smaller tax tweaks.

Your thoughts?

I’m not an economist and happy to be proven wrong "

Yes. Economic growth is a requirement for a society to improve its living conditions.

As a general rule of thumb, it's measured by output vs input. If more output is occurring using the same or less labour. You have been more efficient. Using less of resource x to create resource y.( productivity)

Productivity increases reduce the cost of items ( think ford last century) thus lifting more people out of poverty by reducing prices for luxury goods. See the collapse of the price of cars, computer, airline tickets, mobile phones. All once luxury items now available to the masses due to productivity. The main measure of GDP.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top