The Social Contract?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Yeah sure. What did he spend the money on? Social programs?

Yes, Bush has created the largest expansion in Social Programs since LBJ's Great Society program of the 1960's. The medicare drug benifet alone costs more then all the post 9/11 increase in defense spending. Last weeks economist has a wonderful article on it.

Bush is a unnatural political controdiction. He claims to want smaller government but creates some of the largest expansions of government in history. He cuts taxes but then massively explodes spending. He can only be called a big government conservative.

The problem with that ideology is that if you continually cut taxes but increase spending you will eventually reach a debt ratio where bankruptcy becomes unavoidable. The country needs a President who will either slash spending or raise taxes in order to balance the budget.

[Dinner]

BTW Bush doubled Federal spending on education from $36 billion to $75 billion between 2001 and 2004. That is according to last weeks economist in which they published a eight page special on the good and the bad of the Bush Administration.

I'm glade he's spending more on education but I dispise the fact that he's mandating it only be spent on advancing conservative causes like abstinence pledges instead of teaching people about safe sex, programs to educate women about the "harm" abortion causes (I.E. try to brain wash people into siding with the religious right), and other conservative issues.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

And pray tell how do these 'goals' contribute to economic growth?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

And pray tell how do these 'goals' contribute to economic growth?

Who cares? I'm not saying they do. They benefit us because they are our goals. They may or may not have anything to do with economic growth.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who cares? I'm not saying they do.

Then why are you debating? I have always been talking about economic efficiency and economic growth.

They benefit us because they are our goals. They may or may not have anything to do with economic growth.

Also, I'd argue most of our goals are economic in nature.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

The UN Human Development Index is also very, very subjective and not objective. The UN decides to give more points to a country the closer it is to being "fair"; i.e. the closer it gets to the socialist ideal. Points are given for government run health care, the difference between richest and poorest (which has nothing to do with Human Development and is a red herring), and a variety of other subjective things.

[pchang]

That is why Agathon likes it. It gives weight to the things he agrees with.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Who cares? I'm not saying they do.

Then why are you debating? I have always been talking about economic efficiency and economic growth.

Then why are you talking about the HDI? Economic growth is only a factor. HDI is a broader measure of satisfaction.

They benefit us because they are our goals. They may or may not have anything to do with economic growth.

Also, I'd argue most of our goals are economic in nature.

I don't want to argue that. Who cares? The question is whether the HDI or economic growth measure better what the HDI aims to measure. Of course the answer is the HDI is a better measure.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The UN Human Development Index is also very, very subjective and not objective. The UN decides to give more points to a country the closer it is to being "fair"; i.e. the closer it gets to the socialist ideal. Points are given for government run health care, the difference between richest and poorest (which has nothing to do with Human Development and is a red herring), and a variety of other subjective things.

And saying that economic growth is the measure of everything good is not subjective?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The problem with that ideology is that if you continually cut taxes but increase spending you will eventually reach a debt ratio where bankruptcy becomes unavoidable. The country needs a President who will either slash spending or raise taxes in order to balance the budget.

There is a third alternative:

Grow the economy.

That is Bush's plan in major part. The other part is to hold the line on new spending.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then why are you talking about the HDI?

Because it was brought up as a better measure of economic growth.

The question is whether the HDI or economic growth measure better what the HDI aims to measure.

Yes, rephrase the question that way! Why I state "the question is whether HDI or economic growth measure better what economic growth aims to measure"!

[Imran Siddiqui]

The UN Human Development Index is also very, very subjective and not objective. The UN decides to give more points to a country the closer it is to being "fair"; i.e. the closer it gets to the socialist ideal. Points are given for government run health care, the difference between richest and poorest (which has nothing to do with Human Development and is a red herring), and a variety of other subjective things.

Exactly! It's like saying we think countries like Sweden are the best in living standards so we'll create a measure which says that .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Then why are you talking about the HDI?

Because it was brought up as a better measure of economic growth.

I don't think so. Economic growth is a factor of HDI. I think you misunderstood someone.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Exactly! It's like saying we think countries like Sweden are the best in living standards so we'll create a measure which says that .

Measures of economic growth are chosen the same way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think so.

Why don't you read Aggie's last post saying that economic efficiency is best described using HDI and not traditional economic measures.

Just because you aren't aware of how this all started doesn't mean everyone is.

Measures of economic growth are chosen the same way.

Yeah, because there are people who think more consumption and investment is bad for a country. And I wasn't aware economists like Adam Smith and Ricardo were in the business to say their countries were the best in economics and then created the system to say that... in fact Smith was very critical of English policy.

Sorry, try again. And do better next time, hmm?