I should be building drum tuners but I can waste a little more time today.
I read a funny joke today about economists... "You know they have a sense of humor when they use decimal points in their projections!" ;D ;D
US GDP growth has been substandard for two administrations now. Higher GDP growth could actually support increased government spending (for productive things like infrastructure maintenance.)
Over the last several decades (or longer) we have seen huge waste and inefficiencies squeezed out of mature products. A new computer I buy today for a few hundred dollars, is incomparable, in memory, speed, and computing power, to a computer I paid several thousand dollars for in the '70s. Unfettered by overregulation free markets and private business can continue to deliver more for less.
JR
I read a funny joke today about economists... "You know they have a sense of humor when they use decimal points in their projections!" ;D ;D
It is not just destroying wealth (by waste and misallocation, and over regulation, and...), but the missed opportunity of faster GDP with more private economy control of the means of production.mattiasNYC said:JohnRoberts said:My response was shorthand for the historical reality that government generally destroys far more wealth than it ever creates, and is generally less efficient at managing resources.
I'm not sure I agree that government generally provides a net loss of wealth. Again I think one has to first establish just what wealth is and how it's suppoesd to be measured, and only then can one talk about whether or not there's a net loss.
US GDP growth has been substandard for two administrations now. Higher GDP growth could actually support increased government spending (for productive things like infrastructure maintenance.)
You shouldn't and you don't have to... In a free market you can shop around until you find a price you are satisfied by. Unless you are shopping in markets already controlled or over regulated by the government.As for "efficiency" I think that's again highly debatable. To me anything that adds to the actual cost of the good or service that I consume is a "waste". Why should I pay for something that doesn't directly benefit me.
Over the last several decades (or longer) we have seen huge waste and inefficiencies squeezed out of mature products. A new computer I buy today for a few hundred dollars, is incomparable, in memory, speed, and computing power, to a computer I paid several thousand dollars for in the '70s. Unfettered by overregulation free markets and private business can continue to deliver more for less.
Except private businesses have the implicit discipline of needing to make a profit, or go bankrupt. If government spends more than they have (called deficit spending), they just borrow and tax us more.Of course, going down that line of reasoning will point the finger at capitalist organizations as well as governments. So I don't think it's at all clear that it's a net positive for the consumer to have a private enterprize provide goods/services compared to a non-profit organization.
Huh?? Management or allocation of resources is a well studied topic. Free markets with good price discovery provide the best and highest use of scarce resources. The government's idea of how to deal with scarcity is rationing and price control. Anyone remember the every other day, odd-even gasoline rationing back in the '70s? As soon as the government relaxed the price controls, adequate gas supply magically showed up. Now we are watching oil/gas struggle with the underdamped loop stability of price-demand relationships as we unwind too much supply caused by high prices and too easy credit, that spurred too much investment (I blame poor governance for the economic distortions we are still experiencing from too easy credit). This low/negative interest rate experiment isn't over, and who knows how it will end (not me)?JohnRoberts said:I concede the theoretical point, but argue in practice (with very few exceptions) government is a net wealth destroyer. The question is what "will" government do, not what "can" government do.
I don't thinkk that's as interesting as what the underlying principles are for management of resources and wealth etc. What do coprorations do? They do a tremendous amount of bad things, that's what they do. Of course they also do good. Just like governments. So the question isn't what they end up doing but why it's done and how various systems promote one thing over another.
If we don't test students how do we know how well they are prepared for the future, and if teachers are doing their job? Seems pretty simple to me.JohnRoberts said:The dominant force in education seems to be the teacher's unions arguing loudly against testing , perhaps because they fear being held accountable for their work product. Life is a constant test, education is just another process to manage, and testing reveals how effective the teachers are.
I'm not really sure I agree with that.
I don't know what skills students will need for the rest of their lives. Things I do today, were not even anticipated back when I was a student. But I was taught the basics and how to learn.I think it depends on what kind of society we want and what kind of labor market we want.
I have started several businesses and it requires a combination of both working hard and working smart... If just working hard was all it takes, ditch diggers would be millionaires. But instead, some millionaire invents a ditch digging machine. Working hard is not enough, while too many are unwilling to even do that.Some people I see get relatively far by working hard. They aren't particularly smart or talented, just hard-working. It doesn't really make a difference what profession they're in, they'll progress within any field due to working hard (assuming of course there is "space" for progression).
I have 9 patents, and all are based on technology, so I couldn't invent anything without training and basic scientific knowledge. Some people are creative about how they arrange their flower garden, or put icing on a donut. Others combine electronic components to deliver some new and useful function.Others have progressed by being creative. Neither of those two require testing or high grades. That's not to say that there isn't a market for that type of education system.
?? I looked "ubiquity" up and I still don't know what you mean.JohnRoberts said:I just read an article where a college teaching computer science, secretly used Watson (IBM's artificial intelligence program) to successfully replace one of the teacher's assistants. These are still early days for AI assisted teaching, and I am optimistic that even teacher's unions can not hold back this tide of progress. (I hate using that word for something good).
Of course that's progress, but it also progresses us towards ubiquity. And ubiquity and capitalism don't coexist.
google sez said:Ubiquity is the state of being everywhere all the time. Some ubiquity is real (the ubiquity of sadness at a funeral), and some only seems real (the ubiquity of cowboy boots in Texas). A god is a great example of ubiquity: an all-knowing deity that exists in every nook and cranny.
Unions are useful to protect workers from abuse by business owners. Teachers are public servants, and their obsolete jobs do not need to be protected if it doesn't serve the communities greater good. While I find it hard to image ever not needing teachers, while they can be used far more effectively than they are now.Of course teachers unions object to it as should any union in which its members are threatened with obsolescence.
Redistributing wealth using government force is a zero sum game (actually less than zero sum as wealth is destroyed in the process). Creating new wealth seems unlimited. I can imagine programs to help underemployed people start businesses, but government regulations are a head wind that makes this more difficult.All of this only boils down to one's view on the potential amount of new types of labor available. I don't think there's an infinite amount of new types of jobs to soak up people not having jobs because technology made them obsolete. And the only "workable" alternatives to that are either lower wages - for a while - to compete on a Capitalist labor market, or not have Capitalism.
China is communist, but not very pure... The example was brought up to showcase the flaws of central planning (like their over capacity in multiple industries.)JohnRoberts said:PS: The China wealth creation engine is still a work in process and too early to judge as success or failure. The combination of centrally planned large industries (like steel), with some small private industries is growing GDP far faster than the west.
Yeah, I mean, China is hardly purely Socialist. It's an odd and interesting hybrid of many things. It's an interesting time we live in.
JR