Very condescending of you. It is a simplistic prism through which you and Scotty view complex issues.
It is not contradictory to recognise that this is a far more nuanced area than you appreciate. Economic growth is not the panacea for inequity. There comes a point in an advanced economy where further economic growth doesn't advance the position of the disadvantaged; their position is entrenched. What economic growth does at that point is increase the wealth and living standards of, in descending order, the wealthiest, the middle class and the aspirational middle class (who are already very comfortable).
Scotty will say that equality of opportunity is all that matters. However, not everyone is equally equipped to take advantage of the opportunities presented. We've had a great thread on mental illness but the sentiments expressed in that thread are inconsistent with telling everyone to get on with it and too bad if they don't take the opportunity presented to them. Mental illness isn't the only reason someone may not be able to make the most of an opportunity. There are a host of reasons.
Ultimately, whether someone is successful in life should be measured by how much they contribute to society not how much they contribute to GDP. Similarly, government shouldn't be measured only on the extent to which it has overseen economic growth.
Cutter, Economic growth benefits everyone in the economy. Yes, people with a lot of money will, as a proportion, make more money than someone with little money. That is obvious, but economic growth still provides more benefit to the so called "99%" than any
singular direct funding, Robin Hood type policy. It's not the be-all and end-all but it's damn important. Of course there are small groups of people who you say don't directly benefit, but indirectly they do. More money in the coffers, gives a government more flexibility in how they help people in the economy that need it the most.
The real question is how does a government creates economic growth, not whether it is beneficial...
This all stemmed from my statement that some policies that the Greens advocate are very detrimental to economic growth. That is a fact and no, it's not "a simplistic prism through which you and Scotty view complex issues."
There are also policies that the Greens advocate which provide different types of improvement to our society, hence I said; " A vote for the Greens for this reason seems fair enough. They have done some fantastic things for this country but their policies (if they were to get their way) would compromise the international competitiveness of many facets of our economy."
And then you go off on your high horse with this ridiculous statement, arrogantly trying to tell people how they should measure their own success; "Ultimately, whether someone is successful in life should be measured by how much they contribute to society not how much they contribute to GDP. Similarly, government shouldn't be measured only on the extent to which it has overseen economic growth."
Well mate, if some signficantly adds to our GDP they
significantly contribute to society, well done to them. But if they don't, and their best success is being a good dad, or a good footy coach, well that's great as well.
Get back on topic, I have never said economic growth is the only goal of the government, just that it should be one of a governments key goals...