They do say this: "ok, what's best for the economy now. what's best for america now. is for you to spend/save your money" They do that themselves. Generally spending money. They can't really tell us all not to spend, but save, if they are spending. I don't quite get this bit: the same way that china has been combating their population problem. http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=5655327&postcount=71 I agree. Until people seek/accept simplicity...we will be deluged with complication. It doesn't help because politicians, the media, the people (in general) love complexity. Generally people start from a wrong premise in the first place....this creates complexity. E.g: Obama did this because he wanted to give the Republicans a bloody nose...*endless political debate about said issue* When infact he might well have not done it for that reason at all.
Sure you can prevent economic spikes. Just dont' advance as a society. Produce corn and cows for food. Make everything standardized. You'll remain stable for an eternity. Unfortunately people like to advance, whether culturally or technologically. Old ways of living die out and new ways emerge. Within that transition there might be some instability. It can't be helped. There are other factors too, like malinvestment in hedging by big banking. A consumer society which consistently spends loaned money and get in debt is also a potential cause for recession. Btw, drop in GDP = drop in consumer demand. When people are making less money, they don't buy as many luxury goods. They also tend to buy more inferior goods compared to when there is time of economic stability/prosperity. The last thing we need is some government speakers propped up on every corner telling us what to do. Maybe we should also make a new standardized electronic money system while we're at it. It would help to track all purchases and give us priceless economic data!!!!
i see what you're saying, but part of what i'm doing here isn't exactly a realistic sort of argument. more a "what if" and if that's possible then "how." that's at least what i'm talking about when i refer to a brand new economic system similar to maybe the native american tribes. the china-like thing i think would be more realistic though. i'll get back on this more tomorrow, as my brain still feels fried. i swear, it never gets any exercise.
What kind of economic system do you propose the native americans had? And how do you apply that system to our current world.
Where the heck is HipTastic when we need him??? A) As has been stated, resources DO run out; B) the "want" for products DOES, indeed, change, which is why we must have new ideas, new ways of dealing with consumer trends; C) the ability to produce cost effective products must continue to advance; D) as resources are depleted, new resources must be found/created/invented. Our economy is never stagnant, even in the recession times ~ it's the folks that can figure out how to change the course of any given market that will land on their feet. They will discover new things that we just can't be made to live without, or they'll offer a better product at a better price, or they'll just blow us all away with their newest invention. Good, bad or in between, capitalism is the motivation for most peeps. Being the best, the smartest, the most prolific? If you can't envision the future, you're just a consumer, or perhaps an "improver," if you have a touch of the magic. The Creator is King ~ if s/he can convince us that their dohickey is the greatest thing since sliced bread, or if it actually IS the GTSSB. Makes ya feel kind of small, doesn't it?
In a word: Capitalism. You have what i want. i have what you want. We trade, straight across the board. (All of that is history.) It affects us to the extent that we still believe that we all need to have the same/like/better stuff than the folks next door, and we're still willing to trade what we have that others want for what others have that we want. i think...
I agree Fyrenza. By the way Deranged worded it it sounded like he thought they had some completely alien economic model. Maybe he really does think it. The more he talks about economics, the less I think he actually knows about it. Ultimately Capitalism is the ultimate model, because it results it stems from absolute freedom. And freedom is ultimately the very nature of the human, and so any political / economic system must allow that. That doesn't mean that people's morality can't lead to severely dark sides of capitalism. But ULTIMATELY, the freedom for individuals to freely interact is the ideal model. Yet people usually don't want to take allow the fatal catastrophic fumble that freedom can allow, so we find a balance somewhere in the middle.
in effect, control the american people to do what's best for the economy without forcing them...by way of patriotism or whatnot. it would help reduce alarmist behavior among other things. right on. cool. i was referring to the "so many variables" comment you made. i assumed gdp, being gross domestic product would be amount produced ie supply. i could be wrong though. don't think getting that backwards would have affected my point though. and you sound like a strong believer in capitalism. what if there was a way to ensure advancement without competition and self interest? (not saying there is, but what if) i don't claim to know a lot about economics or to have any alien model. but i do at least know the basic principles of economics. you sound like a fiscal conservative. what's more important: the best interest of the people or their economic freedom? personally, i think the former when it comes to economics. social freedoms however are a different story. i'm not talking about banning certain types of spending, or forcing people to do anything. just more social pressure combined with the "for my country" thing. who better to advise you how to spend than a government economist though? conspiracy theories aside, i gander the government could afford the best of the best.
i dunno. you think the overall demand for stuff in general changes over time with trends and stuff? that completely throws off my theory here. i mean, i dunno, i guess if we wanted to check statistics, we could check to see how much people spend based on their incomes in the united states over the years, adjusting for inflation. then if that changes, check for big common technological advances (like tv, radio, automobile, computer)...things that'd cause a jump to throw off any sort of trend we might find. also make similar adjustments for nonrenewable resources.
Tsurugi? What Deranged is saying is true ~ MOST of us don't know that much about economics and a lot of the threads are us wondering about how it all supposedly works. Including, (of COURSE! ) our own demented version of what we've learned, so far. In other words, we're sort of flailing around, trying to understand the REAL deal, so we sound like the 3 Stooges version of forumers, sometimes... Please don't be put off ~ all of us actually WANT to learn more than whatever it is we think we know. :sifone:
i guess i see what you people are saying now. that the supply and demand aren't static. i dunno. it just seems like in general people are gonna want stuff and want to work for that stuff. that drive to earn and buy...is it human nature?...or is it something that we've simply learned to be a part of since the bartering system came around? 'cause you think at least that'd remain constant fairly if it's human nature...or have some predictable trend involved. i guess this whole idea is based around that.
Not just the American people. All governments have pretty much said the same thing to their populace, to various degrees. Yes, by a touch of patriotisn and nationalism (Buy ****) and whatnot. You may ask "Yes, but how do you know this?" Well, I looked for governments NOT saying spend spend spend. I found none. The most common approach to measuring and quantifying GDP is the expenditure method: GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)(so government spending increases is supposedly to counter act the lowering of consumption and maintain jobs - therefore money in peoples pockets - ending in less of a decrease in consumer spending) I don't know an awful lot about economics though. I see the buzz words and look into them. Plus, I try and keep it simple. Not complex I guess I'd fit into the mold of a "fiscal conservative". But, i'm not apposed to government spending. I don't think I have said the governments are wrong for bringing forward spending to dig their economies out of reccesion. I am alarmed that my government is a little vague in what the economic realities (and their spending) will be in the mid to long term. They talk about spending increases now and next year or two, but then Gordon Brown said this: zero per cent rise . He desperately did not want to say anything other than spending increases...rather than a spending plateau or even worse, spending cuts.
You are putting too much focus on tangiable products, imo. Also you assume people have complete control of their working lives. They may want to work but if their are no jobs - what are they to do? Imo, also, it isn't a drive to "earn and buy" it is a desire to "earn and look after yourself and your family". Doesn't that seem more likely?
Im not put off, it's just that you guys are trying to be enlightened thinkers. And I applaud you for trying to look at our world critically and add good value to it. But it's important to use your brains!!!! But the problem is that people ask questions without thinking it through first, so they never use their brains but leech answers from other people. They never cultivate the ability themselves to critically evaluate. I went through micro and macro economics without looking at a book once, and without learning a thing. 99% of the concepts are ones that are common sense if you are intelligent. They redefine simple concepts to give them a more academic sheen (aggregate, equilibrium, blah blah). The recent swine flu had decreased the demand for pork. Peanut contamination scare did also. Those are 2 SUPER simple scenarios out of billions that answers the question about the fluidity of supply and demand, and yet it has to be asked? I dont mean to sound arrogant or high-headed, but it just gets me how people sometimes dont' even take these baby steps towards understanding. And Deranged, buying and selling isn't human nature. What is human nature is setting goals, and accomplishing the means to attaining that goal. That's what all creatures do, whether it's a dog pressing a button for food, or a person taking a job to get food. So simple, yet it seems to be hidden like the answer to the universe.
you failed it'd take anthropological research into trends of cultures way back into prehistoria all the way into today's day in age to know for sure. and it was just an idea. nothing i hold any stock in. alright, i reread what i originally posted and it still makes sense to me. that an overall economy's demand doesn't change. and that an overall economy's supply doesn't change. i was wrong. things do go up and down. i looked it up, and the terms i'm looking for are aggregate demand and aggregate supply. essentially what i argue here, is for safeguards to be put in place, through a variety of means (propaganda being one) to control and stabilize fluctuations in them. some bipartisan supereconomist that advises people "ok, well, your best interest might be: _______, but for the great nation of the united states do _______ and god willing, our economy will see another 10 years without a recession." my apologizes to non americans, i'm talking about america here because i live here but i'm sure the same philosophy would apply anywhere. and odon, as far as governments not saying to spend in spend, i swear i saw in the news obama said something about saving. or at least there was something on the news about how it's not always what's best for the economy to always buy and invest.
No. I said they do say spend. Perhaps I should have suffixed that with: Wisely. I think it is a little more finessed than just spend on anything and everything. Is this what you mean? Obama: “Families are going to have to start making more prudent decisions about spending, and increasing their savings rate. Businesses are going to be making investments, and we want to spur as much investment as possible, but the whole point is to move from a borrow-and-spend economy to a save-and-invest economy."
right on. but a little advice like that that nearly no one listens to is still a long shot from propaganda and social ostricization for those who don't follow the government economics advice. i'm not talking about any government sanctions on those that don't (or maybe some sort of tax write off if they are...who knows), just a stronger method of controlling how the people spend their money so it's what's best for the economy. in a way that doesn't force anything, but makes them in a sense, want to. does anyone know what the government does now when it comes to aggregate demand and aggregate supply? do we try to increase both? because, while that might help in the short run, it seems to me that stabilizing rather than expanding would be a wiser choice. i think i saw something on the news about how canada was being more prudent rather than aggressive like the rest of the world, hence the recession hasn't hit them as hard. this is all speculation by the way. haven't done any research hear other than already stated. i'm gonna reiterate my first idea again: if the stuff people want doesn't change. if the fact that people are willing to work doesn't change. then the problems with the economy lie within the way the economy is run/set up itself when it comes to these recessions. people have argued that there's all sorts of variables that change, but while those microeconomic variables might have some impact, on the macroeconomic scale, i'd argue they're almost negligible. again, with no research behind what i say.
I don't think he was talking to the American people. I think he was talking to other world leaders. Many times it seems like they say "We need to" rather than "You need to". Yes.
Sure you could have propaganda, but then you ultimately have to have some sort of safeguard which prevents this propaganda stating institution from changing up the agenda. Television is the biggest propaganda device ever created, and its potential for abuse equally matches its potential for benevolent use. Even more than television is the internet, which's potential has barely been tapped as far as possible uses for personal interaction (think twitter!). You can always put up safeguards, but safeguards always have unforseen negative effects in one way or another. Costs of building inspections make building homes less affordable. Minimum wage makes cost of living higher for some. Protecting industries may eliminate the incentive to research and develop. The problem is when you force these artificial measures to control natural conditions in the market (supply and demand) you haze the problem even more. Now you may have problems with your proposed solutions, but that might interfere with allowing the market to correct. So now you may try to correct your correction, and ultimately end up totally lost as to what's the true problem. Think of the recent bailout. And Deranged, the types of stuff people want do change. Everytime a new invention pops up somebody buys it, and somebody usually loses faith in an old technology. And man, you can't control how people spend their money. You cannot manipulate personal freedom of choice for the good of the all. You cannot force wellbeing onto people, it has to come from their own nature. It's like forcing people into a society where medical is all paid for, everyone is clothes and fed, but there is no choice. Freedom is the inherent state of the human, and it's our attempts to make economic (free market / capitalism) and political ( Democratic Republic) systems to reflect this. Freedom is the ultimate ideal, and if you are being manipulated is being forced into somebody ELSE's idea of what is right and wrong. And ultimately that is not freedom.
