|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 72 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 41 of 72:
| 
Oct 27 15:49 UTC 2003 |
Re 38 - I don't buy cars, nor does Jim. The two he currently owns were given
to him.
|
slynne
|
|
response 42 of 72:
|
Oct 27 16:25 UTC 2003 |
resp:40 - I was just listening to some radio economists going on about
this very thing. They said that we still make as much stuff as we did
40 years ago. However, there are a lot more people in the country now
and we consume WAY more stuff than we used to. So, while we make the
same amount of stuff, it is a much lower percentage of the total
consumption.
|
aruba
|
|
response 43 of 72:
|
Oct 27 16:26 UTC 2003 |
That makes sense - thanks.
|
tod
|
|
response 44 of 72:
|
Oct 27 17:02 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sj2
|
|
response 45 of 72:
|
Oct 27 17:59 UTC 2003 |
In the 70s and 80s, lots of manufacturing jobs moved out of the US.
After that, the US economy has only grown further. No reason it should
stop growing bcoz of outsourcing of service industry jobs. Only remains
to be seen what will drive growth in the US now. Usually, growth in the
US economy provides growth for other economies too which is a good
things coz everyone benefits.
Can someone point me to a link for statistics on US exports category
wise? Arms, cars, steel, farm produce etc etc?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 72:
|
Oct 27 18:13 UTC 2003 |
I've always wondered why the economy must "grow" continually in order to
have a satisfactory economic structure. Obviously nothing can grow forever
- all resources are finite. Many looming problems - from depletion of the
oceans of edible fish to global warming - would have been averted by
moving to a constrained, steady-state economy, especially for the more
advanced economies. Then more effort could be put into an equalization of
world economies so noone is left in desperate circumstances.
|
tod
|
|
response 47 of 72:
|
Oct 27 18:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 48 of 72:
|
Oct 27 18:53 UTC 2003 |
re #46: spoken like someone already perched comfortably close to the top
of the economic ladder.
|
slynne
|
|
response 49 of 72:
|
Oct 27 19:04 UTC 2003 |
Economies can grow even without depletion of resources. Sometimes the
growth comes from coming up with ways to use available resources more
efficiently. Think about it. What if I could come up with a way to use
the energy from the sun such that it could supply all our power needs.
Let's just say that I need lots and lots of human labor in order to
make that happen. That would be a whole new industry and a lot of
growth and I dont think even Rane would suggest the status quo is
better than *that*. Whatever the future growth is in the economy, it is
likely to be something good.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 50 of 72:
|
Oct 27 19:33 UTC 2003 |
I see you have been "convinced". It would be great if it were simple to
harvest for sunlight, but what if that *accelerates* the depletion of
other resource? Without something else being done to limit growth, the
longer term effects would be to increase population and consumption faster
- of other finite resources - unless the brakes could also be placed on
growth per-se. I'm not opposed to a better life for all, but why must we
always let - or even encourage this to - this increase crowding and
environmental destruction?
|
slynne
|
|
response 51 of 72:
|
Oct 27 19:49 UTC 2003 |
Oddly, in areas where there has been the most economic growth, there
has also been a reduction in birth rate. Economic growth does not equal
population growth.
Sure, there is a finite amount of natural resources and also
environmental costs. If resources get scarce enough, you will see
economic growth in areas of conservation.
|
gull
|
|
response 52 of 72:
|
Oct 27 21:12 UTC 2003 |
Re #39: If they can't find enough low-wage workers, they just import more.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 53 of 72:
|
Oct 27 23:19 UTC 2003 |
Its not economic growth but education that reduces the birth rate, although
with our present systems education usually waits for a better economic
situation (that does not have to be *growth*).
|
slynne
|
|
response 54 of 72:
|
Oct 27 23:27 UTC 2003 |
Our culture has a lower birth rate because it is not economically
beneficial to have children. Well, that is one theory anyway. Just as
good as a theory about education reducing birth rate.
|
jep
|
|
response 55 of 72:
|
Oct 28 02:55 UTC 2003 |
re resp:41: Collectively we buy cars, though, which is what I meant.
Sindi, if everyone lived as you do, your life would change as much as
anyone else's. You would have to compete more for the stuff you use
to live. We cannot all be scavengers. It would probably be better if
more people made that choice, though.
re resp:46: As long as the population increases, there will need to be
more resources used to sustain it. We have more mouths to feed, more
bodies to house, more minds to educate, more people driving on the
highways.
Beyond that... it seems harsh to pick a particular generation and
say, "Stop! You can't live better than the previous generation, as
the previous generation did, and the one before did, and the one
before that." It seems really harsh for a generation to say it to
their kids.
|
slynne
|
|
response 56 of 72:
|
Oct 28 03:51 UTC 2003 |
I dont think anyone doubts that an increasing population is a problem.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 57 of 72:
|
Oct 28 05:36 UTC 2003 |
(Drucker calls it a 'knowledge economy', not a 'service economy', because the
chief product is . . . knowledge.)
|
sj2
|
|
response 58 of 72:
|
Oct 28 05:46 UTC 2003 |
Increasing populations is as much a problem as decline in birth rates
or contraction in populations. Look at the problem faced by countries
where a significant working force will retire in the coming decades,
will need old-age care, retirement benefits etc and there aren't
enough young people to replace them or pay for the retirement
benefits!!
http://www.estellejames.com/presentations/europe.ppt
http://money.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4688297-110142,00.html
|
gull
|
|
response 59 of 72:
|
Oct 28 14:07 UTC 2003 |
Fortunately, productivity is increasing, and that will mitigate the problem
to some extent.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 60 of 72:
|
Oct 28 17:46 UTC 2003 |
Productivity increases don't decrease resource depletion - they just
consume resources faster for a given population. Increasing efficiencies,
on the other hand, do preserve some resources - temporarily.
|
gull
|
|
response 61 of 72:
|
Oct 28 18:27 UTC 2003 |
No, but productivity increases *do* improve the ability of a smaller
generation to support retirees.
Part of the problem, frankly, is an obsolete concept of retirement.
Lifespans keep getting longer, but people keep expecting to retire at
age 55 and never work again. Sooner or later we have to come to terms
with the fact that expecting to take a 30-year vacation is not realistic.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 62 of 72:
|
Oct 28 18:54 UTC 2003 |
That's an oversimplification. If persons at any age have managed to
save enough to live on their investments, whether it is through their
private investments or through "social security" investments, shouldn't
they be entitled to do that? That can work, of course, because they are
paying others to produce goods and services through their investments.
Please tell us what is wrong with this concept.
|
sj2
|
|
response 63 of 72:
|
Oct 28 19:45 UTC 2003 |
This is an old article but still relevant, I guess.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19970701faessay3782/martin-feldstein/the-
case-for-privatization.html
Summary: By 2030, Social Security payroll tax rates will rise to 19
percent - more than 45 percent including Medicare and Medicaid. In
Europe, which faces similar challenges, the burden of entitlement
expenses is already so great as to slow economic growth. The solution
is to phase out Social Security and other pay-as-you-go programs and
replace them with a mandate for all to put away savings in a mix of
stocks and bonds. Under a privatized system, the same benefits would
require contributions equal to just two percent of U.S. payroll. Not
only would the elderly be safe from poverty, but for the first time
people of low and moderate means would accumulate significant personal
savings.
|
klg
|
|
response 64 of 72:
|
Oct 28 20:41 UTC 2003 |
yes
|
gull
|
|
response 65 of 72:
|
Oct 28 21:27 UTC 2003 |
I'm not sure that really solves the problem. If you have a large generation
of retirees all withdrawing their savings from the market, and a smaller
generation of workers investing, it seems to me that those investments are
going to drop in value pretty dramatically.
|