<p>Because according to utility theory: more is better- or at least not worse (nonsatiation- or free disposal).</p>

<p>Your question seems to actually be: why is growth good? </p>

<p>Firstly, It's axiomatic. Utility theory very formally assumes the law of nonsatiation/free disposal.  Things that result in the death of the cosmos are bad not because we are dead, but because we cannot consume and improve our happiness afterwards. Evidince: We observe that consumption improves happiness.</p>

<p>Second, in cases of limited resources, we have situations where optional growth paths are negative-But this is only because it allows for increased overall consumption. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-06T21:55:26.687Z
Sure, but growth could be linear and things would still get better.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-06T22:00:33.170Z
That's a different question- OP asks why we want growth, but the answer is still similar: exponential growth outpaces linear growth eventually.
RegressForward
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-06T22:03:42.123Z
I did include the word exponential.  Either way, could you expand on your answer?  If I have a shelter, food, transportation, consumption goods, etc., what evidence is there that *more is better*, and better according to what criteria?  Do 3 TVs make happier than 1 TV?
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-06T22:27:46.457Z
There are examples of goods that only help in fixed amounts, but the economy is not composed entirely of those goods. It also includes beer, and more beer is better.
RegressForward
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-06T22:34:42.413Z
Do people drink beer endlessly if their beer drinking is not limited by money?  I don't think that's true either.  In fact, I rather have the impression alcoholism is *negatively* correlated with wealth...
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-06T22:41:43.590Z
It's a joke. All else being equal, additional consumption of is better, or at least not worse. If a rational person wouldn't benefit form further consumption, they can dispose of it instead if drinking.
RegressForward
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-06T22:45:58.337Z
I am not convinced that all else being equal, additional consumption is better.  I can see that it is probably not worse, but the difference between the two is important in this case.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-06T21:50:52.667Z
2015-04-06T22:21:26.270Z
2015-04-06T22:21:26.270Z
RegressForward
<p>One of the most widely published measures of the economy is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth" rel="nofollow noreferrer">economic growth</a> as a % of the GDP; i.e. the degree to which an economy <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth" rel="nofollow noreferrer">grows exponentially</a>.  In my understanding, when the rate of economic growth is declining or close to 0%, this is considered undesirable and acts are undertaken to avert <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession" rel="nofollow noreferrer">recession</a>.</p>

<p>In a situation where population is not growing, why do we want the economy to grow?  In other words, is there something inherently wrong with a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_economy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">steady state economy</a>?</p>

<p>See also: <em><a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/460/332">Why is economic growth measured exponentially rather than linearly?</a></em></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-12-04T20:51:00.673Z
Instead of asking two questions in one post, I would recommend splitting this question into two posts (one for each part). That way, (1) you will get more specific answers, (2) more people will provide answers (because they don't have to have an answer for both parts of your question), and (3) it allows for others on this site to more easily find a specific answer for their question (rather than sift through answers for their question and the other question).
Mathematician
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-12-04T20:57:52.667Z
In mainstream economics, people care about levels, not growth.  (That is, they care only about the present value of lifetime utility.)  I'm sure there are non-mainstream models in which people care about growth either a) by direct assumption or b) as a consequence of some other assumption.  If you're asking for a survey of all the economic literature in which growth rates enter the utility function, I think this question is too broad.  If you're asking why growth matters in some specific model, it would be good to ask an appropriately specific question.
Steven Landsburg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-12-04T21:06:10.303Z
@Mathematician Done (http://economics.stackexchange.com/q/460/332)
gerrit
<economic-growth>
Are there fundamental reasons why (exponential) economic growth is highly desirable?
gerrit
# Are there fundamental reasons why (exponential) economic growth is highly desirable?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-12-04)

One of the most widely published measures of the economy is the [economic growth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth) as a % of the GDP; i.e. the degree to which an economy [grows exponentially](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth). In my understanding, when the rate of economic growth is declining or close to 0%, this is considered undesirable and acts are undertaken to avert [recession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession).

In a situation where population is not growing, why do we want the economy to grow? In other words, is there something inherently wrong with a [steady state economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_economy)?

See also: *[Why is economic growth measured exponentially rather than linearly?](https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/460/332)*

**Tags:** economic-growth
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Instead of asking two questions in one post, I would recommend splitting this question into two posts (one for each part). That way, (1) you will get more specific answers, (2) more people will provide answers (because they don't have to have an answer for both parts of your question), and (3) it allows for others on this site to more easily find a specific answer for their question (rather than sift through answers for their question and the other question).  
> **username_2**: In mainstream economics, people care about levels, not growth.  (That is, they care only about the present value of lifetime utility.)  I'm sure there are non-mainstream models in which people care about growth either a) by direct assumption or b) as a consequence of some other assumption.  If you're asking for a survey of all the economic literature in which growth rates enter the utility function, I think this question is too broad.  If you're asking why growth matters in some specific model, it would be good to ask an appropriately specific question.  
> **username_0**: @Mathematician Done (http://economics.stackexchange.com/q/460/332)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-04-06. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

Because according to utility theory: more is better- or at least not worse (nonsatiation- or free disposal).

Your question seems to actually be: why is growth good?

Firstly, It's axiomatic. Utility theory very formally assumes the law of nonsatiation/free disposal. Things that result in the death of the cosmos are bad not because we are dead, but because we cannot consume and improve our happiness afterwards. Evidince: We observe that consumption improves happiness.

Second, in cases of limited resources, we have situations where optional growth paths are negative-But this is only because it allows for increased overall consumption.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Sure, but growth could be linear and things would still get better.  
> **username_3**: That's a different question- OP asks why we want growth, but the answer is still similar: exponential growth outpaces linear growth eventually.  
> **username_0**: I did include the word exponential.  Either way, could you expand on your answer?  If I have a shelter, food, transportation, consumption goods, etc., what evidence is there that *more is better*, and better according to what criteria?  Do 3 TVs make happier than 1 TV?  
> **username_3**: There are examples of goods that only help in fixed amounts, but the economy is not composed entirely of those goods. It also includes beer, and more beer is better.  
> **username_0**: Do people drink beer endlessly if their beer drinking is not limited by money?  I don't think that's true either.  In fact, I rather have the impression alcoholism is *negatively* correlated with wealth...  
> **username_3**: It's a joke. All else being equal, additional consumption of is better, or at least not worse. If a rational person wouldn't benefit form further consumption, they can dispose of it instead if drinking.  
> **username_0**: I am not convinced that all else being equal, additional consumption is better.  I can see that it is probably not worse, but the difference between the two is important in this case.  

---

