I'm not an economist but it seems like economies only grow when conditions create a vacuum to expand into. Throughout history these have been territorial expansion (colonization, the Age of Discovery, American settlers) with the associated exploitation of virgin resources and creation of new trade networks (the Spice Road, trade between the Old and New worlds) the destruction or decline of a dominant power(s) (such as post-WW2 America, now China taking over manufacturing), or the discovery of a new technology that creates a new industry with many satellite industries (steam power, electricity, computers). Absent any of these wages stagnate, capital is limited in availability, and wealth inevitably concentrates into the hands of a few. When Austrian economists said that the economy isn't a zero sum game, that's only correct given the existence of a vacuum, and only temporarily (relative to the lifespan of most civilizations).

If this is true then the only industry I really see growing in the US is healthcare due to the influx of old fogies we're going to get. WW3 or at least the end of the rules-based order also seems inevitable by this logic unless some science fiction technology that makes industrializing space feasible for a low cost magically appears

>>508048701 (OP)
Economies only grow when there’s a bottleneck and it’s up to that society to get past the bottleneck: right now the bottleneck is Jews and old technologies and Jews trying to grift up prices of old technologies that should be cheap. AI isn’t real btw

>>508048701 (OP)
how do new technologies require a "vacuum" (whatever that means)? technology improves all the time.
sometimes faster, sometimes slower but we haven't had global technological decline since the Romans maybe.
it doesn't need to be completely new industry. ever productivity gain means economic growth.

>>508048998
>Economies only grow when there’s a bottleneck and it’s up to that society to get past the bottleneck

That doesn't seem right, economies only grow meaningfully when the barriers to expansion are essentially nonexistent. For example the settling of the American frontier was basically open to anyone willing to take the risk of pioneering

>>508049570
So why have wages stagnated and economies slowed? Also technology has not advanced nearly as much in the past 20 years as it did in the 50 years before that. The personal computer was basically revolutionary and nothing has rivalled it since, it's just been improved iterations of the same thing

>>508050063
because they don’t know how to keep line going up without their labor force shouldering the burden of Better Profit Margins

>>508048701 (OP)
The vacuum is just rich people bro

>>508048701 (OP)
growth is cancer
there is nothing but destruction, except for us rares who sit down and stop

>>508048701 (OP)

Jew here, economic growth is a scam. Everybody with a brain knows that high-IQ people live one way and low-IQ people live a different way. You can't just import a bunch of people and expect everyone's life to improve.

>>508048701 (OP)
The exploitation of virgin resources in this instance would be brown third worlders….so yeah I guess you’re right

Economists like most lumpenproles will deliberately lie to try and get subsidies.

The basics of economics have never changed they just don't give a fuck about them.

>>508048701 (OP)
We have a lot more goods and services than prior generations, so except houses, most of the world is wealthier.