The Social Contract?

[Japher]

Wouldn't it be economist whyo understand it best?

That's what I meant... oops. And Che, you have made me aware of the communist's enlightenment of capitalism time and time again.

[Agathon]

Not at all. In fact, I'd say they need less money. Their inefficient economies show that

Then why do countries with lavish welfare states (like Sweden) consistently top the UN Human Development Index?

Typical economic measurements like the GDP undervalue the contribution of the state to the economy. Good economists admit this. It is why people like Amartya Sen were involved in the UNHDI project IIRC.

Why does Canada have a better standard of living than the US? It isn't because Canada is richer or has more natural resources, or anything like that. It is because the Canadian mixed economy is extremely efficient at providing goods which people need.

Why is the US so incredibly rich, yet fails to beat poorer countries with respect to its standard of living.

Jesus, when I was growing up New Zealand had, and had had, the world's highest standard of living for years. We weren't rich, we just had an economy that was very good at meeting people's needs.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
You think communist have a greater understanding about productivity?

Well I do, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about wealth and capital like most communists do.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Wouldn't it be economist whyo understand it best?

One of my economics professors was a communist. Well, he taught history of economic thought only. I never asked him if he thought of himself as a communist or not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then why do countries with lavish welfare states (like Sweden) consistently top the UN Human Development Index?

Only if you consider HDI to be indicative to efficiency can you say countries on top are the most economically efficient. I'd definetly disagree that this political measurement can determine efficiency better than the measures most economists use.

[Kidlicious]

Economists are very poor at measuring efficiency beyond the very simple way that they define it. They use the same definition for efficiency that businesses do. This definition was never defined to measure how much people benefit from the economy and their govt.

[Fake Boris]

Kid you're wasting your time. He is a moral relativist anyway, so phrases like "an economy that is benefitting the people" is stranger to him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They use the same definition for efficiency that businesses do.

Uh huh... seeing how private businesses are how an economy grows, I'd consider it a good way to look at things.

This definition was never defined to measure how much people benefit from the economy and their govt.

I would think the amount of goods and services produced within the country (INCLUDING government spending) measures how much people benefit very well, actually .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I would think the amount of goods and services produced within the country (INCLUDING government spending) measures how much people benefit very well, actually .

Not if those goods and services are for export.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They use the same definition for efficiency that businesses do.

Uh huh... seeing how private businesses are how an economy grows, I'd consider it a good way to look at things.

Sure, if all you care about is private business.

This definition was never defined to measure how much people benefit from the economy and their govt.

I would think the amount of goods and services produced within the country (INCLUDING government spending) measures how much people benefit very well, actually .

It's only part of it. You only think like this when you assume that increased profits are the only goal, or that they are a big enough goal not to care about goals that other people have.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Kid you're wasting your time. He is a moral relativist anyway, so phrases like "an economy that is benefitting the people" is stranger to him.

Oh I know. I've been done this road with him a few times.

[pchang]

Increasing life expectancy also comes with increasing productive years. They may not come at a 1 to 1 rate, but they do come. Recognizing this and increasing the retirement age is the only to create sustainable welfare programs for the aged.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sure, if all you care about is private business.

Well if you care about economic growth, then you care about private business. That is kind of why in every Western country (including Scandinavian uber-government countries) have very strong private sector.

It's only part of it. You only think like this when you assume that increased profits are the only goal, or that they are a big enough goal not to care about goals that other people have.

You mean like making more money?

Persuing vacations or taking less money to do something you love doesn't mean your choice is more economically efficient.

Not if those goods and services are for export.

If they are, then it won't last. A lower class with no money will not be a productive workforce, causing quality to suffer greatly. After all, there is a reason that most jobs follow productivity.

[Kidlicious]

Imran,

There are other goals besides economic growth. I know that's tough for you to comprehend, but it's true.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Not if those goods and services are for export.

If they are, then it won't last. A lower class with no money will not be a productive workforce, causing quality to suffer greatly. After all, there is a reason that most jobs follow productivity.

This is not quite true. A lower class is perfectly sustainable as long as its condition improves slightly over time. However, any calculation of societal benefit from productivity will be overcounted if exports are larger than imports.