Conquer Club

warmonger1981 wrote:Is it possible to have unlimited economic growth with limited resources?

shickingbrits wrote:The idea that resources is limited is an illusion.

DoomYoshi wrote:It seems our economy is based on people creating goods and providing services that other people don't actually need.

shickingbrits wrote:The idea that resources is limited is an illusion.

shickingbrits wrote:We have unlimited access to power, access to grow food wherever we want, access to plentiful water, access to plentiful oxygen.

DoomYoshi wrote:It seems our economy is based on people creating goods and providing services that other people don't actually need.

Why are we working these useless jobs?

The Committee on Recent Economic Changes (1929) wrote:It is obvious, of course, that the economic position of this nation is in no slight degree due to our possession of abundant raw materials and sources of power, to the fact that our domestic market is so large, and that there are no trade barriers between the States of our Union. We can exchange goods without stopping them for inspection or the payment of duties between States. We can effect their transfer without the barriers of differing languages or customs. Advertising is peculiarly effective because we have so great an area with a common language which enables us to talk to all the people and to develop national consumption habits, which in turn make possible large-scale production.

And these increases in productivity have been joined to a corresponding increase in the consuming power of the American people. Here has been demonstrated on a grand scale the expansibility of human wants and desires. Economists have long declared that consumption, the satisfaction of wants, would expand with little evidence of satiation if we could so adjust our economic processes as to make dormant demands effective. Such an expansion has been going on since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It is not a phenomenon of the postwar period, except in degree. But it is this degree of economic activity, this almost insatiable appetite for goods and services, abounding production of all things which almost any man can want, which is so striking a characteristic of the period covered by the survey.

As long as the appetite for goods and services is practically insatiable, as it appears to be, and as long as productivity can be consistently increased, it would seem that we can go on with increasing activity.

Our situation is fortunate, our momentum is remarkable.

- John J. Raskob, KCSG
- Dr. Max Mason
- Gen. Julius Klein
- Adolph Miller
- Owen D. Young

saxitoxin wrote:The NBER is part of a conspiracy? What are they conspiring to do?

BigBallinStalin wrote:inb4: "but marketing makes people want stuff." Uh-huh. In a world without marketing, people would still prefer more instead of less.

Lootifer wrote:
But before BBS goes all attack monkey on me, I don't assume the solution to the problem is regulating marketing or anything silly like that. I would however suggest a neutral, possibly centralized - but certainly doesn't have to be, entity be given the specific mandate to provide education that directly addresses the demonstrably negative aspects of "demand inflating" (for lack of a better word).

saxitoxin wrote:The NBER is part of a conspiracy? What are they conspiring to do?

shickingbrits wrote:The idea that resources is limited is an illusion.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:The NBER is part of a conspiracy? What are they conspiring to do?

Your post is alluding to your previous point about marketing and creating demand for goods. You can address that, or play your song-and-dance rubbish.

DoomYoshi wrote:Why are we working these useless jobs?

So we can pay for goods and services we don't need.

DoomYoshi wrote:It seems our economy is based on people creating goods and providing services that other people don't actually need.

Why are we working these useless jobs?

So we can pay for goods and services we don't need.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:We have unlimited access to power, access to grow food wherever we want, access to plentiful water, access to plentiful oxygen.

If "unlimited access" means "scarce, thus requiring expenditures to acquire," then yes, you are correct, sir.

demonfork wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:It seems our economy is based on people creating goods and providing services that other people don't actually need.

Why are we working these useless jobs?

So we can pay for goods and services we don't need.

Did you just watch Fight Club or sumpin?

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:The NBER is part of a conspiracy? What are they conspiring to do?

Your post is alluding to your previous point about marketing and creating demand for goods. You can address that, or play your song-and-dance rubbish.

My only contribution to this thread was four syllables ("because of this") followed by a short except from a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

You might have me confused with someone else. You might be hearing voices. You might not know what the word "allude" means. It's probable it's one of those three things. It's possible it's all three.

shickingbrits wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:We have unlimited access to power, access to grow food wherever we want, access to plentiful water, access to plentiful oxygen.

If "unlimited access" means "scarce, thus requiring expenditures to acquire," then yes, you are correct, sir.

No, not scarce and thus requiring expenditure to acquire, but widely available and require collection.

The sun provides more energy than we could ever use, and yet we turn our backs on it in our buildings. Our water is plentiful and we pollute it until its no longer drinkable. When we have technology that makes use of widely available resources, we ban it, legislate against it, buy and bury.

Because it's better to profit someone to pollute, and then pay another to service the pollution than to have those guys sitting around talking about how the government isn't doing anything and should be dismissed.