And in the case of the US, I think most of the increase in value over time is due to population growth
Nope. If so, then we would expect real GPD per capita to be roughly constant, which has not been true. Since 1910, GDP per cap has risen from ~$6k to ~$40k (both in 2005 dollars). Meanwhile, population has only ~tripled, which is a smaller effect. Basically, you've forgotten to account for all of our manufacturing infrastructure and scientific advancement, which allow us to produce more for a given man-hour.
Good point.
The point of my statement there was to say that the growth in US GDP is probably not due to exploitation, but due to more healthy positive things. So I was not in any way trying to say that it was *just* due to population growth. However, you add an important and interesting correction... that growth of technology and infrastructure was twice as important as population growth.
I vaguely remember thinking of adding "and growth of technology and other things" after that last statement as I wrote it seemed tangential to the rest of what I was saying.
At any rate, after thinking about this more yesterday I am thinking of other ways in which the profits derived from "it takes money to make money" could be due in part to things other than exploitation, although I haven't quite worked that one out. I may due a followup post.
no subject
And in the case of the US, I think most of the increase in value over time is due to population growth
Nope. If so, then we would expect real GPD per capita to be roughly constant, which has not been true. Since 1910, GDP per cap has risen from ~$6k to ~$40k (both in 2005 dollars). Meanwhile, population has only ~tripled, which is a smaller effect. Basically, you've forgotten to account for all of our manufacturing infrastructure and scientific advancement, which allow us to produce more for a given man-hour.
Good point.
The point of my statement there was to say that the growth in US GDP is probably not due to exploitation, but due to more healthy positive things. So I was not in any way trying to say that it was *just* due to population growth. However, you add an important and interesting correction... that growth of technology and infrastructure was twice as important as population growth.
I vaguely remember thinking of adding "and growth of technology and other things" after that last statement as I wrote it seemed tangential to the rest of what I was saying.
At any rate, after thinking about this more yesterday I am thinking of other ways in which the profits derived from "it takes money to make money" could be due in part to things other than exploitation, although I haven't quite worked that one out. I may due a followup post.