Pope Francis claims global economy is close to collapse and describes youth unemployment rates as an ‘atrocity’ in damning message

[stinkcat_14]

Now you are just becomming annoying. I do appreciate a devil’s advocate but at some point it becomes tiresome. If you have something substantial to offer, I will entertain it.

I guess it would be annoying if I made claims based on data I made up myself and then someone called me on it. But sometimes being annoying is necessary to get at the truth.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I guess it would be annoying if I made claims based on data I made up myself and then someone called me on it. But sometimes being annoying is necessary to get at the truth.

If only you were in pursuit of truth, we would be having a much more interesting dialog.

 

[stinkcat_14]

If only you were in pursuit of truth, we would be having a much more interesting dialog.

How am I missing the pursuit of the truth? Am I supposed to take your claims at face value?Let’s go over what you did. You made a claim, the claim was that greed was constant. You were asked to provide your data on that (which you claimed you already provided), you respond with data you made up yourself. It is always helpful in a dialogue to ask the person making the claim to provide their source of data. You responded with the least credible form of data possible. How is my questioning your claims not in pursuit of the truth?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

How am I missing the pursuit of the truth? Am I supposed to take your claims at face value?Let’s go over what you did. You made a claim, the claim was that greed was constant. You were asked to provide your data on that (which you claimed you already provided), you respond with data you made up yourself. It is always helpful in a dialogue to ask the person making the claim to provide their source of data. You responded with the least credible form of data possible. How is my questioning your claims not in pursuit of the truth?

You are welcome to collect better data. Nobody is standing in your way. I never claimed my data was precise or statistically reliable but I did explain its source and there has been plenty discussion of evidence that might contradict it from others who were more serious in their pursuit of truth.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You are welcome to collect better data. Nobody is standing in your way. I never claimed my data was precise or statistically reliable but I did explain its source and there has been plenty discussion of evidence that might contradict it from others who were more serious in their pursuit of truth.

I am glad to see that you are learning that bad data is useless to generalize from. But what I don’t understand is how my pointing out that your data is useless (which you wholeheartedly agree) means I am not interested in the truth? After all, you were the one who brought up correlations (and the lack thereof). You brought up a data based subject and I question it and your evidence melted in front of you from its lack of credibility, and yet I am the one not seeking the truth?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I am glad to see that you are learning that bad data is useless to generalize from. But what I don’t understand is how my pointing out that your data is useless (which you wholeheartedly agree) means I am not interested in the truth? After all, you were the one who brought up correlations (and the lack thereof). You brought up a data based subject and I question it and your evidence melted in front of you from its lack of credibility, and yet I am the one not seeking the truth?

I’m sorry, you have now crossed the line from devils advocate into just plain devil. I won’t wast further time with such patent dishonesty.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I’m sorry, you have now crossed the line from devils advocate into just plain devil. I won’t wast further time with such patent dishonesty.

In what way I am being dishonest?

 

[frobert]

There are many hypothesizes of why unemployment has or is becoming intractable. How about the one in which we have reached peak jobs.

**It’s Definitive: We’ve Reached Peak Jobs **

The U.S. has reached Peak Jobs–at least the sort that can support a household. There has long been a quasi-magical belief in the U.S. that capitalism’s intrinsic dynamic of creative destruction will always create more jobs than it destroys. The evidence is compelling that this belief is no longer reality-based.

Source…

 

[ProVobis]

The major flaw of a free market coupled with capitalism is that it requires continuous economic growth, which in turn requires increasing production and consumption of goods plus credit, …

Indeed but I don’t know if I’d call it a flaw. But all these one-time tax cuts, one-time unemployment compensation extensions, one-time car purchases, etc. do little for long-term growth. In fact, if anything, they may lead to some false sense of security by overhiring and such. Seems like the real problem is that our society can’t seem to adapt to the dynamics of a free enterprise system. We all look for cutting costs but can’t deal with the cutting of jobs, salaries, that those may affect.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There are many hypothesizes of why unemployment has or is becoming intractable. How about the one in which we have reached peak jobs.

**It’s Definitive: We’ve Reached Peak Jobs **

The U.S. has reached Peak Jobs–at least the sort that can support a household. There has long been a quasi-magical belief in the U.S. that capitalism’s intrinsic dynamic of creative destruction will always create more jobs than it destroys. The evidence is compelling that this belief is no longer reality-based.

Source…

I have read this blog from time to time but note that here he is not really trying to explain the intractability of unemployment but is merely using chart tracking methods to call a “top”. The numbers do indeed look bleak but that doesn’t make the problem intractable. It does mean that if nothing changes we should not expect unemployment to resolve itself. Something is seriously out of whack with the economy.

There was a similar article recently claiming that innovation has peaked and that we should expect low growth for the forseeable future.

I don’t buy those arguments and I think they are inherently unChristian as they imply a lack of hope. It may well be that solving these problems will require great sacrifice but it would be not just shameful but actually sinful to give up.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The major flaw of a free market coupled with capitalism is that it requires continuous economic growth, which in turn requires increasing production and consumption of goods plus credit, and in turn leads to more environmental damage and predicaments like global warming. We are seeing all of these crises today.

I think that is the wrong way to look at it.

It is the nature of humanity to pursue economic growth. Capitalism is simply a method of channeling that human drive productively. It does not do so flawlessly, and these flaws are often used as excuses for overturning capitalism, e.g. in favor of communism. But always turns out that the cure is worse than the disease, that the alternatives create more problems than they solve.

One of the flaws of capitalism is the growth of credit. Credit is good because it allows people without to have in order to produce and have. But credit can be abused and after it has been abused sufficiently there is a crash and a reset.

Nobody was ever wrong for saying that a crash is coming. They are inevitable and efforts to prevent them only make them worse when they do come.

 

[frobert]

I have read this blog from time to time but note that here he is not really trying to explain the intractability of unemployment but is merely using chart tracking methods to call a “top”. The numbers do indeed look bleak but that doesn’t make the problem intractable. It does mean that if nothing changes we should not expect unemployment to resolve itself. Something is seriously out of whack with the economy.

There was a similar article recently claiming that innovation has peaked and that we should expect low growth for the forseeable future.

I don’t buy those arguments and I think they are inherently unChristian as they imply a lack of hope. It may well be that solving these problems will require great sacrifice but it would be not just shameful but actually sinful to give up.

Of course, intractability was my way of describing what I view is happening. I don’t buy the unchristian argument either, what I am implying is that unlimited growth is a myth or fallacy that many people are not yet ready or are unable to comprehend.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Of course, intractability was my way of describing what I view is happening. I don’t buy the unchristian argument either, what I am implying is that unlimited growth is a myth or fallacy that many people are not yet ready or are unable to comprehend.

It depends on what you mean by “unlimited growth”. It is entirely reasonable and Christian to say that a just society, while experiencing ups and downs, will, in the long run, be able to provide a better standard of living for more people. There is no inherent limit to the growth of the human species though that growth often comes in ways that defy prediction. (Who, for example, would have predicted that such a huge potential for growth could come from networked computers?)

But our reach will always exceed our grasp; we will always have to settle for less than we want. Economic growth is never so unlimited as to satisfy and often it falls far short of our expectations.

 

[frobert]

Another hypothesis is that we are simply at the oligarchic stage of anacyclosis --a cyclical theory of political evolution which does which in a way supports the hypothesis of peak jobs.

 

[frobert]

It depends on what you mean by “unlimited growth”. It is entirely reasonable and Christian to say that a just society, while experiencing ups and downs, will, in the long run, be able to provide a better standard of living for more people. There is no inherent limit to the growth of the human species though that growth often comes in ways that defy prediction. (Who, for example, would have predicted that such a huge potential for growth could come from networked computers?)

But our reach will always exceed our grasp; we will always have to settle for less than we want. Economic growth is never so unlimited as to satisfy and often it falls far short of our expectations.

Some believe that those who argue unlimited growth do not understand exponential function.

Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist

“Did you say that growth can not continue forever?”

Do the Math

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR WARNING

No personal attacks

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other nor how each other post

Please stay with the topic in the original post

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Another hypothesis is that we are simply at the oligarchic stage of anacyclosis --a cyclical theory of political evolution which does which in a way supports the hypothesis of peak jobs.

That would be a local peak, though. If you believe in cycles, and indeed there may be cycles within growth trends, then you can expect things to turn around at some point in the future.

Some believe that those who argue unlimited growth do not understand exponential function.

Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist

“Did you say that growth can not continue forever?”

Do the Math

These arguments are typically based on very simplistic extrapolation. If people are relying on horses for transportation and food production then you would project some limit to the horse economy. If you rely on vacuum tubes to build computers then there is a limit to computation. But human ingenuity is not so limited. Physical limits are overcome by unanticipated, unpredicted innovations. Horses are replaced by trains and cars. Vaccum tubes give way to transistors and then semiconductors.

Which is why humanity is its own greatest resource.

 

[frobert]

That would be a local peak, though. If you believe in cycles, and indeed there may be cycles within growth trends, then you can expect things to turn around at some point in the future.

Anacyclosis is a cyclical theory of political evolution which says nothing about my belief in cycles.

These arguments are typically based on very simplistic extrapolation. If people are relying on horses for transportation and food production then you would project some limit to the horse economy. If you rely on vacuum tubes to build computers then there is a limit to computation. But human ingenuity is not so limited.

The arguments are based on mathematical functions

Physical limits are overcome by unanticipated, unpredicted innovations. Horses are replaced by trains and cars. Vaccum tubes give way to transistors and then semiconductors.

Are humans innovated enough to get around the law of diminishing returns or the laws of physics? I hope your right, if you are the innovations will need to be based on new sources of energy but that is another topic.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Anacyclosis is a cyclical theory of political evolution which says nothing about my belief in cycles.

The arguments are based on mathematical functions

Are humans innovated enough to get around the law of diminishing returns or the laws of physics? I hope your right, if you are the innovations will need to be based on new sources of energy but that is another topic.

What I’m saying is that all the physics-based arguments are based on a static analysis of economic growth, e.g. projecting horses. There is, indeed, a law of diminishing returns but there is also a law of increasing returns. The best way to illustrate the later is the network effect. The value of a network is a function of the number of connections which grows exponentially with the number of nodes. That’s one reason why human population growth has so confounded the Malthusians. (It is unfortunate that the Malthusians have been as influential as they have. The decline in world population growth is going to have disasterous consequences. Watch the misery in Japan to see what’s coming.)

It is possible, but never easy, for humans to be innovative enough to leverage the law of increasing returns to overcome the law of diminishing returns.

 

[frobert]

What I’m saying is that all the physics-based arguments are based on a static analysis of economic growth, e.g. projecting horses. There is, indeed, a law of diminishing returns but there is also a law of increasing returns. The best way to illustrate the later is the network effect. The value of a network is a function of the number of connections which grows exponentially with the number of nodes. That’s one reason why human population growth has so confounded the Malthusians. (It is unfortunate that the Malthusians have been as influential as they have. The decline in world population growth is going to have disasterous consequences. Watch the misery in Japan to see what’s coming.)

It is possible, but never easy, for humans to be innovative enough to leverage the law of increasing returns to overcome the law of diminishing returns.

It boils down to one question. Is man smarter than yeast? Time will tell.