[klodolph]

Due to technological progress, the amount of money and resources required to maintain a constant quality of life has decreased over the years. So you could in fact maintain quality of life even during economic contraction, as long as resources permit.

My question is: why do you suspect that economic growth is necessary for quality of life? What is the exact connection there that you are thinking about?

[lpaone]

Great questions. Thanks. Looking at their economy as it is, they are borrowing massively with essentially 0 growth. The government is doing this in an effort to prop up the economy and spur growth.

If they were to stop borrowing money without a substantial leap in technological progress, would the economy go into a deep recession? I do not know enough about economics to say, but I am basing my assumptions around this reasoning. Am I missing something?

I'm then assuming that if the country went into a deep recession, that quality of life for the average person would decrease.

[klodolph]

> The government is doing this in an effort to prop up the economy and spur growth.

How so?

From where I sit, Japan's borrowing is funding infrastructure rebuilding and quantitative easing. The infrastructure, including energy production, is necessary for future economic and human activity. Quantitative easing combats deflation and keeps monetary policy functional when interest rates are low. This borrowing looks neither unsustainable nor does it look like a measure to artificially prop up the economy.

> If they were to stop borrowing money without a substantial leap in technological progress, would the economy go into a deep recession?

If you suddenly stop borrowing money, it would cause economic turmoil, just because everything is economically connected and everyone's economic forecasts would change. The borrowing is being used to support QE which causes inflation, without it Japan could be at risk of deflation. Deflation would mean that goods and services would get cheaper (and maintaining quality of life would also get cheaper), but there are also negative consequences—people who save money win, people who borrow money lose, people who invest money have a hard time making good investments, lack of investment causes problems down the road, etc.

[antisthenes]

You haven't addressed the question at all.

To reiterate, the question was:

Why do you think quality of life is tied to economic growth? What do you base that assumption on?