FOUR MORE YEARS! Of this?

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Agathon


Violence, poverty, lack of decent education.

Come walk around downtown Toronto in the middle of the night and you'll see what I mean. It's by far the safest city I've ever lived in.

Violence, poverty, and lack of decent education are all overblown by American media and politicians.

I have walked around downtown Seattle in the middle of the night, and very early morning plenty of times. Never had a problem, ever.

I have walked around the Oakland ghetto before as well... nothing.

Americans are actually very well educated, and people still send thier kids here to learn.

Poverty? Nobody in America has to starve, or be homeless. It is choice if they are in these situations. I worked at McDonalds full time for 13 months, and had a car, a place to call home, and the other half was purely spending money.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon
Coming soon to a country near you: the complete and final discrediting of the idea that conservatives know anything about how to organize an economy.

I daresay the dems don't know either. I agree that economic growth accompanied by growth in poverty is almost useless and deserves examination to see what is going wrong, but I don't agree that republican policies automatically lead to more poverty than the policies of democrats. The best way generally to reduce poverty seems to be economic expansion since this essentially makes the pie even bigger. When that doesn't seem to be working it's worth a closer look (which in this case seems to indicate it's a result of changes in poverty being a lagging economic indicator) but it will never mean that policies that will endanger economic growth will do a better job of elevating poverty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What good is even astronomically huge economic growth if poverty is increasing?

When poverty increases by small levels and economic growth is 'astronomically huge' then a Hell of a lot of good.

[MRT144]

i was doing some math about a monthly budget and i cant work for less than 13 dollars an hour working 40 a week to survive. of course a job like mcdonalds isnt going to pay that.

as for downtown seattle, its alright. still too many drug dealers around belltown and pioneer square for my liking.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

why in the hell would you use the phrase "turned the corner"?

Look at GDP numbers and their growth.

Let me try this again, Why in the hell would you use that phrase, given that it was what Hoover used in a temporary uptick right before the great depression?

[Agathon]

Americans are actually very well educated, and people still send thier kids here to learn.

No one is denying that the best US universities are very fine, but how many people can actually afford to go to comparable institutions. Where I come from an internationally accredited university education is available to everyone with the desire and the ability. I believe the same can be said for Australia.

[MRT144]

agathon, people can go, its just a matter of coming up with student loans to do it. the problem i see is you shouldnt force yourself to go into debt just to learn.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What good is even astronomically huge economic growth if poverty is increasing?

When poverty increases by small levels and economic growth is 'astronomically huge' then a Hell of a lot of good.

No that would suck. If the percentage of people living in misery is increasing while abstract quantities of 'wealth' are increasing even more big deal. There is a point of diminishing returns on wealth. I'm going to derive a lot less satisfaction from the extra 100k that might get added on to my existing 100k income than the satisfaction I would lose losing 10k from a pissant 30k income. What the hell good is economic growth in the presence of increased human misery and a much smaller increase in our luxery?

I value economic growth because as a rule with few if any exceptions I perceive that it lifts everybodys boats much faster on average than could ever be done with a stagnant economy but it would be useless if it lifted boats of those already way the hell out of harms way while more people started drowning.

Here's another thought experiment to show that decreases in poverty are much closer to being the real ultimate end while economic growth is just another means to that end.

Suppose god appeared and offered to cast a spell that would magically ensure that every year the economy would grow by 100% while fraction of people living in poverty would increase by one percent each year forever (asymtopically so that you might have 50% poverty then 50.5% not 50% then 51%) and rounding down the nearest person. Sure you'll never have a country that is completely in poverty but eventually you'd have just one person not living in poverty and all economic growth would accrue to that one person. At that point you wouldn't even have the growth in poverty anymore just the 100% annual economic growth. And yet I don't think anybody would find such an economy desirable. precisely because economic growth is merely a means to an end.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Poverty? Nobody in America has to starve, or be homeless. It is choice if they are in these situations.

Oh man, that's a great one! But have you heard the one about the 12-inch pianist?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No that would suck. If the percentage of people living in misery is increasing while abstract quantities of 'wealth' are increasing even more big deal.

If the middle class and up are making insanely more money, so what if a few more people fall under the poverty line? Big deal.

decreases in poverty are much closer to being the real ultimate end while economic growth is just another means to that end.

The 'end' is to do what is best for the most people. Astronomical increases in economic growth while only a few more people go into poverty is best for most people, especially those in the middle class.

Let me come up with a contrary thought experiment to show that reducing poverty is 'merely a means to an end' of doing best for the most people.

Supposed God appeared and offered to cast a spell so that everyone would magically become equal in economic wealth, which would be just a few ticks above the 'poverty level' (so everyone makes $30,000 a year), but there would be NO economic growth whatsoever. The economy never grows and new technology doesn't come about because of the lack of growth in the economy (who could afford to invest in things or buy brand new products) I don't think anyone would find such an economy desirable, precisely because reducing poverty is merely a means to an end.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No that would suck. If the percentage of people living in misery is increasing while abstract quantities of 'wealth' are increasing even more big deal.

If the middle class and up are making insanely more money, so what if a few more people fall under the poverty line? Big deal.

decreases in poverty are much closer to being the real ultimate end while economic growth is just another means to that end.

The 'end' is to do what is best for the most people. Astronomical increases in economic growth while only a few more people go into poverty is best for most people, especially those in the middle class.

Let me come up with a contrary thought experiment to show that reducing poverty is 'merely a means to an end' of doing best for the most people.

Supposed God appeared and offered to cast a spell so that everyone would magically become equal in economic wealth, which would be just a few ticks above the 'poverty level' (so everyone makes $30,000 a year), but there would be NO economic growth whatsoever. The economy never grows and new technology doesn't come about because of the lack of growth in the economy (who could afford to invest in things or buy brand new products) I don't think anyone would find such an economy desirable, precisely because reducing poverty is merely a means to an end.

I would certainly take the magic spell in your example over the magic spell in my example.

However if your point is that a policy mindset that simply seeks to eliminate poverty without any regard to economic growth could lead to results far from ideal I agree.

I should also add that I accept temporary increases in poverty if a close examination suggests that economic growth was large enough to promise future reductions in poverty to offset it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And my point is also that a minor increase in poverty is not that bad when there is astronomical growth. More people benefit from that growth than lose out by being in poverty.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And my point is also that a minor increase in poverty is not that bad when there is astronomical growth. More people benefit from that growth than lose out by being in poverty.

Well, I think that trend would still suck if it was ongoing and longterm. If poverty were to increase year by year over a period of time longer than typical economic cycles i would no longer care how much the middle and upper classes bennefited. The only way I might find such a situation acceptable would be if the economic growth appeared to be driving increased rates of research that should reverse the trend at some point in the future.

Judging from your posts I think we may still disgree on the concept of diminishing returns on wealth. That is to say if a middle or upper class income is doubled it will pretty much always lead to a lesser increase in real standard of living than if an impoverished persons income is doubled even though by definition this would be a lesser absolute economic increase in every case. Do we disagree on this idea?

[Jon Miller]

it is terrible though if it is continued

you end up with another noble class

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the problem is that you enjoy assigning strawmen. Where does anyone say that this term will continue and ongo until we have 70% under the poverty line? You are asserting strawmen because having 13 million under the poverty line instead of 12 million, while GDP rises by 3-4% is a good thing for the economy. If there were 50% or so under the poverty line, the GDP would fall. Like I said, the end is do the best for the most people.

I don't see how it is so hard to understand that 1 million people dropping under the poverty line while correspondinly 100 million people gain money is a good thing.

That is to say if a middle or upper class income is doubled it will pretty much always lead to a lesser increase in real standard of living than if an impoverished persons income is doubled even though by definition this would be a lesser absolute economic increase in every case. Do we disagree on this idea?

Yes, because all economic growth is not consumption based. In fact the US has problems with savings and thus we require massive foriegn investment. Even if the people who make more don't spend it, they will invest it, resulting in economic growth through investment.

A lot of people seem to ignore that GDP is made out of Consumption, Investment, Government Spending, and Net Exports... NOT just Consumption.