[PythonicAlpha]

Growth and more growth is only needed, because of our interest based money system.

Any gardener can tell you, that unlimited (and exponential) growth is not possible. But economists still believe in it.

Some (very soon) day, all the resources of this planet will be wasted -- and humanity will have destroyed itself -- just because of economic theories and to make billionaires from millionaires.

[avz]

Growth is needed to lift people out of poverty, create jobs and opportunities and support wider range of social projects from infrastructure to space exploration.

The burden we're putting on the resources of this planet is indeed very high and we must work to reduce it. However, GDP growth with shrinking burden on the environment is achievable by generating more value on a smaller environmental footprint (see my other comment, in short: we can increase GDP by growing the relative aggregate value of services, software and products made of recycled materials).

[PythonicAlpha]

That is just capitalistic propaganda that now runs the last decades over the world.

But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.

Today is the situation, that new jobs in underdeveloped countries are at the existence minimum of that country or below -- meaning, those people work their ass of, just to survive and make the big bosses richer. And additionally, the environments of the countries are polluted, resources are depleted ...

All in the name of god money.

[briandh]

> But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.

According to the world bank, the number of people in poverty worldwide declined from about 1.9 billion in 1990 to about 1.2 billion in 2010. That is despite an increase in surveyed population of about 1.4 billion over the same period. ( http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1,0 )

Now, it is possible that economic growth over that period was so enormous that only 1% of it (or less, considering that there are more people in the world besides the very destitute, millionaires, and billionaires) was sufficient for that amazing reduction in poverty.

But it seems unlikely, so I would appreciate a source for the assertion "The 'growth' of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires."

[PythonicAlpha]

I don't know, where you live. But I guess, that you live in a country, where critics of the capitalistic system does not appear in the media.

I don't care, what the world bank says. It is statistics. For example: How do they define "poverty"? By manipulating the definitions, I can prove anything to you.

It is a fact (and in my country, you can see it in the media), that in the developed countries, the rich got far much richer than the other people got.

That maybe some people in lower developed countries are better of now (by the statistics), might be, but their income is so low, that they do not really count against the growth in income in the other countries.

Please, don't tell me about the world bank. I don't trust organisations, that are installed for one main reason: To sell capitalism to the world.

The numbers from independent researchers are different. Read the book from Piketty: http://www.amazon.de/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Pik...

Of course, if you read the right (right-wing) media, they will try to discredit it, but I did not yet read any plausible critic -- only wild tries to protect capitalism from any thinking.