In recent days, I have read a lot of books that have had the same question in mind as I have and that is “What is Growth Meaning?” For some, it may mean the stock market or housing prices. For other people, it might be the high cost of gas or electricity or food. Some might consider the aging of the population or perhaps a terrorist attack. To these people, what is growth meaning in economics?
First, let me give you some history of the term itself. It was first used in The Great Depression because it described the failure of an economic system to provide sufficient growth in the face of economic adversity. The word came from the French phrase quot sur la pluie and means “surplus income.” This was the first time it was used in an economic analysis. It was later on adopted by the United States, although it is not used much any longer in that country.
The more you dig into the analysis, the more you find out that it is actually very difficult to get a firm grip on what is growth in the economy. Without going too far back in history, it is probably safe to say that all of the great economic periods throughout human history have experienced what is known as a recession. The problem with economics is that no matter how long you look back at the past, the future is bound to happen. For this reason, most people focus so much on the economic outlook for the country in the short term.
However, economics is also a very complicated field. People can get very frustrated with their analysis if they don't understand this. When I first got involved with the field, I concentrated on macroeconomic analysis. At the time, this seemed like the way to go.
But as time has gone by and as my understanding of the subject has grown, I have come to realize that there are a lot of reasons why the short-term economic reports are always so gloomy. To begin with, I realized that all of the big economic reports are basically created the same way. They all use the same methodology. All economic reports try to calculate something, usually GDP, and they then compare that to some other kind of metrics. The problem is that no matter what those measurements are, whether it's GDP growth, unemployment rates, consumer confidence indicators, etc., they still all come up with essentially the same number.
Of course, it is possible for someone to create a very unique model for economic modeling, which can then be used to create very unique economic reports. However, there are no official guidelines out there to base your model on. It . . . . . . seems to me, at least, that it would make much more sense to focus on the macro level and just to make broad assumptions about any economy. With that said, I think that looking at the growth meaning in economics should be more about data and theory than anything else. After all, at the end of the day, we are interested in trying to make sense of the data we have.