I'm sorry, but I don't think you're arguing in good faith here. "Per capita" means "per head", i. e. per person. That means that any population growth due to immigration is already factored in.
If you click on the little question mark, you'll also learn that inflation is also factored in already:
"Aggregates are based on constant 2010 U.S. dollars."
The real point is that last one. GDP growth, economic growth, etc are all meaningless because for most of the population it is not reality, they are getting poorer. That big house and two cars that my father could afford as a single income earner is now out of reach for most of the population.
1% growth is completely irrelevant. That's what I said: effectively in recession. The difference between 1% growth and 1% shrink is nothing.
There's no reason we shouldn't be growing much more quickly. But we're not going to do so in a neoliberal world. That's just not going to happen. Draining the wealth of society to a small group of people that spend little money just doesn't drive growth.
People can't spend and drive the economy when they're dirt poor.
It seems like NZ is growing at a pace of around 3%p.a. You're free to argue that there's some fantastic economic system that only you know, but most people will rightfully be sceptical of such claims unless you have a few examples of countries at NZ's high level of development growing at a much higher pace.
Other than that I've lost track of what were arguing. It appears as if you just start making completely unrelated arguments when you're proven wrong.
No it was not. Not per-capita. Growth ignoring population changes is literally completely irrelevant. It has never been relevant.
>It seems like NZ is growing at a pace of around 3%p.a. You're free to argue that there's some fantastic economic system that only you know, but most people will rightfully be sceptical of such claims unless you have a few examples of countries at NZ's high level of development growing at a much higher pace.
NZ before the horrific and inhumane neoliberal reforms of the 1980s ruined this beautiful country was growing at a much faster rate that it has ever grown since.
>Other than that I've lost track of what were arguing. It appears as if you just start making completely unrelated arguments when you're proven wrong.
When you shave ~1% off to account for immigration, then shave off another ~1% for inflation and you can see the hidden recessions.
And then you get into where that economic growth is going, which isn't to the bottom 80% of society. The end result looks a lot like the US median household income: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=c8op9mhgodplq_&...