Right Wing Discussion Thread IX: The Right Man's Burden

[Sanctissima]

If you want to work for less than minimum wage or be a child prostitute, sure.

Some people have standards.

Congratulations on not even having a basic grasp of how economies work.

So what are you saying, that god-awful working conditions and exploitation are good things?

[Taihei Tengoku]

:lol:

Congratulations on not even having a basic grasp of how economies work.

So what are you saying, that god-awful working conditions and exploitation are good things?

They are better than the alternatives, even worse working conditions and even less production.

Thai wages are higher than those in Samoa b t w

That's not how it works--there isn't a fixed number of "jobs" within an economy. Increased demand is a signal for increased supply and therefore supply factors (such as labor).

There's a fluctuating amount of jobs, yes. There's only so much people are willing to pay others to do, or otherwise fields of work wherein jobs are available. That is inherently the nature of any economy, and why unemployment is a thing.

I don't know how it could be considered anything else.

Of course there is a point of full employment but it has nothing to do with gross population.

[Conserative Morality]

So what are you saying, that god-awful working conditions and exploitation are good things?

Nah. What I'm saying is that you objected to Thailand on the basis of 'child prostitution' and 'below minimum wage' work, the former implying that child prostitution is a significant cause of employment in Thailand and the latter necessarily implying strange views on the finite supply of money.

Daily reminder that Thailand GDP (PPP) is well over that of regions of the USA.

[Sanctissima]

So what are you saying, that god-awful working conditions and exploitation are good things?

Nah. What I'm saying is that you objected to Thailand on the basis of 'child prostitution' and 'below minimum wage' work, the former implying that child prostitution is a significant cause of employment in Thailand and the latter necessarily implying strange views on the finite supply of money.

Daily reminder that Thailand GDP (PPP) is well over that of regions of the USA.

It's $17,750.

$6,265 if we go with nominal GDP.

That's pathetic.

You're inferring far more than is being said from my posts. My point is that neither Thailand's nor American Samoa's economies are anything to gloat about or use as model examples. Especially as a counter-argument to an argument about employment.

Regardless, unemployed people are not 'human capital'. Capital tends to produce wealth. The unemployed do not.

[Sanctissima]

So what are you saying, that god-awful working conditions and exploitation are good things?

They are better than the alternatives, even worse working conditions and even less production.

Thai wages are higher than those in Samoa b t w

Leave it to you to quasi-defend exploitation.

There's a fluctuating amount of jobs, yes. There's only so much people are willing to pay others to do, or otherwise fields of work wherein jobs are available. That is inherently the nature of any economy, and why unemployment is a thing.

I don't know how it could be considered anything else.

Of course there is a point of full employment but it has nothing to do with gross population.

Yes, it does. It may not be the only factor, but it certainly is the most important and prevalent one.

[Conserative Morality]

It's $17,750.

$6,265 if we go with nominal GDP.

That's pathetic.

Still beats out good chunks of America, which has a much larger population.

You're inferring far more than is being said from my posts.

The implications necessarily follow.

My point is that neither Thailand's nor American Samoa's economies are anything to gloat about or use as model examples. Especially as a counter-argument to an argument about employment.

Regardless, unemployed people are not 'human capital'. Capital tends to produce wealth. The unemployed do not.

Capital *can* be used to produce wealth. Or is a machine not currently being used not capital because it's not currently producing wealth?

[Sanctissima]

It's $17,750.

$6,265 if we go with nominal GDP.

That's pathetic.

Still beats out good chunks of America, which has a much larger population.

Like what? Alabama? The western parts of Kentucky?

If we're going to start comparing foreign national GDP to domestic regional GDP then nothing's going to follow any kind of logical pattern.

You're inferring far more than is being said from my posts.

The implications necessarily follow.

Not by any reasonable measure.

My point is that neither Thailand's nor American Samoa's economies are anything to gloat about or use as model examples. Especially as a counter-argument to an argument about employment.

Regardless, unemployed people are not 'human capital'. Capital tends to produce wealth. The unemployed do not.

Capital *can* be used to produce wealth. Or is a machine not currently being used not capital because it's not currently producing wealth?

In order for something to be considered capital, it needs to be an asset. So like you say, it needs to be capable of producing wealth in some reasonable measure.

A broken machine doesn't, nor can it produce wealth. Neither will (in any reasonable assertion of probability) someone who is chronically unemployed.

[Conserative Morality]

Like what? Alabama? The western parts of Kentucky?

If we're going to start comparing foreign national GDP to domestic regional GDP then nothing's going to follow any kind of logical pattern.

Large chunks of WV.

But WV has a small population, so it shouldn't have huge unemployment problems. What gives? C-can't they just employ everyone?

Not by any reasonable measure.

TIL basic economics are not reasonable.

In order for something to be considered capital, it needs to be an asset. So like you say, it needs to be capable of producing wealth in some reasonable measure.

A broken machine doesn't, nor can it produce wealth. Neither will (in any reasonable assertion of probability) someone who is chronically unemployed.

Nice moving goalposts. Shame it just highlights how far from the goal your point has been since the moment you put it forth.

[Sanctissima]

Like what? Alabama? The western parts of Kentucky?

If we're going to start comparing foreign national GDP to domestic regional GDP then nothing's going to follow any kind of logical pattern.

Large chunks of WV.

But WV has a small population, so it shouldn't have huge unemployment problems. What gives? C-can't they just employ everyone?

Not by any reasonable measure.

TIL basic economics are not reasonable.

In order for something to be considered capital, it needs to be an asset. So like you say, it needs to be capable of producing wealth in some reasonable measure.

A broken machine doesn't, nor can it produce wealth. Neither will (in any reasonable assertion of probability) someone who is chronically unemployed.

Nice moving goalposts. Shame it just highlights how far from the goal your point has been since the moment you put it forth.

Again, you're inferring far more than what I'm actually stating. Actually, by this point you're basically strawmanning.

My point is that excess population creates unemployment, which is inherently a bad thing. Which is... pretty much the standard opinion of literally every school of economics ever. Actually, I don't think the majority of them even considered it worth mentioning, since it was such a basic universal truth. Not even Marx was so delusional so as to not recognize this.

[The Liberated Territories]

Nah. What I'm saying is that you objected to Thailand on the basis of 'child prostitution' and 'below minimum wage' work, the former implying that child prostitution is a significant cause of employment in Thailand and the latter necessarily implying strange views on the finite supply of money.

Daily reminder that Thailand GDP (PPP) is well over that of regions of the USA.

It's $17,750.

$6,265 if we go with nominal GDP.

That's pathetic.

You're inferring far more than is being said from my posts. My point is that neither Thailand's nor American Samoa's economies are anything to gloat about or use as model examples. Especially as a counter-argument to an argument about employment.

Regardless, unemployed people are not 'human capital'. Capital tends to produce wealth. The unemployed do not.

The unemployed are the reserve army of labor (I just seriously quoted marx didn't I?)

[Sanctissima]

It's $17,750.

$6,265 if we go with nominal GDP.

That's pathetic.

You're inferring far more than is being said from my posts. My point is that neither Thailand's nor American Samoa's economies are anything to gloat about or use as model examples. Especially as a counter-argument to an argument about employment.

Regardless, unemployed people are not 'human capital'. Capital tends to produce wealth. The unemployed do not.

The unemployed are the reserve army of labor (I just seriously quoted marx didn't I?)

Heresy!

You must sacrifice five Communist Manifestos to Pinochet whilst cow-towing to the great prophet Al-Hoppeyyun (PBUH) to atone for this sacrilege!

[Conserative Morality]

Large chunks of WV.

But WV has a small population, so it shouldn't have huge unemployment problems. What gives? C-can't they just employ everyone?

TIL basic economics are not reasonable.

Nice moving goalposts. Shame it just highlights how far from the goal your point has been since the moment you put it forth.

Again, you're inferring far more than what I'm actually stating. Actually, by this point you're basically strawmanning.

My point is that excess population creates unemployment, which is inherently a bad thing. Which is... pretty much the standard opinion of literally every school of economics ever. Actually, I don't think the majority of them even considered it worth mentioning, since it was such a basic universal truth. Not even Marx was so delusional so as to not recognize this.

Actually, the idea of 'excess population' largely went out when Malthusian thought was realized to be bunk.

[Sanctissima]

Again, you're inferring far more than what I'm actually stating. Actually, by this point you're basically strawmanning.

My point is that excess population creates unemployment, which is inherently a bad thing. Which is... pretty much the standard opinion of literally every school of economics ever. Actually, I don't think the majority of them even considered it worth mentioning, since it was such a basic universal truth. Not even Marx was so delusional so as to not recognize this.

Actually, the idea of 'excess population' largely went out when Malthusian thought was realized to be bunk.

Tell that to China and India.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

The world isn't exactly in great shape last I checked.

liberalism is the one and only hope for mankind

That has less to do with political ideology and more with scientific and technological advances. Life expectancy went up because infant and childhood mortality rates went down.

[Conserative Morality]

Tell that to China and India.

The same China that is reversing its one-child policy because they realized how retarded it was? The same India whose primary resource making it a global economic player *is* its population?

[Sanctissima]

Tell that to China and India.

The same China that is reversing its one-child policy because they realized how retarded it was? The same India whose primary resource making it a global economic player *is* its population?

Because it created a massive gender demographic gap, not because the country suddenly didn't have an overpopulation problem.

Are you seriously saying that overpopulation isn't a thing?

[Conserative Morality]

Because it created a massive gender demographic gap, not because the country suddenly didn't have an overpopulation problem.

Are you seriously saying that overpopulation isn't a thing?

Overpopulation is not a cause of unemployment. The effects of overpopulation in general were not what we were discussing.

Also, no, because it caused a real fucked-up population pyramid. Not because of the resulting gender ratio. Gender ratios don't kill future productivity. Hammerhead or T-shaped population pyramids do.

[Sanctissima]

Because it created a massive gender demographic gap, not because the country suddenly didn't have an overpopulation problem.

Are you seriously saying that overpopulation isn't a thing?

Overpopulation is not a cause of unemployment. The effects of overpopulation in general were not what we were discussing.

Also, no, because it caused a real fucked-up population pyramid. Not because of the resulting gender ratio. Gender ratios don't kill future productivity. Hammerhead or T-shaped population pyramids do.

"This isn't the topic of discussion".

Way to dodge the question.

Gender ratios tend to have an effect on marriage and family rates, which is problematic if there's far more men than there are women. Because y'know, having functioning families is rather important for society and all.

[Conserative Morality]

"This isn't the topic of discussion".

Way to dodge the question.

Trying to change the subject this hard is only an admission of your own argument's weaknesses. I think we're done here.

[Tekeristan]

I'd prefer not being in poverty regardless of what I do

[The Liberated Territories]

(Image)
(Image)

liberalism is the one and only hope for mankind

That has less to do with political ideology and more with scientific and technological advances. Life expectancy went up because infant and childhood mortality rates went down.

How do you know those scientific and technological advances do not also stem from the ideology (especially, the enlightenment, which brought both economic liberalism and rationalism to the front?) Had the prevailing ideology still been mercantilism, we may have never seen the lightbulb.

[Sanctissima]

"This isn't the topic of discussion".

Way to dodge the question.

Trying to change the subject this hard is only an admission of your own argument's weaknesses. I think we're done here.

Then would you kindly not deliberately misrepresent peoples' arguments whilst dodging questions and accusing others of foul play?

You're losing your touch CM.

[Aillyria]

Large chunks of WV.

But WV has a small population, so it shouldn't have huge unemployment problems. What gives? C-can't they just employ everyone?

TIL basic economics are not reasonable.

Nice moving goalposts. Shame it just highlights how far from the goal your point has been since the moment you put it forth.

Again, you're inferring far more than what I'm actually stating. Actually, by this point you're basically strawmanning.

My point is that excess population creates unemployment, which is inherently a bad thing. Which is... pretty much the standard opinion of literally every school of economics ever. Actually, I don't think the majority of them even considered it worth mentioning, since it was such a basic universal truth. Not even Marx was so delusional so as to not recognize this.

No such thing as "excess population". Unemployment occurs when the economy isn't dynamic enough for most people to be hired and incorporated in production. Of course, you can never have total employment, but you can get really close.

[Senkaku]

My point is that excess population creates unemployment,

This seems like some majorly flawed logic, m8y.

Actually, the idea of 'excess population' largely went out when Malthusian thought was realized to be bunk.

Tell that to China and India.

Neither country has a Malthusian crisis on their hands at all. "Overpopulation" is only relevant in terms of its global ecological impact, not country-by-country employment rate. Otherwise Spain should be doing way better than Bangladesh, yet they're about four times higher. Certainly one would hope tiny Greece could to better than gargantuan China.

"More people = higher unemployment" is a dumb idea and easily disproven. Please try again.

[The East Marches II]

My point is that excess population creates unemployment,

This seems like some majorly flawed logic, m8y.

Tell that to China and India.

Neither country has a Malthusian crisis on their hands at all. "Overpopulation" is only relevant in terms of its global ecological impact, not country-by-country employment rate. Otherwise Spain should be doing way better than Bangladesh, yet they're about four times higher. Certainly one would hope tiny Greece could to better than gargantuan China.

"More people = higher unemployment" is a dumb idea and easily disproven. Please try again.

Excess useless poor people do. I don't know why you think they should be brought in, it's very strange.