>
> I'm not talking about scam accounting here. I mean real productivity. If
> the company in question turns out more widgets (whatever way they do
> it), it means more productivity/production for that company. As for
> those laid off, it is assumed that at some point those people will go
> get jobs and produce something as well.
>
> The point is not how we tweak examples to show one thing or another. The
> point is that if you want to have a profound lasting effect on an
> economy, your most workable direction is to increase productivity in the
> aggregate.
You're totally missing my point.
My discussion of the word productivity arises from your claim that,
your words: "And right now, we _do_ have a healthy economy."
I can't imagine on what evidence you base your claim, (other than some
kind of "shopping index"!) but since YOU place such emphasis on
PRODUCTIVITY, I was just cautioning you not to get overly excited
whenever the government announces increased productivity; it's mostly
bullshit, same as inflation numbers.
>>Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom has a printing press and prints pictures of
>>presidents on green paper. He supplies them (lends them) at virtually
>>no interest to Dick, who buys TVs, VCRs, DVDs, etc, from China. Dick
>>sells these to Harry, who buys one of everything as soon as it comes
>>in the store! Harry has no job, by the way, because he used to work
>>in a factory that closed. But that's ok--he can keep buying from Dick
>>because he refinanced his house, and besides, Dick often has specials
>>where he offers no payments for one year. So Harry has a 50 inch LCD
>>tv, and a Mac dual G5 computer, two new cars in the garage, and pretty
>>much every toy and gizmo that comes onto the market.
>>
>>By your definition, with all this buy and selling, the above is a
>>vibrant, healthy economy.
>>
>
>
> Well, if you think you can run a whole economy on examples like that, go
> ahead. I contend that it can't be done sustainably. Also note that I
> mentioned earlier: producing nothing while increasing "wealth" isn't
> productivity. It's a drag on an economy.
Why are you twisting my words? I was trying to show you the fallacy
of your definition of "healthy economy". These are your words:
"Buying and selling are simply the opposite sides of the same coin.
More of both means a healthy economy. And right now, we _do_ have a
healthy economy."
I use a simple example to show that buying and selling do not equal a
healthy economy. Anyone who thinks about my example for more than
five seconds realizes that it's not sustainable. Eventually, some
day, it collapses. I didn't think that needed explaining.
You dismiss my opinion with "if you think you can run an economy...."
Well, no, I didn't say that. I was trying to show that "buying and
selling"!="healthy economy", any more than a housekeeper who raises
great huge clouds of dust is necessarily doing a good job of getting
the house cleaner.
I don't know why you always attack or twist my examples. What better
way is there to examine a concept, which (in my perception) somebody
doesn't understand, than to SIMPLIFY and look at examples. Would it
be better to cite a textbook and wait two weeks while you read it?
What the hell is wrong with using simple examples. If we were
discussing the loadbearing strength of a peaked roof vs a flat roof, I
might propose to construct a simple frame of a house (ie an example)
out of a few pieces of 2x4. After I have proved my point, you come
along and say, "Yes, but there are no walls, and no shingles--if you
think a person can live in that so-called house, you're crazy."
It pisses me off, when I'm making a sincere effort to explain a point,
to have "examples" dismissed as worthless. I think they are a useful
tool to understanding, to those with open minds.
Anyway, not much point in going on with this--if nobody can see my
point, that's ok--I'll just keep believing what my eyes, my reading,
and my brain tell me.
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:57:34 EDT