Higher Gross Domestic Product does not necessary mean higher social welfare. Isn't true?why?
457291
because the government can choose to spend the added income on other things like national defense, intelligence activities, or war, instead of on better social welfare.
932748
The site below has some interesting facts.  The developed world set a target of 0.7% of its gross national income to be given to the poor nations.  Almost every nation came up short.  Except for Luxembourg and the Scandinavian nations who are always good. We give alot in gross dollars but as a proportion of our income we are cheapskates.  Italy beats us.  Tiny little Belgium beats us.  Belgium!  What have they got to give away anyway?  Chocolate?
17525
The gross domestic product is a measure of everything that is produced. If it has grown, it indicates there was economic growth, that promotes more investments creating a virtuous circle.
398434
That isn't true. The poor don't get poorer, it is simply that the rich get richer at a faster rate than the poor as they have capital to invest.
459344
False. If this was how GDP was calculated, 2 firms could infinitely trade products, spending the money they make to buy their products back, and be increasing the GDP. Doesn't matter if you don't understand that, but just remember, FALSE
286901
Well increased efficency results in more product and less work.  This mean more money and available resources for the civilization which also mean since the people dont have to worry as much about food they can focus on other advances in society like science and math etc...
907750
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
235399
GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product, which is the total value of all the goods and services of a country.  GDP per capita is simply the GDP of a country divided by its population.  Generally, the higher the GDP, the "richer" the country.  However, a country with a large population may simply be able to produce more than a smaller country and large outliers can skew the per capita measures, meaning you need more information to really understand what these numbers mean.
253489
GDP is the total value of goods and services produced by a nation.
181306
Real GDP per capita is a better measure. That is GDP adjusted for price changes and divided by the population. There are still problems with this measure, however, as it does not tell you anything about the distribution of income. The GINI index can be used for this. Also GDP does not take into account such things as the underground economy, illicit activity, leisure, pollution, hours worked, congestion etc.\n\nHaving said this, real GDP per capita is the best measure we have.
670523
"Propagandists, from Shakespeare to Jacqueline Susann, have been telling the unrich that money doesn’t buy happiness. The unrich, not being immune to spasms of common sense, sometimes wonder about this." -- Anthony Haden-Guest \n\nPsychology has shown that richer people generally rank the overall quality of their lives more favorably than poorer people do. At the same time, their actual happiness seems to be motivated less by their ability to buy more than by being able to keep up with those with comparable resources in their own age group (five years older or younger), according to a new study.
266950
I think you have misquoted or misunderstood that. GDP (gross domestic product) is a monetary value.  In the US, GDP is expressed in US dollars.  In Britain, Pound Sterling.  Or whatever country in their currency, which can be converted to your currency.  A percent of GDP though could be used in numerous ways.  For example.  Mexico's GDP is 13% of US GDP.  Or the manufacturing sector is 37% of GDP, meaning a certain part of the economy makes up a certain percentage of the whole.  By the way, those numbers are made up for example sake.  I don't know the real percentages.
670869
No, you will not have to repay those welfare benefits.
646463
No, but an increase in wages would increase the costs of many goods and services depending on how labor intensive they are. So that would offset the increase by a good portion. I personally think that increasing it based on personal preformance is a better adjustment to make.
1041997
You do have a point but to get money you must have a brain. You could have had that guy with money if you had used your brain. You can get free health care or family assistant health care if you use your brain. Don't stereotype middle age low income mothers we do have brains that can get us a SUGAR DADDY that can take care of our needs or we are motivated enough to get a better job to take care of the family. So money is not important it's what you use to get it.
860074
Seriously they don't need to spend the money. It would be better used for social programs. Feed the hungry, clothe the poor housing, etc.
1165796
More progressive taxes means that tax rates would be higher at higher income than they are now.  \n\nIn theory, whatever you tax you discourage.  Thus, a more progressive tax would reduce the economic incentive for individuals and businesses to earn more taxable income.  As a result, national personal income should grow more slowly and so would GDP.  \n\nIn practice, it gets more complex.  During the Clinton years in the nineties, Clinton made the U.S. income tax a lot more progressive by raising the upper brackets significantly.  But, the U.S. economy actually did really well.  This was due in part to Greenspan's monetary policy being reasonably accomodating.  Also, labor productivity rose rapidly.  All those factors contributed to increasing GDP. \n\nIf you compare the U.S. vs Europe, the U.S. has a much less progressive tax structure.  And, the U.S. economy has steadily grown much faster than Europe's.  So, on an international standard you can easily argue that a less progressive tax structure contributes to a faster economic growth and vice versa.  \n\nDomestically, as mentioned the case is complex with the Clinton years showing strong performance despite an increase in the progressivity of the tax structure. \n\nIn economics there are so many different levers than can counteract each other that it is often difficult to forecast with much precision what will be the impact of a given fiscal policy (change in tax structure.  That's why economics is called the dismal science.  Does not mean it is not fascinating stuff.  It clearly is.