Yes, it is if we mean growth: 1; bad externalities: 0, its implication in the context of Fioramonti's article and my discussion. Read my comments esp, in a closed system - your article mentions world GDP - growth increases at the expense of others, the definition of zero-sum. Astral Foods' Chris Schutte about the crisis in the chicken industry: 'You're creating jobs in the EU and destroying jobs here.' Or clothing, steel, etc where local industries can't compete. Or natural environment irrevocably lost and communities displaced to deforestation, mining, agriculture or development. Or the Asian sweatshop worker who makes designer items for pennies on the dollar that sells for hundreds in the home market he could never afford. Not zero-sum? Ivo, you're looking at growth in the micro sense and not MACRO as in 'macroeconomics'. You haven't understood Fioramonti. 

I don't agree growth is all bad, if F meant that at all. But I accept HOW it's achieved often has negative consequences.