• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State of the economy now and in the future

Future of U.S. economy

  • Things are and will get gradually better

    Votes: 9 45.0%
  • Things will just stagnate the way they are for the most part for some time to come

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Things will get worse before they get better

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • Things won't get better we are in for an economic collapse

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Becaue service jobs are low paying? If you've ever worked in retail you'll know what I mean.

A low-paying service job that actually does what people want is better than a high-paying manufacturing job that creates more of what people already have.

You have to realize that wealth isn't just things. Wealth is satisfaction of desires.
 
A low-paying service job that actually does what people want is better than a high-paying manufacturing job that creates more of what people already have.

You have to realize that wealth isn't just things. Wealth is satisfaction of desires.

Wealth is the ability to pay to achieve the satisfaction of desires.

Sending more wealth outside the country, then what is created every year does not mean you are wealthier, but poorer
 
Wealth is the ability to pay to achieve the satisfaction of desires.

Sending more wealth outside the country, then what is created every year does not mean you are wealthier, but poorer

If you spend wealth outside of the country, it must be because you're getting something back. Trade is based on mutual satisfaction of desires. Both parties will be better off. It is not a negative-sum game. We moved past mercantilism centuries ago.
 
Your reference to a zero sum game is quite telling:lol: What is your view on international trade?

Just because the pie is getting bigger does not mean your share is going to get bigger as well. It very well might shrink

Lets not forget that China and India in the 17 th cent had two of the worlds largest economies. The worlds pie got bigger, but their share of it shrank dramatically
 
Just because the pie is getting bigger does not mean your share is going to get bigger as well. It very well might shrink

Lets not forget that China and India in the 17 th cent had two of the worlds largest economies. The worlds pie got bigger, but their share of it shrank dramatically

:rofl, talk about some great :spin:. China and India were invaded! There was no voluntary trade.
 
If you spend wealth outside of the country, it must be because you're getting something back. Trade is based on mutual satisfaction of desires. Both parties will be better off. It is not a negative-sum game. We moved past mercantilism centuries ago.

Yes both sides are getting something.

China is gaining in wealth by selling TV's, clothing etc. The US is getting consumables (generally going into debt to get them) that wear out in a few years at best

If we need to we can go to the story of the ant and the grasshopper

Trade between nations is generally no different then trade between two people.


We can sell each other stuff from now to the day we die, but if I go into ever increasing levels of debt to buy the stuff you are selling eventually I will go broke, while you of course will have had the opportunity to increase your wealth dramatically. That is the problem the US faces right now (along with the UK, Spain, the Baltics etc)

It is not that they traded with foreign countries, it is that they went into debt to buy the stuff from foreign countries. And the worst part is the stuff they bought was for consumption rather then to improve infrustructure or competitiveness. South Korea during the 90's had a significant trade deficit but used it to build its industrial capacity, not on cheap tv's and nike's
 
:rofl, talk about some great :spin:. China and India were invaded! There was no voluntary trade.

They were of course just some examples. Plenty of other countries have seen their share of the pie drop, due to economic uncompetitiveness.

Just as a company can go bankrupt due to poor economic decisions (and take regions along with it, so can countries or states

(Ie look at Michigan and Detroit)
 
Yes both sides are getting something.

China is gaining in wealth by selling TV's, clothing etc. The US is getting consumables (generally going into debt to get them) that wear out in a few years at best

If we need to we can go to the story of the ant and the grasshopper

Trade between nations is generally no different then trade between two people.


We can sell each other stuff from now to the day we die, but if I go into ever increasing levels of debt to buy the stuff you are selling eventually I will go broke, while you of course will have had the opportunity to increase your wealth dramatically. That is the problem the US faces right now (along with the UK, Spain, the Baltics etc)

Well the person getting stuff in credit takes a risk doesn't he? You're bringing up another issue with its own complexities. With trade, both parties are satisfied.

If you bring in debt, you involve risk, hence an interest rate.

It is not that they traded with foreign countries, it is that they went into debt to buy the stuff from foreign countries. And the worst part is the stuff they bought was for consumption rather then to improve infrustructure or competitiveness. South Korea during the 90's had a significant trade deficit but used it to build its industrial capacity, not on cheap tv's and nike's

Wealth for you is entirely different than wealth for someone else. You can't just say that infrastructure is always more valuable than Nikes. It's not always the case.
 
Well the person getting stuff in credit takes a risk doesn't he? You're bringing up another issue with its own complexities. With trade, both parties are satisfied.

If you bring in debt, you involve risk, hence an interest rate.



Wealth for you is entirely different than wealth for someone else. You can't just say that infrastructure is always more valuable than Nikes. It's not always the case.

For sure the Nikes bring wealth, for about 2 years untill they are worn out. During that time of course unless I use the Nikes for my job, they did nothing to bring me more wealth. While that bride I could have bought, will likely last for 40 years at least, and provided it was not a bridge to nowwhere, I could charge a toll for people using it, and bring myself even more wealth, so that instead of one pair of nikes I could buy 2 or three pair


Overall there is difference between wealth and economic utility.

I might place a higher level of economic utility on the nikes rather then having $300 invested in GE prefered shares at a 9% yield, but that does not mean I have as much wealth had I bought the nikes rather then the shares of GE. In actual dollar terms my wealth has gone down in all likelyhood as I would have a hard time selling the nikes for what I paid for them. (while economic utility likely has gone up, at least in the short term)
 
For sure the Nikes bring wealth, for about 2 years untill they are worn out. During that time of course unless I use the Nikes for my job, they did nothing to bring me more wealth. While that bride I could have bought, will likely last for 40 years at least, and provided it was not a bridge to nowwhere, I could charge a toll for people using it, and bring myself even more wealth, so that instead of one pair of nikes I could buy 2 or three pair


Overall there is difference between wealth and economic utility.

I might place a higher level of economic utility on the nikes rather then having $300 invested in GE prefered shares at a 9% yield, but that does not mean I have as much wealth had I bought the nikes rather then the shares of GE. In actual dollar terms my wealth has gone down in all likelyhood as I would have a hard time selling the nikes for what I paid for them. (while economic utility likely has gone up, at least in the short term)

You don't get what I'm saying. Wealth is a lot more than just money.
 
And what do you believe will lead us into a new era of prosperity?
More debt? All the bubbles have burst and there ain't no more around the corner.
I am open to anyone that can show something that will pull us out of this. Give me something to have hope.

A prosperous economy is dynamic and does not rely on particular industry alone.
Blue collar workers have a lot more to fear from machines replacing their jobs than Chinese or Indian workers.

That brings other jobs like robotic techs and maintenance.

If anything those other less technologically developed counties have more to worry about us replacing their cheap outsourced labor with things that don't get sick, don't need insurance and don't need a pay check.
 
You don't get what I'm saying. Wealth is a lot more than just money.

I get what you are saying, and in my opinion feel you are wrong


You are confusing wealth with economic utility

I might value getting someone to cut my grass every week but I am not increasing my wealth by paying someone to do so.

What I am doing is placing a higher economic utility on my time spent doing other things rather then cutting my own grass.

I might place a higher economic utility on a 50 inch plasma TV, but the minute I take it out of the store my wealth will have gone down, while my economic utility (satifaction) will have gone up.

Overall just because I "value" something at a certain level does not mean that my wealth is equal to that value
 
I get what you are saying, and in my opinion feel you are wrong


You are confusing wealth with economic utility

I might value getting someone to cut my grass every week but I am not increasing my wealth by paying someone to do so.

What I am doing is placing a higher economic utility on my time spent doing other things rather then cutting my own grass.

I might place a higher economic utility on a 50 inch plasma TV, but the minute I take it out of the store my wealth will have gone down, while my economic utility (satifaction) will have gone up.

Overall just because I "value" something at a certain level does not mean that my wealth is equal to that value

Why differentiate between money and "economic utility?" When we buy something, it is because we value the product more than the money we used to purchase it with.
 
A prosperous economy is dynamic and does not rely on particular industry alone.
Blue collar workers have a lot more to fear from machines replacing their jobs than Chinese or Indian workers.

That brings other jobs like robotic techs and maintenance.

If anything those other less technologically developed counties have more to worry about us replacing their cheap outsourced labor with things that don't get sick, don't need insurance and don't need a pay check.

And we are not a prosperous economy anymore. We are an economy based on debt that is spiraling down the toilet.
The machines, robots, techs and maintenance jobs will be outsourced too. Already happening.
Manufacturing is a sector not an industry. That along with agriculture are the most important parts of a thriving economy. What do you think is making China the booming country it is? They are us 50 years ago.
 
Why differentiate between money and "economic utility?" When we buy something, it is because we value the product more than the money we used to purchase it with.

Or we need it more than the money.
 
And we are not a prosperous economy anymore. We are an economy based on debt that is spiraling down the toilet.
The machines, robots, techs and maintenance jobs will be outsourced too. Already happening.
Manufacturing is a sector not an industry. That along with agriculture are the most important parts of a thriving economy. What do you think is making China the booming country it is? They are us 50 years ago.

Booms only last so long, China will be hit too.

Manufacturing exists in the states, it isn't growing as fast as other sectors but it is growing.
Agriculture is fine as well, we make enough to supply the rest of the world as well.

We are in a recession, it always looks bleak in a recession.

Also, a country can't be top dog forever, it's inevitable.
 
Booms only last so long, China will be hit too.

Manufacturing exists in the states, it isn't growing as fast as other sectors but it is growing.
Agriculture is fine as well, we make enough to supply the rest of the world as well.

We are in a recession, it always looks bleak in a recession.

Also, a country can't be top dog forever, it's inevitable.

Yes you are right. Booms don't last, but who will be stronger when it's over?
We are losing more manufacturing jobs than any other sector. A service oriented economy can not last long. Eventually all our wealth is transferred to other countries to buy their goods.
 
Yes you are right. Booms don't last, but who will be stronger when it's over?
We are losing more manufacturing jobs than any other sector. A service oriented economy can not last long. Eventually all our wealth is transferred to other countries to buy their goods.

Why not? First off, we're not all service. Secondly, you have yet to explain why service is so bad.
 
Why not? First off, we're not all service. Secondly, you have yet to explain why service is so bad.

If an economy is mostly service that means most everything has to be imported sending dollars overseas. Service does not create wealth for a nation. Many service industries are actually a drain on economy.
 
If an economy is mostly service that means most everything has to be imported sending dollars overseas.

So what? They'll use that money to pay for our servides.

Service does not create wealth for a nation. Many service industries are actually a drain on economy.

How?

And even if this was all true, service is not most of our economy.
 
So what? They'll use that money to pay for our servides.
.

No their economy will grow and they will provide their own services. The can do everything cheaper than we can.
 
Last edited:
How?

And even if this was all true, service is not most of our economy.

Healthcare is an example of a drain. And I do believe the service sector is the largest part of our economy now.
 
And even if this was all true, service is not most of our economy.

This is a service based economy.

Services produced by private industry accounted for 67.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product in 2006, with real estate and financial services such as banking, insurance, and investment on top.

A Service Economy
 
So what? They'll use that money to pay for our servides.

That means we have to provide them a service they can't provide for themselves economically.

Sony sells an American a 60" LCD TV.

What service America selling Japan to make the dollars worth the TV?
 
Services produced by private industry accounted for 67.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product in 2006, with real estate and financial services such as banking, insurance, and investment on top.

Which, as far as the international market is concerned, is Americans playing with themselves and each other. A real estate broker takes a big slice off the sale price of a house....produces nothing of value. A bank makes money off a mortgage because the home buyer is producing something useful that he's willing to exchange for the privilege of borrowing money. Ultimately, the economy is based on someone, finally, at the bottom of the heap, building or making a real object or physically handling a human being or his property, like a doctor or an automechanic.

Without the physical reality of THINGS, economic systems break down, like in Life, the Universe, and Everything, where the new colonists on the brand new Earth discovered the difficulties of using leaves for currency and it was reported to the Council that the committee researching the production of fire was not making progress.

This is becase, as animals existing in the real world, people ultimately need THINGS to live.
 
Back
Top Bottom