We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Octuplet Mother
| 101 | 14088 |
Recently on T.V. I saw news about Nadya Suleman, the mother of octuplets. Later, I saw an interview about the whole situation and she is unemployed and on welfare. She also has 6 other children. Even before she had the octuplets, she was unemployed and on welfare.
What are your thoughts on this?
For me, I think that she is downright irresponsible. She wasn't even out of college yet, but she continued to have children. Could she possibly have a mental problem? Why would you want to have a bunch of children when you know that you cannot support them? What kind of example would this set for the kids? Isn't it bit selfish?
From a Catholic prospective (me being a catholic I decided that I might address this, If you are an Aethiest or do not believe in God, you don't have to respond to this part if you don't want to.) Nadya said that she thought that these children were a gift from God, yet she had conceived these children through in vitro fertilization and from my understanding she had a fertility issue. If she had a fertility issue in the first place, why would the children be a gift from God? So was she really meant to have these babies? Or was it just our human technology playing that made it possible?
- 101 Replies
That is because you clearly do not understand macroeconomics. For one thing the Salvation Army is not an example of capitalism because they are a non profit organisation. Secondly, the Salvation Army and other such organisations have been having to cut back because so few people are donating in this time of crisis. So the opposite has happened.
I don't see how I âclearlyâ do not understand macroeconomics. I just don't think your views are right. Don't think that since you are taking economics from a professor, you know more about it than everyone else. Macroeconomics can never be truly understood; it has too many variables; people can only theorize. I assume you are learning Keynesian econ.? Well, it just so happens that I am taking econ too; in my class, Keynesian econ is old school. If you want to get some insight on what I believe, try Jude Wanniski's The Way the World Works; it will explain things way better than me.
The Salvation Army is part of the economy. You cannot say that because they are non profit, they do not work in the way everything else does. Secondly, you are only looking at the current situation. You are talking about right now, how charities are failing. Well, that is because welfare is there. People don't donate because they don't think it is necessary, since the government is forcing them to do it already. I'm saying that everything will change if welfare goes away. Because the government is interfering with its welfare thing, our free market cannot work the way it is supposed to.
The US spends $1.6 trillion on Welfare, and that's just the federal government. Despite the fact that donations to charities have been dropping due to the recession, do you think people would suddenly donate such a large sum? I don't. They would save the extra income they gained from the drop in taxes.
Maybe that is true, but I am saying in general. If welfare was eliminated now, people might save money, but eventually, the crisis is going to go away and people are going to relax and donate again. And you haven't calculated in the power of the press. If welfare went away (which is very unlikely), the press would be damning it all the way, and proclaim that the poor will die because they will have no source of income anymore. This is not true because 1) the poor will search for jobs and the job market will boom and 2) people will hear the press and donate help the poor because the poor are âstarvingâ and âdyingâ. Although it might be hectic at first, it will all balance out fine in the end.
Why do you think, that statistically, single parents with more than 2 children tend to develop attatchment disorders.
Go back a few centuries and these disorders were much more common.
Go back a few centuries, and divorce rates would be dwarfed by what they are now. Back then, it was harder for a woman to find a job to support kids, so the kids would have to work, thus they would not have many attachments, which would cause their âdisordersâ.
The reason why single parents with more than two children tend to develop attachment disorders is because those parents tend to be abusive or drug addicts (probably the reason they divorced).
Any evidence for that at all, or are you just using metaphors to make up for your lack of factual evidence. Before the crisis they were experiencing growth of up to 10% p.a. Considering most developed, Western nations grow at around 2-4% p.a this is huge.
oh come on! Can't you see? The generation of kids that were produced after China ordered families to have fewer children didn't grow up and started contributing to the economy until after the false sense of growth. When this generation came along, there were fewer people to take on the growing number of jobs, causing economic problems. That 10% means nothing because the earlier generations who were not affected by the new law were still there (had not retired/died). Numbers mean nothing when you can use them right.
You're joking right? You do realise that the entire purpose of economics is to solve the question of there being limited resources and finite wants? That is what the entire study of economics is based on.
You're joking right? The purpose of economics is not to solve âlimited resource problemsâ; it is a lot broader than that. It is the study of how the world works, how the electorate of the world thinks in a combined sense, how capital is produced and destroyed, and how to control/predict these things. There is no such thing as limited resources.
Hmm let me explain, there are 4 resources:
Capital
Enterprise
Land
Labour
All of these are limited. Capital is investment. Enterprise is the idea behind a business, Land is land and all the resources located within it and Labour is the workforce. Are these all renewable?
All those things you said are renewable. Capital is not permanent, it can be created, destroyed, and moved. Businesses can be created, destroyed, and acquired. Land can be created (technically), destroyed (technically), and acquired/switch owners. Resources can be made, acquired, and used (by the First Law of Thermodynamics, no resource can be permanently destroyed, it can only change forms. We might âloseâ potential energy in different ways, but since we are also continually gaining energy from the sun, there will always be a way to create more resources). The labor force can be increased, decreased, and individually, acquired. None of these things are permanent. They can be created, thus they are renewable. None of these can be permanently lost.
Yes, in America perhaps. What about all the other countries where they do not have this technology. They will be even poorer, if Aerica is using up more resources which are not by the way, renewable.
wth, don't you know what the definition of a âdevelopingâ country is??? They are countries that are advancing technologically. Those that are not advancing, are not because either they don't need to, or a dictator is taking all of the resources for himself/making nuclear weapons. Every country has plenty of resources, save maybe the Vatican City, and nothing is saying that they have to give America stuff if they are afraid they will run out. Nothing says they have to give anybody anything. On the other hand, every country has something it can produce, or else it would not exist. This product, they can sell the excess for other things they need. America is not using up their resources; if it is anything, America is trading for them.
If there was no minimum wage we would see a return of ****ensian esque industry. Extremely hard work for very low pay, with the very few business owners benefitting. Why would you want to reverse 200 years of progress? In addition people simply would not have the time to have multiple jobs as you suggest, especially if they have families.
What makes you think all of this?? Look again. What does minimum wage do? If you raised it to $100 an hour, what would happen? You think everybody will get more money??? NO, of course not. Business owners are going to find ways to avoid having to pay for more workers. If they don't, they go out of business, because they can't pay everybody. Raising the minimum wage just creates fewer jobs. If there was no minimum wage, it does not mean that all business owners will pay less. Even if they did, that would just mean that they could sell stuff for less, causing things to be cheaper for the workers (as seen in China's case). On the other hand, people value their time more in the USA. If a business owner is only going to pay them 5 cents and hour, what is going to make that person work that job? They can just go and find another somewhere else. Taking away the minimum wage would create more jobs, giving the unemployed something to do while they search for a better job. A business owner want to pay you five dollars for sweeping the floors? No problem. Without the minimum wage, businesses can pay people the amount that they are worth for doing a job. Competition will always demand that businesses keep their wages realistic.
I assume you are learning Keynesian econ.?
Why would you assume that? Macroeconomics encompasses both the classical and the Keynesian approaches. If you really studied economics you would know this. Plus from your clear lack of understanding of the different systems you do not study economics, or you do and are failing epically at it. Citing a book does not make you look intelligent. If you had actually read the book you would know that it disagrees with most of your points.
Don't think that since you are taking economics from a professor, you know more about it than everyone else
Since I am taking a bachelor's degree that focuses heavily on macroeconomics, I would say I have the right to assume I understand the concepts involved more than most.
Secondly, you are only looking at the current situation. You are talking about right now, how charities are failing.
Welfare is a classic example of government intervention to fix a perceived market faliure- the unegalitarian spread of wealth. It is a merit good. People would not supply it if it were left to the free market. If it were a normal good, there would be no reason for the government to set up a welfare scheme.
You cannot say that because they are non profit, they do not work in the way everything else does
Yes I can. There are numerous factors that are not taken into account due to the fact they are a non profit organisation. Ignoring this is foolish to say the least.
Well, that is because welfare is there
Errm go back decades or hundreds of years when no form of Welfare existed. Take Britian pre Liberal reforms of the early 20th century. Poverty was rife. If you were unemployed it was not uncommon to starve to death. Did people donate their money due to the poverty they could clearly see all around them? No. Why do you think right now it would be different?
You're joking right? The purpose of economics is not to solve �limited resource problems�; it is a lot broader than that. It is the study of how the world works, how the electorate of the world thinks in a combined sense, how capital is produced and destroyed, and how to control/predict these things. There is no such thing as limited resources.
From this paragraph alone I can tell you do not stdy economics. For one thing, it is the first thing you learn. Open any basic economics textbook anbd it will be on the first page. The basic economic problem: finite resources, and unlimited wants. Essentially that is what economics is all about. Of course there are other much more complex areas but this is economics at a primal level.
http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/theory/theory--the-basic-economic-problem-opportunity-cost--170.php
Read. Learn.
All those things you said are renewable. Capital is not permanent, it can be created, destroyed, and moved. Businesses can be created, destroyed, and acquired. Land can be created (technically), destroyed (technically), and acquired/switch owners. Resources can be made, acquired, and used (by the First Law of Thermodynamics, no resource can be permanently destroyed, it can only change forms. We might �lose� potential energy in different ways, but since we are also continually gaining energy from the sun, there will always be a way to create more resources). The labor force can be increased, decreased, and individually, acquired. None of these things are permanent. They can be created, thus they are renewable. None of these can be permanently lost.
Again from this paragraph, you clearly do not study economics.
Capital is defined as the stock of goods used to make other goods and services, and so includes various types of machinery, as well as money used for investment. Neither of these things, machinery or money are renewable. Capital cannot be created, at least not with any real value.
Land refers to the goods and all the resources that are taken from the Earth. This includes fish, forests and minerals etc. These are not renewable. To say so is simply foolish.
Labour includes all the potential workforce, and also their level of training and skill. This is not renewable. There are finite numbers of workers in an economy.
Enterprise refers to people prepared to bring together the other 3 factors of production, in order to make goods and services. This is not a renewable resource.
Those that are not advancing, are not because either they don't need to, or a dictator is taking all of the resources for himself/making nuclear weapons.
That sentence made me chuckle. Gross generalisation. In addition, why would they not 'need' to advance. Is that to accomodate your utopian future of a resource renewable super America?
Every country has plenty of resources, save maybe the Vatican City, and nothing is saying that they have to give America stuff if they are afraid they will run out. Nothing says they have to give anybody anything. On the other hand, every country has something it can produce, or else it would not exist. This product, they can sell the excess for other things they need. America is not using up their resources; if it is anything, America is trading for them.
At extortionate prices. America and other developed countries have a monopsony. They can force these developing nations to force the prices down, because they have such a huge influence ofver the demand side of the market. Why do you think that 20% of the world's population has 80% of its resources?
What does minimum wage do?
It ensures that people can receive a minimum wage enabling to live at a relative standard of living considered acceptable in that particular economy.
You based most of this paragraph on what trhe effects of raising minimum wage would be. I am not arguing to raise minimum wage. I am arguing against its abolition. Raising minimum wagge would probably lead to inflation, and a very little effect on the real valuye of most normal goods. It would not have that much of an effect. Stop getting hung up on the nominal value of goods. It means nothing.
Competition will always demand that businesses keep their wages realistic.
Then why, throughout history, have workers from nations with no minimum wage always suffered from extreme poverty? The companies have a monopsony. Look at the companies that outsource to lower paid countries eg Nike or take coffee growers for example. They have no choice but to work extremely hard for very low pay, because all the companies willing to employ them are only offering low wages. If you removed minimumj wage, the poor would get much poorer and the rich would get richer and we would revert back to an industrial age style economy.
Raising minimum wagge would probably lead to inflation, and a very little effect on the real valuye of most normal goods.
I would like to add to this statement:
Here in Washington, we have a "living's wage" law. This means that the minimum is raised or not raised depending on the amount of inflation that occurs within the last year. In 2008, it rose from $7.93 to $8.04. However, in 2009 it rose from $8.04 to $8.55. This is not to give people more money; it is to make sure they have the bare necessities to live on.
Also, Vertex, you addressed that jobs will be more available if the minimum wage is abolished, but you did NOT address what Firefly brought up: meager wages and poor conditions were rampant pre-minimum wage laws in both Britain and the United States, particularly after the Industrial Revolutions that took place in both countries.
In addition to this, you did not account for the fact that if the minimum wage laws are abolished, people only have so much time they can commit to working while still maintaining the lifestyle they expect. More profit would be made, but living and working conditions would go down.
That's how it always is; there's a direct and negative correlation between GDP and GPI, meaning that as a country makes more money, living conditions, charities, etc. decrease in value.
Have you read anything I wrote? Are thinking about anything I write before you respond or are you just ignoring it completely? Are you just going to assume that I don't take econ because my views are not the same as yours? I've proved everything you said wrong, and you're so blinded that you can even tell. You keep telling me that my arguments are useless, when they are epically more logical than yours. You are failing epically to defend yourself, because all you do is repeat what you professor and textbooks say, and never think about it. You think you are the only Econ major around here? Yeah thats right, you aren't alone. Before assuming that I am wrong, that haven't read the book I mentioned, read the book yourself, because you obviously haven't. As I said, your textbook and professor are old school. They are useless, cause they have some major flaws. The new economic theories I am studying blow your ideas, your textbooks, your professors, all to bits. I've studied both; yours lose no matter what. I've proved everything you said wrong, and you're so blinded that you can even tell. Try stopping and thinking my words before declaring all of them to be invalid.
No matter what, you will never be able to spread wealth evenly among a society. It is not possible. Some people are always going to be ahead of others, and there is nothing anybody can do about it. Government trying to fix it with welfare is just ridiculous. It shows how liberal and socialist our country is becoming. People think that welfare will solve everything. Well, it doesn't, because it takes away incentive to work. Eventually, more and more people will use welfare, while the rich will have to support them all. When that time comes, the economy will crash because the rich will become poor, and they will jus becom welfare users as well. Charities on the other hand are superior because people will only give when they have excess. You yourself said people are not naturally selfish. Your stupid arguments don't match up. Not ALL people are TOTALLY selfish. Some will donate, especially when they think there is a need. Right now, there is no need because welfare is there to do it for them. Why give more when the government forces you to give already? Without welfare, the poor wouldn't just sit around and smoke and do drugs. They would work hard to find jobs because they need to survive.
Non profit organizations are a big part of the economy. If you just take all of them away, the economy would fail. Non profits are just a clever way of avoiding income taxes. People donate, and they don't need to pay tax on that money. Non profits are businesses like all of the rest of them.
Britian took liberal reforms because it was better than what they had. People in the low classes were treated like slaves/animals. That is why Charles Dickens wrote David Copperfield, because most people didn't know that this was going on. If they didn't know, how would they fix it? And the âfixedâ it with liberal reforms. Even if they did know, humans in higher classes thought themselves âsuperiorâ to lower classes. The poor were like slaves to them. They didn't care.
I do study economics. And the stuff I study shows how ridiculous it is for people like you who believe the world has limited resources. All your textbooks obviously had authors who did not know what they were doing, but instead were just repeated stuff their teachers taught them, who repeated their teachers, who repeated their teacher...etc. I read your site, and it says nothing I didn't disprove in my last post. How many times do I have to repeat? Do I need even simpler detail so that you can understand?
A renewable resource is âa commodity or resource, such as solar energy or wood, that is inexhaustible or replaceable by new growth.â
Machinery can be produced, recycled, destroyed. Notice the words produced? That means that they can be made. Potentially, they can be created faster than current ones break down. They can be replaced by new growth. Money (value/worth) can be added to the economy by making stuff faster than current things break. Thus, the economy can be increased in value. Broken things of worth can be recycled or replaced. Gold for example can be recycled from circuit boards and rings or mined for more. Gold is not âused upâ and cannot spontaneously disappear. It stays on earth (save minuscule amounts used in satellites). It is not destroyed. Understand that now? To say that capital is not renewable is foolish. If it was not renewable, we would be dead. Also, capital can be defined as âthe wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation.â This too can be added to. The reason why there are still businesses is because they can be made, not just destroyed. Money can circulate, but an economy's worth can be added to, cause more money to be circulated. Farmers do this by producing food, which is sold for money. Farmers continually add to an economy's worth. Mining does this too. Steel, gold, tin, gems...all add to an economy's worth when mining. The value of the economy can be decreased in some ways, like through burial of trash. Over the years, people can dig it up again and âmineâ for unrecycled resources. Petroleum can be mined, and can be used up, but where did the petroleum come from in the first place? More will be made underground as are all fossil fuels. Everything can be recycled. Fish reproduce. To say they are not renewable is also foolish. As long as humans don't eat them at a faster rate than they can reproduce (which is almost impossible, considering the billions, even trillions of fish in the oceans), it can be considered renewable. Environmentalist laws in the US today require lumber industries to plant trees at a faster rate than they are cut down. Forests are renewable because they can be grown. They cannot be permanently used up unless every tree was cut down at the same time. Minerals can be recycled. They do not spontaneously disappear. Do you think that burying stuff in landfills means that that stuff is gone forever? Of course not. And saying that there is a limited amount of workers in the economy is also stupid. People reproduce. Didn't you mention that the world's population is steadily growing? It isn't like, you hire all the people in the world, and there will never be any more. And businesses. If you couldn't create enterprise, the world wouldn't have any. I see where you are coming from, but if you think about it, we have nothing to worry about. Yes, everything can be used up, but you can make more, so technically, nothing is a limited resource.
That sentence made me chuckle. Gross generalisation. In addition, why would they not 'need' to advance. Is that to accomodate your utopian future of a resource renewable super America?
Every country has plenty of resources, save maybe the Vatican City, and nothing is saying that they have to give America stuff if they are afraid they will run out. Nothing says they have to give anybody anything. On the other hand, every country has something it can produce, or else it would not exist. This product, they can sell the excess for other things they need. America is not using up their resources; if it is anything, America is trading for them.
At extortionate prices. America and other developed countries have a monopsony. They can force these developing nations to force the prices down, because they have such a huge influence ofver the demand side of the market. Why do you think that 20% of the world's population has 80% of its resources?
Some countries are fine where they are. Do tribes in the jungle âneedâ to advance technologically? They are self-sustaining, so why would they care? And did I not say that countries do not need to rely America? If a country is not self-sustaining, they must be produces something, else they would not exist. That thing that they produce, whether it is oil, like Venezuelan, or fish, like Oceania, they have something that they can trade. They do not need to trade with developed countries. Developing ones work just as well. America may have power, but other countries do too. Every country has some. No country has a monopoly on anything. If they did, and they did something other countries didn't like, they would all turn against that country. War only happens when a country has a monopoly on something, whether land or resources or people or power over something or whatever. Developed countries can only control whatever they own. They cannot force a country to stay undeveloped. Someday, those countries will catch up and become âdevelopedâ. Developed countries have little influence over the demand side of the market because they are not the only ones with the resources and because of competition. Twenty percent of the world (developed countries) have eighty percent of the resources because 1) they have more population because they can sustain it with their higher standards of living, so they need the resources and 2) developing countries are still striving to reach their full potential. They do not need America to become developed, and if America pushes them around, they can just go somewhere else to trade.
It ensures that people can receive a minimum wage enabling to live at a relative standard of living considered acceptable in that particular economy.
I cannot believe you did not take to thought the stuff I said in my last post. Minimum wage sets the minimum and not anything else. There will still be jobs paying $10 dollars an hour even without minimum wage. Just because the minimum wage is taken away would not make labor suddenly cheaper. Competition will ensure that. Somebody will get the hint and start paying people more than everybody else, because that will get them ahead of everybody else. Besides, unions will still be there. Why would you think that businesses will suddenly pay everybody barely anything? Again, unions and competition will not allow that to happen. Can't you understand that?
You based most of this paragraph on what trhe effects of raising minimum wage would be. I am not arguing to raise minimum wage. I am arguing against its abolition.
Fine, but did you read the rest of my paragraph? Obviously not. Or do I need to explain it even more?
Then why, throughout history, have workers from nations with no minimum wage always suffered from extreme poverty? The companies have a monopsony. Look at the companies that outsource to lower paid countries eg Nike or take coffee growers for example. They have no choice but to work extremely hard for very low pay, because all the companies willing to employ them are only offering low wages. If you removed minimumj wage, the poor would get much poorer and the rich would get richer and we would revert back to an industrial age style economy.
You refer to history, but that only happened because it was better than the systems that were already there. People lived in the streets, and factories saw that they could use these people with no jobs. Having a job was definitely better than none, so, in reality, it was an improvement for those people. Nowadays, we have child labor laws, human rights, and all that stuff. Do you think businesses could still get away with stuff like that? Even if businesses did lower wages, that would mean that stuff is cheaper, so people can buy goods for less. China is an obvious example of this; labor is cheap there, but so are the goods and services.
Also, Vertex, you addressed that jobs will be more available if the minimum wage is abolished, but you did NOT address what Firefly brought up: meager wages and poor conditions were rampant pre-minimum wage laws in both Britain and the United States, particularly after the Industrial Revolutions that took place in both countries.
Again, do you really think people are that stupid now? We have child labor laws and unions and human rights. Back then, people were glad just to have a job. And back then, the US and Great Britain were not as developed as they are now. The standard of living was not as high as it is now. If minimum wage was abolished, all that would happen would be more jobs available.
In addition to this, you did not account for the fact that if the minimum wage laws are abolished, people only have so much time they can commit to working while still maintaining the lifestyle they expect. More profit would be made, but living and working conditions would go down.
That's how it always is; there's a direct and negative correlation between GDP and GPI, meaning that as a country makes more money, living conditions, charities, etc. decrease in value.
Something is wrong with this. GDP and GPI and not connected. Nothing says that when GDP goes up, GPI goes down. When GDP goes up, it can be either that it is growing âwiderâ (bigger population) or âhigherâ (better standard of living). Of all things, GPI would most likely not go down. If a countries economy grew, why would living conditions go down? The US's economy grew over the past 2 centuries, and all I can see are clearly better living conditions. I do not see how you came to this conclusion.
Something is wrong with this. GDP and GPI and not connected. Nothing says that when GDP goes up, GPI goes down. When GDP goes up, it can be either that it is growing �wider� (bigger population) or �higher� (better standard of living). Of all things, GPI would most likely not go down. If a countries economy grew, why would living conditions go down? The US's economy grew over the past 2 centuries, and all I can see are clearly better living conditions. I do not see how you came to this conclusion.
Strange.
Hey, this is not the US. So you got one example. Probably of a country with something going on which would explain it. Do you have a chart showing population for this country, or maybe an article telling where all of this GDP is going? If a country's economy is getting bigger, but peoples' standard of living is going down, something unusual is going on, which you have decided not to mention. Give me the whole truth before you claim I'm wrong.
Ha, nice Zootsuit.
Have you read anything I wrote? Are thinking about anything I write before you respond or are you just ignoring it completely? Are you just going to assume that I don't take econ because my views are not the same as yours? I've proved everything you said wrong, and you're so blinded that you can even tell. You keep telling me that my arguments are useless, when they are epically more logical than yours. You are failing epically to defend yourself, because all you do is repeat what you professor and textbooks say, and never think about it.
Ha, funny you think that. I assure you, those sentiments are reciprocal.
You think you are the only Econ major around here? Yeah thats right, you aren't alone. Before assuming that I am wrong, that haven't read the book I mentioned, read the book yourself, because you obviously haven't. As I said, your textbook and professor are old school. They are useless, cause they have some major flaws. The new economic theories I am studying blow your ideas, your textbooks, your professors, all to bits. I've studied both; yours lose no matter what. I've proved everything you said wrong, and you're so blinded that you can even tell. Try stopping and thinking my words before declaring all of them to be invalid.
For one thing, most of the concepts I have put forward are from the newer economic school of thought. Keynesian economics only applies to a small section of my course. For another, care to mention any of these ideas that blow mine out of the water. I do not presume I am the sole person who studies economics, although from reading your posts it's abundantly clear that you do not. Your ignorance of the basic economic problem alone tells me that. What I have mentioned is not restricted to the Keynesian approach, in fact it is much closer to the classical, than the 'old school'.
No matter what, you will never be able to spread wealth evenly among a society. It is not possible. Some people are always going to be ahead of others, and there is nothing anybody can do about it. Government trying to fix it with welfare is just ridiculous. It shows how liberal and socialist our country is becoming. People think that welfare will solve everything. Well, it doesn't, because it takes away incentive to work. Eventually, more and more people will use welfare, while the rich will have to support them all. When that time comes, the economy will crash because the rich will become poor, and they will jus becom welfare users as well.
*Laughs*. O wait you were being serious. Well it seems someone is suffering from a bout of Mcarthyism today.
I was just stating the simple facts behind the concept of welfare. I never claimed to adsvocate either side of the argument. I never advocated complete economic equality. Welfare has been around in Britian for 100 years. The numbers of people claiming welfare over this period have been relatively stable. If what you said is true, the vast ,ajority of British citizens would live off the state, or at least a much larger proportion than in 1909, however this is not the case. People prefer to work, than to live off the state, because, simply, the money you earn from working is far higher than the money gained from welfare. This will not, and has not changed, which is why the numbers of people claiming welfare will never spiral out of control. If that were the case, it would have happened already, or at least some sort of trend would be clear.
Charities on the other hand are superior because people will only give when they have excess. You yourself said people are not naturally selfish. Your stupid arguments don't match up. Not ALL people are TOTALLY selfish. Some will donate, especially when they think there is a need. Right now, there is no need because welfare is there to do it for them. Why give more when the government forces you to give already? Without welfare, the poor wouldn't just sit around and smoke and do drugs. They would work hard to find jobs because they need to survive.
I would argue that not all people are inherently selfish. There is a key difference. The current system however does encourage an individualist mentality, which leads to 'selfish' behaviour, and studies show this. I am arguing that if welfare completely disappeared, the amount of money given to charities would not equal the amount previously spent on welfare. In addition, cgarities only help people who come to them. Not all people previously on welfare would volunteer to do so.
Also, I find the notion, that all people who are on welfare just sit around all day, 'smoke and do drugs' ridiculous. And growing up in a family that benefitted from welfare for a period of time, frankly, quite insulting.
Britian took liberal reforms because it was better than what they had. People in the low classes were treated like slaves/animals. That is why Charles ****ens wrote David Copperfield, because most people didn't know that this was going on. If they didn't know, how would they fix it? And the �fixed� it with liberal reforms. Even if they did know, humans in higher classes thought themselves �superior� to lower classes. The poor were like slaves to them. They didn't care.
Sorry, that didn't seem to be a coherent argument, just a random sequence of words. Learn about the liberal reforms, then try again please.
A renewable resource is �a commodity or resource, such as solar energy or wood, that is inexhaustible or replaceable by new growth.�
Ever heard of the phrase unsustainability. Do you know how long it takes for trees to grow? The human race is using up resources far faster than nature can reproduce them. With regards to oil, here is an interesting article, on how oil discovery rates have dropped drastically in the past few decades.
I do study economics. And the stuff I study shows how ridiculous it is for people like you who believe the world has limited resources. All your textbooks obviously had authors who did not know what they were doing, but instead were just repeated stuff their teachers taught them, who repeated their teachers, who repeated their teacher...etc. I read your site, and it says nothing I didn't disprove in my last post. How many times do I have to repeat? Do I need even simpler detail so that you can understand?
I do not believe you. In fact it is insulting that someone with such a poor grasp of even the most basic principles in economic theory would masquerade as one.
Finite resources, infinite wants. This is what economics is all about. Solving thios one problem. I acknowledge that there are other approaches, but with reards to this, and the definitions of these resources, they are considered economic gospel. Whatever approach you specialise in, classical or Keynesian (which for some reason you believe I am).
To say they are not renewable is also foolish. As long as humans don't eat them at a faster rate than they can reproduce (which is almost impossible, considering the billions, even trillions of fish in the oceans),
Then why are the various species of cod becoming so rtare that they are being removed from shelves due to over fishing? Why are hagfish, never previously used for human consumption, used in supermarket brands instead of other fish? Because they are dying out. How do you think species become extinct? It is very easily possible that they are being fished faster than their rate of reproduction, and it is indeed true.
1) they have more population because they can sustain it with their higher standards of living, so they need the resources
Wait you're joking right. Developed countries have a higher population? Then why do 20% of thw world's population have 80% of its resources. You do realise that 20 is asmaller number than 80 right? Simple mathematics.
Nowadays, we have child labor laws, human rights, and all that stuff. Do you think businesses could still get away with stuff like that?
They can and do. Why do you think they outsource to these nations? Because there is no legislation pertaining to workers rights, at least, not to the same extent as there are in the US for example. Why do you think there is so much controversy surrounding the issue?
In Indonesia for example, Nike employ children for 20-24 cents per day. Pitiful, even by Indonesian standards.
If minimum wage was abolished, all that would happen would be more jobs available.
If yo think that is the only thing that would happen thn you are sadly mistaken. You fail to take into account, revised fiscal and monetary policy, the effect on the SRAS, LRAS, as well as AD (AD=C+G+I+X-M). There would be far reaching consequences for both sides of the economy. Also you forget that an increased employment rate, does not nescessarily lower the unemployment rate. (Being a fellow economist I'll leave you to figure that one out).
Even if businesses did lower wages, that would mean that stuff is cheaper,
Incorrect. It would devalue the currency, reducing the spoending power, the nominal value the workers are paid is irrelevant. Implementing policies that would devalue the currency would be especially unwise as it would increase the value of current debt. Something, that in the current economic climate, would be suicidal.
The standard of living was not as high as it is now.
Yes, as a result of the reforms, not as a result of the fact there was no welfare state or human/workers rights.
Give me the whole truth before you claim I'm wrong.
Look it up yourself. You clearly have access to the internet. You don't need me and Zootsuit to tell you, that you are incorrect. Google will do that for you.
Hey, this is not the US.
That was for the United States, actually. See how it says "Dollars per capita" on the side?
So you got one example. Probably of a country with something going on which would explain it. Do you have a chart showing population for this country, or maybe an article telling where all of this GDP is going?
Once again, the chart is for the United States.
If a country's economy is getting bigger, but peoples' standard of living is going down, something unusual is going on, which you have decided not to mention. Give me the whole truth before you claim I'm wrong.
I have been giving you the whole truth. The GDP doesn't measure the individual economic prosperity of the citizens of a country; it measures the growth and profits of the companies. When companies make more money, it means they're coming up with new methods to make things cheaper, including job outsourcing, eliminating the middle man, etc.
Generally, companies tend to make larger profits when exploiting tax loopholes and cutting pay for employees.
For me, I think that she is downright irresponsible
totally agree
she is going to mooch off our goverment taking others money to feed her those kids. Plus what I read on Yahoo today is that she lost one of her kids like 6 months ago. Yep very responsible. So mabye the gov. should keep a close eye on her in the future to make sure she dosen't loose it again; bet her kids are hoping that she has a small microwave.
I found this:
You can find whatever you want on the internet these days.Thread is locked!