Night of the Living ComCap Debate....

[Sir Og]

I haven't followed the whole discussion but here is what I think on the subject of communism vs. capitalism. I think that both communism and capitalism failed miserably. It is obvious that classic communism doesn't work and we see countries like China adding some capitalist elements to the system to make it more vital and efficient. But the same goes to the capitalist states there are no 19th_century_style capitalist states today (or at least they are not more successful than the communist states). Present day capitalism might have looked like a dream come true to Marx. Modern capitalist economies/societies have a lot of social elements in them.
Basically the most successful systems of today are a mix of cap and com. So neither side should claim that one is better than the other.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Good points Sir Og,

Its been made mention a number of times that their is no real example of true capitalism, yet some continue to point towards western societies as that example.

Like wise those same people chastize folks for pointing towards the so called communist regimes by saying they weren't true communism.


The real point is both are gravititating to a more central position.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Good for you Kid you understand the basic concept of Econ 101 Micro economics.

You have failed in every arguement put forward though to reconciel the fact that new industries and markets are created from technological advances.

Given your candy bar analysis. At some point candy bars become so cheap that they become a viable feed media for livestock. Bingo new market and bingo new demand.

And you fail


I have a BA in economics. I'm certified to teach economics by the state of California, and I use to teach economics. Are you qualified to teach me?

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Consumers only spend a little bit of their additional income at the cheaper price because they stop getting utility.

And this has WHAT to do with your claim that consuming is unnatural?

What the.... !? I'm trying to demonstrate the law for you. It doesn't matter how cheap the candy bars are, You will stop eating them.

First, HOW does this prove that consuming is unnatural? Second, where did I even mention the cost of candy bar's in my response? I will stop eating candy bars once I get my fill, but that doesn't mean I will stop eating them for the rest of my life. Saturation is not permanent...

We're going around in circles.

Actually, I'd describe it as hitting a brick wall.

You want to add the labor required to make the business good to the total number of jobs and say that jobs are created.

Of course, that's called reality. Jobs were created by the invention, production, and improvement of the automobile and you even acknowledged that, but then you ignored that refutation and continued making the same argument that production gains don't create jobs.

When you add those jobs there is a net job loss.

That's why it's a productivity gain. Again, a productivity gain is producing the same good with less labor, even when you add the labor required to make the business equipment.

Let's consider the history of the computer going all the way back to card-punched weaving. Lot's of people were employed weaving on looms, etc. Along comes the punch card and fewer people were needed to weave the same amount of clothing. Did that mean a loss of jobs weaving clothes the old fashioned way? Yes, but look at what has happened as a result. Or how about the printing press? Did that decrease the number of people who wrote/printed books? Sure, but would you deny there are more people involved with making books now? Hell, there's an example of a production gain expanding employment in the very same industry you claim jobs should have been lost.

It doesn't.

Thank you.

I don't know how you got onto this thing about natural consumption.

Because you said consuming wasn't natural.

If it weren't natural to consume there would be no economy, but that doesn't mean that people just consume eveything.

No kidding.

Sure, but productivity improvements and market saturation cut those jobs. As time goes by more and more are cut.

These are jobs that were created by the improvements, jobs you don't want to count because they refute your argument. As to the second part, why?

You're saying that the new employees would only produce enough for themselves.

I am?

They would be producing much more than that. It's an impossibility, and that's why we have permanent unemployment.

We have permanent unemployment because not everyone wants to work. We have permanent unemployment because of government interfering in the marketplace with taxes, regulations, and policies like the minimum wage that drive less valuable skills out of the marketplace. You want full employment? Throw a war and require us to join your effort.

Are you qualified to teach me?

Are you qualified to learn?

Sir Og -

Basically the most successful systems of today are a mix of cap and com. So neither side should claim that one is better than the other.

The USA is a "mixed" economy, but it was capitalism that drove the USA to it's greatness. The fact the left has made inroads into that system with their collectivist ideology doesn't mean capitalism failed. If you take a look, the worst parts of the US economy are those parts effected most by communism. Health care and education costs have been rising extremely fast ever since government got in the business of subsidising or monopolising them. And the government subsidises the legal system by passing millions of laws and regulations, so naturally we've seen legal fees skyrocket too.
Just what aspects of communism have improved capitalism? This notion that neither is better ignores that no capitalist system ever imploded while virtually all communist systems did...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


And you fail


I have a BA in economics. I'm certified to teach economics by the state of California, and I use to teach economics. Are you qualified to teach me?

You certainly wouldn't know it from the quality of your posts. I suppose you have taught us that capitalism is failing if you are and have taught.

Refresher buddy. Both supply and demand curves are a function of time.



In all your arguements, you treat them as a static function.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
[Of course, that's called reality. Jobs were created by the invention, production, and improvement of the automobile and you even acknowledged that, but then you ignored that refutation and continued making the same argument that production gains don't create jobs.

Productivity is output per unit of input. Now tell me how a productivity improvement means that more labor is required to produce the same amount of goods.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
In all your arguements, you treat them as a static function.

Now what are you confused about?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

And this has WHAT to do with your claim that consuming is unnatural?

Oh, and I never made that claim. That's ridiculous. And what's more, it's completely pointless to the subject that we are talking about. So what if it's natural to consume things? You don't have any point.

[Kidicious]

Ok. Let me try to explain it again.

The productivity of the labor used to build the business equipement is part of the productivity of building the final product. If it takes more labor to make the tools than the jobs that were replaced by the tools then that is not a productivity gain. That is a productivity loss. You guys are trying to argue that productivity loss creates jobs. I'm not arguing against that, but both of your thinking is very f'ed up.

I'm trying to argue that productivity gains cause job loss, and you two jokers don't even now what a productivity gain is.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Oh, and I never made that claim.

Yes you did.

That's ridiculous.

I agree, your argument was ridiculous.

And what's more, it's completely pointless to the subject that we are talking about.

Oh well, then that means your argument about demand needing stimulation was pointless because that's what started us down this line.

So what if it's natural to consume things? You don't have any point.

Nice try, but it was your "point" I was addressing...

This was my response to your "demand needs stimulation" argument:

Demand doesn't need stimulation, people consume because that's our nature.

And your "response":

People don't just consume more because it's our nature.

You changed what I said by adding "more", i.e., STRAWMAN! And even your strawman is wrong, people do consume "more" because it's their nature...

Productivity is output per unit of input. Now tell me how a productivity improvement means that more labor is required to produce the same amount of goods.

Kid, where did I say that? Do you read what you're quoting?

Ok. Let me try to explain it again.

The productivity of the labor used to build the business equipement is part of the productivity of building the final product. If it takes more labor to make the tools than the jobs that were replaced by the tools then that is not a productivity gain. That is a productivity loss.

And no one in this debate that I'm aware of said a production gain won't reduce the needed labor for the same amount of production. What we've been saying is that the production gain can stimulate job creation in other areas of the economy and that those jobs must be factored into the equation of job loss. And I just pointed out that a production gain in the same industry can create jobs as the printing press and PC's show.

You guys are trying to argue that productivity loss creates jobs. I'm not arguing against that, but both of your thinking is very f'ed up.

What? Where did we say a productivity loss creates jobs? If you can't quote us, don't tell us what we're trying to argue. Frankly, I'm tired of this. For you to act like we don't get what you've been saying when we've agreed OVER and OVER that a production gain can result in a loss of jobs in that immediate industry only for you to repeatedly accuse us of ignorance is BS.

I'm trying to argue that productivity gains cause job loss, and you two jokers don't even now what a productivity gain is.

Goodbye.

[Kidicious]

This is really funny. I have never seen such poor arguing on this forum as you capitalists have made in these threads. You all do the same thing. Berzerker, look at the place where you quoted me. Now look at the word 'just.' Now what do you think that means?

You have been arguing that buying computers to relpace labor creates jobs because people are needed to build and maintain the computers and the computers require other labor. If you haven't been arguing that then you haven't been making any argument at all.

[Velociryx]

I see not much has changed since I've been embroiled in the move!

Kid's still trying to impress us with the knowledge he didn't abssorb while studying economics, and turning a blind eye to everything that doesn't fit with his argument, eh?

Ahhhh, but I've missed the fun!

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Not too worry.

We all now know that demand is a fixed proposition and that despite the fact that population is growing and looks to continue to do so exponentially we can all assume that demand will be constant over time. All we need understand is the most basic concepts of econ and we too can join the ranks of the misinformed.

No need for better more efficient means of producing goods and services. Status quo of communism will more than suit our needs.

But perhaps its all part of the master plan. Included in the need for massive policing forces will be the enforced no population growth laws as well. Hey it works for that beacon of communism in China why not here and the rest of the world as well? Its just another one of those frivolous human rights things.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

This is really funny. I have never seen such poor arguing on this forum as you capitalists have made in these threads. You all do the same thing. Berzerker, look at the place where you quoted me. Now look at the word 'just.' Now what do you think that means?

You want me to explain your choice of words? I assume it means there are reasons other than nature for consumption, so what are these unnatural reasons?

You have been arguing that buying computers to relpace labor creates jobs because people are needed to build and maintain the computers and the computers require other labor. If you haven't been arguing that then you haven't been making any argument at all.

You do a lousy job of making your own arguments, so please don't make ours. We've already explained how a production gain can increase employment in both the general economy and the specific industry effected by the gain and we've given examples.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
We all now know that demand is a fixed proposition and that despite the fact that population is growing and looks to continue to do so exponentially we can all assume that demand will be constant over time.

Population is not growing exponentially. Population growth is slowing and will start decreasing this century. Population can affect demand, but generally the new additions need jobs. The baby boomers created a boost for demand, but had trouble finding jobs once they entered the workforce. So population growth is not really relevent to the discusion.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

You want me to explain your choice of words? I assume it means there are reasons other than nature for consumption, so what are these unnatural reasons?

I've said it probably 4 times already. You are saying that people consume just because it is natural to do so. I've demonstrated to you that that's not true. People speculate on future prices and income and they get diminished utility.

[Velociryx]

The Kid, hard at work once more, and with some GEMS, as always!

Here's one I rather enjoyed (emphasis mine)

Population can affect demand

Quick question for you, Kid. Making use of your vast economic background, where is it, do you suppose, that demand STEMS from? Could it be....consumers? Who make up the.....say it with me now....population?

Truly a classic!

And this one's not bad either:

You are saying that people consume just because it is natural to do so. I've demonstrated to you that that's not true. People speculate on future prices and income and they get diminished utility.

I know, I know, we're not "allowed" to use personal examples but ummm...when I get hungry, I don't speculate on future prices and income....I EAT! (that's consumption, by the way), and I suspect you do too....

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

I'm positve that you flunked every economics course that you ever took.

[Kidicious]

Oh, btw, the reason I don't teach economics anymore is because of guys like Berzerker, Ogie, and you.

[Velociryx]

I'm positve that you flunked every economics course that you ever took.

In that regard, you would be incorrect.

As for the other....no comment. I'm a gentleman.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I'm positve that you flunked every economics course that you ever took.

In that regard, you would be incorrect.

As for the other....no comment. I'm a gentleman.

-=Vel=-

Well being a gentleman doesn't help you with the basic principles of economics.

[Velociryx]

Kid, you slay me.... :: shakes head in amusement::

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

Kid -

People speculate on future prices and income and they get diminished utility.

So it's unnatural to "speculate"?

[Velociryx]

Methinks you're asking the wrong guy, Berserker. For all his "knowledge" of economics, he's convinced that population has only a niggling effect on demand, that demand itself is largely static, and that newly emerging technologies that enhance productivity have a net negative impact on the aggregate size of the job market (which by definition means that there must have been more people employed by the horse and buggy industry in the USA than are currently working in the US auto industry)

And this guy used to TEACH econ?!?

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

I am bored with this now.

[Kidicious]

Ditto

[Berzerker]

And this guy used to TEACH econ?!?

Kid reminds me of the business teacher in "Back to School" who was embarrased by Rodney Dangerfield's character.

Kid, let's say PC's cost $10,000 per unit and a production gain reduces the cost to $1,000 per unit. You'd say that results in job losses. But because of the production gain and resulting price drop, more people can now afford PC's. What happens? Manufacturers hire more people to make PC's even though the labor per PC has decreased - the production gain increased jobs. And not surprisingly, there are far more people employed making computers now than when computers were first being sold.

[Kidicious]

Here's an easy one for you Berzerker. How many US farmers did it take to feed 1000 people in 1800 compared to the amount of US farmers it takes to feed 1000 people today? Why don't people just buy more food? It's so cheap.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Here's an easy one for you Berzerker. How many US farmers did it take to feed 1000 people in 1800 compared to the amount of US farmers it takes to feed 1000 people today? Why don't people just buy more food? It's so cheap.

First, a debate involves people responding to each other's points. Why do you keep ignoring ours? Do you think we are obliged to respond to you only for you to ignore us? As for your first question, probably more although I don't have actual numbers. More people back then survived by subsistence farming whereas today, thanks to production gains in food creation, we have more people to feed and more people fed. If not for the production gains in food creation, millions of jobs wouldn't even exist because the population wouldn't exist (you didn't see that coming?). As for your second, people do buy more food - look in your fridge. And when we run out, we'll buy more. Your "saturation" argument is based on the phony premise that jobs lost upon reaching over-saturation count only as a loss due to the production gain that created the jobs in the first place. That's like saying the 20,000 jobs created by a production gain are meaningless because 1,000 jobs were lost because of over-saturation.

Agriculture was a "production gain" given the hunting and gathering systems before it. So, jobs hunting and gathering were lost and jobs were created in agriculture, true?
But your premise counts only the lost jobs hunting and gathering, not the jobs created in agriculture. Now, either refute my point about PC's or have the decency to admit that a production gain can increase jobs. You see, we are debating whether or not your claim that production gains don't create jobs is valid. That means we provide examples of production gains creating jobs and you try to shoot down those examples. You seem to think that your argument is validated if you can show a production gain that caused job losses. Nope, your argument is invalidated if we show a production gain that increased jobs - and we have - so deal with our examples instead of ignoring them.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

First, a debate involves people responding to each other's points.

I don't really consider this a debate. I'm just trying to help you understand the principles involved. If you can grasp those we can then debate.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why do you keep ignoring ours?

Job loss in the computer industry is hard to measure. In fact I'm not certain that there has been job loss in that industry yet, because there are still big improvements made to computers every year. It is certain that there will be job loss once the improvement to the porduct slows.

Originally posted by Berzerker
If not for the production gains in food creation, millions of jobs wouldn't even exist because the population wouldn't exist (you didn't see that coming?).

But the job loss doesn't create jobs. It only create the job loss. It's true that the productivity gain was necessary for the new jobs to be created, but the productivity gain did not create the jobs. And you haven't shown that it did.

Originally posted by Berzerker
As for your second, people do buy more food - look in your fridge. And when we run out, we'll buy more.

Can you honestly tell me that this is what you think I was talking about?

Originally posted by Berzerker
Your "saturation" argument is based on the phony premise that jobs lost upon reaching over-saturation count only as a loss due to the production gain that created the jobs in the first place. That's like saying the 20,000 jobs created by a production gain are meaningless because 1,000 jobs were lost because of over-saturation.

No I'm not. New products create jobs. I've said that several times. Jobs are lost in old product industries due to the productivity gains.