The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will see

[Energon]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

No that is wrong US is rich because it has vast natural, economical and human resources. Let's take the British Empire which ruled nearly 1/4 of the world. In those days it was a world super power but after it's colonies got independace i.e British empire lose resources, Britain fell to just a industrial nation states. So capitalism dosen't dictate the entire outcome of the economy.

The reasons the United States became wealthy are quite varied and complex, but here are a few important ones that come to mind:

• The founding fathers laid out a framework for a society where power was relatively balanced and always in the hands of the people and not just the select few.
• The society has always had a strong belief in the rule of law and through competent governance the American society has always successfully guaranteed individual freedom,constitutional rights, property rights and fair business practices for all.
• The society has always invested a lot of resources in its own development particularly by building a wide array of excellent institutions. Most of these investments were through public funds. For instance a majority of Americans sought education from public highschools and state universities. Businesses could become successful due to open access to excellent road and rail networks and systems like the US mail.
• The society through effective governance and the abovementioned institutions has always managed to maintain an environment that promoted creativity, entrepreneurship, and provided incentive for hard work.

Our current predicament is also a direct consequence of the breakdown in these critical institutions particularly in the maintenance of the rule of law and provision primary/secondary education.

As far as the political/ economic philosophy is concerned, the United States has always been a social republic that placed an emphasis on individual accomplishment by collectively creating favorable conditions through effective and competent governance.

 

[jamesvaikom]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

Gujarat has TFR of 2.4(a very healthy one, unlike TN and Maha with a shitty 1.7 and 1.9 respectively) while the Indian TFR is 2.5. Hence Gujarat is not different from the Indian averages in regards to Population. But yeah whatever keep believing what you want! I am done explaining Population is not a problem!

According to me TFR data is not compiled properly in India. They give importance to check total population and compare that with previous data to find population growth, TFR etc. Its not possible to get correct TFR data without reducing immigrants. As an industrial state population of Gujarat is increasing due to immigration from other states and not due to high TFR. The main vote bank of Gujarat is middle class. I don't think majority middle class people will have more than 2 children. I hope members from Gujarat will share their view on this. If population growth is good then why we hate Bangladeshi immigrants? Do you think NE states can utilize Bangladeshi immigrants effectively? The problems created by Bangladeshi immigrants is a proof that population growth is bad.

You on one side talk about free market and on other side want population growth to help corporates make profit utilizing demand supply gap. Let corporates make profit by selling quality products. But utilizing demand supply gap to sell low quality products at high rate is similar to the situation when PSU companies had monopolies.

Capitalist countries are also spending money for public school and other social activities to help poor people. So your view of leaving poor people alone won't happen even in capitalist countries. We should encourage companies which make profit by selling quality products. We don't need companies which utilize demand supply gap to sell low quality products at high rates.

 

[Mad Indian]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

According to me TFR data is not compiled properly in India. They give importance to check total population and compare that with previous data to find population growth, TFR etc. Its not possible to get correct TFR data without reducing immigrants. As an industrial state population of Gujarat is increasing due to immigration from other states and not due to high TFR. The main vote bank of Gujarat is middle class. I don't think majority middle class people will have more than 2 children. I hope members from Gujarat will share their view on this. If population growth is good then why we hate Bangladeshi immigrants? Do you think NE states can utilize Bangladeshi immigrants effectively? The problems created by Bangladeshi immigrants is a proof that population growth is bad.

bangladeshi immigrants are a problem because they destroy the local culture and not because they are a population burden!

You on one side talk about free market and on other side want population growth to help corporates make profit utilizing demand supply gap. Let corporates make profit by selling quality products. But utilizing demand supply gap to sell low quality products at high rate is similar to the situation when PSU companies had monopolies.

Straw man argument.

Capitalist countries are also spending money for public school and other social activities to help poor people. So your view of leaving poor people alone won't happen even in capitalist countries. We should encourage companies which make profit by selling quality products. We don't need companies which utilize demand supply gap to sell low quality products at high rates.

More straw man arguments.

Regarding social spending in Capitalistic countries, heard of austerity measures underway in Europe or the European economic crisis?

 

[Mad Indian]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

Point out the reserves India has?

Oil is NOT the ONLY way to become wealthy dude.

 

[HeinzGud]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

The reasons the United States became wealthy are quite varied and complex, but here are a few important ones that come to mind:

• The founding fathers laid out a framework for a society where power was relatively balanced and always in the hands of the people and not just the select few.
• The society has always had a strong belief in the rule of law and through competent governance the American society has always successfully guaranteed individual freedom,constitutional rights, property rights and fair business practices for all.
• The society has always invested a lot of resources in its own development particularly by building a wide array of excellent institutions. Most of these investments were through public funds. For instance a majority of Americans sought education from public highschools and state universities. Businesses could become successful due to open access to excellent road and rail networks and systems like the US mail.
• The society through effective governance and the abovementioned institutions has always managed to maintain an environment that promoted creativity, entrepreneurship, and provided incentive for hard work.

Our current predicament is also a direct consequence of the breakdown in these critical institutions particularly in the maintenance of the rule of law and provision primary/secondary education.

As far as the political/ economic philosophy is concerned, the United States has always been a social republic that placed an emphasis on individual accomplishment by collectively creating favorable conditions through effective and competent governance.

However I don't think that USA would have fared better if it was small. Great economies always rely on better and large amount of resources. Without them economy becomes weaker or dependent.

 

[HeinzGud]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

Oil is NOT the ONLY way to become wealthy dude.

I am not referring only to Oil.

 

[Mad Indian]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

I am not referring only to Oil.

What resources did Japan have?

 

[HeinzGud]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

What resources did Japan have?

1) Great shipping community.
2) Proven industrial base
3) Backing of a Super Power
4) Educated & hardworking workforce

 

[Mad Indian]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

1) Great shipping community.
2) Proven industrial base
3) Backing of a Super Power
4) Educated & hardworking workforce

And how many of these are Natural resources?

Anyway, India is much much better off than Japan wrt to Natural resources

 

[Energon]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

However I don't think that USA would have fared better if it was small. Great economies always rely on better and large amount of resources. Without them economy becomes weaker or dependent.

I don't think natural resources are unimportant, but I consider them to be merely secondary factors and not the causative reasons of societal success.

Natural resources whether biotic or abiotic are only potentials, they don't mean anything in of themselves unless a society is able to do two things:
1. Extract them efficiently and unleash their potential to make fundamental advances (such as England using their coal reserves to fuel the industrial revolution)
2. Ensure that the benefits of the natural resources are extended to the entire society. Most societies are unable to do this.
I consider the mechanisms by which a society is able to accomplish the two above mentioned actions as the primary factors while relegating the natural resources as secondary. Let me make a couple of extrapolations on my argument.

Spain for instance was more rich in natural resource than England. It was not only the better geographical location but the Spanish also extracted more natural resource in the form of gold, silver and precious stones from their South American colonies than England; yet they were unable to achieve industrial revolution. France too extracted immense natural resources from their African colonies in the form of gold and diamonds but did not initiate the industrial revolution. The reason England did more with less was due to their evolved political structure. Unlike absolutist France and Spain the role of the British monarchy lessened over time which led to the diffusion of power and empowerment of people and the creation of institutions which facilitated a fundamental advancement throughout their society. When I say fundamental I mean as opposed to superficial advancement. For instance oil rich Arab states have imported a great deal of advanced technology, however there has been very little fundamental change in their society. Without the petrodollars they're still a backward tribal society. Again the reason is that the power still rests with the monarchs who in their quest to retain power selectively import institutions with their cash resources but make sure that the social structure remains tribal in nature.

This argument also includes human resource (which isn't exactly a natural resource in conventional terms, but I do get what you're saying). You are certainly right in identifying the critical role of the large population of the United States, but what's more important than the number itself is the harnessing the demographic dividend. Here again it was the eclectic nature of the American political structure, the fantastic institutions, creating a favorable environment to harness the creativity of the individual etc. etc. which are the true causes of success.

 

[jamesvaikom]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

bangladeshi immigrants are a problem because they destroy the local culture and not because they are a population burden!

In India many children die everyday due to malnutrition. Violence will increase when people find it difficult to survive. Some poor people may help maoists or terrorists for money if they find it difficult to provide food or medicines for their children. Those people can cause proplems similar to that created by Bangladeshi immigrants.

There is huge difference between what we wish and what is practical. Politicians need vote bank. If an MP spend Rs. 50 crore to help rich people then he will secure only less votes. But if he spend that money to help poor people then he can secure many times more votes. If population of people who wish opposite to what you wish increase then Govt. will only do opposite to what you wish.

Almost all new projects are facing protests due to environmental problems. We can't utilize our natural resources effectively if our population density increases.

 

[jamesvaikom]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

Regarding social spending in Capitalistic countries, heard of austerity measures underway in Europe or the European economic crisis?

Still standard of living of poor people in those countries is similar to the standard of living of middle class in India. Violence will increase only if survival becomes difficult. If you think that standard of living is reducing in those countries then think about Indians who beg for jobs there. If protests intensifies then governments in those countries will be forced to impose more tax and other burdens on immigrants.

 

[Mad Indian]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

In India many children die everyday due to malnutrition. Violence will increase when people find it difficult to survive. Some poor people may help maoists or terrorists for money if they find it difficult to provide food or medicines for their children. Those people can cause proplems similar to that created by Bangladeshi immigrants.

And the poblem for malnutrition , poverty and other such things are rooted in Socialism and thats my point all along. I dont know what You achieved by mentioning this here. And NO Bangladeshi immigrants are a totally different issue and you are changing the goal posts here. You first claimed that Bangladeshi immigrants cause a problem becuase of their population, which I refuted, and now you are saying malnutrition and poverty is the same as the Bangladeshi immigration problem.

There is huge difference between what we wish and what is practical. Politicians need vote bank. If an MP spend Rs. 50 crore to help rich people then he will secure only less votes. But if he spend that money to help poor people then he can secure many times more votes. If population of people who wish opposite to what you wish increase then Govt. will only do opposite to what you wish.

I already accepted that this is the curse of Democracy! Majority is not always right . SO what are you implying here? I seriously have no idea

Almost all new projects are facing protests due to environmental problems. We can't utilize our natural resources effectively if our population density increases.

We dont even natural resources if we have a very good human resource!

Still standard of living of poor people in those countries is similar to the standard of living of middle class in India. Violence will increase only if survival becomes difficult. If you think that standard of living is reducing in those countries then think about Indians who beg for jobs there. If protests intensifies then governments in those countries will be forced to impose more tax and other burdens on immigrants.

Totally irrelevent to what I said

 

[jamesvaikom]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

And the poblem for malnutrition , poverty and other such things are rooted in Socialism and thats my point all along. I dont know what You achieved by mentioning this here. And NO Bangladeshi immigrants are a totally different issue and you are changing the goal posts here. You first claimed that Bangladeshi immigrants cause a problem becuase of their population, which I refuted, and now you are saying malnutrition and poverty is the same as the Bangladeshi immigration problem.

If population of people who support socialism increases then Govt. will give importance to socialism. If Govt. act against wish of majority people then they will turn violent. Violence will make new projects uneconomical. So at the end of the day socialist will claim that we didn't achieve anything from those projects. According to me nuclear power plants are good for us. But due to anti nuclear protests Govt. is forced to spend more money and time for safety and testings. Due to these delays and increase in expenditures anti nuclear protestors can claim that nuclear power plants are not economical. If standard of living of people were high then they would have given importance to electricity than radiation risks.

Bangladeshi immigrants come here because population density and poverty of Bangladesh are higher than in India. I don't think their main aim is to spread their culture. If poor people have more children then they won't be able to provide enough food and medicines to their children. Poverty and malnutrition will increase if poor people have more children. Some poor people may help maoists or terrorists to provide food and medicines for their children.

 

[jamesvaikom]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

I already accepted that this is the curse of Democracy! Majority is not always right . SO what are you implying here? I seriously have no idea

Majority is not right doesn't mean that Govt. can act against majority. If majority is wrong then why do you want to see increase in their population? You can claim that democracy is bad. But in a democratic country how can you claim that Govt. should do opposite to what majority wish. In stock market we can make profit by trading and investing against sentiments of herd. But Govt. can't act against sentiments of majority people.

 

[jamesvaikom]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

We dont even natural resources if we have a very good human resource!

Developed countries have consumer base many times higher than their human resources. So their per capita income is high. Our consumer base is very low compared to our human resources. So our per capita income is very low. Sectors like IT which need less natural resources will reach saturation soon. Now its becoming more and more easier to create softwares by upgrading existing softwares and using subprograms available. If demand for a software increases then they can take multiple copies using less human resources. But if demand for tangible products increases then we will need more raw materials. Human resources keep on increasing. But that's not the case with natural resources. Natural resources are deprecating according to our use.

 

[jamesvaikom]

Re: The scariest docu on the post-industrial American economy you will

Totally irrelevent to what I said

My points are relevant. Standard of living of poor people in those countries are similar to the standard of middle class people in India. Their population is not increasing. They are facing deflation. So Govt. can reduce public spendings. But in India population and inflation are increasing. So Govt. needs to spend more money.