On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > raghu, now -- >> I could, but thats not the point. Why not stick with the usage of >> "growth" that is implicit in the general discourse anyway instead of >> introducing redefinitions etc? > > it really doesn't answer the idea that "there are other meanings to > the word 'growth'."
No there aren't. To most economists and certainly to the media and the general public, the unqualified term "growth" means one thing and one thing only: GDP growth. To pretend otherwise seems a bit like denial to me. As Carrol says, the word belongs to the enemy. And it is not really worth fighting over. -raghu. -- "Really ?? What a coincidence, I'm shallow too!!" _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
