Growth theory did not begin with my articles of 1956 and 1957, and it certainly did not end there. Maybe it began with 'The Wealth of Nations'; and probably even Adam Smith had predecessors.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
During the two centuries since the publication of 'The Wealth of Nations,' the main activity of economists, it seems to me, has been to fill the gaps in Adam Smith's system, to correct his errors and to make his analysis vastly more exact.
Sometimes, we use the term 'growth' as a number and sometimes as an abstraction, but the underlying implication is always that, if the country grows at a certain rate, at the end there will be a pot of gold for everyone.
If you ask an economist what's driven economic growth, it's been major advances in things that mattered - the mechanization of farming, mass manufacturing, things like that. The problem is, our society is not organized around doing that.
It's not enough to have economic growth. You have to distribute wealth throughout all of society.
People have been convinced that growth for growth's sake is a good thing.
If we look to the history of other nations, ancient or modern, we find no example of a growth so rapid, so gigantic, of a people so prosperous and happy.
Growth is a stupid goal. So, by the way, is no-growth.
The 1950s and 1960s had been a period of enormous growth, the highest in American history, maybe in economic history.
Growth is a panacea for many ills in society; not entirely, but many.
There is very strong historical data that suggests the way societies grow is by making large, long-term investments.
No opposing quotes found.