undefined | Better HN

0 pointsalphaalpha1018y ago0 comments

Lol. I'm not anti-immigration, don't be so defensive, and I'm also not talking about the US. Stop bringing up the US. This is a thread about Japan and I'm talking about New Zealand.

The New Zealand government really wants people to believe that we're experiencing 'economic growth'. But while they might be technically right, they're effectively wrong. Economic growth that is so much entirely from immigration that we're effectively in per-capita-GDP recession is not real, useful, good growth.

0 comments

matt40778y ago

Lol yourself, and don't be so wrong.

Here's per-capita GDP growth in New Zealand, showing that there is real growth after normalising for changes in population: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...

flukus8y ago

Here is the GDP per capita growth: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&... .

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_&...

matt40778y ago

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."

1 more reply

alphaalpha101OP8y ago

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.

matt40778y ago

Growth in 2016 was 4%, not 1% and not -1%: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...

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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

matt40778y ago

Lol yourself, and don't be so wrong.

Here's per-capita GDP growth in New Zealand, showing that there is real growth after normalising for changes in population: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...

flukus8y ago

Here is the GDP per capita growth: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&... .

When you shave ~1% off to account for immigration, then shave off another ~1% for inflation and you can see the hidden recessions.

matt40778y ago

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."

1 more reply

alphaalpha101OP8y ago

1% growth is completely irrelevant. That's what I said: effectively in recession. The difference between 1% growth and 1% shrink is nothing.

People can't spend and drive the economy when they're dirt poor.

matt40778y ago

Growth in 2016 was 4%, not 1% and not -1%: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...

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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse