Ted's Take

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

the average person is better off because of advances in medicine and science ... not because the prosperity gap has increased ...

The average person is living longer because of economic growth (AKA economic efficiency). Once again, there's a trade-off between economic growth and economic efficiency. I'm saying the growth is why people are living longer. Medicine and science improved with the economy. The average person is better off because of this, not because of anything to do with equality.

polaris_x wrote:

i didn't really dodge your point ... you believe economic growth = economic efficiency ... that right there puts us at opposite viewpoints ... i'm just stating my belief as to why the gross inequalities in wealth are problematic ...

Ok. You're at opposite viewpoints with pretty much every econ 101 textbook then.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

The average person is living longer because of economic growth (AKA economic efficiency). Once again, there's a trade-off between economic growth and economic efficiency. I'm saying the growth is why people are living longer. Medicine and science improved with the economy. The average person is better off because of this, not because of anything to do with equality.

how can there be a trade off if they are the same thing? ... you want to believe that economic growth is responsible for people living longer!? ... so be it ... but i think you are mistaken ... advances in medicine are not completely driven by economics or capitalism ... in fact, sometimes they contradict each other ... like when pfizer puts out a drug that harms more than it cures ...

inlet13 wrote:

Ok. You're at opposite viewpoints with pretty much every econ 101 textbook then.

of course ... but where is the proof that these models work!? ... where does economic growth factor in sustainability or the social consequences of said growth? ... it doesn't ... it's purely based on some underlying faith that all other things will take care of itself ... sure, exploit all resources ... make as much money as possible ... don't worry about the fact that the resources don't all come back and that the water is poisoned or the air unbreathable ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

The average person is living longer because of economic growth (AKA economic efficiency). Once again, there's a trade-off between economic growth and economic efficiency. I'm saying the growth is why people are living longer. Medicine and science improved with the economy. The average person is better off because of this, not because of anything to do with equality.

how can there be a trade off if they are the same thing? ... you want to believe that economic growth is responsible for people living longer!? ... so be it ... but i think you are mistaken ... advances in medicine are not completely driven by economics or capitalism ... in fact, sometimes they contradict each other ... like when pfizer puts out a drug that harms more than it cures ...

inlet13 wrote:

Ok. You're at opposite viewpoints with pretty much every econ 101 textbook then.

of course ... but where is the proof that these models work!? ... where does economic growth factor in sustainability or the social consequences of said growth? ... it doesn't ... it's purely based on some underlying faith that all other things will take care of itself ... sure, exploit all resources ... make as much money as possible ... don't worry about the fact that the resources don't all come back and that the water is poisoned or the air unbreathable ...

You should read about a man named Thomas Malthus. You sound a lot like him. A lot of people thought he was right back when he lived 200+ years ago (even contributed to economics getting the name the dismal science)... he predicted that economic growth was not necessarily good because it destroys scare resources. Read more about him. Look him up. He was, in fact, 100% wrong. He never took into account technology. You aren't either.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

Some of you people are really ridiculous.

MERDE! Not I, Monsieur!!

SundaySilence

WaveCameCrashin wrote:

The real rift in philosophy though is do you want the Government to create jobs and stimulate the economy or do you want America’s small business to be the engine of growth?

Both

inlet13 wrote:

Some of you people are really ridiculous. Re-read. I was pointing out the common misconception (especially on here) of claiming that inequality is bad. It's not bad, in fact it can be very, very, very good. My example, the past 200 years of global growth PROVE that. Inequality increased, yet people on a whole are better off.

Your example, the history of inequality, demonstrates that inequality in the US had not been at the 2007 level since 1928. Then after the great depression inequality was much lower (more equal) and remained that way for 30 years with a vibrant middle class that led the most sustained 30 years of economic growth in your 200 years.

inlet13 wrote:

But, i can't wait to hear you explain how centuries of theory and empirics saying there's a trade-off between the two is wrong. And all of the sudden equality is efficient... Please explain.

Since the New Deal every successful economy has had New Deal economics to help sustain a strong middle class which has created demand. The current shrinking middle class has led to decreased demand to support continued economic growth.

And here is some empirics:
"In fact equality appears to be an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining growth. The difference between countries that can sustain rapid growth for many years or even decades and the many others that see growth spurts fade quickly may be the level of inequality. Countries may find that improving equality may also improve efficiency, understood as more sustainable long-run growth."

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fan ... 9/Berg.htm

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

You should read about a man named Thomas Malthus. You sound a lot like him. A lot of people thought he was right back when he lived 200+ years ago (even contributed to economics getting the name the dismal science)... he predicted that economic growth was not necessarily good because it destroys scare resources. Read more about him. Look him up. He was, in fact, 100% wrong. He never took into account technology. You aren't either.

dude ... resources all over the world have been depleted and exploited ... global warming is gonna cost canada alone $5 billion a year by 2020 ... but right, you don't believe in global warming ... :roll: ...

how can you say he is 100% wrong when he is has to be at least partially right based on our current state!?? ...just take the microcosm of the fisheries industry ... it's been decimated because of overfishing and pollution ... how was that a good thing?

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

You should read about a man named Thomas Malthus. You sound a lot like him. A lot of people thought he was right back when he lived 200+ years ago (even contributed to economics getting the name the dismal science)... he predicted that economic growth was not necessarily good because it destroys scare resources. Read more about him. Look him up. He was, in fact, 100% wrong. He never took into account technology. You aren't either.

dude ... resources all over the world have been depleted and exploited ... global warming is gonna cost canada alone $5 billion a year by 2020 ... but right, you don't believe in global warming ... :roll: ...

how can you say he is 100% wrong when he is has to be at least partially right based on our current state!?? ...just take the microcosm of the fisheries industry ... it's been decimated because of overfishing and pollution ... how was that a good thing?

Dude, you're really not trying to "get it".

Just like they do now, when Malthus was alive, people feared depletion of food resources (now it may be other types, but the story remains the same). There was basically a set supply of food in Malthus' day. When economic growth occurred, populations expanded and therefore, that stable set of food was not going to be enough.... hence, the "dismal science" moniker. The problem: He didn't see the industrial revolution coming. He didn't see the technological advancement that would come and make farming easier by allowing farmers to get more from less. He didn't get it. Neither do you.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

Dude, you're really not trying to "get it".

Just like they do now, when Malthus was alive, people feared depletion of food resources (now it may be other types, but the story remains the same). There was basically a set supply of food in Malthus' day. When economic growth occurred, populations expanded and therefore, that stable set of food was not going to be enough.... hence, the "dismal science" moniker. The problem: He didn't see the industrial revolution coming. He didn't see the technological advancement that would come and make farming easier by allowing farmers to get more from less. He didn't get it. Neither do you.

ok - so, you ignored my example of the fisheries ... i will work with yours ... the industrialized food system is a failure ... sure, initial yields were far greater but over time those yields have dropped and the consequences of that food system have left us with shortages in many parts of the world and global problems such as global warming (again, you don't believe nor understand the science) ... i find it sad that you can be so patronizing on this topic but yet refuse to look at the picture beyond your view of economic growth is good at all costs ...

you haven't even once tried to account for the sustainability factor ... but i'm the one who doesn't get it ... granted i didn't study economics nor am i remotely close to being an expert on the matter ... i do feel like i have the ability to think critically and your constant referrals to economic theory is a joke simply because it should be obvious to anyone that things don't work in isolation ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Dude, you're really not trying to "get it".

Just like they do now, when Malthus was alive, people feared depletion of food resources (now it may be other types, but the story remains the same). There was basically a set supply of food in Malthus' day. When economic growth occurred, populations expanded and therefore, that stable set of food was not going to be enough.... hence, the "dismal science" moniker. The problem: He didn't see the industrial revolution coming. He didn't see the technological advancement that would come and make farming easier by allowing farmers to get more from less. He didn't get it. Neither do you.

ok - so, you ignored my example of the fisheries ... i will work with yours ... the industrialized food system is a failure ... sure, initial yields were far greater but over time those yields have dropped and the consequences of that food system have left us with shortages in many parts of the world and global problems such as global warming (again, you don't believe nor understand the science) ... i find it sad that you can be so patronizing on this topic but yet refuse to look at the picture beyond your view of economic growth is good at all costs ...

you haven't even once tried to account for the sustainability factor ... but i'm the one who doesn't get it ... granted i didn't study economics nor am i remotely close to being an expert on the matter ... i do feel like i have the ability to think critically and your constant referrals to economic theory is a joke simply because it should be obvious to anyone that things don't work in isolation ...

I don't think the industrialized food system is good at all. There's tons of room for improvement. What I am saying is we're feeding a lot more people now and people are living longer. Could it be even better? Absolutely.

Almost every post you have always comes back to global warming. We're talking about an economic issue and you're trying to bait the discussion into global warming. I don't care to discuss that issue in this thread. But since you keep pushing I'll say, I am not at all sold on it. But, if it is occurring, I think it's no where near as serious an issue as some, such as yourself, claim. Also, if it is occurring, I believe it's reversible and technology will get us there when it's time. Basically, I'm not worried about it. I also understand that there's reason for leftist to fuel the Global Warming debate to advance socialist-style policies. Basically, it's in their interest to make it into a bigger issue than it is. I'm more worried about pollution itself than global warming because that really effects us all and it's easy to see that. There are my comments on the subject, I'm not being baited further into a discussion on that, because the truth is it's.... about 99th in the list of top 100 world events right now to me. Basically, it's the lowest of the low in terms of priorities to discuss.

I have discussed the sustainability factor, you just haven't listened. I mentioned that you don't know what's going to happen in 10 years. Neither do I. You can't predict "inventions". You can't predict technology.

In my opinion, anyone who claims economic theory is a joke, is a joke themselves.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

I don't think the industrialized food system is good at all. There's tons of room for improvement. What I am saying is we're feeding a lot more people now and people are living longer. Could it be even better? Absolutely.

Almost every post you have always comes back to global warming. We're talking about an economic issue and you're trying to bait the discussion into global warming. I don't care to discuss that issue in this thread. But since you keep pushing I'll say, I am not at all sold on it. But, if it is occurring, I think it's no where near as serious an issue as some, such as yourself, claim. Also, if it is occurring, I believe it's reversible and technology will get us there when it's time. Basically, I'm not worried about it. I also understand that there's reason for leftist to fuel the Global Warming debate to advance socialist-style policies. Basically, it's in their interest to make it into a bigger issue than it is. I'm more worried about pollution itself than global warming because that really effects us all and it's easy to see that. There are my comments on the subject, I'm not being baited further into a discussion on that, because the truth is it's.... about 99th in the list of top 100 world events right now to me. Basically, it's the lowest of the low in terms of priorities to discuss.

I have discussed the sustainability factor, you just haven't listened. I mentioned that you don't know what's going to happen in 10 years. Neither do I. You can't predict "inventions". You can't predict technology.

In my opinion, anyone who claims economic theory is a joke, is a joke themselves.

how is mentioning not knowing what is going to happen 10 years from now addressing sustainability? ... we are not sustaining ourselves now ... i mention global warming because it is probably the major consequence of the uncontrolled economic growth ... something that has cost billions of dollars and many lives ... but there is no need to discuss it in this thread ... i only point it out because you patronize in your posts but yet you don't believe in something that most people believe in all over the world and the fact you point ...

i didn't say economic theory is a joke ... i just said that referring to it constantly like the world exists in some bubble is a joke ... if you took the time to read what i wrote - you would understand that ...

sooo ... in the end, your response to the state of our resources and planet is simply ... wait 10 years and technology will save us?

cincybearcat

Hey hippies, what does any of this have to do with class warfare?

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

Hey hippies, what does any of this have to do with class warfare?

why single out the hippies!? ... why not the alex keatons!? ...

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Hey hippies, what does any of this have to do with class warfare?

why single out the hippies!? ... why not the alex keatons!? ...

Cause I couldn't think of a word for it!!!!

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

.

how is mentioning not knowing what is going to happen 10 years from now addressing sustainability? ... we are not sustaining ourselves now ... i mention global warming because it is probably the major consequence of the uncontrolled economic growth ... something that has cost billions of dollars and many lives ... but there is no need to discuss it in this thread ... i only point it out because you patronize in your posts but yet you don't believe in something that most people believe in all over the world and the fact you point ...

How are we not sustaining ourselves now? Explain that. Once again, people are living longer and less people are starving then 100 years prior... and 100 years prior to that.

As I said, people such as yourself pain the picture that economic growth is bad. Re-read what you just wrote. As if uncontrolled economic growth hurts people.... ha ha. Seriously? Uncontrolled economic growth cost billions of dollars? Explain. "Controlled economic growth" costs billions of dollars!

Also, please explain how uncontrolled economic growth cost many lives?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. To some, the whole "global warming" issue is just a scheme. They don't want economic efficiency.They talk like economic growth is bad. They just want social equity. They use global warming to try to achieve that.

If one doesn't want economic growth, I wish they'd just be upfront about it.

polaris_x wrote:

.i didn't say economic theory is a joke ... i just said that referring to it constantly like the world exists in some bubble is a joke ... if you took the time to read what i wrote - you would understand that ...

The world doesn't exist in a bubble. But, economic theory and empirics seek to understand the world, particularly scarce resources.... look up the definition of economics for Christ's sake... that's what it studies. It's like discussing behavioral issues with a behavioral psychologist and saying that the behavioral psychologist is living in a bubble as they diagnose those behavioral issues.

I'd argue that someone who refers back to global warming, in discussions like these is living in a bubble.

polaris_x wrote:

.sooo ... in the end, your response to the state of our resources and planet is simply ... wait 10 years and technology will save us?

No, my response is that those concerned with resource scarcity repetitively avoid taking into account technology and how that has impacted the use of those resources. My opinion is (provided the economy doesn't shut down) technology should continue to improve. In doing so, making more with less is not only feasible, it's likely. I've provided dead on examples of people (like Malthus) who argued the opposite and were proven to be incorrect.

Nevertheless, if the economy does shut down, resource scarcity will be more of an issue. My opinion is those pushing for "equity" and arguing about the problems with "uncontrolled economic growth" are part of the problem that could result in a shut down of the economy. It's almost as if they want these scarcity issues to arise and become problematic.


I'm done.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

How are we not sustaining ourselves now? Explain that. Once again, people are living longer and less people are starving then 100 years prior... and 100 years prior to that.

As I said, people such as yourself pain the picture that economic growth is bad. Re-read what you just wrote. As if uncontrolled economic growth hurts people.... ha ha. Seriously? Uncontrolled economic growth cost billions of dollars? Explain. "Controlled economic growth" costs billions of dollars!

Also, please explain how uncontrolled economic growth cost many lives?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. To some, the whole "global warming" issue is just a scheme. They don't want economic efficiency.They talk like economic growth is bad. They just want social equity. They use global warming to try to achieve that.

If one doesn't want economic growth, I wish they'd just be upfront about it.

global warming is an indication that it is unsustainable ... but i get it - you think it's some scam ... which is fine ... but this is the crux of our difference ... you think everything is as good as its ever been and i don't ... if we can't agree that global warming exists then we are at that point of the discussion ...

inlet13 wrote:

The world doesn't exist in a bubble. But, economic theory and empirics seek to understand the world, particularly scarce resources.... look up the definition of economics for Christ's sake... that's what it studies. It's like discussing behavioral issues with a behavioral psychologist and saying that the behavioral psychologist is living in a bubble as they diagnose those behavioral issues.

I'd argue that someone who refers back to global warming, in discussions like these is living in a bubble

again - it's troubling that you continue to interpret my words incorrectly ... it's like you not understanding what i meant when i said your earlier question was absurd ... it's like you are responding to something else ...

inlet13 wrote:

No, my response is that those concerned with resource scarcity repetitively avoid taking into account technology and how that has impacted the use of those resources. My opinion is (provided the economy doesn't shut down) technology should continue to improve. In doing so, making more with less is not only feasible, it's likely. I've provided dead on examples of people (like Malthus) who argued the opposite and were proven to be incorrect.

Nevertheless, if the economy does shut down, resource scarcity will be more of an issue. My opinion is those pushing for "equity" and arguing about the problems with "uncontrolled economic growth" are part of the problem that could result in a shut down of the economy. It's almost as if they want these scarcity issues to arise and become problematic.


I'm done.

so, if by chance it came to your light that global warming does exist and it is caused by man ... is malthus at least partially correct then? ... you claim to provide dead on examples but its based strictly on your biases and your discounting of things you don't believe in ... it doesn't make your opinion fact ... your black and white approach is evident ... similar to your view that obama will lose to whoever the GOP puts out there and that anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional ... it highlights a lack of reasoning ... anyhoo ... i'm glad you're done cuz we clearly aren't getting anywhere ...