[andersonvieira]

It is not disingenuous to think long term because of how growth compounds over time. Imagine average growth is 2% a year and we cap it to 1%. In 20 years the difference would be 48% vs 22% total growth, which may not sound bad. But in 200 years, it would be 5150% vs 632%, and it would only get larger.

[raducu]

Not so sure about the real growth after you add central bank induced asset price inflation or just the heavily skewed basic inflation central banks like to post every year.

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the said growth is really just asset price inflation -- just let people overburden themselves with debt and a house costing 50000$ now costs 300000$ -- not just any house, EVERY house -- boom, you have huge "growth" and "wealth".

EDIT: I meant that it is disingenuous to look at 200 years because huge REAL advances have indeed taken place since then.

I'm totally against the financialization that has happened in the last 40-50 years, which is really 90% of the growth that has actually happened.

I mean, don't you think there's something deeply wrong and worrying with the fact that the financial industry is 80% of US GDP?