 |
| |
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Oh, btw, the reason I don't teach economics anymore is because of guys like Berzerker, Ogie, and you.  |
Woot! Woot! Woot! Another triumph of capitalism!!!
And by the by regarding population and its effect on demand. You prompted me to research via the US census boards actual expected population growth curves.
Once past the baby boom, seems the US looks to settle into a yearly pop growth of approximately .7 percent yearly. (which I believe still makes its an exponential function A= A(original)exp(.007 * time) ) 
World population though is where I actually owe some kudos to you. I was actually refering to world population since we are supposedly now a world market. World population growth rate is anticipated to slow much more dramatically. To an approximate 0.5 percent growth rate. If you look into the cause, the expectation is that China's growth rate goes flat and negative. So I do stand corrected.
OTOH it still does prompt me to think. Is Communism any different then say war, disease, or famine? They both seem to have the same effect. 
Laslty, this is all (according to you) of no particular significance in any event as population is merely a weak indicator of demand. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
Kid - quote:
I don't really consider this a debate. I'm just trying to help you understand the principles involved. If you can grasp those we can then debate. |
Well, please don't sneeze as you look down your nose at us.
quote:
Job loss in the computer industry is hard to measure. In fact I'm not certain that there has been job loss in that industry yet, because there are still big improvements made to computers every year. It is certain that there will be job loss once the improvement to the porduct slows. |
Wait a minute, now you're saying we will see job losses as production gains slow and you aren't sure if there are job losses because production gains have been so big? Um...kay...
quote:
But the job loss doesn't create jobs. |
Good one.
quote:
It's true that the productivity gain was necessary for the new jobs to be created, but the productivity gain did not create the jobs. And you haven't shown that it did. |
Kid, this is ridiculous. The production gains in food creation allowed for a much larger population, and without a much larger population, we wouldn't see all these jobs. Would we see these jobs without the production gains in food creation? Nope.
quote:
Can you honestly tell me that this is what you think I was talking about? |
I know what you were talking about, didn't you read on?
quote:
No I'm not. New products create jobs. I've said that several times. Jobs are lost in old product industries due to the productivity gains. |
Computers were a new product 30-40 years ago. But when did we see the most jobs created in the computer industry? After production gains lowered the costs of computers so most people could afford them. Explain that given your premise that production gains don't create jobs...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
So maybe if we find ONE good that's not, as Kid puts it "both a consumer and an industrial good," and falls solely in the realm of the industrial, that was responsible for productivity gains which did NOT result in net job loss....maybe then he'll begin to see the light.
Kid, I present to you....the conveyor belt, which made it possible for the "assembly line" to spread to nearly every manufacturing concern. The invention of the conveyor belt totally changed manufacturing in multiple segments of the economy from job-shop orientation to assembly line orientation and made possible the notion of the factory, which could employ ever larger numbers of people very efficiently.
With this invention, it is true that job losses did occur, but those losses were far outstripped by the gains in the massive factories that had not existed prior to the existence of the technology.
Of course, I fully expect that you'll provide some trite, incorrect bit of economic "theory" or another groovy soundbyte to dismiss this, and then get right back to spouting various (random?) bits and pieces of Kidonomics, and that's okay. I understand. You're bored with the debate because it hasn't been a debate for quite some time, and it can't be all that much fun to flail about frantically as your keystone points disintegrate around you.
Shall we call it a day?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Actually though, the real answer is....nothing.
There's no drive to innovate whatsoever, and all indications are that such a system, when not faced by an outside threat or challenge to its existence, would simply freeze in time (innovation isn't all that important anymore anyway), and this phrase is fairly well borne out by studying what communally based societies have and still exist.
The USSR's advancement was totally driven by external influences (defense against Germany, and then direct competition from the USA). The aboriginal tribes in Australia are, from what I have read, communal in their organization and we see the vast array of fine technological advances they have produced. Cuba, perhaps? Another nation renowned for its innovative thinkers. The only *possible* exception is China, and of course, the engine driving their growth is....capitalism (albiet tightly controlled, but still, they have embraced the beast, so to speak).
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2003 12:02
|