Night of the Living ComCap Debate....

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

You want me to explain your choice of words? I assume it means there are reasons other than nature for consumption, so what are these unnatural reasons?

I've said it probably 4 times already. You are saying that people consume just because it is natural to do so. I've demonstrated to you that that's not true. People speculate on future prices and income and they get diminished utility.

[Velociryx]

The Kid, hard at work once more, and with some GEMS, as always!

Here's one I rather enjoyed (emphasis mine)

Population can affect demand

Quick question for you, Kid. Making use of your vast economic background, where is it, do you suppose, that demand STEMS from? Could it be....consumers? Who make up the.....say it with me now....population?

Truly a classic!

And this one's not bad either:

You are saying that people consume just because it is natural to do so. I've demonstrated to you that that's not true. People speculate on future prices and income and they get diminished utility.

I know, I know, we're not "allowed" to use personal examples but ummm...when I get hungry, I don't speculate on future prices and income....I EAT! (that's consumption, by the way), and I suspect you do too....

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

I'm positve that you flunked every economics course that you ever took.

[Kidlicious]

Oh, btw, the reason I don't teach economics anymore is because of guys like Berzerker, Ogie, and you.

[Velociryx]

I'm positve that you flunked every economics course that you ever took.

In that regard, you would be incorrect.

As for the other....no comment. I'm a gentleman.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I'm positve that you flunked every economics course that you ever took.

In that regard, you would be incorrect.

As for the other....no comment. I'm a gentleman.

-=Vel=-

Well being a gentleman doesn't help you with the basic principles of economics.

[Velociryx]

Kid, you slay me.... :: shakes head in amusement::

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

Kid -

People speculate on future prices and income and they get diminished utility.

So it's unnatural to "speculate"?

[Velociryx]

Methinks you're asking the wrong guy, Berserker. For all his "knowledge" of economics, he's convinced that population has only a niggling effect on demand, that demand itself is largely static, and that newly emerging technologies that enhance productivity have a net negative impact on the aggregate size of the job market (which by definition means that there must have been more people employed by the horse and buggy industry in the USA than are currently working in the US auto industry)

And this guy used to TEACH econ?!?

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

I am bored with this now.

[Kidlicious]

Ditto

[Berzerker]

And this guy used to TEACH econ?!?

Kid reminds me of the business teacher in "Back to School" who was embarrased by Rodney Dangerfield's character.

Kid, let's say PC's cost $10,000 per unit and a production gain reduces the cost to $1,000 per unit. You'd say that results in job losses. But because of the production gain and resulting price drop, more people can now afford PC's. What happens? Manufacturers hire more people to make PC's even though the labor per PC has decreased - the production gain increased jobs. And not surprisingly, there are far more people employed making computers now than when computers were first being sold.

[Kidlicious]

Here's an easy one for you Berzerker. How many US farmers did it take to feed 1000 people in 1800 compared to the amount of US farmers it takes to feed 1000 people today? Why don't people just buy more food? It's so cheap.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Here's an easy one for you Berzerker. How many US farmers did it take to feed 1000 people in 1800 compared to the amount of US farmers it takes to feed 1000 people today? Why don't people just buy more food? It's so cheap.

First, a debate involves people responding to each other's points. Why do you keep ignoring ours? Do you think we are obliged to respond to you only for you to ignore us? As for your first question, probably more although I don't have actual numbers. More people back then survived by subsistence farming whereas today, thanks to production gains in food creation, we have more people to feed and more people fed. If not for the production gains in food creation, millions of jobs wouldn't even exist because the population wouldn't exist (you didn't see that coming?). As for your second, people do buy more food - look in your fridge. And when we run out, we'll buy more. Your "saturation" argument is based on the phony premise that jobs lost upon reaching over-saturation count only as a loss due to the production gain that created the jobs in the first place. That's like saying the 20,000 jobs created by a production gain are meaningless because 1,000 jobs were lost because of over-saturation.

Agriculture was a "production gain" given the hunting and gathering systems before it. So, jobs hunting and gathering were lost and jobs were created in agriculture, true?
But your premise counts only the lost jobs hunting and gathering, not the jobs created in agriculture. Now, either refute my point about PC's or have the decency to admit that a production gain can increase jobs. You see, we are debating whether or not your claim that production gains don't create jobs is valid. That means we provide examples of production gains creating jobs and you try to shoot down those examples. You seem to think that your argument is validated if you can show a production gain that caused job losses. Nope, your argument is invalidated if we show a production gain that increased jobs - and we have - so deal with our examples instead of ignoring them.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

First, a debate involves people responding to each other's points.

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.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why do you keep ignoring ours?

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.

Originally posted by Berzerker
If not for the production gains in food creation, millions of jobs wouldn't even exist because the population wouldn't exist (you didn't see that coming?).

But the job loss doesn't create jobs. It only create the job loss. 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.

Originally posted by Berzerker
As for your second, people do buy more food - look in your fridge. And when we run out, we'll buy more.

Can you honestly tell me that this is what you think I was talking about?

Originally posted by Berzerker
Your "saturation" argument is based on the phony premise that jobs lost upon reaching over-saturation count only as a loss due to the production gain that created the jobs in the first place. That's like saying the 20,000 jobs created by a production gain are meaningless because 1,000 jobs were lost because of over-saturation.

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.