Another "simple" economics question

[ QUOTE ]
Energy

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain? Do you mean natural resources?

[ QUOTE ]
Either using a greater quantity of resources or using the same quantity of resources more efficiently or some combination of the 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my first post about the factors of production says it better.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
What causes economic growth (in the long-term)?


[/ QUOTE ]
Why do poker players multi-table?

[Il_Mostro]

I mean energy. And as a consequence of energy natural resources become available.
But I would say that economic growth needs a growth in the availablde energy per capita, in the long run.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
sustained consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

"...the encouragement of mere consumption is no benefit to commerce; for the difficulty lies in supplying the means, not in stimulating the desire of consumption; and we see that production alone furnishes those means. Thus, it is the aim of good government to stimulate production, of bad government to encourage consumption."

-Jean Baptiste Say

[mrgold]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sustained consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

"...the encouragement of mere consumption is no benefit to commerce; for the difficulty lies in supplying the means, not in stimulating the desire of consumption; and we see that production alone furnishes those means. Thus, it is the aim of good government to stimulate production, of bad government to encourage consumption."

-Jean Baptiste Say

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree but we are stuck in a mindset that measures economic growth in pure consumption. Our whorishly commercial culture creates demands for otherwise unnessecary goods and then fills that deamnd and tacks both the cost of the advertisment for and the production of the previously unnesecaray goods on to the GDP and calls it growth. I know that the beauty of the market system is that it allows individuals to determine their own valuations of goods, but can we really say that a 200 dollar pair of underwear represents 200 dollars of economic growth if the desire for that underwear was created by advertisments. Or are people entirely rational for beeing willing to spend ungoldy amounts of money on brand name items?

[Darryl_P]

Sharp post. Reminds me of something called "True Cost Economics", the principles of which I think are brilliant...

http://www.gnn.tv/B02932

Edit: another link:

http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
... but can we really say that a 200 dollar pair of underwear represents 200 dollars of economic growth if the desire for that underwear was created by advertisments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Call it a tax on stupidity if you like, but the process employs creative talent and supports the medium that distributes it.

[mrgold]

but it produces nothing of value. should we really define our economic progress by what we can sell rather than what we can produce. i beleive you (not positive about this but it was definitely some economic conservative on this site) made a post a little while talking about why breaking a window to boost market demand was a bad idea. It was said that it might boost demand for glass blowers and create jobs in that industry but that there would be hidden costs such as what might be purchased if the window were not broken or the labors of a man in a different carear who chose not to be a glass blower. I believe the above situation is an entirely similar one from a pracitical economic perspective if not a moral one.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
but it produces nothing of value.

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly it has value if the market settles on 200$ as the correct price.