 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think the problem is that you enjoy assigning strawmen. Where does anyone say that this term will continue and ongo until we have 70% under the poverty line? You are asserting strawmen because having 13 million under the poverty line instead of 12 million, while GDP rises by 3-4% is a good thing for the economy. If there were 50% or so under the poverty line, the GDP would fall. Like I said, the end is do the best for the most people.
I don't see how it is so hard to understand that 1 million people dropping under the poverty line while correspondinly 100 million people gain money is a good thing.
quote:
That is to say if a middle or upper class income is doubled it will pretty much always lead to a lesser increase in real standard of living than if an impoverished persons income is doubled even though by definition this would be a lesser absolute economic increase in every case. Do we disagree on this idea? |
Yes, because all economic growth is not consumption based. In fact the US has problems with savings and thus we require massive foriegn investment. Even if the people who make more don't spend it, they will invest it, resulting in economic growth through investment.
A lot of people seem to ignore that GDP is made out of Consumption, Investment, Government Spending, and Net Exports... NOT just Consumption. |
Actually it seems clear that I'm not refuting strawmen because you and I are more or less of one mind in our estimation of the relative merits of republican vs dem handling of the economy and taxes. What I am doing is nitpicking your assertion that poverty is irrelevant and only GDP matters. I still strongly disagree with that statement and my attempts to refute it certainly don't constitute attacks on strawmen of any kind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, the poverty rate is irrelevent if it increases by such a small amount when GDP rises by so much. When the unemployment rate goes from 5.4 to 5.6 back to 5.2, the change in the rate is irrelevent to economic growth. Minor changes happen.. who cares? |
The only reason we don't care is because of the assumption that changes are temporary or reflect noise in the economic figures. If those minor changes were to persist however, then even if they were always minor compared to ongoing growth it would still be reason for very serious concern.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
generally they have been shown to persist until someone makes social changes
like what the democrats have done
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If the minor changes are under historic norms and minor compared to growth, the idea that these changes were to persist until they rose to epic proportions without any evidence is, IMO, idiotic. |
Yes it is. 
But the point I'm making is that growth in poverty is a bad thing which is no more irrelevant than GDP. I had to assume they would persist in order to make my point since we both would agree that if the increase in poverty were only temporary then everything is just fine. For the record, although I would say it would be prudent to keep an eye on the rising poverty that doesn't mean I would accept knee jerk policy changes designed to deal with a increase in poverty which might only be temporary (ie one that is still under historic norms).
Last edited by Geronimo on 27-08-2004 at 09:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
generally they have been shown to persist until someone makes social changes
like what the democrats have done
Jon Miller |
Oh? and how was this shown? This is a widely held assumption no doubt but I'm not yet convinced that dems have had any more success than republicans in reducing poverty historically. LBJ's war on poverty for instance didn't really seem to result in less poverty than we had under ike.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
One additional observation....
Were it the case that a hundred million americans were making scads more money now than four years ago, would it not be the case that the average american income would have seen a rather healthy spike?
But this is not what we have seen.
Average income has remained largely flat, which sugessts that, wherever the money went, it did not go into the hands of a hundred million americans in the form of fat raises.
This, taken together with the increase in the poverty rate, in turn sugessts that perhaps the money went to fattening corporate bottom lines, which translates into higher salaries for a few at the top, of course, and beefy profit margins, but does little for the rank and file, and less for that additional million now below the line.
Two more cents, before retiring.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:35
|
|
Just joining, so forgive me if this has been said:
I tend to agree that the prez generally gets too much credit for a good economy, and too much blame for a bad one.
But the measure of a president's leadership is not his steardship of the economy, but his stewardship of the economic conditions the economy creates.
Herbert Hoover found himself in a Depression and blamed people for whining about it (and gunned down the really loud whiners); FDR inherited the same Depression and, while he didn't turn the economy around, at least made it a priority to take care of people. That's why we remember Hoover and Roosevelt as poor and great leaders, respectively.
Jimmy Carter inherited a poor economy and, having learned nothing from Hoover, blamed people for whining. I have a lot of respect for Carter, but that was Bad Leadership. Clinton found himself presiding over a great economy, and used the opportunity to balance the federal budget, I don't have much respect for Clinton, but that was Good Leadership.
Bush finds himself presiding of an economic downturn that may or may not be ticking up again. The question is: what has he done in the face of that, and is what he's done good leadership?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Just joining, so forgive me if this has been said:
I tend to agree that the prez generally gets too much credit for a good economy, and too much blame for a bad one.
But the measure of a president's leadership is not his steardship of the economy, but his stewardship of the economic conditions the economy creates.
Herbert Hoover found himself in a Depression and blamed people for whining about it (and gunned down the really loud whiners); FDR inherited the same Depression and, while he didn't turn the economy around, at least made it a priority to take care of people. That's why we remember Hoover and Roosevelt as poor and great leaders, respectively.
Jimmy Carter inherited a poor economy and, having learned nothing from Hoover, blamed people for whining. I have a lot of respect for Carter, but that was Bad Leadership. Clinton found himself presiding over a great economy, and used the opportunity to balance the federal budget, I don't have much respect for Clinton, but that was Good Leadership.
Bush finds himself presiding of an economic downturn that may or may not be ticking up again. The question is: what has he done in the face of that, and is what he's done good leadership? |
good analysis
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
The poverty rate is much more relevent than GDP growth. The only thing GDP measures is the amount of production in the economy. It doesn't measure the quality of that production, or the long run sustainability of the production. Poverty rate is much more telling of the condition of the economy. |
They are both quite relevant. An economy with a declining poverty rate but a shrinking GDP would be a danger sign as much as an economy with a rising poverty rate but a growing GDP. Ideally both should be changing - a decline in poverty and an increase in GDP over time. If either is stagnant or if either is reversed from it's desired trend then trouble is quite likely to follow for the other indicator trend given enough time or a large enough deviation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
That is to say if a middle or upper class income is doubled it will pretty much always lead to a lesser increase in real standard of living than if an impoverished persons income is doubled even though by definition this would be a lesser absolute economic increase in every case. Do we disagree on this idea? |
Yes, because all economic growth is not consumption based. In fact the US has problems with savings and thus we require massive foriegn investment. Even if the people who make more don't spend it, they will invest it, resulting in economic growth through investment.
A lot of people seem to ignore that GDP is made out of Consumption, Investment, Government Spending, and Net Exports... NOT just Consumption. |
I forgot to comment on this part of your post. The problem I have with regarding non consumption based growth as equivalent to consumption based growth is in part that this amounts to counting your chickens before they hatch. Investment is wonderful because it is essentially the only way to increase capital but it is still only a means to an end - increased services and commodities available for consumption. For example an economy experiencing a speculative bubble may appear to have enjoyed massive GDP growth due to investments but no real growth has actually occured because an unusually big chunk of the investments in the investment bubble aren't going to pay off. I regard poverty as an important economic indicator in part because it is insensitive to this phenomena.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
Its the Cavalry curse continued!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-08-2004 08:34
And who says it will be? What, you think that in 100 years we'll see 70% poverty because of this trend? Come on!
|