Then please explain how economic growth works with examples.
Your comments have been all zero sum game. What was believed in when mercantilism was believed in. That the gain of any was the loss by other. If this were true, then how is it possible that the global population is a dozen times higher than it was 1000 years ago? If you're stretching the same output over more people, then clearly the average person has less? But that's obviously not true.
What have you seen in changes in what people have in just your lifetime? The computer you are on now, just for one. This computer is a created piece of wealth, the likes of which did not exist 50 years ago.
In 1919 the US Army set out to see what it would take to drive across the country. Future president Eisenhower was along for the ride. A very well prepared Army unit took 56 days to travel from Washington DC to San Francisco
. Today 1 man with 1 truck can take 40 tons of freight there in 5 days.
Simply put, the value of economic output of a person per unit of time is vastly higher now than it was in the past. This increase in the value of the output is in part because people are more educated and healthier. But largely because we keep inventing new ways to use resources in more valuable ways. Or find ways to make resources that we did not use in the past of value now. Windmills and water mills have existed since the Roman Empire. Likely longer in China. Each could perform one local task, and not all that quickly. Now a windmill can power 100s of homes. We have water mills that power whole cities.
This all didn't happen at once. There was very slow improvement in technology since the dawn of civilization. But the populations also grew. So the average person remained subsistence poor. This is the Malthusian Trap. Better technology just meant more people could survive in poverty. And yet the portion of the world's population which lives in subsistence levels of poverty has clearly not stayed the same.
And this is at the same time that the population of the world has vastly increased. If the same amount of resources are being competed for by many times the number of people, and subsistence poverty was the norm before, then clearly the majority of the people are going to starve to death. But this is not what we are seeing. We are seeing most of the world's population has individually greater material wealth than was even imaginable in the past.
More people. By a lot. More wealth per person. By a lot. It has to come from somewhere. And it can't be by taking it from others, because those others would die out if they had less. And clearly that is not happening. Most people in Africa, the region of the world which has not seen a reduction in poverty rates, are still living little better than subsistence. And yet Africa has the highest population growth rates in the world.
What I'm saying is that there is no evidence for what it sounds to me that you are saying. In fact, all of the evidence says the opposite. What I think you are saying cannot be true, and you look at the world where just in your lifetime you've seen how much richer everyone around you is, and more and more people are enjoying more and more wealth, and the percentage of the people who are subsistence poor is dropping in almost all of the world. Not increasing. Poverty is not increasing anywhere, to offset the greater wealth most places. Most of Africa has been subsistence poor since the dawn of mankind. Most of Africa is subsistence poor now. But the number of Africans is growing faster than any population in the world. So Africa has as a whole far more wealth. It's just not per capita, because it's feeding more people.
All of this is made possible by the invention of new wealth. Wealth does not flow from iron or oil or land. Wealth flows from new ideas on how to use resources that have always existed. We just use them all better now.