I agree but there's a reason why the term "ceteris paribus" is used in economics & other sciences. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that population-increase/decrease can have a significant impact on national GDP, which is why I don't like the obsession with the national GDP growth to underline how well a nation is doing because I'd rather want us to grow on the basis of innovation & technology rather than largely on the basis of population-growth. So, when we set these targets for national GDP growth, we must consider that as the population-growth in India slows (I HOPE SO), it MIGHT have a negative impact on GDP, & we should be fine with that.
If a country's national GDP is somewhat stagnant, & yet, if the per capita GDP (PPP) is going up, then is that such a terrible thing for its people? What do you think?
If a country's national GDP is somewhat stagnant, & yet, if the per capita GDP (PPP) is going up, then is that such a terrible thing for its people? What do you think?
yes you are right.. In my layman language, if new members are added to my family, naturally we consume more and contribute to increase in GDP. But at the same time if my income levels are not increasing proportionally, naturally I wont be able to save. So that's not real economic development.
We need to increase per capita income of individual and per capita income of family by having more jobs. And this increasing income levels will push spending and GDP grows naturally even if population is controlled.
But how do we increase per capita levels and How do we create jobs is the Question ??