How Will The American Economy Die?

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about or how to explain yourself nor do you understand the terminology you cut and past out of various links.

 

If you can't respond to the quote then just say so. Foot stamping isn't an alternative!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...rchers-predict-global-economic-190352944.html


http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=243283

 

Got anything better than this low brow guff? We get better economic comment in the Daily Sport

 

It's fine with me if you believe we are on a sustainable trajectory, and the fact that you believe this no matter the data, simply reinforces why there will be eventual collapse...

 

I'm happy for you to refer to the analysis into sustainable development. Just try and do it with something credible!

 

There is nothing to respond to because you have not said anything.

For example you say to the poster

You claim not to see any economic rationale but then give no economic rationale of your own by stating how deindustrialization relates to the topic at hand.

We have been though this numerous times in various threads and numerous posters have commented similarly.

I will try and give you a simple example in hopes that you will get it.

Suppose I notice that one side of my lawn grows faster than the other. Someone comments if you understood biochemistry you would understand why.

1) The comment assumes I do not understand biochemistry
2) Biochemistry is a wildly broad topic so the claim means nothing unless it is stated what in biochemical property is being referred to.
3) No response can be given because nothing of relevence to the topic has been stated.. am I supposed to guess what biochemical process the person is referring to ?
4) It is entirely possible that my dog tends to (*)(*)(*)(*) on one side of the lawn stunting the growth of the lawn. There is a biochemical reason why the growth of the lawn would be stunted but the person who made the claim did not know this such that just throwing out a broad all encompassing does not show that they had any understanding of why the growth was stunted.

 

Nonsense. You may, however, need clarification.

The fellow stated "and that is why the USA will never be competitive in services or manufacturing". This is a standard example of neo-mercantilism (as it misunderstands that international trade is about exchange, not the standard microeconomic reference to competition). Referring to deindustrialisation is quite correct as those effects are wrongly used to suggest some "we can't compete" hogwash. It ignores that deindustrialisation is rarely a negative concept. We see shift away from manufacturing due to income rise, productivity and innovation. The US is not 'competitive' in goods that it has no comparative advantage. And that's a jolly good thing as it enables greater consumption by shifting resources to areas where we do!

Have we? I don't recognise you from Adam. You can't have been very memorable so far. In terms of general feedback I get accused of knowing too much economics and knowing too little. Both amuse me. In truth I simply use economics correctly. I never worry of course about clarifying comments that folk don't understand though!

 

In the article all 'YOU' needed to do was read through the second paragraph which has a hot-link pointing YOU to all sorts of interesting reads. Since you obviously missed it here it is again; http://limits-to-growth.org/

 

More bobbins I'm afraid. Given sustainable development is such a vibrant literature you need to up your game!

 

It's not my job to educate anyone. My job is to create debate, learn something from the discussion, and to seek out further knowledge 'on my own time'. I planted the seed about sustainable development and the potential collapse by 2030 if we don't take proactive actions today. MIT and others have been involved in this study and either you accept it or you don't. If you don't, then tell us why?

 

Good. You can't educate folk with the low brow. It would be like teaching folk about monarchy via David Icke books

Then why aren't you referring to credible sources?

 

Now it all makes sense ! You have alzheimer's and in your delusion you think you once knew something about economics.

No worries ..

 

Certainly true. You've said too little to achieve any more. I of course note that again you weren't able to respond to the comment

 

What comment would you like me to respond to ?

 

Anything will do, just provide some content for a change!

 

Caught in your own bs again ?

You claim that I did not respond to your comment so I asked you what comment I had not responded to. Now you give the lame response .. "anything will do"

Did you not understand my question ? "anything will do" is not an answer to the question "what comment did I not respond to"

Or prehaps it is that you were full of bs to begin with when you claimed that I had not responded.

 

Yep. Just some content from you. Post after post you spew in my direction is content free, going for unimaginative attempt at put-down. Perhaps you're trying to upset me with monotony?

Take anything I've said in this thread and provide an economics based critique of it! Try not to dodge now

 

You were the one that claimed I had not provided a response to your comment... quit dodging and back up what you say or shut it.

 

I knew you'd dodge. Such a simple request too: Take anything I've said in this thread and provide an economics based critique of it. I'll have to conclude that you're not capable of doing that

 

In relation to the point about limits to growth:

"Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing collapse"

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ight-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

 

It's not rocket science to understand that at some time in the future, given population growth and resource consumption and pollution, that the (*)(*)(*)(*) will hit the fan.

IMO it's not possible to predict dates of these events because they will unfold unevenly across the world. Today we already have over-populated areas, little or no oil and water, and extreme pollution issues. Without water we can't survive, can't grow food, can't support industry, can't process waste, etc. Seems like all of these and other issues are trending forward without mitigation so things will only be exacerbated.

I guess it's simply human behavior to focus only on ourselves no matter the world and people around us are in trouble...

 

Here's how the American economy will not die but grow:









Like the great American patriot Harry S Truman said,



If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat.



All real patriots agree.

 

There is right now more than enough food water and everything else needed to support the entire population of Earth and any foreseeable population increases. The only problem is that the people with the money that can make it happen just do not care about all that and everyone else just lets them get away with it.

If this is the natural state of human behaviour the human race does not deserve to continue. What it deserves is to die a painful slow death in its own wasteful uncaring selfish profligacy.

 

Your government is $17 trillion in debt with $500 billion minimum deficit spending forecasted for years to come. The $500 billion alone represents the creation of approximately 5,000,000 jobs. Over the years the $17 trillion in debt created approximately 170 million jobs!

How can you possibly know how well the 'actual' economy, sans government spending, has done during any presidential term?

If you truly believe the economy is so great, then eliminate the annual $500 billion in deficit spending, and see what happens to the economy and your supposed job creation?