4 ms·

This is why you have to look at the flip side when you hear a word like "recession". When people are losing money, someone is making it. Recession is bad for

This is why you have to look at the flip side when you hear a word like "recession". When people are losing money, someone is making it. Recession is bad for many, but lines the pockets of others. Conversely, there are people who lose money or aren't making as much money when the economy is doing well (for an in-your-face example, Walmart) On another note, it does not necessary make me smile to see enrollment is increasing. I feel institutional learning has hurt a lot of the ingenuity and creativity in the U.S. and many don't take away the true value of post-secondary learning because they feel they have to go to college or will be left out. The other side, it does make me smile because it is less competition for me when so many get wrapped up in an additional four years of education. -- My sentiments here by the way are supported by the evolution of education in our country. How so? It is accepted fact that the reason we made secondary school (high school) mandatory in the United States was to help us get out of the great depression and high unemployment by causing less competition in the work force for adults. When high school became mandatory it caused a lot of outrage, especially in the blue-collar communities where after 8th grade children would go to work and begin careers to help support their families. I could go on, but there is some interesting food for thought.

maximilian 17y ago
Except that the schools that have record enrollment are probably all state schools that rely heavily on state funds to operate. My school is such, and budget has been cut drastically, such that they will be lowering enrollment in the future.
dantheman 17y ago
You're very first point is completely wrong. It is very easy for people to lose wealth and no one receive it. 1. Factory Burns Down -- Lost wealth 2. Factory no longer competitive - Lost Wealth 3. Built too many houses/widgets/etc - Lost Wealth You lose wealth when jobs that a skilled worker had disappear, not because of technology but because it's not needed anymore. Say for instance you trained 1000 people to run a specialized machine that was used to mine gold in a certain region. As soon as that gold runs out all the investments made in that specific region that are not transferable are lost.
- jamesbressi 17y ago
  Sorry, you are actually completely wrong =/ All three of your examples are wrong in fact. In every case someone else is going to make money. 1. "Factory burns down -- lost wealth" -- Well a competing factory will pick up that business, sorry. Not to mention if the factory wants to rebuild, construction workers make money. 2. "Factory no longer competitive - lost wealth" Again, no. If a factory is no longer competitive, a competitor will take that business. 3. "Built too many houses/widgets/etc - lost wealth" Lastly, again, no. Let's look at the housing market which was your first mention. People are losing their houses right? Then there are people that buy those houses at huge discounts from Sheriff's sale, fix it up, resell it later for profit. And for the paragraph at the bottom of your comment, wrong again. As soon as the gold runs out in that region, a company in another region with gold will be picking up that loss of business and making money. Thanks for the debate though.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    I still think you wrong. 1. Even if a competing company picks up that business wealth is still lost; Sure the other company may earn more money but the total wealth in the world has gone down. That other company could've productively produced some other good, and now has to produce what the other did. Also, the construction workers rebuilding it is just bastiat's broken window fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window). If the factory didn't burn down the construction workers could have built new things, not merely replacing old. 2.I may have not stated this one clearly enough; when a factory looses it's competitive edge due to mismanagement it's losing wealth. If they were able to properly manage the company everyone would be richer on average. 3. When you build too much of a good that isn't needed then you've lost wealth overall. The housing example might be too complicated, it has a lot of interrelated factors, but lets assume I make action figures. If I produce 100 Billion of them and there are only 1 million people that want them -- we've lost wealth... The time and energy producing the extra ones has now been squandered. Sure the market may expand to 10 million people with deep discounts but wealth was still lost.

maximilian 17y ago

Except that the schools that have record enrollment are probably all state schools that rely heavily on state funds to operate. My school is such, and budget has been cut drastically, such that they will be lowering enrollment in the future.

dantheman 17y ago

You're very first point is completely wrong. It is very easy for people to lose wealth and no one receive it. 1. Factory Burns Down -- Lost wealth 2. Factory no longer competitive - Lost Wealth 3. Built too many houses/widgets/etc - Lost Wealth You lose wealth when jobs that a skilled worker had disappear, not because of technology but because it's not needed anymore. Say for instance you trained 1000 people to run a specialized machine that was used to mine gold in a certain region. As soon as that gold runs out all the investments made in that specific region that are not transferable are lost.

jamesbressi 17y ago
Sorry, you are actually completely wrong =/ All three of your examples are wrong in fact. In every case someone else is going to make money. 1. "Factory burns down -- lost wealth" -- Well a competing factory will pick up that business, sorry. Not to mention if the factory wants to rebuild, construction workers make money. 2. "Factory no longer competitive - lost wealth" Again, no. If a factory is no longer competitive, a competitor will take that business. 3. "Built too many houses/widgets/etc - lost wealth" Lastly, again, no. Let's look at the housing market which was your first mention. People are losing their houses right? Then there are people that buy those houses at huge discounts from Sheriff's sale, fix it up, resell it later for profit. And for the paragraph at the bottom of your comment, wrong again. As soon as the gold runs out in that region, a company in another region with gold will be picking up that loss of business and making money. Thanks for the debate though.
- dantheman 17y ago
  I still think you wrong. 1. Even if a competing company picks up that business wealth is still lost; Sure the other company may earn more money but the total wealth in the world has gone down. That other company could've productively produced some other good, and now has to produce what the other did. Also, the construction workers rebuilding it is just bastiat's broken window fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window). If the factory didn't burn down the construction workers could have built new things, not merely replacing old. 2.I may have not stated this one clearly enough; when a factory looses it's competitive edge due to mismanagement it's losing wealth. If they were able to properly manage the company everyone would be richer on average. 3. When you build too much of a good that isn't needed then you've lost wealth overall. The housing example might be too complicated, it has a lot of interrelated factors, but lets assume I make action figures. If I produce 100 Billion of them and there are only 1 million people that want them -- we've lost wealth... The time and energy producing the extra ones has now been squandered. Sure the market may expand to 10 million people with deep discounts but wealth was still lost.