Does a growing economy mean the economy is becoming less efficient?
It's a kook movie made by folks who combine conspiracy quackery with repackaged socialism. If you're into socialist theory, read Marx or some other intellectual socialist. That said, growth and efficiency are not the same thing. If I'm running a lemonade stand, I can grow by hiring more people at $X/hr or increase efficiency by purchasing an electric juicer and hiring fewer people. Growth and efficiency can occur independently of each other.  For instance, if an economy consists of one inefficient business and then a second more efficient business opens to compete agains the first the overall efficiency increases while the economy grows. New industries tend to be inefficient at the beginning (since initiation is more important than optimisation) and then become more efficient over time.  Agriculture is an amazingly efficient business if you consider how many people now produce the amount of food we consume in comparison to only 100 years ago. Plus, efficiency is not only about producing extra widgets.  You could produce the same number of widgets for lower cost.  Outsourcing to China (taking advantage of their lower cost of production) increases the efficiency of the US economy, but also increases the efficiency of the Chinese economy (since extra work is created producing more things).  Lower costs in the US lead to increased investment in other production.  Increased production in China leads to the rising wages there. Growth can be achieved in both places for very different reasons. So, no, growth doesn't have to come about through less efficiency. A growing economy should become more efficient because of increased opportunity for division of labor: specialization. External regulation or monetary policy external to the free market can cause parts of the economy to grow in response to said regulations.  This creates inefficiencies that are wrung out of the economy after the policies reverse.  A couple of examples: Tinkering with the economy causes the inefficiencies.
"Sorry, i always use my phone when using reddit and i'm also not a native speaker. Basically what i tried to say is;  The reason the whole world using this economic system is because when people divide their work force and everyone specializes on one thing they are much better at it, gain more experience, become more efficient and basically it is just more productive.   Thats why everyone has a job.  But jobs has few downsides, most prominent one being making all these repetitive tasks, one can lose their purpose. This is the situation for the poor community. People who do not earn a lot of money and doesn't have a good statue can be depressed by going to same place everyday, doing the same thing for 40-50 years,  for....???The reason is, everyone is doing repetitive tasks, even if it is something you love (personally i would hate my hobbies if i had to do them everyday not for enjoyment but for money) but some are being rewarded much more.   My goal of telling all these is, this is not a perfect economic system but it is the most efficient one today. People need motivation if they are going to do the same thing all the time. The motivation could be different than money and statue but it is much easier to convince the masses these are important so the machine could work.  Only a fool with no regard to history would tell this is the best economic system and it will never change since world is always changing, 5 years ago top10 companies were banks and investment companies now they are tech/internet. My belief is that for now the system is structured and will stay the same until; •War ,which changes the economy. War economy needs other stuff compared to what we are producing normally. Motivation also changes in these times, it's not money anymore but for ""your countries sake"" and ""pride"". •Different political system which is unusual to most since it is the economic change in classes which makes the political system to change." "I'm surprised people don't bring this up more often....if you add together, not just our sovereign debt, but public and private debt, plus our contingent liabilities, meaning FHA, student loans, fannie mae, freddie mac, AIG, etc.  that totals over $100 TRILLION dollars, more than we could ever pay back, meaning literally there is no amount of growth and taxes that could ever pay this money back. (cite my sources do a google search of James Rickards Hopkins lecture it's in the first few minutes)  The reason you need to add all that together is because the economy can't grow if nobody has any money for investment, etc. (there isn't much home equity left after the housing crisis, retirement plans aren't holding as much, etc.) there wouldn't be an easy way to grow this economy, that's why we have ""currency wars"" competitive devaluations....to me we're already over the cliff I don't see us heading back, but I'm not saying that means we're going to collapse, just we'll need to go back to some sort of standard where our currency is backed by something (i.e. commodities or gold or something) and there are going to be A LOT of losses in the near term....meaning I want OUT of dollars....  combined with our lazy/entitled generation (don't tell me creating some website where you can order artistic candy on a stick is going to save our economy...we need to produce and innovate again to lower our trade deficit and so people actually bring their capital here), and dwindling resources I'd say it's already game over, the pieces just need to move into place" I have lived in communal houses. Most people don't want roommates. Especially if that means having several kids.  I feel like your arguments are practical, I suppose, but not realistic. If I had 3 kids right now, if anything I would probably be earning less money because my flexibility would be much less. I couldn't pursue an education to earn more money because I would still have bills to pay for my kids. My parents are poor, and they live in an area that my job options would be about 3, and none would pay much more than minimum wage. I am 26, but I have known plenty of 19 year old single moms who just aren't able to get a job that pays well enough to support them, and again, they have few options to develop new skills. I guess you can say it is their fault, but we can hardly say that subway shouldn't have to pay them overtime or what is really less than a living wage. Economists and reality have shown us time and time again that more wages overall means a healthier economy. Every state that has raised wages in the past few years is better off because of it. Every state that has done so has seen their economy grow, and joblessness go down. "I'm going to put this very, very simply.  **The banking system does create money through leveraging and the money multiplier**, this is absolutely true.  The current theory is that this is how the economy is expanded because of the basic premise that an economy can only grow with ample amounts of **Land, Labor, and Capital**, and it is assumed that the money multiplier allows the development and purchase of all of these things that have the **net effect of growing the economy beyond the level of debt built up as part of the process of wealth creation.**  I have no problem with the above in principle, the problem comes when the cycle of debt is built up recklessly and irresponsibly with little, if any, regulation.  That leads to a system in which debt and interest buildup faster than wealth is created.  I also have issues with who ends up holding a ""piece of the pie"", as it is called, but that's a separate issue entirely.  **The Fed's job is to stop the economy from collapsing overnight due to fluctuations in the price of money.**  It would be no different if money was backed by gold, and in fact part of the reason why we abandoned that notion as laid out at Bretton Woods was because of how **Gold was being sold as a commodity thus affecting the price of money the way speculation on fiat currency occurred**, due in part to Charles De Gaul being an asshole.  In today's world where **arbitrage** happens almost instantaneously and markets shift rapidly there is **danger** in not having a Central Bank that can regulate the price of currency to prevent disastrous inflation or economy shattering unemployment.  Every nation in the world has one because they are necessary in the context of the current economy.  **Banking regulation** is a multi-tiered problem that involves regulatory capture, Congressional payoffs, a closed circle in terms of who is qualified to even run such institutions, and numerous other problems, but **this is not unique to the banking industry, every regulatory body in existence suffers from the same problem.**  At the moment **the Chairman of the Fed is an appointed position that exists so that key economic decisions will be isolated from the political pressure that elections result in, avoiding hastily thrown together and shoddy economic policy based solely upon politics.**  The independence of Chairmen like Greenspan is questionable, but in theory it's supposed to prevent kneejerk decision making.  **In short:** What I just explained is what everyone else here already knows.  Welcome to the party." "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/jpms-jamie-dimon-blows-up-at-washington-on-earnings-call.html) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Because the American business sector is powerful and strong, and is going to grow regardless of - people wake up in the morning, they want to feed their kids, they want to buy a home, they want to do things, the same with American businesses - what I&amp;#039;m saying is it would be much stronger growth had we made intelligent decisions and were there not gridlock.  &gt; It&amp;#039;s amazing to me that every single one of those countries understands that practical policies to promote business and growth is good for the average citizens of those countries, for jobs and wages, and that somehow this great American free enterprise system, we no longer get it.  &gt; It&amp;#039;s almost an embarrassment being an American citizen traveling around the world and listening to the stupid s-- we have to deal with in this country.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6oda6k/jamie_dimon_blows_up_at_dcs_dysfunction_says_hes/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~171064 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **American**^#1 **country**^#2 **growth**^#3 **grow**^#4 **business**^#5" I don't understand your question. What the article is talking about is a bit more than circulating money indiscriminately. It is saying that by circulating more of it to rich and less to the poor will result in less growth overall, which I think we can all agree is a bad thing. It also increases productivity.   This is also what happened to the US manufacturing base. With the improvements in technology, they were able to automate things to increase productivity, increase quality of goods and focus on high tech/complicated goods that require a skilled labor force.   So even though the US manufacturing base over the last 30 years has lost jobs, the US is still a powerhouse when it comes to manufacturing. I think it is yes. Although the fed will try and control it. Inflation will be good for the economy as long as it doesnt happen too fast.  Basically they need to balance keeping peoples assets from plummeting in value and having peoples wages stay at pace with growth and rising costs