Debate
I think that points you have laid out may make sense in a purely theoretical sense. But I donât think that real economies work strictly according to economic theory.
I have heard of no such âburn productsâ strategy during the great depression, but I am not an expert on the topic.
1 Like
Debate
1 Like
Okay letâs start.
All this debate has started from the retired burden on economy. Your arguments were that the elderly are indeed beneficial to economy since A) they can do some teaching jobs using their experience and B) they consume goods & services, assuming that consumption is always good for economy.
I (and the prior comment by Cliff), from the perspective of supply-side economics, disagreed to the second argument (the consumption one). I brought a comparison between âhanding out money to the retired to let them spend and buying products to burn them in the desertâ to say that inflating consumption is as unproductive as the latter, with exception of periods of recession when the production inputs are used inefficiently. Nonetheless, it was mentioned that state pension does make sense for both non-economic reasons (social cohesion, etc) and economic ones (maximization of utility). In short - it is inefficient but a happier life doesnât come from efficiency.
Then you wrote that
- Burning products are worse than actually consuming them because, unlike humans, the desert doesnât want more consumption.
- Therefore, more consumption will create more employment and even more consumption.
- Burning products will cause deflation.
- Consuming is better than burning because it creates waste to recycle.
But I see these arguments to be flawed since
- The amount of burned products are at hands of the governments so if creating artificial consumption is that good, then it will decide to buy & burn even more, creating more demands.
- Stimulus policies are based on this logic (consumption multiplier) but since you failed to convince that the amount of artificial demands are different in these 2 cases, this doesnât work as a counter-argument.
- The government buying products to burn in the desert is the typical process of creating artificial demand. It is one of expansionary fiscal policies, which cause more inflation. So you are either using the term âdeflationâ incorrectly or making an wrong argument.
- If creating waste is that good why would the government care to reduce it? Also, the products-burning government can just decide to hire more people to effortfully destroy them and create waste instead of ashes.
Then you are now saying
- Thereâs no historical case for burning products and thatâs because itâs bad to do so.
- While, it is easy to see people consuming products, because itâs good to do so.
- (regarding my answer that there is historical cases for burning products, the Great Depression) Never heard of it.
- It (supply-side economics perspective) may make sense in theoretical sense but real world doesnât work like that.
My comments on these are
- Just go and google âthe great depression burn productâ or something. You should be able to easily find a lot of materials about AAA(Agricultural Adjustment Administration) and crop destruction. Iâm not really demanding you to be an expert. You should also notice that Iâve argued that your idea of boosting consumption is, in terms of creating demand, just the same with buying products to burn in the desert. Attacking the latter to be inefficient wonât undermine my points because it is my point that both of them are inefficient.
- The comparison was about the government handing out money to create consumption and it directly buying products to burn them, creating artificial demand. Now you have secretly replaced it with just consumption vs destruction. This is just misleading the debate.
- mentioned enough
- You may say so and I generally agree that economic theories arenât perfect. But thatâs not something we can debate. Since neither of us are economic experts, we will just keep putting stats from various sources & cases, ending up failing to reach to an end. In short - this is not a good starting point for a debate. âIt doesnât work that way in real lifeâ is not a magic word in a debate. Just imagine how would you feel if I reply to all your posts with âitâs just your thought and real life economy doesnât work that wayâ or something. This kinda feels like you trying to change the topic.
Lastly, I have wanted to say that you seem like, whether deliberately or not, not reading otherâs posts & comments thoroughly. Just take some time to actually read them instead of trying to comment to all the posts. You have made several ineffective arguments and missed the points of mine, despite this being just a simple 1v1 discussion.
I think you have far more energy to dedicate to this debate than I would like to. And why largely my answers were simplistic, as I currently do not have the patience for a long internet discussion.
I generally disagree with a strictly supply-side argument, and Iâm sure I could back up my answers with robust stats if I chose to.
I read all your comments, perhaps not your links, but I read all your comments thoroughly.
This post was created to not crowd the mental health post with our debate. So, its purpose is served.
I wasnât aware of the AAA, but if youâre saying itâs so, it must be.
My assumption is, that was an isolated case, and infrastructure projects and military keynesianism brought the US out of the great depression.
Iâd like to not continue this any further, but I invite others to debate with you. Because you have that acumen.
I was just writing another summary comment to wrap this up and now you say you werenât serious to the discussion lol
But I think you really shouldnât just say âI was just making simple answers because I was not interested :Pâ when you made wrong arguments based on incomplete understanding of what others wrote. If you donât intend to be engaged in a discussion then you should either make a small argument you are willing to discuss or just leave.
You say that you made a separate thread to keep the unrelated discussion out of a thread but that discussion has been started because youâve commented to a discussion you didnât intend to engage.
Well simplistic arguments are usually wrong. And Iâd rather leave by telling you than being silent.
As for Cliffâs economics, only he knows what he is. So you should ask him. I think that we would all be more well-informed.
And if I put forward âwrong argumentsâ, well, Iâm sorry. Iâm not sure whether they were wrong or not, but Iâll take your word for it.
Tired minds lead to bad answers, perhaps somebody here who supports demand-supply synthesis can debate you better than I could. I hope they do, because youâre up for the challenge.
