That's assuming otherwise zero growth, or other nations standing still or stuff like that.
Also, 10 years of constant 5% growth is a lot to ask for in general. Maybe not impossible, but really hard. Now, think that you need to have 5% growth in the first year after the earthquake, in a devastated nation. Infrastructure destroyed, people killed. Lots.
It sounds pretty near to impossible.
These numbers have some meaning you know. It's easy to type "5% growth". Much, much harder to actually achieve it.
How is the dead part of the population being replaced in this scenario? Who is achieving this growth if the population is decimated?
I'm not sure about any of these questions, I am just pointing out how wrong it is to suggest that a -60% economic setback is historically fatal. The economy of Myanmar increased 8-fold in the last 30 years.
Also, 10 years of constant 5% growth is a lot to ask for in general. Maybe not impossible, but really hard. Now, think that you need to have 5% growth in the first year after the earthquake, in a devastated nation. Infrastructure destroyed, people killed. Lots.
It sounds pretty near to impossible.
These numbers have some meaning you know. It's easy to type "5% growth". Much, much harder to actually achieve it.
How is the dead part of the population being replaced in this scenario? Who is achieving this growth if the population is decimated?