Why do Governments/People all over the world put so much stock in continuously growing the Economy? It must consume a lot of resources and will inevitably shrink/crash again so what's the point? Wouldn't keeping it on a stable level be better?
Serious question, as I know there are some 'Economist' type people on here.
No reason to ask that of an economist, unless you want to embarrass them. They avoid answering "non-technical" (meaning: embarrassing) questions.
I don't know if it is, or not, a cultural trait, but most people, individually, have expectations of seeing their lives improve. And promising them that is a most convenient political strategy, which only reinforces such expectations. In order to track the results of those promises an proclaim success (or complain about the failure of political opponents) metrics must be found, and that's where economists come in: inventing and tracking those metrics (increasingly virtual constructs, it seems to me).
Historically many societies had gone for the "stable" political goal - I dare say that it was the norm before the modern age. Emperors
wanted stability because they essentially wanted to retain the power which they already had! State-sponsored religions and "ethics" promoted the idea of stability. But war, natural disasters, and population growth all worked against that goal.
As the world transited to the modern age, after the industrial and political revolutions started in the 18th century, material wealth increased dramatically but so did population, initially, and individually most people remained poor well into the 20th century, so "growth" was naturally a goal. the political revolutions, which increased the influence of the population over government policy, naturally reinforced that.
But, do we not live (in
some parts of the world) on a "post-modern" world? Population finally ceased its explosive growth. Materially, some societies have had the resources to be very well-off since the 1950s. It may be therefore surprising that the idea of "growth" remains so strong. My hypothesis is as follows: the promise of growth remains a very useful, powerful distraction, when now when failure to deliver is plain for all to see. Without it people would have to consider what to do with
existing resources, which inevitably would lead to questions about
distribution. And just as rulers promoted the idea of "stability" in the pre-modern world because that was convenient for those who were on top, they now promote "growth" because it is convenient to maintain the present hierarchy ("social peace") where they are on top.
