Sign in to follow this  
rattsass

Where were you born?

Recommended Posts

1. I'm not sure about your conclusion. One of the most important things for economic growth is "human capital" (education, acquisition of skills, etc.). If I think I am going to die young, then I have very little incentive to "invest" in my own human capital, since it won't be worth it. If I think I will live longer, then I will be much more willing to invest in myself since I know that I will be able to accrue the returns from this investment for a long time.

 

2. Secondly, if a nation has a sick and dying population, it must make the decision of whether to use its resources to educate people or to try to keep them from dying. Usually, keeping someone alive today is deemed more urgent than worrying about their income two decades from now. So, if the health of a nation can be increased, then it can choose to invest more in human capital overall.

 

3. Overall, it's not clear to me whatsoever that poor nations are doomed to stay in some sort of Malthusian trap where population growth will always keep a nation at a subsistence level of existence. (Relatedly, just three weeks ago at a conference I was the discussant for a research paper which basically concluded that what is really needed to get out of a Malthusian trap is one or two generations in which economic growth exceeds the population growth rate.)

 

1. I agree. However in the case of many of these countries there is not enough stability for them to begin to develop that human capital. Much of this instability is not due to lack of money or an operating industry, but rather it is due to political corruption. Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is a fine example of this instability. Once the "bread basket" of the African Continent, a newish leader has quickly rendered this country an economic and agricultural wasteland. It's GDP reached a height of +/- 22 Billion and has now plummeted to +/- 5 billion and is in desperate need for money for health care, food etc...

 

Couple this with the fact that the educated of these nations, in many cases, are not deploying their talents in their home country, they are fleeing to more industrialized nations in order to create a better life for themselves (rational self interest, if you will.) What is left behind is a handful of educated or a ruling class and many millions of needy and uneducated.

 

2. Corruption is systemic in these developing nations into which the world pours hundreds of billions of dollars every year and the return from this is negligible. They keep people alive, but a vast sum of these monies is pilfered and placed directly into the coffers of the rulers of these nations. Promised infrastructure programs are not completed, schools are not built and in some cases if they are and women are allowed to attend they are burned and the women killed. Public health programs are pretty much a sham and the delivery mechanisms are archaic and inefficient, at best.

 

3. What indication do you have that these nations are not stuck in an endless cycle of poverty, over population and corruption? In many of these developing nations resources are somewhat scarce and with the trend toward more green industry they will fall even further behind the rest of the world (I say this because many of these nations, Ecuador/Peru, Western African Nations, etc... derive a large part of their income off of fossil fuels.)

 

Over the past two generations, at least, there has been a large amount of private and public monies going into these nations and they have not been able to crawl out of the hole that they were/are in. So while income to the country, as a whole, has increased, so has their population.

 

In your presentation that you allude to, I undertand where you are coming from. If you look at the western world over the past 300+ years, as it has trended from agrarian to industrialized, household incomes and GDP have steadily increased. During this time of industrialization, higher education attainment and increased incomes, births per capita have decreased (average family size has decreased). This leads one to believe that with the increased income and educational levels people will begin to have smaller families, thus allowing income growth to exceed population growth. I don't see this holding true in many developing nations, primarily due to the instability that is rampant in these nations. As bad as it sounds, one could make the argument that many nations in the world were actually more stable and had a higher standard of living during colonial times, but, that is a conversation for another day...

Edited by SEC=UGA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SEC, you are very much correct that political instability is very important (and there is quite a bit of empirical work that has been done on this issue--this is one of my favorite articles on the subject).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wiegie, if I am being too personal just tell me, but do you by chance draw your paychecks from the government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wiegie, if I am being too personal just tell me, but do you by chance draw your paychecks from the government?

If I say yes, does that make me part of the conspiracy? (For the record, although I work for the "state" less than a quarter of my institution's income (and hence my pay) comes from the government.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no love on the points I made Ratass?

 

there are answers for a lot of things you sighted that are a lot simpler than your explinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no love on the points I made Ratass?

 

there are answers for a lot of things you sighted that are a lot simpler than your explinations.

They have gotten to you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no love on the points I made Ratass?

 

there are answers for a lot of things you sighted that are a lot simpler than your explinations.

Yes, yes of course...love.

 

I understand these issues are complex, indeed the world is complex. There are no simple answers. You could put both of our ideals together and probably paint a fairly accurate picture. My point through this was not to convince any of you to believe in conspiracy theories, I think I said that several times throughout this. Hell, I don't believe in all of them. I certainly don't believe in lizard people. And I think Alex Jones is a loud-mouthed foul attention whore. While his message might be in the realm, but he does nothing to further his cause with his dramatics and outrageousness.

 

My intention was never to sell any of you on conspiract theories per-se. But I wanted to figuratively punch you all in the face with your own words. An extra special thanks to you for providing those words. You guys are pretty rough on Avernus, and you apparently ran Brentastic off. But the conspiracy theories that people subscribe to are no more ludicrous than the ones perpetrated on the American public by those who are supposed to represent us. And almost every single one of you bought those, so in that sense you are no better than the tin-foil hat crowd. Though you parade around as if that is so.

 

I just think there is a lot of hypocricy there, that you will buy BS from your government that has done nothing to gain your trust, while you step on the throats of well-meaning good hearted American citizens that only want to help their country. These people are 1,000 times more genuine than the rich pricks we send to represent us.

 

Who do you want in the foxhole with you. Brentastic or Cheney?

Edited by rattsass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I say yes, does that make me part of the conspiracy? (For the record, although I work for the "state" less than a quarter of my institution's income (and hence my pay) comes from the government.)

 

 

 

I have no further comments your honor.

Edited by rattsass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who do you want in the foxhole with you. Brentastic or Cheney?

well, brentastic...just so I don't get shot in the face though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, yes of course...love.

 

I understand these issues are complex, indeed the world is complex. There are no simple answers. You could put both of our ideals together and probably paint a fairly accurate picture. My point through this was not to convince any of you to believe in conspiracy theories, I think I said that several times throughout this. Hell, I don't believe in all of them. I certainly don't believe in lizard people. And I think Alex Jones is a loud-mouthed foul attention whore. While his message might be in the realm, but he does nothing to further his cause with his dramatics and outrageousness.

 

My intention was never to sell any of you on conspiract theories per-se. But I wanted to figuratively punch you all in the face with your own words. An extra special thanks to you for providing those words. You guys are pretty rough on Avernus, and you apparently ran Brentastic off. But the conspiracy theories that people subscribe to are no more ludicrous than the ones perpetrated on the American public by those who are supposed to represent us. And almost every single one of you bought those, so in that sense you are no better than the tin-foil hat crowd. Though you parade around as if that is so.

 

I just think there is a lot of hypocricy there, that you will buy BS from your government that has done nothing to gain your trust, while you step on the throats of well-meaning good hearted American citizens that only want to help their country. These people are 1,000 times more genuine than the rich pricks we send to represent us.

 

Who do you want in the foxhole with you. Brentastic or Cheney?

 

it's funny that you mention "lizard people" because it made me think of David Icke - if you take away his "reptilian" angle, almost everything else he says is pretty sound and well thought out...

 

and as for Alex Jones... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, brentastic...just so I don't get shot in the face though...

 

plus Brent probably has some killer pot which would help pass the time..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

this is a good video on gold/silver as currency and a bit of conspiracy theory as well....

 

very good video and a decent explanation on how having gold/silver as direct currency could work in this generation and how a gold standard "sucks"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so are you refusing to address my fairly grounded observations regarding human nature so you can hold on to more fantastic explainations?

 

....and I don't believe I am saying this, but I would clearly... one hundred and ten percent want Cheney in my foxhole over Brent... not even a question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Corruption is systemic in these developing nations into which the world pours hundreds of billions of dollars every year and the return from this is negligible. They keep people alive, but a vast sum of these monies is pilfered and placed directly into the coffers of the rulers of these nations. Promised infrastructure programs are not completed, schools are not built and in some cases if they are and women are allowed to attend they are burned and the women killed. Public health programs are pretty much a sham and the delivery mechanisms are archaic and inefficient, at best.

 

SEC, you should read a book called "a farewell to alms: a brief economic history of the world" by gregory clark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I say yes, does that make me part of the conspiracy? (For the record, although I work for the "state" less than a quarter of my institution's income (and hence my pay) comes from the government.)

 

I don't know how to overthrow a quarter of you. Suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how to overthrow a quarter of you. Suggestions?

 

Meh - kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how to overthrow a quarter of you. Suggestions?

 

Use a pitchfork with one skewer. Cut the other three off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his defense - ratass comes across as a lot more reasonable than Ladyhawke but Avernius is seeming super Brentish

 

I was enjoying reading this thread and came upon this post. Please state your evidence of my unreasonableness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was enjoying reading this thread and came upon this post. Please state your evidence of my unreasonableness.

 

Is Hawaii a state yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I was born on a Greyhound bus, rollin' down highway 41.

Allman Brothers Ramblin' Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.