Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 63618	2005-11-16 22:07:00	What Price Tax Cuts....again	Terry Porritt (14)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
404851	2005-11-17 04:41:00	i agree with winston on this however i would add......the money goes from our wages to collectivly pay for the other necessities of life eg schools, roads, hospitals. if you give tax cuts you won't be able to have the hospitals etc, you can't have your cake and eat it to.	tweak'e (69)
404852	2005-11-17 04:51:00	What a strange idea :horrified I used to design and build machine tools, not destroy them. :stare: The fact is,machines move from country as conditions change.We know that England was the best at one time at most manufacturing,until they lost the plot,unions and bad management practises. You were complaining that the Japanese were taking the good ideas,which is true,and the result is that the tools of today are better and cheaper than would be the case if it had been left to the the English,who to this day don't realise that they are not the best any longer. Being English,I must add that the above is mostly true.	Cicero (40)
404853	2005-11-17 05:01:00	Sigh... I didn't complain that the Japanese took the best ideas, I said they bought the best machine tools and measuring equipment from the west in order to manufacture their own machine tools. What I did inferentially complain about was the way they sold at below cost to capture a market and kill off opposition, then subsequently raise their prices when they had captured the market. Otherwise I agree with you :thumbs:	Terry Porritt (14)
404854	2005-11-17 06:50:00	This will interest you Ter. www.capmag.com	Cicero (40)
404855	2005-11-17 08:26:00	I agree with TP . "Growth, whatever the cost" seems to be the wierd mantra of our current economics . I think the thinking of the period of the 19 and 20 centuries was expansion, new markets, more productivity, increasing population equals more consumers, more manufactuing, more mining, more energy - more everything - we just couldn't produce fast enough for the market . Now this thinking is out of date . We don't need think big, we need think smart . The world is awash with food dumps and junked goods, so the products need to be enhanced (upgraded), new ones, new designs, new gadgets . Economics depends on production -consumption -disposal . No point in making things to last . We have to be junking things all the time to make way for the new goods . Junk economics . Can it go on indefinitely? I don't see how it can . The world's population is exploding . We are getting not only political/religious instability but also because of our econimic practices an increasingly dirty and climatically unstable world . Forget about clean green NZ . It's a fairytale . Time for a change . :2cents:	mark c (247)
404856	2005-11-17 08:34:00	and another thing, i best get my interest free student loan or else.......	Prescott (11)
404857	2005-11-17 19:50:00	and another thing, i best get my interest free student loan or else....... Only if King Mike can have his carbon tax to pay for it..	paulw (1826)
404858	2005-11-17 20:52:00	I agree with TP . "Growth, whatever the cost" seems to be the weird mantra of our current economics . We don't need think big, we need think smart . The world is awash with food dumps and junked goods, so the products need to be enhanced (upgraded), new ones, new designs, new gadgets . Economics depends on production -consumption -disposal . No point in making things to last . We have to be junking things all the time to make way for the new goods . Can it go on indefinitely? I don't see how it can . Time for a change . :2cents: Well said Mark . We need to discriminate between "economics" which is the study of money and peoples behaviour, and "economic policy" which is the province of governments and central banks . The focus on growth is simple and compelling . Without growth the standard of living of a community will diminish - unless deaths outstrip births . More people sharing the same resources - food, doctors, schools - leads to a drop in their standard of living . There is no longer enough to go around . So the economy (which is really the creation and distribution of resources) needs to increase in size as the standard of living rises and the population grows . Africa and India did not have starving millions 500 years ago . Their populations today have hugely outstripped their economies . However there is a school of thought which you allude to - and I agree - which deplores the throw-away consumer society . Resources are wasted . The growth which comes from that is illusory and doesn't raise the over-all standard of living . Tough one though . How do you tell a consumer that they shouldn't buy that new pair of jeans because they already have five pair in their wardrobe? That they should eat all of their restaurant meal? Strangely, American girls describe their favourite activity as going shopping at the mall . So they can buy a new top and throw out the one they bought last month? Crazy stuff . Growth of an economy is normal and necessary . It is the quality of growth which is the real issue . Does it add to the standard of living?	Winston001 (3612)
404859	2005-11-17 21:45:00	I usually hesitate to enter the frays of such discussions, deferring to much wiser heads, but while I don't necessarily disagree with Winston's comments, I think the order of things is confused: For growth in the economy to be "healthy", I think the population growth needs to be considered first, with a consequent standard of living matched to the population, and the growth targets set accordingly. This may be what is done already, but aimless growth, overriding all other goals, is not healthy. Just think of any organism that perpetually grows without any checks or balances - it will eventually explode. Growth at any cost is not sustainable. Therefore: Population growth <------> standard of living <-------> Economic growth :2cents:	Lizard (2409)
404860	2005-11-18 00:51:00	Lizard - perhaps we should link this thread to Sharetrader and see what other fun arises. ;) I'm inclined to think that the standard of living must come from growth, not the other way around, unless I have missed your point. Population growth is uncontrolled in Western countries and in fact is encouraged by tax incentives. In the pure sense, there isn't aimless growth. Owning umpteen pairs of jeans, shoes etc makes the individual feel well off. And gives jobs to third world people who might otherwise starve. But the resource ie. agricultural land to grow cotton is limited. Arguably it can be used more efficently to grow food, or even be returned to forest to provide a habitat for the symbiotic creatures we share the Earth with. Enhance rather than destroy the natural environment. But consumption or population growth would need to be constrained.	Winston001 (3612)
1 2 3