Night of the Living ComCap Debate.... - Page 7

Ogie Oglethorpe · July 2, 2003, 03:02

Quote:

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

Woot! Woot! Woot! Another triumph of capitalism!!!

And by the by regarding population and its effect on demand. You prompted me to research via the US census boards actual expected population growth curves.

Once past the baby boom, seems the US looks to settle into a yearly pop growth of approximately .7 percent yearly. (which I believe still makes its an exponential function A= A(original)exp(.007 * time) )

World population though is where I actually owe some kudos to you. I was actually refering to world population since we are supposedly now a world market. World population growth rate is anticipated to slow much more dramatically. To an approximate 0.5 percent growth rate. If you look into the cause, the expectation is that China's growth rate goes flat and negative. So I do stand corrected.

OTOH it still does prompt me to think. Is Communism any different then say war, disease, or famine? They both seem to have the same effect.

Laslty, this is all (according to you) of no particular significance in any event as population is merely a weak indicator of demand.

Kidicious · July 2, 2003, 03:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Laslty, this is all (according to you) of no particular significance in any event as population is merely a weak indicator of demand.

I didn't mean that. It's an indicator of demand as long as you assume that the new additions will have jobs.

Ogie Oglethorpe · July 2, 2003, 03:18

Ohh I see and the historical trend of job creation actually outpacing the horrendous losses associated with productivity gains (shudder imagine doing things more efficiently and at lower cost) will all of a sudden reverse itself.

What pray tell will drive this phenomena?

Ogie Oglethorpe · July 2, 2003, 03:41

Kid,

I've read and reread most of your posts now for the bazillionth time now.

Why is it that you have no faith in the ability of man to innovate and create new markets? Forget for a second the productivity arguements.

What is it that makes you think that there are no new market opportunities to drive whole new waves of employment?

I've read this before from communist espousers but would like to hear your thoughts.

Berzerker · July 2, 2003, 04:02

Kid -

Quote:

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.

Well, please don't sneeze as you look down your nose at us.

Quote:

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.

Wait a minute, now you're saying we will see job losses as production gains slow and you aren't sure if there are job losses because production gains have been so big? Um...kay...

Quote:

But the job loss doesn't create jobs.

Good one.

Quote:

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.

Kid, this is ridiculous. The production gains in food creation allowed for a much larger population, and without a much larger population, we wouldn't see all these jobs. Would we see these jobs without the production gains in food creation? Nope.

Quote:

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

I know what you were talking about, didn't you read on?

Quote:

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.

Computers were a new product 30-40 years ago. But when did we see the most jobs created in the computer industry? After production gains lowered the costs of computers so most people could afford them. Explain that given your premise that production gains don't create jobs...

Velociryx · July 2, 2003, 09:25

So maybe if we find ONE good that's not, as Kid puts it "both a consumer and an industrial good," and falls solely in the realm of the industrial, that was responsible for productivity gains which did NOT result in net job loss....maybe then he'll begin to see the light.

Kid, I present to you....the conveyor belt, which made it possible for the "assembly line" to spread to nearly every manufacturing concern. The invention of the conveyor belt totally changed manufacturing in multiple segments of the economy from job-shop orientation to assembly line orientation and made possible the notion of the factory, which could employ ever larger numbers of people very efficiently.

With this invention, it is true that job losses did occur, but those losses were far outstripped by the gains in the massive factories that had not existed prior to the existence of the technology.

Of course, I fully expect that you'll provide some trite, incorrect bit of economic "theory" or another groovy soundbyte to dismiss this, and then get right back to spouting various (random?) bits and pieces of Kidonomics, and that's okay. I understand. You're bored with the debate because it hasn't been a debate for quite some time, and it can't be all that much fun to flail about frantically as your keystone points disintegrate around you.

Shall we call it a day?

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · July 2, 2003, 10:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Ohh I see and the historical trend of job creation actually outpacing the horrendous losses associated with productivity gains (shudder imagine doing things more efficiently and at lower cost) will all of a sudden reverse itself.

What pray tell will drive this phenomena?

There's no tendacy for job creation to stay at the same pace as job loss. Job loss consistantly out paces job creation. We are in one of those periods right now in the US. We went through a major period during the Great Depression.

Kidicious · July 2, 2003, 10:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Kid,

I've read and reread most of your posts now for the bazillionth time now.

Why is it that you have no faith in the ability of man to innovate and create new markets? Forget for a second the productivity arguements.

What is it that makes you think that there are no new market opportunities to drive whole new waves of employment?

I've read this before from communist espousers but would like to hear your thoughts.

I'm not saying that there wont be innovations. Some innovations create productivity gains, others create new consumer products or services, and others do both. The effects of the innovation determine the results in the job market.

Kidicious · July 2, 2003, 10:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Wait a minute, now you're saying we will see job losses as production gains slow and you aren't sure if there are job losses because production gains have been so big? Um...kay...

Possible job creation in one industry and net job loss in the overall job market. One is productivity improvement and one is new consumer product.

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Computers were a new product 30-40 years ago. But when did we see the most jobs created in the computer industry? After production gains lowered the costs of computers so most people could afford them. Explain that given your premise that production gains don't create jobs...

The lower prices did lead to increased sales, but so did product improvements. Just imagine if we still had old Commador 64s. How many less computers would be sold even at the low prices?

Kidicious · July 2, 2003, 11:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, I present to you....the conveyor belt, which made it possible for the "assembly line" to spread to nearly every manufacturing concern. The invention of the conveyor belt totally changed manufacturing in multiple segments of the economy from job-shop orientation to assembly line orientation and made possible the notion of the factory, which could employ ever larger numbers of people very efficiently.

I'm not real up on early capitalism. I think there were some nasty recessions in Britain in the early stages due to overproduction and unemployment. Surely when capital started pouring in people rushed to use this new invention to get some of the potential profit. That's when the overproduction and recession occurs. In early capitalism there weren't many new products for consumers to buy coming out. Unemployment stayed low in Britain and other colonial powers because of Imperialism.

Velociryx · July 2, 2003, 11:57

Possible job creation in one industry and net job loss in the overall job market. One is productivity improvement and one is new consumer product.

Given this, how do you explain that there are more people working in the auto industry than ever worked in the horse and buggy industry in the US at its peak? (and there surely are, given that there are nearly as many people currently employed by the auto industry and related fields than the entire US population when Henry Ford opened his doors. This should be impossible, given your statement above re: net job loss in the market.

-=Vel=-

Ogie Oglethorpe · July 2, 2003, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

There's no tendacy for job creation to stay at the same pace as job loss. Job loss consistantly out paces job creation. We are in one of those periods right now in the US. We went through a major period during the Great Depression.

Kid this is all according to you and your take on the numbers and yet consistantly the unemployment figures (although at all time 10 year highs right now) indicate that the job loss rate is approximately matched by the job creation rate. In good times (the 90's) the job creation rates exceeds job loss and unemployment figures are related to mere turn over.

This has been rehashed adinfitum yet you refuse to believe the facts. Hmmm....

Velociryx · July 2, 2003, 16:47

Not to mention the fact that if "job loss consistently outpaced job creation" our economy could not have survived for two hundred years, and if what Kid says were true, then there would be fewer jobs in the US today than there were in our Colonial days.

Surely not even the Kid could believe that....or, could he?

-=Vel=-

Ogie Oglethorpe · July 2, 2003, 16:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

The lower prices did lead to increased sales, but so did product improvements. Just imagine if we still had old Commador 64s. How many less computers would be sold even at the low prices?

And that is the true nature of competition (a basic premise of capitalism). To bring to market a decidedly superior value to the consumer. Be it a product at a lower cost or a product with more features warranting purchase.

In most cases the better approach is innovate as lowering cost is at best a short term solution bounded by your favorite economic principle.

Now argue the flip side what drives innovation in communism? Altruism....

Velociryx · July 2, 2003, 16:51

I know, I know! I'll take "What drives innovation in Communism for a hundred, Alex!"

The answer is.....The barrel of a gun pointed at you or your family?

-=Vel=-

Ogie Oglethorpe · July 2, 2003, 16:55

Gives a whole new meaning to the business saying "Innovate or die" doesn't it?

Velociryx · July 2, 2003, 16:58

Yeppers.....a much more sinister meaning indeed. But, you know, 'tis quite necessary and for the good of the "whole group" that we maintain this idyllic utopia. So, if a few (or even a few million) people have to disappear along the way, in order to maintain a soulless, state driven welfare state where your every move is state-mandated, then that's just the price you pay for another day in paradise I suppose....

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · July 2, 2003, 17:04

Actually though, the real answer is....nothing.

There's no drive to innovate whatsoever, and all indications are that such a system, when not faced by an outside threat or challenge to its existence, would simply freeze in time (innovation isn't all that important anymore anyway), and this phrase is fairly well borne out by studying what communally based societies have and still exist.

The USSR's advancement was totally driven by external influences (defense against Germany, and then direct competition from the USA). The aboriginal tribes in Australia are, from what I have read, communal in their organization and we see the vast array of fine technological advances they have produced. Cuba, perhaps? Another nation renowned for its innovative thinkers. The only *possible* exception is China, and of course, the engine driving their growth is....capitalism (albiet tightly controlled, but still, they have embraced the beast, so to speak).

-=Vel=-