61 ms·

Economists keep chiding us about how that will ruin the economy too. They tell us our population must keep growing to keep the economy healthy.

dkqmduems 4y ago
[flagged]
dylan604 4y ago
Isn't this just an example of how the economy is a legitimized Ponzi scheme?
- acjohnson55 4y ago
  Yeah, sort of. We're also counting on increases in productivity. Although these have also not been forthcoming.
- lofatdairy 4y ago
  Not really, insofar as that early buyers aren't paid out w the entry of new participants with the absence of any real productive usage of capital. It's more that firms invest in production with the expectation for demand to increase, and outside of increased per capita spending, the main contributor to that effect would be simply more participants in the market. The expectation is obviously somewhat self-serving, but there isn't the sort of hollowness as you would get in a Ponzi Scheme. The system itself would still work so long as population growth slowly came to a halt rather than collapsed and firms observed such trends.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  Parents support their children, then when the parents are retired the children support them. Is publicly funded childcare and eldercare a Ponzi scheme?
  - dylan604 4y ago
    in most families doing this kind of support, then it is typical for numChildren > numParents. So while this may not be the technical definition of Ponzi, the fact that the next generation needs to be larger to sustain the system just sounds like an unsustainable system.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      I’m not just talking about families, but societies. My parents who are retired are not adding value to the economy. I am. I’m not caring for them directly, but they are dependents. Their investments give them paper money that only has value because my generation works. I have one sister. So two children and two parents is perfectly sustainable.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        Until you have kids
        pyuser583 4y ago
        That’s played itself out, and there’s only going to be one between my sister and myself. So 2 grandparents, two kids, and one grandchild. Definitely not a Ponzi scheme. Not a good one anyway.
        dylan604 4y ago
        right, that's why the system is failing
        pyuser583 4y ago
        I don’t think it’s “the system.” Common sense says: “Having a higher proportion of the population not working reduces economic output.” And economics is saying: “Modern economies grow so quickly and reliably, we can increase economic output while caring for an increasing number of dependent people.” For example, we have retirement communities and nursing homes instead of each offspring caring for their own parents. This reduces the downward pull on output. But the pull is still there. So common sense and economics say that more dependents reduces output. I can’t imagine a system where a high number of dependents doesn’t create a downward pull on economic output. Can you describe a system like that?
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  Yes, but it's not the economy, it is human society at large. All those little laws, rules and customs are made for old people to exploit younger people. The old people bought in first, just as is the right thing to do when you participate in a Ponzi scheme. So it's only fair that they have have all capital, all entitlements, and all power politically and economically. Play along in the scam and maybe one day also you will get the benefit and pleasure of being old to the game and exploiting young people like suckers. That's what life is all about, and young people only have themselves to blame for not being born when the getting was good.
- Borrible 4y ago
  Well, at least Welfare states look like lifecycle redistribution machines between young and old: https://population-europe.eu/research/policy-briefs/welfare-states-lifecycle-redistribution-machines https://population-europe.eu/research/policy-briefs/welfare-...
pyuser583 4y ago
Economically, it’s best to not have children at all and depend on immigration. You don’t have to waste resources educating people. Someone else does that, and you just pay them a slightly higher wages. Much cheaper than a well-funded education system.
- Nesco 4y ago
  That’s assuming there are no externalities whatsoever to immigration and that the immigrants will be able to satisfy the demand in labor and in entrepreneurs as well as the natives. From my own experience, in France, both of those assumptions are heavily violated. It can vary depending of the type of immigration though, I bet the story is different for California
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    There are definitely economically bad forms of migration. I was talking about O-1 visa type migration: highly qualified individuals being admitted based on their credentials. Hiring the next generation, instead of breeding and raising it.
    - carlosjobim 4y ago
      Wait, were you serious with that post above? I was sure you were making a parody.
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        I was serious that it’s economically best to recruit the next generation. But being human isn’t just about economics.
        carlosjobim 4y ago
        You are right. And from studying the history of slavery you will find that those kind of arguments where made during the same time. Slave traders and politicians would say that slavery was economically necessary in order to make the land productive, as the native people of the colonies had little interest in participating in that kind of economy. Politicians and traders make almost identical arguments right now, saying they need to import immigrants to do the hard work because the natives are not interested. For some reason they still want very strict regulations on immigration between wealthy countries, because they think that poor and desperate people are stupid and more easy to exploit. Try telling people it is wrong to exploit immigrants or that immigrants are not more stupid than anyone else and won't let themselves be exploited so easily, and you're talking to deaf ears.

dkqmduems 4y ago

[flagged]

dylan604 4y ago

Isn't this just an example of how the economy is a legitimized Ponzi scheme?

acjohnson55 4y ago
Yeah, sort of. We're also counting on increases in productivity. Although these have also not been forthcoming.
lofatdairy 4y ago
Not really, insofar as that early buyers aren't paid out w the entry of new participants with the absence of any real productive usage of capital. It's more that firms invest in production with the expectation for demand to increase, and outside of increased per capita spending, the main contributor to that effect would be simply more participants in the market. The expectation is obviously somewhat self-serving, but there isn't the sort of hollowness as you would get in a Ponzi Scheme. The system itself would still work so long as population growth slowly came to a halt rather than collapsed and firms observed such trends.
pyuser583 4y ago
Parents support their children, then when the parents are retired the children support them. Is publicly funded childcare and eldercare a Ponzi scheme?
- dylan604 4y ago
  in most families doing this kind of support, then it is typical for numChildren > numParents. So while this may not be the technical definition of Ponzi, the fact that the next generation needs to be larger to sustain the system just sounds like an unsustainable system.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    I’m not just talking about families, but societies. My parents who are retired are not adding value to the economy. I am. I’m not caring for them directly, but they are dependents. Their investments give them paper money that only has value because my generation works. I have one sister. So two children and two parents is perfectly sustainable.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Until you have kids
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        That’s played itself out, and there’s only going to be one between my sister and myself. So 2 grandparents, two kids, and one grandchild. Definitely not a Ponzi scheme. Not a good one anyway.
        dylan604 4y ago
        right, that's why the system is failing
        pyuser583 4y ago
        I don’t think it’s “the system.” Common sense says: “Having a higher proportion of the population not working reduces economic output.” And economics is saying: “Modern economies grow so quickly and reliably, we can increase economic output while caring for an increasing number of dependent people.” For example, we have retirement communities and nursing homes instead of each offspring caring for their own parents. This reduces the downward pull on output. But the pull is still there. So common sense and economics say that more dependents reduces output. I can’t imagine a system where a high number of dependents doesn’t create a downward pull on economic output. Can you describe a system like that?
carlosjobim 4y ago
Yes, but it's not the economy, it is human society at large. All those little laws, rules and customs are made for old people to exploit younger people. The old people bought in first, just as is the right thing to do when you participate in a Ponzi scheme. So it's only fair that they have have all capital, all entitlements, and all power politically and economically. Play along in the scam and maybe one day also you will get the benefit and pleasure of being old to the game and exploiting young people like suckers. That's what life is all about, and young people only have themselves to blame for not being born when the getting was good.
Borrible 4y ago
Well, at least Welfare states look like lifecycle redistribution machines between young and old: https://population-europe.eu/research/policy-briefs/welfare-states-lifecycle-redistribution-machines https://population-europe.eu/research/policy-briefs/welfare-...

pyuser583 4y ago

Economically, it’s best to not have children at all and depend on immigration. You don’t have to waste resources educating people. Someone else does that, and you just pay them a slightly higher wages. Much cheaper than a well-funded education system.

Nesco 4y ago
That’s assuming there are no externalities whatsoever to immigration and that the immigrants will be able to satisfy the demand in labor and in entrepreneurs as well as the natives. From my own experience, in France, both of those assumptions are heavily violated. It can vary depending of the type of immigration though, I bet the story is different for California
- pyuser583 4y ago
  There are definitely economically bad forms of migration. I was talking about O-1 visa type migration: highly qualified individuals being admitted based on their credentials. Hiring the next generation, instead of breeding and raising it.
  - carlosjobim 4y ago
    Wait, were you serious with that post above? I was sure you were making a parody.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      I was serious that it’s economically best to recruit the next generation. But being human isn’t just about economics.
      - carlosjobim 4y ago
        You are right. And from studying the history of slavery you will find that those kind of arguments where made during the same time. Slave traders and politicians would say that slavery was economically necessary in order to make the land productive, as the native people of the colonies had little interest in participating in that kind of economy. Politicians and traders make almost identical arguments right now, saying they need to import immigrants to do the hard work because the natives are not interested. For some reason they still want very strict regulations on immigration between wealthy countries, because they think that poor and desperate people are stupid and more easy to exploit. Try telling people it is wrong to exploit immigrants or that immigrants are not more stupid than anyone else and won't let themselves be exploited so easily, and you're talking to deaf ears.