The complaints of inflation are insane.

You are kinda wrong on that in a small way, im in the UK and prices/houses/fuel/heating homes has steadily gotten more expensive over the last 12 years whether thats a UK only issue or not is something else but our economy is tied to yours so eventually our pain will drip on to yours making it worse for us all
What are you saying, that eventually UK home prices will get so high that my cost of goods will go up faster than my wages?
 
But once the bank makes profit from the credit card they can then loan that money out to someone else (like a mortgage or business loan) which can create growth. Also the person who spends with the credit card buys more product from local businesses, boosting their earnings which they can then invest to improve operations.
The bank may or may not be a locally owned one. Non local banks are not likely to feed your local economy. CC dollars spent might be with wholly local businesses but often that spending goes to national chains and much siphoned away. The net benefit of CC spending though quickly leaves the area as soon as you pay the CC bill. If the situation is such that your CC bank is local and your spending is local, there is still no growth benefit. It is just recirculating dollars. Now if your income is coming from elsewhere into your bank account, then your local CC spending is feeding economic growth. You have to look at both the sources of money used in transactions as well as, the expenditures. If I get a loan from Bank of America to expand a business, then I am bringing new money into the mix. If used well, it will create the opportunities for new streams of outside money into the community that will be more than the over time outflows from paying back the loan.
 
Won't somebody think of D.C.?
 
Won't somebody think of D.C.?

To be fair, when elected at the Federal level there is no way to help out the tiny communities. Their needs oft be too specific, whereby a singular platform cannot be created to run on. A one size fits all approach is much more conducive for gaining the maximum amount of votes possible with the least amount of backlash. Even if it doesn't benifit a few localities it's fine, that's just how democracy works
 
It'd work even more that way without the EC. Think of the efficiency! The classgasm.
 
But doesn't it help the national economy? Why must it be so local? Is there not more to an economy than tiny towns?
It doesn't have to be local. What matters is the scale of one's measurement. If you are measuring at the national level, then what is considered imported vs local is different. Exported products and services feed the national economic growth. Imported ones diminish it. What happens between TX and CA doesn't matter at a national level.

Since it is the state, county and city level where economic transactions take place, I tend to focus at that level. A national look is just a compilation of all the local events.
 
What are you saying, that eventually UK home prices will get so high that my cost of goods will go up faster than my wages?
Yes.
I am in Doncaster which has been a steady place for housing for many years, my grans house sold for £30k in 98 a few years later when it boomed that same house was worth £70 literally 5 years or so, that same house slowly crept up for the next decades to £110-120 , and that was say 2018? the same house has now gone up to £190k.
It's a goddamn ex pit house nothing special, 2 skin wall semi detached, generic square design same as the rest of the village not just street, 2 double bedrooms, 1 box room, 1 bathroom, 2 large downstairs rooms and a small kitchen and a small to medium garden, not as small as the new builds i see and maybe thats why it is priced as such.
The area is ok, clean not much trouble but not majorly affluent and maybe the schools nearby bump the price because they are some of the best in the city.
But still the house is over valued in my opinion by £100k at least and its being replicated city wide, i sold my mums old house for her 2019 on the next street for £115k its now standing at £170k three years later ....greed and inflation at play.
 
It doesn't have to be local. What matters is the scale of one's measurement. If you are measuring at the national level, then what is considered imported vs local is different. Exported products and services feed the national economic growth. Imported ones diminish it. What happens between TX and CA doesn't matter at a national level.

Since it is the state, county and city level where economic transactions take place, I tend to focus at that level. A national look is just a compilation of all the local events.

Economic growth is not built off of just exports. There's a domestic market too.

Besides dollar bills are printed into circulation via debt. Foreigners must then purchase this debt produced currency in order to buy exported U.S. goods. Just like a credit card.
 
Yes.
I am in Doncaster which has been a steady place for housing for many years, my grans house sold for £30k in 98 a few years later when it boomed that same house was worth £70 literally 5 years or so, that same house slowly crept up for the next decades to £110-120 , and that was say 2018? the same house has now gone up to £190k.
It's a goddamn ex pit house nothing special, 2 skin wall semi detached, generic square design same as the rest of the village not just street, 2 double bedrooms, 1 box room, 1 bathroom, 2 large downstairs rooms and a small kitchen and a small to medium garden, not as small as the new builds i see and maybe thats why it is priced as such.
The area is ok, clean not much trouble but not majorly affluent and maybe the schools nearby bump the price because they are some of the best in the city.
But still the house is over valued in my opinion by £100k at least and its being replicated city wide, i sold my mums old house for her 2019 on the next street for £115k its now standing at £170k three years later ....greed and inflation at play.

An increase in UK house prices will have little effect across the pond. All this means is that more rich people want to live in Britain now more than ever, so they're pricing out the poors.

Could be something to do with Ozzy Osbourne not wanting to die in "crazy America".
 
I do say, it's weird having a model that doesn't value locals working for each other.

A bit of an extreme case, but doesn't this mean that someone who had a local job going onto EI then count as 'growth'?
 
Yes.
I am in Doncaster which has been a steady place for housing for many years, my grans house sold for £30k in 98 a few years later when it boomed that same house was worth £70 literally 5 years or so, that same house slowly crept up for the next decades to £110-120 , and that was say 2018? the same house has now gone up to £190k.
It's a goddamn ex pit house nothing special, 2 skin wall semi detached, generic square design same as the rest of the village not just street, 2 double bedrooms, 1 box room, 1 bathroom, 2 large downstairs rooms and a small kitchen and a small to medium garden, not as small as the new builds i see and maybe thats why it is priced as such.
The area is ok, clean not much trouble but not majorly affluent and maybe the schools nearby bump the price because they are some of the best in the city.
But still the house is over valued in my opinion by £100k at least and its being replicated city wide, i sold my mums old house for her 2019 on the next street for £115k its now standing at £170k three years later ....greed and inflation at play.
This is exactly the same as is going on everywhere, certainly where I live in California, over the same time frame.

But even if your house prices where rising faster than mine, how does that translate to the cost of my goods rising faster than the income from my labor?
 
My parents bought their home in the Bay Area for like 350k in the late 90s and it’s worth well over a million at this point. Home prices are bananas all over.
 
My brothers semi-detached home with practicality no yard space in Toronto is worth over a million.
 
Economic growth is not built off of just exports. There's a domestic market too.

Besides dollar bills are printed into circulation via debt. Foreigners must then purchase this debt produced currency in order to buy exported U.S. goods. Just like a credit card.


In fact, exports have pretty much fudge-all to do with economic growth. They are essntially of no relevance to the subject at hand.
 
In fact, exports have pretty much fudge-all to do with economic growth. They are essntially of no relevance to the subject at hand.
Then please explain how economic growth works with examples.
 
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.

Extreme-Poverty-projection-by-the-World-Bank-to-2030-786x550.png



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.
 
Length contributes to area. Width contributes to area. But yes, investment also creates growth. I'd edited my post above.

In this case length is investing in new plant, width is making existing plant more productive. Both are investment.

Trade, in itself, is not growth.
 
Okay, investment create growth. And transferring stuff between each other provides some other measurable benefit with a different name.
 
Okay, investment create growth. And transferring stuff between each other provides some other measurable benefit with a different name.

Can I assume that the idea here is that free transactions leave all parties to the transaction better off because we assume that the parties each valued what they got more than what they gave away?

Leaving aside the question of how often this is the case for real-world transactions as opposed to Econ 101 textbook transactions, while one could say this increases total utility or something similar I'm not certain that is identical with economic growth as such. Total utility can be increased by someone's changing mood (they take more pleasure in some possession of theirs today than they did yesterday) - I think it would be somewhat conceptually confused to call this "economic growth."
 
Top Bottom