Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 69

Thread: Economics

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler View Post
    Actually they don't have to, but for some stupid reason, we've been listening to snivelling, smarmy, bleeding hearted, jelly spined...people...that can't bear to watch people suffer the consequences of their actions. So we get "charity" and "welfare" and "foreign aid" and other associated wastes of resources.
    I wasn't thinking of charity. If millions of poor people in your country have too many children, that's going to be a drag on the economy, and indirectly affect the middle class. China wants to have a growing middle class. I think that's one of the reasons why they've been trying to lower birth rates.

    Note as well that the opposite problem is also possible: in Europe, birth rates are currently too low to sustain the economic system in the long run.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Sorry, for some reason this thread was reading updated from the main list, but wouldn't update when I clicked on it...

    Europe created its population problem by drowning its youths' ambition in socialism. They didn't have to do anything, and now they simply DON'T want to do anything. China and India are pretty clear cut examples of the utterly flawed logic of giving primitive cultures access to advanced technology. People who's cultural imperatives demand birth rates that would be sustainable levels given high infant mortality and relatively shorter lives now using medical knowledge that allows lower infant mortality and longer lives, and you have an uncontrolled population explosion.

    Boneheads who think large families equal prosperity need to be smacked upside the head and asked how they intend to pay for them. Unfortunately, we're too sickeningly polite to do so.

    On the other hand, I do see some positive developments. India and China are both seeing a major boom in the designer baby business, the disparity caused by an increasingly harder to explain rise in infant mortality in female births is producing what I believe are amusing results. Their next generation coming of age is going to be fun to watch.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    North Tonawanda, NY
    Posts
    4,023
    How can there be a boom in a business whose technology (really advanced genetic engineering) hasn't been invented yet?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
    How can there be a boom in a business whose technology (really advanced genetic engineering) hasn't been invented yet?
    Designer babies are more than "blue eyes, blond hair". Simply picking to terminate a baby girl either by abortion or a few extra bucks to the midwife because you want your babies to be male is also a form of "designer" baby.

    Any attempt to control the outcome is a kind of genetic engineering.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    You posts make me laugh sometimes Doodler.

    My sister - 1 child.
    My mother - 3 children.
    My grandmother - 7 children (6 survived)
    Great great aunt - 23 children

    This was all in one of the supposedly most technologically advanced countries in the world.

    And maybe you were talking about the past, but I don't think China has an unsustainable birth rate at the moment, well, at least not in the direction you appear to suggest. (1.7 births per woman.)

    NOTE WELL: Just because I point out that technologically advanced countries had huge birth rates in the past as they under went industrialization, and just because I point out that China's birth rate is currently below replacment rate, this does not mean that I approve of some of the terrible things that have been done by the Chinese government to reduce birth rates, nor does it mean that I approve of sexism in China or sexism motivated murder. Furthermore I would also like to point out that none of what I have said indicates that I wish to be invaded by China and ruled by the Chinese Communist party. Nor have I indicated in any way that I am an evil hippy who wants to destroy all technological progress.

    I'm not sure why, but I just seem to feel the need to include disclaimers for some reason.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,427
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When too many people have too many children, millions of other people may end up paying for the consequences.
    I still don't understand why people have this zero-sum paranoia about other people having children. As long as you're not forced into some zero-sum-game situation like medieval fiefdoms or stone-age hunting territory, people are an asset. They've been an asset ever since the industrial revolution. They produce more than they consume (far more, with modern technology). How do you suppose the modern industrial world got here if all there ever was was a fixed base of resources which we've had since the dark ages? How is it that prosperity and population have both grown exponentially off this supposedly limited pie?

    If anyone hasn't noticed yet, China's population is one of its biggest assets. As more and more people transition into the middle class (never mind just marginally lower middle class), the nation's power and influence is exploding. They are graduating something like 10x as many engineers as we (edit: we Americans) are, and in a few decades that will translate into considerable technological and economic growth.

    Repeat after me: one man's feast is not another man's famine. People don't invent things, produce things, or grow things at the expense of anyone who doesn't. You're not going to get a larger "share" if the population decreases - because the "share" just won't be created in the first place!!!

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    In my country we have benefited from the wealth of Europe and North America. We see no reason why we won't also benefit from the wealth of China and India.

    NOTE WELL: No, I'm not talking about recieving foreign aid.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Calgary Alberta
    Posts
    1,074
    Economics, viewed through the lens of population, is is not as clear cut as it may seem. Previous posts have stated pressures of: genetic imperative, ignorance, governmental policy, financial reality, gender bias and others. There are no hard and fast rules. It is a fact that the poorer you are, the more able you are to finance a child. If you are in a high income bracket it costs a fortune to keep the kid in that bracket. If poor, feed the kid: period. Harvard compared to a loaf of bread. which is cheaper relatively?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    9,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler View Post
    Actually they don't have to, but for some stupid reason, we've been listening to snivelling, smarmy, bleeding hearted, jelly spined...people...that can't bear to watch people suffer the consequences of their actions. So we get "charity" and "welfare" and "foreign aid" and other associated wastes of resources.
    I agree with you on welfare and foreign aid, but charity (at least as I use the word) is a choice on the part of the people giving it.

    As for China's policies, I think they're a terrible tragedy. I'm self-centered enough to acknowledge that they've worked out well for me, though.
    Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,069
    today most of the countries in the world are facing a debacle of making its growth rate of economy nearer the figure of 10, because this is the miraculous figure in the economics of development, if the growth rate is constant at "10", then it means that the said economy is capable in all respect. Gunnar Mirdol said in the economics of development about the idea of "take off stage", in which it was clarified that how an individual economy grown up, and if reaching at the take off stage means the economy is capable to resist the lickages withing it and also reach at the zenith point of its development.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by 777 geek View Post
    First, there was Smith. Then there was Marx, who offered a better vision. When it proved to be the stupidest vision ever invented, along came Keynes, who offered a more practical vision. When it proved to not be as practical in practice, there was Hayek, who showed we should have listened to Smith in the first place.

    And so we have the new Bank of England £20 note with some Scot on it.

    And that's the history of economics.
    and when you know only this amount of economics you can register at baut and begin to tell everyone how economics works

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by 777 geek View Post
    First, there was Smith. Then there was Marx, who offered a better vision. When it proved to be the stupidest vision ever invented, along came Keynes, who offered a more practical vision. When it proved to not be as practical in practice, there was Hayek, who showed we should have listened to Smith in the first place.
    I didn't know Will Smith, Groucho Marx or Salma Hayek knew anything about economics. But who's this Keynes, and what movies was he in?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I didn't know Will Smith, Groucho Marx or Salma Hayek knew anything about economics.
    i never heard them speak about economics maybe they know a lot

    But who's this Keynes, and what movies was he in?
    it was an historical drama

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    Got any forums for people with Asperger's only?
    I've never heard of one, but if you find one, let me know, i also have Aspergers

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    In my country we have benefited from the wealth of Europe and North America. We see no reason why we won't also benefit from the wealth of China and India.

    NOTE WELL: No, I'm not talking about recieving foreign aid.
    Which country would this be?

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    Which country would this be?
    Australia. I'm currently in Adelaide.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    Australia. I'm currently in Adelaide.
    so, do you buy bottled water, boil it or just put up with the brown tap stuff?

    As you might have been able to tell i'm from Melbourne

    And yes, i also agree with your comments about overseas growth being good for our economy
    Last edited by Damien Evans; 2007-Apr-12 at 04:56 AM. Reason: add last bit

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    so, do you buy bottled water, boil it or just put up with the brown tap stuff?
    You mean the whole town has brown water and not just my place? No wonder I had trouble explaining to the landlord that there was something wrong.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,534
    Europe created its population problem by drowning its youths' ambition in socialism. They didn't have to do anything, and now they simply DON'T want to do anything.
    Aside from being a silly stereotype, this is actually quite offensive.

    Young Europeans have plenty of ambition thankyou very much. Society doesn't have to dangle people off the precipice of sickness, starvation and homelessness in order to motivate them to make something of their lives.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quite. The main reason why socialism fails, in my opinion, is that everyone wants to do better.
    Knowing you won't starve is not a reason to stop struggling.

    I think incidentally that there are different definitions of the word socialism used by different people here.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,303

    Talking

    Europe created its population problem by drowning its youths' ambition in socialism. They didn't have to do anything, and now they simply DON'T want to do anything.
    This is actually an amusing fallacy. Let's see... supposedly, "socialism" has turned the European youth into hopeless slobs. They have no ambition, so the population is shrinking.

    Wait a minute, what does ambition have to do with making babies? If they're all pampered slobs, doesn't that mean they have more time for sex? Shouldn't they be having more babies than before?

    Capitalists...

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,031
    Wait a minute, what does ambition have to do with making babies? If they're all pampered slobs, doesn't that mean they have more time for sex? Shouldn't they be having more babies than before?

    Except that raising babies is hard work, which is something a lot of people want to avoid at all costs. If your entire world is centered on yourself and your happiness, it can be hard to make the sacrifaces necessary to raise children.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,303
    It's only hard work if you do it right. In previous generations, people cared less about the well-being of children, yet they had more of them.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,774
    Quote Originally Posted by suntrack2 View Post
    today most of the countries in the world are facing a debacle of making its growth rate of economy nearer the figure of 10, because this is the miraculous figure in the economics of development, if the growth rate is constant at "10", then it means that the said economy is capable in all respect.
    If all countries grew at 10% there wouldn´t be resources for everybody [not to mention pollution and other downsides -- the so-called 'negative externalities' to economic growth]. If you´re able to control population then you can grow at a calm 2% pace.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Damburger View Post
    Society doesn't have to dangle people off the precipice of sickness, starvation and homelessness in order to motivate them to make something of their lives.
    Worked for me though. Living out of a car, eating peanut butter and Cheez Whiz, doing cold call sales; and it dawned on me that things were not going all that well. Although society did not put me there, and I never thought it did. I put me there, so not quite the same.

    I really was the living-in-a-van-down-by-the-river guy. Except it was an Ambassador in the Denny's parking lot.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    30,230
    Quote Originally Posted by ASEI View Post
    If anyone hasn't noticed yet, China's population is one of its biggest assets. As more and more people transition into the middle class (never mind just marginally lower middle class), the nation's power and influence is exploding. They are graduating something like 10x as many engineers as we (edit: we Americans) are, and in a few decades that will translate into considerable technological and economic growth.
    And staggering quantities of greenhouse gases.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,303

    Wink

    Yep, civilisation is full of hot air.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Argos View Post
    If all countries grew at 10% there wouldn´t be resources for everybody [not to mention pollution and other downsides -- the so-called 'negative externalities' to economic growth]. If you´re able to control population then you can grow at a calm 2% pace.
    nice though, argos, infact the growing population of the world is eating the next 5 years development plan every year, what I mean to say if we implement the economic planning of the world then the plans and the things go closer very fastly because the economic planning of last ruin by the rapid growth in the population.

    in the olden times there was a barter trade practice, means the thing against the thing, for example you have a ample sugar but you have no wheat, then I will give you a wheat by taking the sugar, and there was a certain quantum was prefix to give and share the things (commodities). means if I want 5 kg sugar I will give you 7 kg wheat against the sugar, in which the need of wheat was fullfilled, and the sugar which you were expecting the same was receieve by this way, (here I and You are the example).

    later the invention of coins and paper currency came into light, and till on today you know the practices in the economy how the dealing is happening.

    economics is a very interesting subject, and I have acquaired a master's degree in this subject in 1989-90

    sunil

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    And staggering quantities of greenhouse gases.
    Neh? If you look at it per person it's not bad. Although rice paddies do put out a bit of methane. Despite having a lot of coal I doubt they'll ever get up to the highest Japanese levels of CO2 emissions per capita. High oil prices are one reason.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,774
    Quote Originally Posted by suntrack2 View Post
    nice though, argos, infact the growing population of the world is eating the next 5 years development plan every year, what I mean to say if we implement the economic planning of the world then the plans and the things go closer very fastly because the economic planning of last ruin by the rapid growth in the population.
    Anyway, I oppose any attempt to plan economy, as I think that the market should be left free. Lassez faire, lassez passer!

Similar Threads

  1. The Economics of Spam
    By tofu in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2008-Nov-28, 02:38 PM
  2. Mining Economics
    By geonuc in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 2008-Jul-26, 09:58 AM
  3. Bad economics on The Simpsons
    By Glom in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 2007-Jul-23, 09:24 PM
  4. Monkeys and economics
    By ToSeek in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2007-May-09, 11:28 PM
  5. Economics and capital
    By Glom in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-30, 11:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •