|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 10 2017 07:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 07:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 10 2017 06:58 KwarK wrote:
If you ask me for a solution to poverty in the nation then I'll talk about wealth inequality, deficient public services, economic dislocation, the prison industrial complex etc etc. If you ask me for a solution to a poor individual then I'll talk about education, hard work and planning. I know you gave me shit for this before but you really can fund a retirement by donating plasma, and donating plasma alone. Should people have to donate plasma to retire? No. Should individuals who have no retirement savings and 3 hours a week they can spare donate plasma? Yes, absolutely. I'm not advocating it as a fix to structural problems but as an example of a way that an individual can identify and tackle a specific problem in their life. I'd say this paragraph is the crux of the issue that many people have with your economic views. It's good that you have the awareness that your solutions apply solely on a micro scale, but then you keep jumping back to apply it on a macro scale. The blood donation thing is a perfect example, as the only reason you're getting good money from that is because no one else is doing it. It has all the bearing of the typical get rich biography that collapses on itself once it's been spread to the masses. Do more things that create value than you are currently doing, including learning ways to increase the value of your labour, while simultaneously improving the allocation of your resources through budgeting and investing is not a get rich scheme that will collapse if more people become aware of it. It's the essence of human progress. It's how you get someone going "I wonder if having a horse pull this plough would increase the output of the field enough to offset the trouble involved in having a horse?". There is this false dichotomy between the two truths which people seem to struggle with. We have liberals so desperate not to blame individuals for poverty that they find themselves arguing against the idea that if you're poor and not working as hard as you could be then working harder would help. Literally disagreeing with hard work. Or that if you're spending money on crap you don't need and don't have enough for the shit you do need then maybe that's a problem of resource allocation, rather than of resource shortages. Meanwhile we have conservatives insisting that what a kid growing up in an area with shitty schools and a single parent working two jobs really needs is cuts to public services because that way they'll obviously learn to be more self sufficient, once they're done learning to read that is. It is true that there are structural problems in society. It is also true that individuals can improve their own outcomes. There is literally no conflict there but for some reason people seem to want to insist that it be an ideological warzone and because they are certain that their side is right they must pretend the other side is wrong. Sure, health insurance costs more than an iphone and saying "just don't buy a phone" is an oversimplification of the problem. I'm fine with that. But at the same time, if you have a perfectly good phone and know that you're too broke to pay for any health issues then don't fucking upgrade your phone. It is legitimately a normal thing for working poor people with regular and predictable income streams to do shit like say they can't pay rent by the 3rd and will have to pay it on the 10th for an extra $200 in fees, month after month. When someone says there should be more affordable housing I'm behind that, but at the same time you can't pretend that the reason they can't afford rent is it's too expensive for all of these people. They can afford it, they can afford $200 more than it, and they can afford to overpay by $200 month after month. If you halved the rent you wouldn't change the problem which in many cases is just that people don't see the need to not spend their rent money before rent is due.
It might shock you to hear this but I don't actually think an economic system where people have to sell 16 hours of labor every day in order to not be destitute when they retire is a good one. This isn't about "literally disagreeing with hard work." I think hard work is valuable, and I think human beings seek meaningful work even without the threat of poverty looming over them. This is about the limits of the possible. Let's put aside for a moment your assumption that the highest goal in life is for people to create more "value." If you tell a thousand people "just learn a second language at night when you come home after you put your kids to bed" and 1 or 2 do it you have to wonder what these other 998 irrational idiots are doing right? They must be either idiots or lazy under your schema. And then you wonder why conservatives don't want to take care of these lazy idiots. Something is wrong here, Kwark.
|
On March 10 2017 12:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 11:59 Sermokala wrote:
So now making a little extra money on the side in your free time is a bad thing to you? What world do you live in that you think that its pointless to increase GDP or industrial output?
Growth is a good thing weather its on the personal level or the national level. You're mad if you think otherwise. And we're right back to square one. Yay, thank you. Growing wealth on a personal level makes you richer. Growth on a national level does not make the poor not poor. Macro vs micro scale. Please follow the discussion.
Growth on a national level makes the poor less poor by being less poor. Inflating the cost of most goods people consume isn't going to make them more expensive for the average person. the cost of most things poor people buy are based on factors that are much more impactful then a few percentage points of inflation. The weather in the plain states has a much bigger impact on the price of a gallon of milk then the price of inflation does. Rent and housing has nothing to do with macro economic indicators that will be corrected by intention by the fed. Making free trade deals makes this even more of a moot point as it creates a lot more supply for such things in less inflated nations.
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
Besides the majority of the lower working poor could gain a 10% boost to their income and it'll be so infinitesimally small that its ignorable on the grand stage of things.
|
On March 10 2017 12:13 KwarK wrote:...But if everyone produced 5% more value through their labour then we'd all have more stuff.
...
At the risk of repeating myself, you still haven't demonstrated that this is a true statement. "There would be more stuff" is not equivalent to "we'd all have more stuff".
On March 10 2017 12:29 Sermokala wrote:...
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
...
I think that the point is not "disliking growth", it is that "growth alone is not a sufficient condition for desirable outcomes".
|
On March 10 2017 12:35 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:13 KwarK wrote:...But if everyone produced 5% more value through their labour then we'd all have more stuff.
... At the risk of repeating myself, you still haven't demonstrated that this is a true statement. "There would be more stuff" is not equivalent to "we'd all have more stuff".
This is basic trade that you're arguing against. Me having something of more value to you then it is to me in exchange for something that is more value to me then it is to you.
On March 10 2017 12:35 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:13 KwarK wrote:...But if everyone produced 5% more value through their labour then we'd all have more stuff.
... At the risk of repeating myself, you still haven't demonstrated that this is a true statement. "There would be more stuff" is not equivalent to "we'd all have more stuff". Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:29 Sermokala wrote:...
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
... I think that the point is not "disliking growth", it is that "growth alone is not a sufficient condition for desirable outcomes".
Yes it is. Growth makes everything better full stop. Everything we do is to make growth happen on a macro level. Poor people are always going to be poor so making them better in any way is a net positive.
|
On March 10 2017 12:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:35 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:13 KwarK wrote:...But if everyone produced 5% more value through their labour then we'd all have more stuff.
... At the risk of repeating myself, you still haven't demonstrated that this is a true statement. "There would be more stuff" is not equivalent to "we'd all have more stuff". This is basic trade that you're arguing against. Me having something of more value to you then it is to me in exchange for something that is more value to me then it is to you.
This seems like a non sequitur to me.
|
On March 10 2017 12:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 11:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:
If everyone in the country gains 5% more wealth, this basically leads to dollar deflation and inflation of cost of goods by the same rough amount. You seem to be confused between money and value. If everyone had 5% more money but no additional value was created then we'd just see inflation correct the error. But if everyone produced 5% more value through their labour then we'd all have more stuff. If this were not true then it never would have been worth bothering with agriculture or mechanization. Increased productivity is always good.
Have you actually seen Japan before you brought it up as an example...?
|
On March 10 2017 12:40 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 10 2017 12:35 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:13 KwarK wrote:...But if everyone produced 5% more value through their labour then we'd all have more stuff.
... At the risk of repeating myself, you still haven't demonstrated that this is a true statement. "There would be more stuff" is not equivalent to "we'd all have more stuff". This is basic trade that you're arguing against. Me having something of more value to you then it is to me in exchange for something that is more value to me then it is to you. This seems like a non sequitur to me.
So I have red ball which I value 10 and you value 20 you have blue ball which I value 20 and you value 10. We agree on 15 though some method and we both increased our value by 5. If I somehow have been able to make a super red ball or two red ball I'm exponentially getting more stuff then I was before.
|
Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:29 Sermokala wrote:...
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
... I think that the point is not "disliking growth", it is that "growth alone is not a sufficient condition for desirable outcomes". Yes it is. Growth makes everything better full stop. Everything we do is to make growth happen on a macro level. Poor people are always going to be poor so making them better in any way is a net positive.
No it's not. Growth doesn't always make everything better full stop. (See how easy that was?)
If the value of the society as a whole goes up, that is not a guarantee that the quality of life of the poor will improve. There is a non-zero amount of historical correlation, but it is not a guarantee.
On March 10 2017 12:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:40 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 10 2017 12:35 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:13 KwarK wrote:...But if everyone produced 5% more value through their labour then we'd all have more stuff.
... At the risk of repeating myself, you still haven't demonstrated that this is a true statement. "There would be more stuff" is not equivalent to "we'd all have more stuff". This is basic trade that you're arguing against. Me having something of more value to you then it is to me in exchange for something that is more value to me then it is to you. This seems like a non sequitur to me. So I have red ball which I value 10 and you value 20 you have blue ball which I value 20 and you value 10. We agree on 15 though some method and we both increased our value by 5. If I somehow have been able to make a super red ball or two red ball I'm exponentially getting more stuff then I was before.
Yes, I know how trading for things works. However, if you and I both work harder, but because I was in an advantageous position to start with I get the red AND the blue ball as a result of my labour and you don't net anything, you are no better off - despite the fact that we both worked more and the net value of our "society" went up.
|
United States42782 Posts
On March 10 2017 12:50 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:29 Sermokala wrote:...
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
... I think that the point is not "disliking growth", it is that "growth alone is not a sufficient condition for desirable outcomes". Yes it is. Growth makes everything better full stop. Everything we do is to make growth happen on a macro level. Poor people are always going to be poor so making them better in any way is a net positive. No it's not. Growth doesn't always make everything better full stop. (See how easy that was?) If the value of the society as a whole goes up, that is not a guarantee that the quality of life of the poor will improve. There is a non-zero amount of correlation, but it is not a guarantee.
The specific example given was that the people at the bottom attempt to increase either the value or the quantity of their labour. The counterpoint was that everyone will benefit and therefore nobody will benefit but the actual thing being discussed is the poor creating more value which makes it rather strange that it's being argued that they'll be no better off.
|
On March 10 2017 12:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:50 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:29 Sermokala wrote:...
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
... I think that the point is not "disliking growth", it is that "growth alone is not a sufficient condition for desirable outcomes". Yes it is. Growth makes everything better full stop. Everything we do is to make growth happen on a macro level. Poor people are always going to be poor so making them better in any way is a net positive. No it's not. Growth doesn't always make everything better full stop. (See how easy that was?) If the value of the society as a whole goes up, that is not a guarantee that the quality of life of the poor will improve. There is a non-zero amount of correlation, but it is not a guarantee. The specific example given was that the people at the bottom attempt to increase either the value or the quantity of their labour. The counterpoint was that everyone will benefit and therefore nobody will benefit but the actual thing being discussed is the poor creating more value which makes it rather strange that it's being argued that they'll be no better off.
Well, okay, now you're basically saying there's an infinite amount of work available and infinite demand for value...
...After arguing that people are spending beyond their means and can be wealthier if they stop spending frivolously.
|
On March 10 2017 12:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:50 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:29 Sermokala wrote:...
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
... I think that the point is not "disliking growth", it is that "growth alone is not a sufficient condition for desirable outcomes". Yes it is. Growth makes everything better full stop. Everything we do is to make growth happen on a macro level. Poor people are always going to be poor so making them better in any way is a net positive. No it's not. Growth doesn't always make everything better full stop. (See how easy that was?) If the value of the society as a whole goes up, that is not a guarantee that the quality of life of the poor will improve. There is a non-zero amount of correlation, but it is not a guarantee. The specific example given was that the people at the bottom attempt to increase either the value or the quantity of their labour. The counterpoint was that everyone will benefit and therefore nobody will benefit but the actual thing being discussed is the poor creating more value which makes it rather strange that it's being argued that they'll be no better off.
I'm not at all sure you have accurately represented the arguments being made against your position but I'll leave clarifying that to the people chiefly making those arguments.
It is not obvious to me that it is possible for a large proportion of the "poor" to create more value, or that if they did that the benefits of that value would accrue to them. Your arguments to date have not convinced me of either of those points. (As an observation, it is far easier to make money if you already have money.)
|
On March 10 2017 10:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Looks like a pretty good team between Kushner and Cohn, I only wish Stephen Miller could add to their expertise.
|
Not sure how to feel about this. At least he actually has political experience. And it's not like the California GOP has anyone else to run. Wonder who he'd caucus with.
SAN FRANCISCO — Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — the “Terminator" action hero who made "I'll be back" one of filmdom's most iconic phrases — may be mulling a political comeback, according to several GOP political insiders in California.
The prospect of Schwarzenegger’s return to elected politics in a 2018 U.S. Senate run — possibly as an independent — is generating increasing buzz in state Republican circles, fueled by the former governor’s seeming ability to get under the skin of President Donald Trump on social media.
The president’s caustic tweets about Schwarzenegger, the recent host of "Celebrity Apprentice," and their running feud has sparked talk that the intensely competitive Schwarzenegger — a seven-time Mr. Olympia world bodybuilding champ — may be interested in more than merely a verbal posedown with Trump.
His entry into the 2018 Senate race — when Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein would be 85 years old and up for reelection — “would give Arnold the stage to jam Trump for the next 16 months,’’ according to one veteran GOP strategist who spoke on condition of anonymity.
It would also enable Schwarzenegger to draw a contrast with the president on key issues, including climate change, political reform and even immigration.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Daniel Ketchell did not rule out a possible Senate run when asked to respond to the speculation.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/arnold-schwarzenegger-senate-235905
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Didn't he fail miserably out of his governor position?
Probably a bad call.
|
On March 10 2017 13:05 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:54 KwarK wrote:On March 10 2017 12:50 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:29 Sermokala wrote:...
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
... I think that the point is not "disliking growth", it is that "growth alone is not a sufficient condition for desirable outcomes". Yes it is. Growth makes everything better full stop. Everything we do is to make growth happen on a macro level. Poor people are always going to be poor so making them better in any way is a net positive. No it's not. Growth doesn't always make everything better full stop. (See how easy that was?) If the value of the society as a whole goes up, that is not a guarantee that the quality of life of the poor will improve. There is a non-zero amount of correlation, but it is not a guarantee. The specific example given was that the people at the bottom attempt to increase either the value or the quantity of their labour. The counterpoint was that everyone will benefit and therefore nobody will benefit but the actual thing being discussed is the poor creating more value which makes it rather strange that it's being argued that they'll be no better off. I'm not at all sure you have accurately represented the arguments being made against your position but I'll leave clarifying that to the people chiefly making those arguments. It is not obvious to me that it is possible for a large proportion of the "poor" to create more value, or that if they did that the benefits of that value would accrue to them. Your arguments to date have not convinced me of either of those points. (As an observation, it is far easier to make money if you already have money.)
Ehhhhhhh he stopped responding to my posts. He has staked out the tautological position that creating more value results in more value. QED if people just created more value they'd have more value. Pretty indisputable and pretty irrelevant.
|
On March 10 2017 13:26 LegalLord wrote:
Didn't he fail miserably out of his governor position?
Probably a bad call.
I was kinda too young to remember. Don't remember him being too terrible. that being said he did have the whole scandal thing. His climate change/environmental stuff was decent I think. He's pretty socially liberal I think, at least compared to the Republican party right now.
I mean its not like the GOP has anyone with a better chance of winning a California senate seat. It's not like anyone ever hated arnold they just thought he didn't do a good job handling the budget and some other stuff. I think everyone thought Arnold was okay and had some good ideas but didn't have the skill to handle managing the state. No idea if Californians would actually vote for him though
npr seems to have a decent summary http://www.npr.org/2011/01/03/132445643/no-hollywood-ending-to-schwarzeneggers-term
time has a good article too. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2028599,00.html
|
On March 10 2017 13:29 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 13:05 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:54 KwarK wrote:On March 10 2017 12:50 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:29 Sermokala wrote:...
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
... I think that the point is not "disliking growth", it is that "growth alone is not a sufficient condition for desirable outcomes". Yes it is. Growth makes everything better full stop. Everything we do is to make growth happen on a macro level. Poor people are always going to be poor so making them better in any way is a net positive. No it's not. Growth doesn't always make everything better full stop. (See how easy that was?) If the value of the society as a whole goes up, that is not a guarantee that the quality of life of the poor will improve. There is a non-zero amount of correlation, but it is not a guarantee. The specific example given was that the people at the bottom attempt to increase either the value or the quantity of their labour. The counterpoint was that everyone will benefit and therefore nobody will benefit but the actual thing being discussed is the poor creating more value which makes it rather strange that it's being argued that they'll be no better off. I'm not at all sure you have accurately represented the arguments being made against your position but I'll leave clarifying that to the people chiefly making those arguments. It is not obvious to me that it is possible for a large proportion of the "poor" to create more value, or that if they did that the benefits of that value would accrue to them. Your arguments to date have not convinced me of either of those points. (As an observation, it is far easier to make money if you already have money.) Ehhhhhhh he stopped responding to my posts. He has staked out the tautological position that creating more value results in more value. QED if people just created more value they'd have more value. Pretty indisputable and pretty irrelevant.
I don't even agree that the second part of that statement is tautological. If "people just created more value" then someone will end up posessing more value, but it's not necessarily going to be the person who created it.
|
On March 10 2017 12:50 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:29 Sermokala wrote:...
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
... I think that the point is not "disliking growth", it is that "growth alone is not a sufficient condition for desirable outcomes". Yes it is. Growth makes everything better full stop. Everything we do is to make growth happen on a macro level. Poor people are always going to be poor so making them better in any way is a net positive. No it's not. Growth doesn't always make everything better full stop. (See how easy that was?) If the value of the society as a whole goes up, that is not a guarantee that the quality of life of the poor will improve. There is a non-zero amount of historical correlation, but it is not a guarantee. Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:48 Sermokala wrote:On March 10 2017 12:40 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 10 2017 12:35 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:13 KwarK wrote:...But if everyone produced 5% more value through their labour then we'd all have more stuff.
... At the risk of repeating myself, you still haven't demonstrated that this is a true statement. "There would be more stuff" is not equivalent to "we'd all have more stuff". This is basic trade that you're arguing against. Me having something of more value to you then it is to me in exchange for something that is more value to me then it is to you. This seems like a non sequitur to me. So I have red ball which I value 10 and you value 20 you have blue ball which I value 20 and you value 10. We agree on 15 though some method and we both increased our value by 5. If I somehow have been able to make a super red ball or two red ball I'm exponentially getting more stuff then I was before. Yes, I know how trading for things works. However, if you and I both work harder, but because I was in an advantageous position to start with I get the red AND the blue ball as a result of my labour and you don't net anything, you are no better off - despite the fact that we both worked more and the net value of our "society" went up.
This is nonsense you clearly don't understand how trade works. There is no way I don't net anything regardless of me having a different position. In fact the difference in our posision would make the trade better for both. I have to be better off or I wouldn't have traded with you.
|
On March 10 2017 14:03 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 13:29 IgnE wrote:On March 10 2017 13:05 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:54 KwarK wrote:On March 10 2017 12:50 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:29 Sermokala wrote:...
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
... I think that the point is not "disliking growth", it is that "growth alone is not a sufficient condition for desirable outcomes". Yes it is. Growth makes everything better full stop. Everything we do is to make growth happen on a macro level. Poor people are always going to be poor so making them better in any way is a net positive. No it's not. Growth doesn't always make everything better full stop. (See how easy that was?) If the value of the society as a whole goes up, that is not a guarantee that the quality of life of the poor will improve. There is a non-zero amount of correlation, but it is not a guarantee. The specific example given was that the people at the bottom attempt to increase either the value or the quantity of their labour. The counterpoint was that everyone will benefit and therefore nobody will benefit but the actual thing being discussed is the poor creating more value which makes it rather strange that it's being argued that they'll be no better off. I'm not at all sure you have accurately represented the arguments being made against your position but I'll leave clarifying that to the people chiefly making those arguments. It is not obvious to me that it is possible for a large proportion of the "poor" to create more value, or that if they did that the benefits of that value would accrue to them. Your arguments to date have not convinced me of either of those points. (As an observation, it is far easier to make money if you already have money.) Ehhhhhhh he stopped responding to my posts. He has staked out the tautological position that creating more value results in more value. QED if people just created more value they'd have more value. Pretty indisputable and pretty irrelevant. I don't even agree that the second part of that statement is tautological. If "people just created more value" then someone will end up posessing more value, but it's not necessarily going to be the person who created it.
I think we keep dancing with this point of yours. How is this true in the slightest logical way?
|
On March 10 2017 14:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 12:50 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:29 Sermokala wrote:...
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
... I think that the point is not "disliking growth", it is that "growth alone is not a sufficient condition for desirable outcomes". Yes it is. Growth makes everything better full stop. Everything we do is to make growth happen on a macro level. Poor people are always going to be poor so making them better in any way is a net positive. No it's not. Growth doesn't always make everything better full stop. (See how easy that was?) If the value of the society as a whole goes up, that is not a guarantee that the quality of life of the poor will improve. There is a non-zero amount of historical correlation, but it is not a guarantee. On March 10 2017 12:48 Sermokala wrote:On March 10 2017 12:40 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 10 2017 12:35 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:13 KwarK wrote:...But if everyone produced 5% more value through their labour then we'd all have more stuff.
... At the risk of repeating myself, you still haven't demonstrated that this is a true statement. "There would be more stuff" is not equivalent to "we'd all have more stuff". This is basic trade that you're arguing against. Me having something of more value to you then it is to me in exchange for something that is more value to me then it is to you. This seems like a non sequitur to me. So I have red ball which I value 10 and you value 20 you have blue ball which I value 20 and you value 10. We agree on 15 though some method and we both increased our value by 5. If I somehow have been able to make a super red ball or two red ball I'm exponentially getting more stuff then I was before. Yes, I know how trading for things works. However, if you and I both work harder, but because I was in an advantageous position to start with I get the red AND the blue ball as a result of my labour and you don't net anything, you are no better off - despite the fact that we both worked more and the net value of our "society" went up. This is nonsense you clearly don't understand how trade works. There is no way I don't net anything regardless of me having a different position. In fact the difference in our posision would make the trade better for both. I have to be better off or I wouldn't have traded with you.
You didn't even understand what I said. Just because between us we're generating more value, and you contributed to that, doesn't inherently mean that you even have anything more to trade as a result, much less anything to trade that I want.
On March 10 2017 14:05 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 14:03 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 13:29 IgnE wrote:On March 10 2017 13:05 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:54 KwarK wrote:On March 10 2017 12:50 Aquanim wrote:On March 10 2017 12:29 Sermokala wrote:...
We're going back to square one all the time beacuse its hard to wrap your mind around the left not likeing growth. Sure the right can be dumb and think austerity is a cool thing but the left should at least know what really impacts poor people.
... I think that the point is not "disliking growth", it is that "growth alone is not a sufficient condition for desirable outcomes". Yes it is. Growth makes everything better full stop. Everything we do is to make growth happen on a macro level. Poor people are always going to be poor so making them better in any way is a net positive. No it's not. Growth doesn't always make everything better full stop. (See how easy that was?) If the value of the society as a whole goes up, that is not a guarantee that the quality of life of the poor will improve. There is a non-zero amount of correlation, but it is not a guarantee. The specific example given was that the people at the bottom attempt to increase either the value or the quantity of their labour. The counterpoint was that everyone will benefit and therefore nobody will benefit but the actual thing being discussed is the poor creating more value which makes it rather strange that it's being argued that they'll be no better off. I'm not at all sure you have accurately represented the arguments being made against your position but I'll leave clarifying that to the people chiefly making those arguments. It is not obvious to me that it is possible for a large proportion of the "poor" to create more value, or that if they did that the benefits of that value would accrue to them. Your arguments to date have not convinced me of either of those points. (As an observation, it is far easier to make money if you already have money.) Ehhhhhhh he stopped responding to my posts. He has staked out the tautological position that creating more value results in more value. QED if people just created more value they'd have more value. Pretty indisputable and pretty irrelevant. I don't even agree that the second part of that statement is tautological. If "people just created more value" then someone will end up posessing more value, but it's not necessarily going to be the person who created it. I think we keep dancing with this point of yours. How is this true in the slightest logical way?
To draw a wildly oversimplified example, if all the "poor people" create 10% more value and have 10% more money, and then the supermarket corporation (et cetera) charges them all 10% more and the increased profits line the CEO's pocket, then the poor people did more work but their quality of life didn't change for the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
