Night of the Living ComCap Debate....

[Velociryx]

::side note to Meldor and Og:: Got kinna quiet around here, eh?

I guess we'll just have to flesh this topic our with a few more pages of shameless, childish lies....

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

Kid -

No one is saying that capitalism can't be productive Berzerker. We're saying that it is unstable and headed for collapse.

And you're a communist? Let's see, number of communist countries 40 years ago ~25? And now, ~3? And the number of "capitalistic" countries has increased thanks to those formerly communist countries seeing the light.

There are factors that create jobs. Productivity gains are not one of those.

Was the invention of the automobile and it's replacement of the horse buggy a "productivity" gain? And did that result in both a loss of jobs producing horse buggies and a gain in auto builders?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ohh come on now. Productivity gains allowing technology to reach new people due to its low cost (i.e. new markets) thereby driving new innovations and creating new markets.

Berzerker what are you reading science fiction?

Lol........

[Berzerker]

Ogie -

Ohh come on now. Productivity gains allowing technology to reach new people due to its low cost (i.e. new markets) thereby driving new innovations and creating new markets.

Berzerker what are you reading science fiction?

Lol........

I'd say it's usually the innovation that drives productivity gains, but what's your point? You just explained how gains can create jobs which was my argument. You'll have to explain how your argument refutes what I said...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'm in 100% agreement with you Big B.

It was a facetious jab at our otherwise dogged commie friend. Although at this point I should reign in a little it almost seems like dog piling at this point.

Kid has been a good sport about it all so far.

[Berzerker]

Darn, I noted the sarcasm but wasn't sure if you were being serious.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And did that result in both a loss of jobs producing horse buggies and a gain in auto builders?

Let's say hypothetically that we had to use the old technology and that there were people with the necessary skills who were unemployed. Yes, there would be net job creation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Kid has been a good sport about it all so far.

I have? I thought I was getting pissed off and rude. But atleast I know I was pissing off some of you guys.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ogie -

I'd say it's usually the innovation that drives productivity gains, but what's your point? You just explained how gains can create jobs which was my argument. You'll have to explain how your argument refutes what I said...

He did? It was weak. I do know the argument. I just think it usually doesn't work the way it's suppose to.

[Kidlicious]

I'm I right in assuming that you guys think that new technologies that create productivity gains require more labor to produce the same goods?

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Let's say hypothetically that we had to use the old technology and that there were people with the necessary skills who were unemployed. Yes, there would be net job creation.

Why use a hypothetical that requires no advances in technology? That's the whole point of productivity gains, they usually result from technological advances. I can't figure out the rest of your argument, can you re-phrase it?

I'm I right in assuming that you guys think that new technologies that create productivity gains require more labor to produce the same goods?

No, there may be a loss in that specific field - buggy workers decline as autos are built - since the innovation may increase production using fewer workers (like the cotton gin), but the gains can create jobs in other areas. As autos replaced horse buggies, the innovation opened up new areas of employment. Mechanics, gas stations, road builders, etc., followed by every other industry ultimatly dependent on the innovation. There are more jobs in the world than 200 years ago and more people - who constitute a productivity gain of sorts - to fill them.
This happened because of innovation and the resulting productivity gains. If we didn't have the productivity gains, we couldn't feed 6 billion people...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

Why use a hypothetical that requires no advances in technology? That's the whole point of productivity gains, they usually result from technological advances. I can't figure out the rest of your argument, can you re-phrase it?

I did that because you can't compare the number of jobs back then to the number of jobs today. I didn't want you to get confused.

Ok, let's compare the labor required to transport goods back then to the labor to transport the same amount of goods today. Today the same amount of labor can transport more goods. Is that clearer?

Originally posted by Berzerker
No, there may be a loss in that specific field - buggy workers decline as autos are built - since the innovation may increase production using fewer workers (like the cotton gin), but the gains can create jobs in other areas. As autos replaced horse buggies, the innovation opened up new areas of employment. Mechanics, gas stations, road builders, etc., followed by every other industry ultimatly dependent on the innovation. There are more jobs in the world than 200 years ago and more people - who constitute a productivity gain of sorts - to fill them.
This happened because of innovation and the resulting productivity gains. If we didn't have the productivity gains, we couldn't feed 6 billion people...

We can't complicate matters with demand for goods that provide utility for consumers. That's not a productivity gain. The automobile does both, provides more utility than horse power and is more productive than horse power. If we look at just the productivity gains, we see that there are less jobs required to, for example transport the same amount of people and goods, even with the gas stations and roads. If that weren't true then the automobile would not be a true productivity gain.

Now I'm not sure if your trying to make this point, but the automobile is also a consumer product that has replaced horses. It also requires more labor than horses. People want cars more even though they cost more because they get more utility. So if you take the automobile as both a productivity gain and a new consumer product yes it did create more jobs. Well maybe, I'm not sure about that. There may have been a study done, but I'm not aware of it.

[Kidlicious]

Since we're on the subject of productivity improvements and consumer spending, consumer spending is independent of productivity improvements. There is no tendecy for new consumer goods and services to be introduced to the market at the same time as the productivity improvements to clear the labor market. That is the cause of depressions.

In the case of the automobile it created productivity gains and increased consumer spending. Unfortunately Henry Ford began building more cars than could be afforded or desired in the market. That's when capitalism takes a big hit, a period where no new spending is occuring and productivity gains are cutting into employment.

edit: typos

[Berzerker]

Kid -

We can't complicate matters with demand for goods that provide utility for consumers. That's not a productivity gain.

Producing more food (with less labor) is not a productivity gain?
I'm not sure why utility matters...

The automobile does both, provides more utility than horse power and is more productive than horse power.

And thanks to the automobile, we produce more food which creates jobs in all sorts of areas. But no doubt buggy makers lost business and employees.

If we look at just the productivity gains, we see that there are less jobs required to, for example transport the same amount of people and goods, even with the gas stations and roads. If that weren't true then the automobile would not be a true productivity gain.

But you're ignoring that a productivity gain opens other avenues for employment thereby expanding the economy.
Yes, we could move more goods with less labor because of the automobile, but that frees up people for those new avenues of employment jobs.

Now I'm not sure if your trying to make this point, but the automobile is also a consumer product that has replaced horses. It also requires more labor than horses. People want cars more even though they cost more because they get more utility. So if you take the automobile as both a productivity gain and a new consumer product yes it did create more jobs. Well maybe, I'm not sure about that. There may have been a study done, but I'm not aware of it.

A productivity gain is kind of irrelevant without demand for the product realised by the gain. C'mon Kid, how many jobs existed 200 years ago? And how many exist today? What allowed for the difference? Production gains, including larger populations...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

Producing more food (with less labor) is not a productivity gain?
I'm not sure why utility matters...



And thanks to the automobile, we produce more food which creates jobs in all sorts of areas. But no doubt buggy makers lost business and employees.



But you're ignoring that a productivity gain opens other avenues for employment thereby expanding the economy.
Yes, we could move more goods with less labor because of the automobile, but that frees up people for those new avenues of employment jobs.



A productivity gain is kind of irrelevant without demand for the product realised by the gain. C'mon Kid, how many jobs existed 200 years ago? And how many exist today? What allowed for the difference? Production gains, including larger populations...

You're confused about what a productivity gain actually is. A productivity gain requires less labor by definition. Freed up labor is not the same as job creation. Demand must be stimulated, and eventually more and more new products and services must be introduced to suck up the ever increasing surplus of labor 'freed up' by the productivity gains.