Quote:
|
4) Economic growth is measured in the rate of change for per-capita GDP. I see you want to make a point about economic growth, but I don't see any information to back that up. Have you even looked up the statistics for measured economic growth in the U.S.?
|
That's a strange measure. Normally you measure change in GDP. Productivity growth is change in GDP per worker (or maybe per worker-hour, I forgot).
Don't know what to call "change in GDP per capita".
Quote:
|
Sweden has higher GDP per capita, is more competetive and creative, is more literate and offers better prospects for people born to humble origins. Perhaps Mr Bush should think outside the box if he wants an America where everybody is better off instead of where a few people become incredibly rich.
|
Sweden has a higher GDP per capita than what?
Are we talking at purchasing power parity, or using currency exchange rates?
(protectionist economies massively lower their GDP-PPP/capita)
Quote:
|
I would much rather have a short term bandage (ie manufacturing brought back) then this continuous gushing of blood we now have. At least, in the short term we could find ways to improve long term. Right now the government and the middle class are just trying to survive economically... and they are failing badly.
|
But, manufacturing is a poor short-term bandage. It ends up perpetuating itself, acting as a leech on the economy.
Propped-up protected manufacturing is
dependant on government.
Quote:
|
The less people are paid the more dependant on government they become.... healthcare, education, etc. and the more taxes the rich will eventually have to pay.
|
So, using protected manufacturing in order to free people of their dependancy on government... it doesn't work.
When do you fire your workers? How did the manufacturing job, in an obsolete industry, help that worker prepare for the life after it stops being protected?
Do you allow people to build robots that build things? Really, a few engeneers and computer scientists can reduce the need for manual labour by a huge factor.
If before you required 2000 workers at 20$/hour (50 hours/week, 50 weeks/year), and now you require 100 workers at 30$/hour (50/50 as well)... Both with 75% overhead...
That's 175 million/year before and 14 million/year after. And now your protectionist economy isn't producing jobs, because markets adapt to distorting factors.
We could stop technological progress all together. Simply disallow any manufacturing technology developed after 1800, and we'd have plenty of things for people to do! People carving chairs!
Well, I'd guess you'd actually propose 1980 or something along those lines.
Quote:
|
We have let this faux "capitalism" go on to the point where it is destroying this country and the world. True capitalism is a fair (not equal.... FAIR) distribution of wealth that allows workers the income to spend on merchandise without going into severe debt. By allowing that to happen the economy continues a strong move forward and all are happy. However, when you pay workers barely enough to survive and threaten to go elswhere for cheaper labor, you promote massive debt and in turn the economy becomes very unstable and goes through severe highs and lows until it reaches an apex and crashes destroying everything.
|
I don't understand where you got the terms "faux capitalism" and "true capitalism".
Capitalism is a system in which the means of production are owned privately. Free Market Capitalism is one where the means of production are traded in a free market.
Are you saying that the US economy is falling into an economic feudalism, or something?
Quote:
|
You cannot have upper management making millions and the workers making enough to barely live forever. Eventually there will be a dramatic decrease in the nation's overall wealth.
|
I don't understand what you mean by 'making enough to barely live'. Relative to what? The problem with poverty in the west is mostly a problem of relative, not absolute, poverty (which is important, but using words like 'barely enough to live' is hyperbole). Well, that and mental illness.
Personally, my day-to-day expenses are on the order of 1.5 to 2.0 times the local low-income (aka, poverty) line. Mostly because I eat out pretty much all my meals. =p~
(this includes clothing, transportation, entertainment, rent and utilities). If you cut out my 'eating out' habit, I'd be very comphy and living barely above the line. I do live a spartain life by choice, but this isn't 'barely enough to live'.