Maybe the US should restrict those Monster Pickup Trucks with shit pedestrian safety off the road, and make the tests for driver's licenses more stricter instead of handing them out like candy.
And no you don't need constantly a growing economy.
Hey our model only works if we continue growing our x every year. Do you know what it means if something grows 2% per year?
Communism tried that and it doesn't really work well, especially now in a globalized economy when you're competing with growing economies for limited resources and who can outspend you if you're not growing more than them.
You don't need a growing economy only if you can be 100% self suficient, which virtually no country is (US comes the closest), or you're OK with getting poorer by the year and willing to reduce your standard of living accordingly to the bare essentials, like in the USSR.
>Do you know what it means if something grows 2% per year?
But do you know what it means when it doesn't?
For me the growth means a mix of things like being more productive, increasing life standards etc but we have great life standars.
Japan has a high living standard too and no to negative growth.
Either there is some magic economic model you will not be able to explain to me in this format (wall of text / necessary university degree/ just too much) or I will not change my opinion on this rat race thing.
Your point of other countries outbidding us on resources is that really the main argument for necessary economy growth?
At least for software engineering that's not true.
Farming probably hasn't changed that much in the last 20 years either.
The growth discussion is for me as shitty as all those news about share prices. Random stocks get mentioned in the news for random reasons while apparently the best way to invest in shares is to not bother with daily trends at all.
A country's economic growth means something deferent than what it means to you.
>a mix of things like being more productive, increasing life standards etc but we have great life standars.
And to fund all those things you usually need a higher GDP, not a lower one.
>Japan has a high living standard too and no to negative growth.
Do you live in Japan to confirm this "high standard of living", or are you gonna throw a google search in my face as the argument?
Why do you think a country doesn't need more money to provide a better life for its citizens? Do you see poorer countries providing excellent life?
>Your point of other countries outbidding us on resources is that really the main argument for necessary economy growth?
What's your point against this? Are you gonna provide any arguments here?
>At least for software engineering that's not true.
Good luck eating software. Or living inside software. Or driving software to work.
The world needs far more than software to function. Go out and touch some grass.
>Farming probably hasn't changed that much in the last 20 years either.
But weather, the environment and the geopolitics have. A lot. And now you have more mouths to feed to boot.
>It feels to me that we will not go far in this discussion tbh.
I agree. You're far too clueless and out of touch with reality.
I'm also from a farm, I'm quite familiar with farming efficiency and I'm not aware of anything big happened in the last 20 years which reflects any real growth.
Germany didn't get more land in the last 20 years.
And I myself as a software engineer probably added to the growth of the bip in Germany.
If you are not even able to bring your point across, why do you believe so strong in economcial growth?
Sure, we have higher quality of life, but all those social services that make that still require a growing performant economy to keep up with their rising costs, otherwise they'll have to be cut (and a lot are) or we'll have to go into a spiraling taxation and debt trap.