 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » itz coming |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Kamal R. Prasad |
 Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Russell.Martin@wdn.com wrote:
[quote:d27027a259]Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
rmorea@satx.rr.com wrote:
snip
The U.S. retains great
natural and human resources and we will be fine.
Human resources are aplenty in densely populated 3rd world countries
and one of the reasons why outsourcing has gained traction is because
there is no special calibre that comes with being a citizen of a first
world country.
Except the better conditions under which to be a citizen.
However, those are significant, which you will realize if
you read the suggestions below with an open mind. The
probably of that appears small, unfortunately.
I did read it with an open mind -but it doesn't explain much. You are[/quote:d27027a259]
stuck in a groove where you imagine that physical commodities stolen
from native americans and the vast natural resources of the USA account
for its prosperity. Hint:- Canada has more natural resources per capita
than USA but USA's per capita income is more than that of Canada.
The NYSE's market capitalization is about 300x that of all canadian
stock exchanges put together.
[quote:d27027a259]You do need to ask yourself why people in first world
countries **deserve** a better std of living without possessing any
special faculties.
regards
-kamal
What we need to ask ourselves is why *you* keep thinking
that *we* think we deserve a better standard of living? Up
[/quote:d27027a259]
You think as in -the requirement of the monetary policy of your govt is
to ensure a high std of living even if it involves sheding jobs. On one
hand, americans complain about job loss -but are loathe to accept a
lower std of living to retain their jobs. By acceptance -I mean putting
fwd a request to the elected representatives as a whole/collective to
adjust monetary policy accordingly.
[quote:d27027a259]to this point in time, we've earned it (aside from the natural
resources advantage which we stole from the natives and
the advantages we got from other historical accidents,
both of which have been considerable). Whether or not
we'll continue to earn it is an open question. Why don't you
do a little less uninformed writing and a little more reading?
I suggest _The Birth of Plenty_ which addresses how the
West has earned its wealth, and I second Art's suggestion
of _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ which addresses some of the
historical factors, accidents if you will, which have favored
some groups versus others. Once you've done a little study
of history, maybe you'll realize that your point of view is
extremely parochial, to the point of making most Americans
appear open-minded which is quite a feat. Most Americans
[/quote:d27027a259]
Parochial about what? I don't have to be parochail to tell you that the
US deficit indicates a buying binge that can never be financed by
anything that the US produces. Look at any trade magazine written by
any economist and he cannot possibly contradict this fact.
[quote:d27027a259]largely don't think they *deserve* a given standard of living
as much as they merely have come to accept the standard
of living that history has provided. In this sense they are no
[/quote:d27027a259]
no -history hasn't provided them with this std of living. What history
did provide in terms of gold or arable land isn't sufficient to sustain
the current import binge. OTOH, the US treassury printing currency
notes at full speed has and will sustain the import binge for some time
till you hit armadeggon.
[quote:d27027a259]different than anyone else, such as you who has a chip on
your shoulder about historical accidents that no one alive
today had anything to do with. And if you are correct about
the imminent decline of the U.S., then why not just shut up
and enjoy it instead of continuing to complain about the
attitudes of Americans, whether or not those attitudes are
justified?
[/quote:d27027a259]
The US isn't headed for decline or collapse -but rather is headed for a
serious disruption after which americans will probably compromise on
their std of living. The attitudes may or may not be justified -but
instead of blaming people in other countries for stealing jobs, I
suggest a change in attitude as being more appropriate and productive.
If americans insist on retaining the current attitude and desire for an
exorbitant living std, then they might as well accept the fact that
they have priced themselves out of the labour market by a huge margin.
regards
-kamal
[quote:d27027a259]
Cheers,
Russell[/quote:d27027a259] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:20 am |
|
|
|
|
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
[quote:41bfc8bc0e]Russell.Martin@wdn.com wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
rmorea@satx.rr.com wrote:
snip
The U.S. retains great
natural and human resources and we will be fine.
Human resources are aplenty in densely populated 3rd world countries
and one of the reasons why outsourcing has gained traction is because
there is no special calibre that comes with being a citizen of a first
world country.
Except the better conditions under which to be a citizen.
However, those are significant, which you will realize if
you read the suggestions below with an open mind. The
probably of that appears small, unfortunately.
I did read it with an open mind -but it doesn't explain much.
[/quote:41bfc8bc0e]
You read both those books I suggested in one day? Excuse
me if I don't believe you.
[quote:41bfc8bc0e]You are
stuck in a groove where you imagine that physical commodities stolen
from native americans and the vast natural resources of the USA account
for its prosperity.
[/quote:41bfc8bc0e]
No, your are stuck in a groove of ignoring facts. It a significant,
but not total, explanation, nor did I say it was a total explanation.
Again, read the books _The Birth of Plenty_ and _Guns, Germs,
and Steel_ and if you still don't believe it, write your own book
and see if it creates a paradigm shift in thinking. I've given you
some of the references for my positions, all you've given us is
your unsubstantiated musings, and they do not usually even
address the points I'm making. You might be excellent in PR
because the fundamental rule is "whatever the person says, tell
them what you want them to know".
[quote:41bfc8bc0e]Hint:- Canada has more natural resources per capita
than USA but USA's per capita income is more than that of Canada.
[/quote:41bfc8bc0e]
If that is true (got any references or are you just making that up?)
it is in significant part because Canada has a relativelt small
population (hint: to calculate per capita one divides by the
population, in Canada's case about 0.1 of the U.S. IIRC; that
alone would account for an order of magnitude). Also remember
people factor into the productive capacity of a country, too.
[quote:41bfc8bc0e]The NYSE's market capitalization is about 300x that of all canadian
stock exchanges put together.
[/quote:41bfc8bc0e]
Shame on you, you switched units. In one sentence you refer
to natural resources, which is what I'm talking about so that was
fine, but in the next sentence you use NYSE market capitalization.
The NYSE market capitalization is relatively loosely related to
anything in terms of tangible resources. Yesterday Google
exceeded the market cap of Berkshire Hathaway, and you can
not convince me that the two are in any tangible way equivalent.
Market cap can, and does, disappear and reappear over night,
but one can not eat it or wear it. And also the U.S. got started
on significant industrial development earlier than Canada, so the
two cases are not directly comparable.
[quote:41bfc8bc0e]
You do need to ask yourself why people in first world
countries **deserve** a better std of living without possessing any
special faculties.
regards
-kamal
What we need to ask ourselves is why *you* keep thinking
that *we* think we deserve a better standard of living? Up
You think as in -the requirement of the monetary policy of your govt is
to ensure a high std of living even if it involves sheding jobs.
[/quote:41bfc8bc0e]
I've said nothing about that, so you are either making an unwarranted
assumption or attempting to be a mind reader. Why not address
the issues I raised instead of going off on your wild tangents?
[quote:41bfc8bc0e]On one
hand, americans complain about job loss -but are loathe to accept a
lower std of living to retain their jobs. By acceptance -I mean putting
fwd a request to the elected representatives as a whole/collective to
adjust monetary policy accordingly.
[/quote:41bfc8bc0e]
Again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the American
political system. We can't just put "fwd a request to the elected
representatives as a whole/collective to adjust monetary policy
accordingly" even if we wanted to. Hint: the Federal Reserve
partly controls (or at least tries  ) monetary policy and it ISN'T
ELECTED. It just doesn't work that way, even assuming your
musings about monetary policy are valid, which you've come
nowhere near adequately supporting let alone proving. And that
still doesn't address my comments.
[quote:41bfc8bc0e]
to this point in time, we've earned it (aside from the natural
resources advantage which we stole from the natives and
the advantages we got from other historical accidents,
both of which have been considerable). Whether or not
we'll continue to earn it is an open question. Why don't you
do a little less uninformed writing and a little more reading?
I suggest _The Birth of Plenty_ which addresses how the
West has earned its wealth, and I second Art's suggestion
of _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ which addresses some of the
historical factors, accidents if you will, which have favored
some groups versus others. Once you've done a little study
of history, maybe you'll realize that your point of view is
extremely parochial, to the point of making most Americans
appear open-minded which is quite a feat. Most Americans
Parochial about what?
[/quote:41bfc8bc0e]
Pretty much everything it appears.
[quote:41bfc8bc0e]I don't have to be parochail to tell you that the
US deficit indicates a buying binge that can never be financed by
anything that the US produces.
[/quote:41bfc8bc0e]
That is the *future* of U.S. living standards, which you may recall
(if you'd open you mind) that I have agreed with you is an open
question on several occasions, including my most recent post.
I'm referring to the historical situation.
[quote:41bfc8bc0e]Look at any trade magazine written by
any economist and he cannot possibly contradict this fact.
largely don't think they *deserve* a given standard of living
as much as they merely have come to accept the standard
of living that history has provided. In this sense they are no
no -history hasn't provided them with this std of living.
[/quote:41bfc8bc0e]
Yes, it has. That is by definition. History is the totality
of what has come before, and what has come before
brought about America's present standard of living. What
part of the word "history" don't you understand?
[quote:41bfc8bc0e]What history
did provide in terms of gold or arable land isn't sufficient to sustain
the current import binge.
[/quote:41bfc8bc0e]
Again, you're getting hung up on the future when I have clearly
been talking about the past. Get over it.
[quote:41bfc8bc0e]OTOH, the US treassury printing currency
notes at full speed has and will sustain the import binge for some time
till you hit armadeggon.
different than anyone else, such as you who has a chip on
your shoulder about historical accidents that no one alive
today had anything to do with. And if you are correct about
the imminent decline of the U.S., then why not just shut up
and enjoy it instead of continuing to complain about the
attitudes of Americans, whether or not those attitudes are
justified?
The US isn't headed for decline or collapse -but rather is headed for a
serious disruption after which americans will probably compromise on
their std of living.
[/quote:41bfc8bc0e]
That's not a "decline"? I've wrote in the past that we just don't
seem to communicate. Please advise me what dictionary you
are using so that we can have a common set of definitions of
words such as "decline". That will make communicating much
easier.
[quote:41bfc8bc0e]The attitudes may or may not be justified -but
instead of blaming people in other countries for stealing jobs, I
suggest a change in attitude as being more appropriate and productive.
If americans insist on retaining the current attitude and desire for an
exorbitant living std, then they might as well accept the fact that
they have priced themselves out of the labour market by a huge margin.
regards
-kamal
[/quote:41bfc8bc0e]
That may or may not be true. Please show where I have argued
about the point.
Cheers,
Russell |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kamal R. Prasad |
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Russell.Martin@wdn.com wrote:
[quote:d53c3f93ca]Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
Russell.Martin@wdn.com wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
rmorea@satx.rr.com wrote:
snip
The U.S. retains great
natural and human resources and we will be fine.
Human resources are aplenty in densely populated 3rd world countries
and one of the reasons why outsourcing has gained traction is because
there is no special calibre that comes with being a citizen of a first
world country.
Except the better conditions under which to be a citizen.
However, those are significant, which you will realize if
you read the suggestions below with an open mind. The
probably of that appears small, unfortunately.
I did read it with an open mind -but it doesn't explain much.
You read both those books I suggested in one day? Excuse
me if I don't believe you.
[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
I read your statements and excerpts quoted by you -with an open mind,
but not the books themselves.
[quote:d53c3f93ca]You are
stuck in a groove where you imagine that physical commodities stolen
from native americans and the vast natural resources of the USA account
for its prosperity.
No, your are stuck in a groove of ignoring facts. It a significant,
but not total, explanation, nor did I say it was a total explanation.
Again, read the books _The Birth of Plenty_ and _Guns, Germs,
and Steel_ and if you still don't believe it, write your own book
and see if it creates a paradigm shift in thinking. I've given you
[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
I pointed to some evidence in my reply to Art's post (libertarian
FAQ..) -which basically suggests that your ship is not too far from
hitting an iceberg.
[quote:d53c3f93ca]some of the references for my positions, all you've given us is
your unsubstantiated musings, and they do not usually even
address the points I'm making. You might be excellent in PR
because the fundamental rule is "whatever the person says, tell
them what you want them to know".
I get paid to tell people what they don't know -else they wouldn't hire[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
me:-).
[quote:d53c3f93ca]Hint:- Canada has more natural resources per capita
than USA but USA's per capita income is more than that of Canada.
If that is true (got any references or are you just making that up?)
it is in significant part because Canada has a relativelt small
population (hint: to calculate per capita one divides by the
population, in Canada's case about 0.1 of the U.S. IIRC; that
[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
This statement was meant to convey that resources within a country are
not pivotal to its prosperity else canada would have had higher per
capita income than the USA.
[quote:d53c3f93ca]alone would account for an order of magnitude). Also remember
people factor into the productive capacity of a country, too.
The NYSE's market capitalization is about 300x that of all canadian
stock exchanges put together.
Shame on you, you switched units. In one sentence you refer
to natural resources, which is what I'm talking about so that was
fine, but in the next sentence you use NYSE market capitalization.
[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
I gave an example that contradicts the rule of thumb that prosperity is
dependent on natural resources i.e. a country with more resources per
capita has stock markets with lower market capitalization and vice
versa.
[quote:d53c3f93ca]The NYSE market capitalization is relatively loosely related to
anything in terms of tangible resources. Yesterday Google
[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
Market capitalization indicates the amount of money invested in that
stock market/country.
[quote:d53c3f93ca]exceeded the market cap of Berkshire Hathaway, and you can
not convince me that the two are in any tangible way equivalent.
[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
They are not equivalent and superficial as you point out -because if
everybody hits the exits, then those left holding the stock will be
left with worthless bits of paper.
[quote:d53c3f93ca]Market cap can, and does, disappear and reappear over night,
but one can not eat it or wear it. And also the U.S. got started
[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
It contributes to the national economy by inflow of wealth. When more
people invest in a stock, they bring in wealth and if the company taps
into that wealth, it gets funds to increase its economic activity and
hire more personnel or place orders for equipment which can lead to
other companies hiring more personnel in response to that order.
[quote:d53c3f93ca]on significant industrial development earlier than Canada, so the
two cases are not directly comparable.
I was giving you a contradiction of the rule of thumb that everything[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
you have/enjoy is by an accident of history. The Canadians benfitted
even more from that accident of history in terms of how much
land/water/lumber they own now and yet the US has a higher per capita
than Canada.
[quote:d53c3f93ca]
You do need to ask yourself why people in first world
countries **deserve** a better std of living without possessing any
special faculties.
regards
-kamal
What we need to ask ourselves is why *you* keep thinking
that *we* think we deserve a better standard of living? Up
You think as in -the requirement of the monetary policy of your govt is
to ensure a high std of living even if it involves sheding jobs.
I've said nothing about that, so you are either making an unwarranted
assumption or attempting to be a mind reader. Why not address
the issues I raised instead of going off on your wild tangents?
I was explaining my point.[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
[quote:d53c3f93ca]On one
hand, americans complain about job loss -but are loathe to accept a
lower std of living to retain their jobs. By acceptance -I mean putting
fwd a request to the elected representatives as a whole/collective to
adjust monetary policy accordingly.
Again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the American
political system. We can't just put "fwd a request to the elected
representatives as a whole/collective to adjust monetary policy
accordingly" even if we wanted to. Hint: the Federal Reserve
partly controls (or at least tries ) monetary policy and it ISN'T
ELECTED. It just doesn't work that way, even assuming your
[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
It is answerable to your elected representatives/govt as any central
bank in any country is.
They make decisions which impact the working class and if the working
class which also represents the bulk of voters gets across the message
to their representatives that they prefer jobs to splurge/trickle down
economics -it just might help.
[quote:d53c3f93ca]musings about monetary policy are valid, which you've come
nowhere near adequately supporting let alone proving. And that
still doesn't address my comments.
Im being honest about what Im saying -but may not be easy to understand[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
in what Im trying to convey.
[quote:d53c3f93ca]
to this point in time, we've earned it (aside from the natural
resources advantage which we stole from the natives and
the advantages we got from other historical accidents,
both of which have been considerable). Whether or not
we'll continue to earn it is an open question. Why don't you
do a little less uninformed writing and a little more reading?
I suggest _The Birth of Plenty_ which addresses how the
West has earned its wealth, and I second Art's suggestion
of _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ which addresses some of the
historical factors, accidents if you will, which have favored
some groups versus others. Once you've done a little study
of history, maybe you'll realize that your point of view is
extremely parochial, to the point of making most Americans
appear open-minded which is quite a feat. Most Americans
Parochial about what?
Pretty much everything it appears.
[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
No -some of my notions are actually supported by american citizens and
I have posted in the past links wherein as i have pointed out, the
authors happen to be white anglo-saxon american citizens.
[quote:d53c3f93ca]
I don't have to be parochail to tell you that the
US deficit indicates a buying binge that can never be financed by
anything that the US produces.
That is the *future* of U.S. living standards, which you may recall
(if you'd open you mind) that I have agreed with you is an open
question on several occasions, including my most recent post.
I'm referring to the historical situation.
ok.[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
[quote:d53c3f93ca]Look at any trade magazine written by
any economist and he cannot possibly contradict this fact.
largely don't think they *deserve* a given standard of living
as much as they merely have come to accept the standard
of living that history has provided. In this sense they are no
no -history hasn't provided them with this std of living.
Yes, it has. That is by definition. History is the totality
of what has come before, and what has come before
brought about America's present standard of living. What
part of the word "history" don't you understand?
What history
did provide in terms of gold or arable land isn't sufficient to sustain
the current import binge.
Again, you're getting hung up on the future when I have clearly
been talking about the past. Get over it.
OTOH, the US treassury printing currency
notes at full speed has and will sustain the import binge for some time
till you hit armadeggon.
different than anyone else, such as you who has a chip on
your shoulder about historical accidents that no one alive
today had anything to do with. And if you are correct about
the imminent decline of the U.S., then why not just shut up
and enjoy it instead of continuing to complain about the
attitudes of Americans, whether or not those attitudes are
justified?
The US isn't headed for decline or collapse -but rather is headed for a
serious disruption after which americans will probably compromise on
their std of living.
That's not a "decline"? I've wrote in the past that we just don't
seem to communicate. Please advise me what dictionary you
are using so that we can have a common set of definitions of
[/quote:d53c3f93ca]
Its a decline in living standard, but not something that takes the US
from a first world country to a third world country or into another
1929 type depression.
regards
-kamal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Just Cocky |
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 11 Jan 2006 06:42:19 -0800, Russell.Martin@wdn.com wrote:
[quote:b4ecf6ec0b]
In fact, IIRC I posted a while back about the book _Why Stock
Markets Crash_ which argues that about 2050 the world economy
will suffer a major setback.
[/quote:b4ecf6ec0b]
I've read the book. What you say is not what the book says. The book
talks about a singularity around 2050. That means the author doesn't
have a clue about what might happen. My gut feeling: self-aware robots
(based on Kurweil's "Age of Spiritual Machines", which also predicts a
singularity around 2050.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:53 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:51:02 -0600, "Thomas Bartkus"
<thomasbartkus@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote:743822271b]I'm advancing the proposition that is becoming increasingly common to reap
obscenely large financial rewards in return for activities that destroy
wealth.
[/quote:743822271b]
Bingo. And as one consequence, whenever anyone says or implies that
the rich earn their wealth, that person should be immediately, loudly
and publicly identified as a vicious, evil liar, and the deadliest of
all the enemies of freedom, justice, and humanity.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:02 pm
|
|