Almost any argument that relies on GDP numbers to back up its claim is specious at best.
For example, you could have a tornado destroy a town and the disaster recovery spending would increase GDP. You could build a teleportation device that puts all delivery drivers out of work. GDP would decrease but there would be an overall increase in wealth and quality of life.
Thinking about economics through the lens of GDP is just the wrong way to think about the economy.
Yep. Heart attacks, perpetual 'diabetes treatment', borrowing a million (or a trillion) dollars you can't pay back and spending it, promising unrealistic pension benefits, and depleting natural resources (wood, water, energy, overfishing, selling your seed corn), fighting losing wars (is there ever a winner?), paying other people to raise your kids, all grow "gee-dee-pee'.
Additionally, the first GDP chart conflicts with what it's reporting: Title "United States GDP Growth Rate", Subtitle "Percent change in Gross Domestic Product". Additionally, percent change relative to what?
For example, you could have a tornado destroy a town and the disaster recovery spending would increase GDP. You could build a teleportation device that puts all delivery drivers out of work. GDP would decrease but there would be an overall increase in wealth and quality of life.
Thinking about economics through the lens of GDP is just the wrong way to think about the economy.
Here's a great Planet Money podcast on the invention of "The Economy" and on GDP: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/02/28/283477546/the-inve...