Economic Plan

[shadow_moses]

So earlier this week I was comparing 2 things I learned from History to Science which was that our economy has been plummeting for the last century, and that our population has been increasing more rapidly than ever. I came to the theory that our world economy was only built to support lets say 3 billion people. Well, when you get the 10 billion plus people we have today it causes money, food, shelter, and job shortages. Our world needs to remeasure its resources, population, geographical size, and quality then rebuild the entire economy around it.

That's where the problem lies though, our world is to separated into groups, of right and wrong, good and bad, and its tearing what used to be one world into a rock of greed, lies, deceit, and poverty. We need to revive socialism and get the economy to fit the world we live in today.

[CaptainObvious]

So earlier this week I was comparing 2 things I learned from History to Science which was that our economy has been plummeting for the last century, and that our population has been increasing more rapidly than ever. I came to the theory that our world economy was only built to support lets say 3 billion people. Well, when you get the 10 billion plus people we have today it causes money, food, shelter, and job shortages. Our world needs to remeasure its resources, population, geographical size, and quality then rebuild the entire economy around it.

That's where the problem lies though, our world is to separated into groups, of right and wrong, good and bad, and its tearing what used to be one world into a rock of greed, lies, deceit, and poverty. We need to revive socialism and get the economy to fit the world we live in today.

...almost everything you said here is wrong.

1) The global economy has massively increased over the last century, not plummeted. Here's a paper that estimates world GDP against time - the results speak for themselves: http://delong.typepad.com/print/20061012_LRWGDP.pdf

2) There's not 10 billion people in the world today. There's 6.7, and it's not projected to get to 10 billion for some years.

3)Is there a limit to the number of people the world can support? Maybe. But a number as to what that is definitely hasn't been decided upon, and you have made absolutely no attempt to prove that we're past that number already (and since you can't even get the population of the world right, I'm somewhat doubting you have the intelligence to prove the population is too much to support).

4)Rebuild the economy? By remeasuring a bunch of crap? What does that even mean? Conserve more, use less? Live within our means. Yeah, thanks, got it - everybody knows that. The secret is how to do it. Which leads to the last 2 massive problems with your argument:

5) People are too divided? To do what, and by what measure? And when was the world ever "one world"? The last say 50 years have been among the most peaceful in the history of the planet. And if you don't know that, you don't know your history. Nations have been warring for thousands upon thousands of years.

6) Please explain how socialism is the answer to this problem. Socialism is a system of government and economic distribution, and it is a mighty stretch (if not outright bull****) to claim that it can solve any of the problems you have proposed.

So, overall... what the hell are you saying?

[shadow_moses]

...almost everything you said here is wrong.

1) The global economy has massively increased over the last century, not plummeted. Here's a paper that estimates world GDP against time - the results speak for themselves: http://delong.typepad.com/print/20061012_LRWGDP.pdf

2) There's not 10 billion people in the world today. There's 6.7, and it's not projected to get to 10 billion for some years.

3)Is there a limit to the number of people the world can support? Maybe. But a number as to what that is definitely hasn't been decided upon, and you have made absolutely no attempt to prove that we're past that number already (and since you can't even get the population of the world right, I'm somewhat doubting you have the intelligence to prove the population is too much to support).

4)Rebuild the economy? By remeasuring a bunch of crap? What does that even mean? Conserve more, use less? Live within our means. Yeah, thanks, got it - everybody knows that. The secret is how to do it. Which leads to the last 2 massive problems with your argument:

5) People are too divided? To do what, and by what measure? And when was the world ever "one world"? The last say 50 years have been among the most peaceful in the history of the planet. And if you don't know that, you don't know your history. Nations have been warring for thousands upon thousands of years.

6) Please explain how socialism is the answer to this problem. Socialism is a system of government and economic distribution, and it is a mighty stretch (if not outright bull****) to claim that it can solve any of the problems you have proposed.

So, overall... what the hell are you saying?


1- ya, the only thing rising in our economy now is Cambell's soup.

2- i had my numbers wrong, its going to be 10 billion by approximately 2010.

3- Just because the number hasn't been mathematically set were not helping by pushing the limits of our planets niche.

4&6- Utopian Socialism would benefit our planet so much more by giving the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people and having an evenly distributed economy between nations would help subside the greed that's corrupted our planet.

5- yes, they are too divided. they're to greedy as to share the land we all share and need to live and still wage wars over things that others shouldn't fight about, religious wars, territorial wars, racist genocides, they are all happening much more so than thousands of years ago.

[CaptainObvious]

1- ya, the only thing rising in our economy now is Cambell's soup.

Did I say that the economy was rising right now? No. Did you say the economy was falling right now? No. You said:

that our economy has been plummeting for the last century

This is unequivocally WRONG.

2- i had my numbers wrong, its going to be 10 billion by approximately 2010.

...is this a joke? You still have your numbers massively wrong. World population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2042 (http://www.worldometers.info/population/). Not 2010. Do you just make this stuff up?

3- Just because the number hasn't been mathematically set were not helping by pushing the limits of our planets niche.

Prove it. Saying it doesn't just make it so.

4&6- Utopian Socialism would benefit our planet so much more by giving the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people and having an evenly distributed economy between nations would help subside the greed that's corrupted our planet.

Do you know what Utopia means? It means "no place". Do you know why it's called Utopian Socialism? Because that system of politics is more or less incompatible with the incentives that drive productive human behavior. Maybe you haven't learned this yet, but there's a trade off (in reality, not in whatever fantasy world you're living where the economy's been plummeting for the last 100 years and 10 billion people will live on the planet by 2010) between productivity and equality. The more you redistribute income from rich to poor, the less productive the rich become. To make an extreme example, if a doctor (who works extremely hard and requires a lot of schooling) makes the same amount as a cashier (who doesn't work all that hard), what is the incentive for people to become doctors? Sure, some people will do i anyways - but lots won't, and the productivity they could bring to the economy thats being wasted by their being cashiers simply disappears.

I suspect by your statements that you're not too well-versed in economics. The way you talk about these things, it seems like you just don't understand the trade offs between different methods of resource allocation. The market isn't perfect, but you have yet to give a single good reason why socialist structures are better. Not one.

5- yes, they are too divided. they're to greedy as to share the land we all share and need to live and still wage wars over things that others shouldn't fight about, religious wars, territorial wars, racist genocides, they are all happening much more so than thousands of years ago.

That is not a historically defensible point of view. In the ancient world, wars between large civilizations were commonplace and brutal. In the modern period, there are genocides, absolutely, but between the major powers (despite constant tension, obviously), there haven't been any major wars in the last 50 years. Was there a United Nations in the ancient world? Did anybody focus on peacekeeping? Absolutely not.

War is terrible, and it needs to stop. But it is not realistic in view of history to say that there is more war today than in the past. That's just not accurate.

[shadow_moses]

Did I say that the economy was rising right now? No. Did you say the economy was falling right now? No.

This is unequivocally WRONG.
...is this a joke? You still have your numbers massively wrong. World population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2042 (http://www.worldometers.info/population/). Not 2010. Do you just make this stuff up?

Prove it. Saying it doesn't just make it so.

Do you know what Utopia means? It means "no place". Do you know why it's called Utopian Socialism? Because that system of politics is more or less incompatible with the incentives that drive productive human behavior. Maybe you haven't learned this yet, but there's a trade off (in reality, not in whatever fantasy world you're living where the economy's been plummeting for the last 100 years and 10 billion people will live on the planet by 2010) between productivity and equality. The more you redistribute income from rich to poor, the less productive the rich become. To make an extreme example, if a doctor (who works extremely hard and requires a lot of schooling) makes the same amount as a cashier (who doesn't work all that hard), what is the incentive for people to become doctors? Sure, some people will do i anyways - but lots won't, and the productivity they could bring to the economy thats being wasted by their being cashiers simply disappears.

I suspect by your statements that you're not too well-versed in economics. The way you talk about these things, it seems like you just don't understand the trade offs between different methods of resource allocation. The market isn't perfect, but you have yet to give a single good reason why socialist structures are better. Not one.

That is not a historically defensible point of view. In the ancient world, wars between large civilizations were commonplace and brutal. In the modern period, there are genocides, absolutely, but between the major powers (despite constant tension, obviously), there haven't been any major wars in the last 50 years. Was there a United Nations in the ancient world? Did anybody focus on peacekeeping? Absolutely not.

War is terrible, and it needs to stop. But it is not realistic in view of history to say that there is more war today than in the past. That's just not accurate.

From what i have learned i do believe the phrase "plummeting" means falling.

I'm sorry that my sources differ from yours, and thank you for correcting my statistics. But the fact still remains we are all hearing how we are pushing the limits of population with the damage we are doing to the Earth. And you cannot debate that unless major changes our made we can see the demise of our planet begin well within this lifetime.

uto·pia
1: an imaginary and indefinitely remote place
2: a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions
3: an impractical scheme for social improvement

We've seen what happens in countries where overpopulation diminishes an economy which was the spark of the french revolution and what led to the destruction of King Louis XVI. That and we even have wars based upon religion still happening between the Sunni and the Shiite. As well as power control between Georgia and Russia.

You think that there weren't people who wanted peace? Why do you think people wanted a Utopian society? To cause equality between classes, influence mass world views and rid us of greed and desire for more power, the ability of becoming "pure."

So you believe doctors help people for money? You don't recall medicine doctors who used to work for free just to help keep the community healthy and just for the benefit of man kind? Yes competition helps some aspects of society, but they also bring down a lot of people. There are people who are committing suicide, doing drugs, drinking, starving themselves all because they aren't the "model" person.

A society can work if people are willing to work not for money, and not give just to be repaid with interest, but to help benefit the society and the future of our planet. By ridding the need for greed and power yes competition will subside but having people who our selfless in a community will work even harder to keep the expansion of knowledge. In example, the agricultural revolution didn't occur to make one man benefit but to allow people to settle down and live longer, and even more so to stop starvation among other people.

We can keep this going forever, but in the end it won't matter unless an action is taken to support the change we need.

[CaptainObvious]

From what i have learned i do believe the phrase "plummeting" means falling.

Are you illiterate? I didn't dispute what plummeting means, I disputed your claim that the economy has been "plummeting for the last century". For the last time, it hasn't!

I'm sorry that my sources differ from yours, and thank you for correcting my statistics. But the fact still remains we are all hearing how we are pushing the limits of population with the damage we are doing to the Earth. And you cannot debate that unless major changes our made we can see the demise of our planet begin well within this lifetime.

Yes, I can debate it. Apparently you can't, since you're the one in this debate who has gotten just about everything you've said wrong so far.

Since you seem to think so strongly that we're just about to destroy the planet, how about some kind of data to back up your assertion?

We've seen what happens in countries where overpopulation diminishes an economy which was the spark of the french revolution and what led to the destruction of King Louis XVI. That and we even have wars based upon religion still happening between the Sunni and the Shiite. As well as power control between Georgia and Russia.

I find myself questioning how much history you know. Actually, scratch that - you obviously know little (to match your lack of knowledge about simple facts, politics, and economics). What I question is how you can be so ignorant of what you don't know.

Yes, as I admitted, wars still go on. There is still sectarian strife. I dispute none of that. But in humanity's history, there has basically never been a time of as much prosperity or peace as we have now. Use your head:

Currently, the number of active war zones is small. There is still major guerilla conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq; Israel is in an ongoing political/military power struggle (but it's a struggle that continues to calm down), Georgia and Russia are locking horns but no longer fighting actively, and Africa is screwed up, as per normal. Sounds bad, right? Well, it sounds bad until you consider that of the 6.7 billion people in this world (in case you forgot the number again), the amount of people actively involved in conflict is tiny. It's a miniscule proportion of the world's population that is currently fighting.

In the past, this was not true. Up until about 90 years ago, major European powers still got into wars every decade or so, and history before that is even more bloody. Between the massive wars, widespread and massive poverty (the standard of living was much, much worse in the past than it is now, widespread atrocities and almost ubiquitous slavery (which no longer exists) the world of the past was a pretty ugly place. You seem to have no sense of perspective of just how good things are now.

You think that there weren't people who wanted peace? Why do you think people wanted a Utopian society? To cause equality between classes, influence mass world views and rid us of greed and desire for more power, the ability of becoming "pure."

Were there people who wanted peace in the past? Absolutely, just like there are now. So?

The bottom line is that the past was more bloody than the present.

So you believe doctors help people for money? You don't recall medicine doctors who used to work for free just to help keep the community healthy and just for the benefit of man kind? Yes competition helps some aspects of society, but they also bring down a lot of people. There are people who are committing suicide, doing drugs, drinking, starving themselves all because they aren't the "model" person.

Yes, I believe doctors work for money. What do you believe? That they work for the benefit of mankind? All of them? And they did in the past? How about providing some proof of that assertion. Never, in the history of the planet, have all doctors worked solely for the benefit of the community, except in places like the Soviet Union where they were forced to. If you'd like to prove otherwise, please do. But since you haven't proved a single thing you've said yet, I won't be holding my breath.

"Competition helps some aspects of society"? Have you ever taken any economics? Do you have the faintest idea of why competition is generally regarded as ideal for resource allocation? I suspect the answers to both questions is a resounding "No."

Let me make this argument for you again, so you have another chance to understand it:

Let's say Jim is a kid who just finished high school. He's a smart kid, and wants to become a doctor. However, becoming a doctor is hard - you have to go through university and medical school, and residency, just to become a doctor. That's often almost 10 years of education. Jim's prepared to do that, because he thinks the rewards will be worth it. But Jim also has some other passions - he likes video games a lot, for one.

Let's say he's in the normal world. Doctors are paid very well, and have serious prospects for career advancement. However, they often can't play video games too much - too much work in both education and career for that. But hey, that's all right, yeah? The benefits (salary, helping people, being respected) outweigh the benefits of playing video games. Especially the salary. So Jim becomes a doctor, and society benefits because a smart guy is now a doctor helping people.

Now we switch over to your world where doctors are paid the same as everyone else. Jim still wants to become a doctor, but he also likes video games. The difference in this world is that Jim can skip university, medical school and university, work as a receptionist (assistant, cashier, pick some profession that in the normal world is pretty much a 9-5, easy kind of job and doesn't pay that well), and make the same amount of money he would as a doctor after 10 years of school That, and he gets to play lots of video games.

Will Jim become a doctor or a receptionist in this world? Well, he might become a doctor because he loves helping people and medicine. But at the same time, he might decide "hey, I can make the same amount for being a cashier, and get to play lots of video games too!" - and become a cashier instead of a doctor.

Now, let's extend this example to every smart kid who's interested in being a doctor. In your world, many of these kids will still become doctors. But a large number will have the same thought process as Jim, and will not become doctors. And that is a smart bunch of doctors whose talents society has lost, because they have no incentive to enter medicine.

This is the tragedy of heavy socialism/communism. In reality, as much as people often put there interests aside and work for the better good of the community, many people recognize the way incentives are structured, and put their talents towards other things, and thus waste their talents. You ignore this, but it is an incredibly significant waste of the talent of society, and when spread over the entire population of a country, it often leads to the outright downfall of the system. This was the case of the Soviet Union, for example.

A society can work if people are willing to work not for money, and not give just to be repaid with interest, but to help benefit the society and the future of our planet. By ridding the need for greed and power yes competition will subside but having people who our selfless in a community will work even harder to keep the expansion of knowledge. In example, the agricultural revolution didn't occur to make one man benefit but to allow people to settle down and live longer, and even more so to stop starvation among other people.

Yes, it can work. But it never has worked, because people have never been selfless enough for your system to work. I'm a pragmatist, first and foremost. And in the real world, people are driven by incentives. Incentives drive humanity, and the lack of incentives in socialism/communism is its downfall.

Your argument stems from your inability to consider the real world. From your lack of knowledge of history, your lack of knowledge of smple measurements of current reality (world population, for example), to your inability to understand the serious effect that economic incentives have upon people's behavior, all of these point to your argument being unfortunately divorced from reality.

If people were driven differently than they are, you might be right. But they aren't, and you aren't.