next »

[Gizmonicgamer]

Pompi, what do you think the PURPOSE of an economy is? please define. Please define why a stable and productive economy is good or meaningful.

Because I'm going to tell you, it has quite a lot to do with points you've been conveniently ignoring.

[dustin]

Also, I find the GDP per Capita measurment flawed from the simple fact that GDP per Cita is not linear. The people who bring the majority of the GDP are a very small part of the population. How much GDP was made by facebook? How much was invested? It's usually a few hits that compensate a lot of misses.
So Norway might have less misses, but the US have better Hits.

Um... as far as I can tell GDP per Capita is pretty darn fair.  For example your saying the US economy is more like this...

19 people contribute 1 GDP (most people bring in a small part of GDP)
1 person conributes 101 GDP (a couple people bring in most of the GDP)
total GDP is 120 GDP per capita is 120/20 = 6

while Norway is more like this...

20 people bring in 7 GDP
total GDP is 140 GDP per capita is 7

It doesn't matter if one person brings in all the GDP or not, the average is a mean and not a mode or median or something like that.  The U.S. isn't unfairly disadvantaged by a mean GDP measurement because it has more variance then Norway.

In other words

What the fuck are you talking about?

I can also do math:
99 people bring 1 GDP
1 person bring 99 GDP
Total GDP is 100. GDP per Capita is 1.
10 people(Remember the US has larger population?) bring 2 GDP
Total GDP is 20. GDP per Capita is 2.

When I read your post it seemed like you didn't know what GDP per capita meant.  After my post you admitted that this was the case here...

I thought GDP per Capita, is somehow exports compared to how much money was invested to produce these exports, not simpley dividing by the population. If that is what GDP per Capita means(divided by population) it is even a more useless metric

I was just trying to help you understand the concept I wasn't just doing math for fun.  This post also makes me think you might not have a real strong grasp on what GDP is in general...

[PompiPompi]

Pompi, what do you think the PURPOSE of an economy is? please define. Please define why a stable and productive economy is good or meaningful.

Because I'm going to tell you, it has quite a lot to do with points you've been conveniently ignoring.

As someone has told me, being social liberal doesn't directly has to do with the economy. I can't tell you what is the PURPOSE of things in this life, but one of the GOALS of the economy is to make the country more competitive, and in simple words, become richer and richer, compared to other countries and compared to itself.
Of course a good economy can be channeled to many other goals, such as... fighting pollution and going green, make your citizens happier, make wars, improve medicine, send people and dogs to the moon, whatever you want to do with it.
But we are discussing how to make a stronger economy, and it's all about making the country richer. What you do with all this money is a different matter.
Your claim is that a social-liberal economy is superior than capitalism economy in "making the country richer". If you don't claim that, then we can stop to argue, because that is what I was arguing about.

[Falmil]

I don't think anyone else is arguing about stronger economy for its own sake. The "strongest" economy is meaningless if a significant portion of the population is living in squalor.

[PompiPompi]

Ok, if you are only claiming that people have a better life quality and happier, then ok. I thought you were clamining somewhere that a social-liberal economy is superior to capitalist economy. Which is kind of strange, because economy implies "money". And capitalism can work with a degree of socialism.
Capitalism doesn't imply how you would use the wads of money you earn, so maybe we just didn't understand each other's point of argument.
Maybe you ment Libertans(or "real liberals"), which is not capitlaism.

[Dragonmaw]

Libertarianism is not liberal.

[Nix]

It's pretty close to classical liberalism, but not modern liberalism (modern liberals "stole" the term liberal from classical liberals)

[Dragonmaw]

Libertarianism is not liberal because it functions under social conservatism (aka FUCK CHANGE)

[i wanna be the guy]

POOP IS NOT PEE THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED CAN POMPI PLEASE ANSWER THE EVER-GROWING LIST OF THINGS HE HAS NOT ANSWERED NOW

[Nix]

Classical liberalism is about small government and social freedom through economic freedom which is what Ron Paul-esque libertarians call for. It's a totally different meaning from what we refer to as liberal today.

[PompiPompi]

POOP IS NOT PEE THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED CAN POMPI PLEASE ANSWER THE EVER-GROWING LIST OF THINGS HE HAS NOT ANSWERED NOW

Can you summerize it for me in one post?
Also, I am not entirely sure we are arguing on the same things.

[Mikademus]

POOP IS NOT PEE THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED CAN POMPI PLEASE ANSWER THE EVER-GROWING LIST OF THINGS HE HAS NOT ANSWERED NOW

Can you summerize it for me in one post?
Also, I am not entirely sure we are arguing on the same things.

[Capntastic]

POOP IS NOT PEE THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED CAN POMPI PLEASE ANSWER THE EVER-GROWING LIST OF THINGS HE HAS NOT ANSWERED NOW

Can you summerize it for me in one post?
Also, I am not entirely sure we are arguing on the same things.

This is like the fourth time I've posted this and it just continues to grow longer.

Questions Pompi has ignored:

1.  Are you going to cite your claim that most people don't really need jobs with any sort of facts?

2.  You know that macroeconomics and microeconomics are two entirely different things, right?

3.  Why is competing on the global market important?

4.  Do you think that even if America de-regulated everything and gave corporations 100% power they would be able to keep up with China that has literally a billion more people?

5.  If Ron Paul groped your ass and you didn't work for him, that is clearly his fault.  Why should it be different because you work for him?

6.  Why should a person who requires a job to live be at the mercy of someone not raping them; why does the raper get to make the choice to force someone to be molested or find a different job?

7:  (Monster King's)  why do you say "spending time with his family down the beach" like its a bad thing?

8:  Why shouldn't we move towards a system that reduces suffering in as many people as possible?

9:  Why is 'creating as much wealth as we can' more important than providing a decent life for people?

10:  Why should 'creating wealth' be the ultimate goal of our nation if the growing majority of that wealth only benefits an increasingly small portion of people?

11:  (Gizmonicgamer's, ties into the above)  Pompi, what do you think the PURPOSE of an economy is? please define. Please define why a stable and productive economy is good or meaningful.  (I'm aware you answered 'to make a country more competitive but you've yet to answer why that is important, so once you've established the basis for your reasoning we can take another crack at this)

[Blademasterbobo]

Pompi is pretty much the dumbest person I've ever seen on these forums, and there's a pretty fierce competition for that title. Why are you all arguing with this guy? He outright ignores all of your points, and he doesn't know about basic economics. He even refuses to learn about simple concepts or let people explain them to him. At this point, even considering his "arguments" only serves as a form of validation. Replying to this guy just makes it seem like his points are remotely coherent/intelligent, which is totally not the case. As far as "saving" him goes, it's obviously not going to happen. Again, the guy outright refuses to consider opposing viewpoints, even when they're backed by ("made up") statistics.

[BlueSweatshirt]

Why are you even replying to this guy, it's obvious he hasn't read any of your replies

Quoting an old post, but, I thought I'd like to chime in that I find Mikademus's(and others's as well) posts very informative and insightful. I enjoy reading such arguments as it helps widen my perspective on the subjects at hand. Et cetera. I'm glad Mikademus(& co.) take the time to write such rebuttals for that reason.