… I don’t understand your point. If you are generating a net surplus, then your economy is growing. If your per capita size is large, then inequality is something government can solve with taxation/redistribution it has nothing to do with whether it is iron ore or software generating the taxable $.

And yes, Australia beats out the US on pretty much any metric you like (unless you are looking for corporate benefit, then the US will win out, it’s much better to be a capitalist in the US)

GDP is gross domestic product. It isn't representative of net surplus. That's my entire point.

You are talking about government spending? And arguing that they may not be in a budgetary surplus?

Because if they are in positive GDP then they are in an economic surplus… that’s what gdp is right? Else they are in a recession.

Neither of which matter to my point, because the pie is ALREADY big enough for a living wage for everyone.

Who is talking about government spending? The OP I was responding to was talking about livable wages provided by corporations. This has nothing to do with the government.

I was clarifying your point, you were saying positive gdp didn’t imply positive economic growth… or size of economy but it does. So what was your meaning?