Economists Please

[Roamy]

So the future of success is built on growth. But that includes population growth. So we are destroying the planet. How do we have successful economy with no population growth!
ring in everyone

[Alexamateo]

Raise everyone's standard of living and consumption levels.

[janvanvurpa]

Raise everyone's standard of living and consumption levels.


Alternately as was suggested heavily tongue in cheek in a footnote by John K Galbraith "of course one could choose any given year as the target "standard of living" and work and invest to reduce the number of hours worked to achieve that standard, but I would never suggest that"

[fandango]

Well, the real problem is: If people are supposed to just "hold station", economically speaking, and that means don't keep buying more stuff and don't keep trying to make more babies, what the f*** are we all supposed to do with our time?

[airshifter]

Here in the US we could find jobs for the 50 or so percent that pay no taxes. If the rest of us weren't paying for them we would have more in pocket and could raise our standard of living.

[Roamy]

Here in the US we could find jobs for the 50 or so percent that pay no taxes. If the rest of us weren't paying for them we would have more in pocket and could raise our standard of living.

you may be right Air but I am wary that the rich have pissed off the poor and on top of that the republicans and big corporations seem content to rub the tax deal in the faces of the have nots. While many feel Romney is a shoo in I will not be surprised if Obama is re-elected in a landslide. To spurn the economy however, I expect the flood gates to open for immigration. Question is how many people can we adaquately support with resources?

[janvanvurpa]

Well, the real problem is: If people are supposed to just "hold station", economically speaking, and that means don't keep buying more stuff and don't keep trying to make more babies, what the f*** are we all supposed to do with our time?

You are in Barcelona and you are asking me what to do with lots of time??!!!! Dio mio! PRACTISE at making babies more creatively.. learn breath control. Trantric Practice baby making..... I have been friendly with a few nice wimmins from Barcelona and believe me, I had plans for hours and hours of activities we could spend our time doing....


And in between rounds, one could read, learn languages, have a cup of________, relax, live life....maybe follow your interests.

[ioan]

I never understood this stupid economic model that we keep using even though it keeps failing!
IMO economists have the worse imagination out there and none of them has a clue what to do,so they keep re-inventing the wheel.

As well, why do we need growth? To cover the huge debts that politicians and economists managed to create?!

PS: I only buy what I really need, call me a minimalist, and more than 50% of my pay goes into savings, and won't change this just to help some failed system.
PPS: There is no reason to try to produce more every year and to expect it all to be sold/bought. As well there is no reason to produce crap in China when we could produce less and better products in Europe and the US, and in the process we would also use less resources and increase the bloody quality of life that everyone is complaining about. Stuff all those baboons who check the numbers every and of quarter and keep asking for more profits all the time.

[Jag_Warrior]

Here in the US we could find jobs for the 50 or so percent that pay no taxes. If the rest of us weren't paying for them we would have more in pocket and could raise our standard of living.

That 50% figure is actually an overstatement of the true picture. Think about it: 50% of American households aren't unemployed, so the 50% just being based on households that do not have jobs is mathematically impossible.

From the Center on Budget and Policy:


- The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.

- These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay. As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes. Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505#_ftn5) In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.

- TPC estimates show that 61 percent of those that owed no federal income tax in a given year are working households.[9] (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505#_ftn9) These people do pay payroll taxes as well as federal excise taxes, and, as noted, state and local taxes. Most of these working households also pay federal income tax in other years, when their incomes are higher — which can be seen by looking at the low-income working households that receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).


But with that said, I do agree that we need meaningful tax reform to make the system more efficient and better balanced. IMO, and probably yours too, the U.S. tax system is seriously out of whack.

No one wants or likes to pay taxes. But with my tax preparation, my accountant gives me a summary which lists, among other things, my effective tax rate. And what I noticed this year was that my effective tax rate was substantially higher than Mitt Romney's. And yet, my income was substantially less than Mitt Romney's. I don't like the idea of people sponging off the system at my expense either - at the bottom... or the top. A guy, legitimately on disability (maybe a soldier who got a leg blown off in Afghanistan), who receives benefits, yet pays no Federal taxes, doesn't bother me at all. While a guy who makes $20 million+ a year, and pays a lower tax rate than I do (only because the Congress Critters have created special "carried interest" tax breaks for those of his ilk)... now that p!sses me off a lot!

As for the OP, if we're talking about growth in terms of GDP, basically, GDP = C + I + G + (X-M).

C is consumption (not JUST consumer spending). I is private/business investment. G is government spending. X-M is the net of exports minus imports. In the U.S., the biggest driver is C (consumption) - roughly 70% of GDP. So in our case, we must have a scenario which allows people to consume. Our economy tanked, in large part, because wages were unable to keep up with Americans' desire to consume, so we turned to borrowed funds (credit cards, refi mortgages, car loans, etc.). In order to keep borrowing, we had to make believe that the collateralized assets were worth more than they actually were. And then the bubble popped. For sustainable growth, income must be at a level that goods and services can be had without relying too heavily on borrowing.

[fandango]

You are in Barcelona and you are asking me what to do with lots of time??!!!! Dio mio! PRACTISE at making babies more creatively.. learn breath control. Trantric Practice baby making..... I have been friendly with a few nice wimmins from Barcelona and believe me, I had plans for hours and hours of activities we could spend our time doing....


And in between rounds, one could read, learn languages, have a cup of________, relax, live life....maybe follow your interests.

Oh no, I didn't mean ME. I meant people, them out there...

[Rollo]

So the future of success is built on growth. But that includes population growth. So we are destroying the planet. How do we have successful economy with no population growth!
ring in everyone

We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population... increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore which before supported seven millions must now be divided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of labourers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend toward a decrease, while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before.
- Thomas Malthus - An essay on the principle of population. (1798)

Malthus also suggested (and this can be proven experimentally) that if a colony of organisms, say bacteria, rats, algae, (Easter Island???) exhausts its supply of resources, then it will experience a collapse in population. If we're going to replicate the experiment with people on the planet, we're doing a fair job, it's just that the time frame is longer.
The problem is that people have a capacity for unlimited wants which can not hope to be supplied with limited resources.

How do we have successful economy with no population growth? We could always limit population growth, or perhaps increase the technological quality of the goods and services being consumed; in that respect I completely echo Ioan's sentiments.

[Rudy Tamasz]

As well, why do we need growth? To cover the huge debts that politicians and economists managed to create?!


I guess capitalism only works when it keeps expanding. If you try to artificially maintain an economy on the same level of reproduction, it will be immediately destroyed by competitors. Stagnant economies only could exist in a relative isolation, which is no longer the case.

Yes, this life is rat racing. You have to keep running just to stay where you are.

[BDunnell]

I only buy what I really need, call me a minimalist

Is that really true, though? Do you really buy only the very cheapest items that meet your needs? Can any of us really make that claim?

[schmenke]

We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population... increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore which before supported seven millions must now be divided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of labourers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend toward a decrease, while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before.
- Thomas Malthus - An essay on the principle of population. (1798)

Malthus also suggested (and this can be proven experimentally) that if a colony of organisms, say bacteria, rats, algae, (Easter Island???) exhausts its supply of resources, then it will experience a collapse in population. If we're going to replicate the experiment with people on the planet, we're doing a fair job, it's just that the time frame is longer.
The problem is that people have a capacity for unlimited wants which can not hope to be supplied with limited resources.

How do we have successful economy with no population growth? We could always limit population growth, or perhaps increase the technological quality of the goods and services being consumed; in that respect I completely echo Ioan's sentiments.

Small Is Beautiful

[donKey jote]

As Billy's missus said to Starter... :erm: :andrea:

[anthonyvop]

So the future of success is built on growth. But that includes population growth. So we are destroying the planet. How do we have successful economy with no population growth!
ring in everyone


What is the problem with Population growth?

[Mark]

The problem is when resource provision does not grow in step. Malthus tells us that it cannot.

[Rollo]

There was also Calhoun's "rat utopia" experiment in the late 1960s. Four breeding pairs were given unlimited nesting material, food and water but only given a nine-foot square of space, and within 3 years the rat population in "rat utopia" went from 8 to 600 to zero.
For some reason, rat society in rat utopia eventually broke down completely with social orders being abandoned, children being abandoned, rats attacking each other and males refusing to breed. Even under perfect provisions, when space is an issue, extinction was still the result.

There are 6 billion of us now (7 billion if you're watching the repeat and 16 billion if you're watching the repeats on Dave); eventually the amount of usable arable land necessary to keep human populations adequately fed is going to run out. Experimentally I don't know if humans follow the same social rules as rats, but there's certainly interesting parallels.

[ioan]

Is that really true, though? Do you really buy only the very cheapest items that meet your needs? Can any of us really make that claim?

Not always the cheapest items, however only the items that I really need.
I buy stuff based on their price/quality, usually quite expensive stuff but only what is really needed.
For example I have no TV, just a laptop with a USB TV tuner (which might become obsolete now that i do not watch F1 anymore.

[ioan]

I guess capitalism only works when it keeps expanding. If you try to artificially maintain an economy on the same level of reproduction, it will be immediately destroyed by competitors. Stagnant economies only could exist in a relative isolation, which is no longer the case.

Yes, this life is rat racing. You have to keep running just to stay where you are.

Say, if the world economy is kept at the same level, who are the competitors who'd destroy it?

Anyway, without a change the future looks bleak, both for capitalism and for us.

[schmenke]

There was also Calhoun's "rat utopia" experiment in the late 1960s. Four breeding pairs were given unlimited nesting material, food and water but only given a nine-foot square of space, and within 3 years the rat population in "rat utopia" went from 8 to 600 to zero.
For some reason, rat society in rat utopia eventually broke down completely with social orders being abandoned, children being abandoned, rats attacking each other and males refusing to breed. Even under perfect provisions, when space is an issue, extinction was still the result.

There are 6 billion of us now (7 billion if you're watching the repeat and 16 billion if you're watching the repeats on Dave); eventually the amount of usable arable land necessary to keep human populations adequately fed is going to run out. Experimentally I don't know if humans follow the same social rules as rats, but there's certainly interesting parallels.

Well, you did mention Easter Island, where there is evidence of human cannibalism towards the latter years of their civilization.

There is still sufficient arable land on our planet to sustain increasing population growth IF we seriously change our eating habits. Red meat, for example, is an entirely nutritionally unnecessary food as the protein it provides is readily available elsewhere with far less impact on the environment.
In terms of land use, the farming of red meats, particularly beef, is both the most nutritionally inefficient and ecologically unfriendly form of food production there is :s

Having said that, I had a BBQ’d rib-eye for dinner last night :erm:

[ioan]

IMO eating meat once a week is not a big issue and it's even healthy.
However eating meat every day or even several times a day is what creates an issue.
For example when I'm having lunch with colleagues in the cafeteria they will usually pick the meat meal over the vegetarian one in 99% of the cases, which means that they eat meat almost daily. And that is an issue which people are not aware of and if aware they don't care about it.
Producing 1 kg of beef needs 7 kg of high quality produce plus a much bigger amount of water. And 1 kg of chicken meat is not that far behind either.

Essentially the amount of food that we use to produce meat would be enough to feed all those people who are starving in Africa and Asia and some more, however this is not the scope of our current economic model.
In the end it all depends on what we think is right. If we want a better world we need to drive the change because one thing is for sure, those managers at the top of those multinational companies will not make the change in better for us unless we force them to change their views by changing their numbers.

[Rollo]

Essentially the amount of food that we use to produce meat would be enough to feed all those people who are starving in Africa and Asia and some more, however this is not the scope of our current economic model.
In the end it all depends on what we think is right. If we want a better world we need to drive the change because one thing is for sure, those managers at the top of those multinational companies will not make the change in better for us unless we force them to change their views by changing their numbers.

In terms of calories produced, the world actually produces a surplus to the requirements of total world human population now. There currently is enough food to feed the world. The reason why this isn't done is because there isn't any economic benefits in doing so. Multinational companies exist to make money; that's all. A starving person in Chad doesn't command very much money if any; if you are Conglomo-Co., what's the point to you to stop them from starving? There isn't one.

[schmenke]

....
Producing 1 kg of beef needs 7 kg of high quality produce plus a much bigger amount of water. ...

The National Geographic Society produced an article a couple of years ago that reported that beef production requires startling volumes of fresh water annually – far more that what is required for the cultivation of all other crops (corn, beans, etc.) to produce the same caloric output. Pork production was not far behind.

[anthonyvop]

The problem is when resource provision does not grow in step. Malthus tells us that it cannot.

Malthus was narrow minded.

As I have pointed out many times here.,....... Areas that suffer from severe famine are those that suffer from a lack of the rule of law especially in regards to private property and/or Overly regulated, micromanaged economies.

Not Overpopulation.

[schmenke]

Ah, good point vop.

Give ‘em all a plot of land, a bag of seed and a Glock 9mm with which to protect it all!


:D

[anthonyvop]

Ah, good point vop.

Give ‘em all a plot of land, a bag of seed and a Glock 9mm with which to protect it all!


:D

No

They need a free and independent Police and judiciary along with a Legitimate Government that respects the rights of the individual. The rest will work itself out swiftly

[Rudy Tamasz]

Say, if the world economy is kept at the same level, who are the competitors who'd destroy it?

Anyway, without a change the future looks bleak, both for capitalism and for us.

World economy is not a single entity. It consists of competitors. Each one behaves rationally, but individual rational behavior often produces a general mess. True, you may decide that the market needs an X number of items you produce, but then there are others who also want to make a little money. They start producing same stuff and compete with you. And if you only produce a fixed quantity of items, how do you develop your business, fund marketing, research and development etc.? The good strategy would be to try to occupy as big a part of the market as you can and grab as much profit as you can. And everybody does the same.

You cannot ban competition unless you subordinate everybody to a single body of authority and let it do the planning for everybody. Hey, but you and I have been through that in Communist years. Did it work?

[gadjo_dilo]

You cannot ban competition unless you subordinate everybody to a single body of authority and let it do the planning for everybody. Hey, but you and I have been through that in Communist years. Did it work?

Nah... Our socialist economy was a sort of " you take it and then give it to me ", or as we used to say "working in vain cooperative". :laugh:
Plans were unrealistic and they but were supposed to be fulfilled and of course, to be excelled. I still have the nostalgy of the years when in the honour of 1 May I reported as done loads of construction tools that weren't even launched in production.
Ironically the socialist agriculture was stronger than the one of today but we were starving.....

[anthonyvop]

Ironically the socialist agriculture was stronger than the one of today but we were starving.....


Seriously?

Who told you that? Socialism is one of the major cause of starvation.

[Firstgear]

Seriously?

Who told you that? Socialism is one of the major cause of starvation.

I think she's talking about the way the numbers were fudged to make it look like the agricultural output was growing.

I've heard/read this before about the USSR - the guys at the top would demand higher production numbers; the ones in charge of production would say "Can't be done", but the year end numbers would show that production had increased. This would happen year after year. The reality was that production never changed - the books were just fudged to keep heads from rolling.

[ioan]

I think she's talking about the way the numbers were fudged to make it look like the agricultural output was growing.

I've heard/read this before about the USSR - the guys at the top would demand higher production numbers; the ones in charge of production would say "Can't be done", but the year end numbers would show that production had increased. This would happen year after year. The reality was that production never changed - the books were just fudged to keep heads from rolling.

This is true.
However to Gadjo's point, she is right, at least as far as Romania is concerned, we did not need to import food before 1989, now we need to import a lot of it even though there is 10% less population.

[ioan]

World economy is not a single entity. It consists of competitors. Each one behaves rationally, but individual rational behavior often produces a general mess. True, you may decide that the market needs an X number of items you produce, but then there are others who also want to make a little money. They start producing same stuff and compete with you. And if you only produce a fixed quantity of items, how do you develop your business, fund marketing, research and development etc.? The good strategy would be to try to occupy as big a part of the market as you can and grab as much profit as you can. And everybody does the same.

You cannot ban competition unless you subordinate everybody to a single body of authority and let it do the planning for everybody. Hey, but you and I have been through that in Communist years. Did it work?

Ideally every smart company would produce very few products over what they think they can sell in order to limit loses. Practically this is not true. Why is that? I say there are too many idiots out there in charge of marketing strategies.
What use to throw away 20% of your production just because some might think that there is a small chance to sell those 20%?

I keep watching and the companies who do best are those small companies who only produce to fulfill pre-ordered volumes of their products. They are not reporting billions in profit however they are
reporting healthy growth year after year.

Same goes for retailers, those who keep their expenses in check due to ordering only what they know that they will sell and thus not throwing away expired food are the ones who afford to sell cheaper and thus give the customer better value for their money.

The strategy of getting market share by over-saturating the market is not working as often as it fails.

[Firstgear]

This is true.
However to Gadjo's point, she is right, at least as far as Romania is concerned, we did not need to import food before 1989, now we need to import a lot of it even though there is 10% less population.
Really? Do you know why this is happening? Is farmland being left bare because farming is not profitable?
In the Ukraine the land was divided and people each got 4ha (or something to that effect - I'm not really certain how the proccess worked). This wasn't enough to make farming profitable, so people would have to join a co-op or just leave the land unfarmed.

[ioan]

It is mostly because farming in Romania is not heavily supported with government subventions unlike in other European countries.
As such the import goods will always be slightly cheaper (and way worse in quality) and this is what matters to people who have financial difficulties like most Romanians have.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Ideally every smart company would produce very few products over what they think they can sell in order to limit loses. Practically this is not true. Why is that? I say there are too many idiots out there in charge of marketing strategies.
What use to throw away 20% of your production just because some might think that there is a small chance to sell those 20%?

I keep watching and the companies who do best are those small companies who only produce to fulfill pre-ordered volumes of their products. They are not reporting billions in profit however they are
reporting healthy growth year after year.

Same goes for retailers, those who keep their expenses in check due to ordering only what they know that they will sell and thus not throwing away expired food are the ones who afford to sell cheaper and thus give the customer better value for their money.

The strategy of getting market share by over-saturating the market is not working as often as it fails.

Sounds reasonable. Most of those small companies, though, work in either highly specialized areas or upscale segments of certain markets. I.e. demand is naturally limited, it is extremely challenging to enter the market and so competition is soft. If you operate on a global market of mass products your only chance of survival is producing and selling craploads of stuff and giving hard time to your competitiors.

[gadjo_dilo]

Seriously?

Who told you that? Socialism is one of the major cause of starvation.

There's no need to be told. I lived a part of my life in the so called "socialist society multilateral developed" and today my work deals with agriculture problems. I'm more than entitled to do a comparison.

It’s a fact that in socialist agriculture the figures were inflated in order to report record productions. However Romania has a high agriculture potential and could easily feed at least ¼ of Europe.
Socialist agriculture developed in cooperatives and the land was exploited in common. During the 60’s and 70’s food was plenty, good and very cheap despite maybe a rudimentary technology. More than all it HAD TASTE unlike the food from abroad. And I really miss the taste of my childhood. Then in the 80’s Ceausescu had the crazy idea to extinguish the country’s debts. Imports were ceased and since we couldn’t export many items we exported our food. The shelves of our shops were empty and the main alimentary products were rationalized ( 1 kilo of sugar or oil/month/person, you could buy once only 300 g of salami/person or 1 bread/person; bread was bought with the ID card only, etc. ). Now it’s fair to say that nobody died from starvation. We are an innovative nation and developed a parallel black market. But the 80’s were really hard times .

After 1989 the land started to be given back to the owners so it is divided in small properties and a big part of it is not exploited anymore. The population of villages is mostly old and unable to work. Then they can’t afford modern technologies of exploitation. The irrigation system is destroyed ( either left or stolen ). Production is affected by natural calamities and peasants don’t use to insure their crops. Subventions in agriculture are still very low ( despite a substantial increase in latest years )

On the other hand competition made farmers to look for easy ways to gain money. They use seeds and sorts from abroad. They may be more productive but products don’t have taste. In my opinion that’s the real drama. We have food, plenty of it, but the quality sucks. Food is not healthy anymore. Meat is injected with salted water ( to be heavier ), vegetables and fruits are treated with chemicals to grow earlier and bigger.
Market is full of imported products, most of them tasteless, the jovial peasants in the markets are replaced by gypsies who would cheat you with the scale and sell you imported vegetables as romanian.

Etc. etc.

[Big Ben]

There is a joke explaining a little how things worked in communist Romania. They say at some point they brought a sow that was supposed to have around 20 little baby pigs. So time came and only one little pig popped up. The people directly supervising the situation were pretty worried and decided that they can't report only one piglet, they should say they have at least 4 but their supervisors where not happy either with that number. They couldn't go to their supervisors saying the wonder sow only had 4 piglets when everybody was expecting 20 so why not say there were 10 of them, it's not like someone is going to number them. And by the time the report got to the beloved leader there were 20 pigs. Ceausescu, pretty satisfied, decided we would export two and eat the rest and that's just what we did, sold the sow and the piglet and ate the rest.

[gadjo_dilo]

Don't think it's a joke. The period was full of absurd facts. But they really had happened.
They are reflected in 2 excellent comedies: Tales from the Golden Age -part1 and 2

Amintiri din Epoca de Aur 1 - Tovar (http://www.trilulilu.ro/video-film/amintiri-din-epoca-de-aur-1-tovarasi-frumoasa-e-vi-1)
Amintiri din Epoca de Aur 2 - Dragoste în timpul liber - Trailer - Trailere - Trailere (http://www.trilulilu.ro/video-film/amintiri-din-epoca-de-aur-2-dragoste-in-timpul-lib-1)

[airshifter]

Sounds reasonable. Most of those small companies, though, work in either highly specialized areas or upscale segments of certain markets. I.e. demand is naturally limited, it is extremely challenging to enter the market and so competition is soft. If you operate on a global market of mass products your only chance of survival is producing and selling craploads of stuff and giving hard time to your competitiors.

This is a much more correct statement IMO than Ioan's view of more product creating waste. Consumers will flock to any product most of the time, it just has to be available to them. And a company that always has extra inventory is much less likely to miss out on sales, while the company that lets inventory fall too low watches profits walk away when that product isn't sitting on the shelf.

Product saturation into the market creates both on hand inventory and visual advertising impressions, and both are a good thing.

[ioan]

This is a much more correct statement IMO than Ioan's view of more product creating waste. Consumers will flock to any product most of the time, it just has to be available to them. And a company that always has extra inventory is much less likely to miss out on sales, while the company that lets inventory fall too low watches profits walk away when that product isn't sitting on the shelf.

Product saturation into the market creates both on hand inventory and visual advertising impressions, and both are a good thing.

Depends on the POV of each.

Your POV is that marketing is great and people need all the crap that they see advertised.
Mine is that we don't need even 50% of what is produced nowadays.

You're looking at having economic growth no matter what.
I am looking at having a sustainable and well balanced model that will make it possible for my grandchildren to see what real nature looks like.

Each to his own, but one is wrong IMHO.

[Mark]

It's usually best to slightly under produce, as you know you are going to sell each unit you produce, and a slight shortage is often good for marketing, just as long as it's not too much or your customers will seek alternatives.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Depends on the POV of each.

Your POV is that marketing is great and people need all the crap that they see advertised.
Mine is that we don't need even 50% of what is produced nowadays.

You're looking at having economic growth no matter what.
I am looking at having a sustainable and well balanced model that will make it possible for my grandchildren to see what real nature looks like.

Each to his own, but one is wrong IMHO.

airshifter didn't endorse that model of business. He just stated how it works in the real world while you stick to an ideal model. That's the difference.

[ioan]

airshifter didn't endorse that model of business. He just stated how it works in the real world while you stick to an ideal model. That's the difference.

I thought I made it clear that it depends on the POV.

[Malbec]

There is a happy medium between under production, with the resulting loss of sales and higher cost per unit and over production, with a resulting glut of product forcing drastic price reductions to move it. Successful companies operated there. The others go belly up.

This whole debate about over vs underproduction seems silly to me as it depends entirely on what market you're operating in.

For expensive products production should exactly match demand as items are made to order.

For most products production levels should slightly exceed demand to cater for DOA items and to ensure market share is not lost purely due to unavailability of items. Once the production line is set up the cost of producing more units is only a small part of the overall cost of development and production for a particular item so it makes sense to produce more than required. Also if excess stock is left over that is often not the manufacturer's problem but the retailers'

[airshifter]

Depends on the POV of each.

Your POV is that marketing is great and people need all the crap that they see advertised.
Mine is that we don't need even 50% of what is produced nowadays.

You're looking at having economic growth no matter what.
I am looking at having a sustainable and well balanced model that will make it possible for my grandchildren to see what real nature looks like.

Each to his own, but one is wrong IMHO.

The point of view has very little to do with the reality of product production and distribution. I've never said we need all that is produced... you certainly don't need the computer you respond on, or for that matter food purchased at a store. But reality shows that the majority of the world capable of purchasing such things does, and we do so frequently.

Modern production and distribution methods are one of the primary reasons we get products for the costs we do. Producing only on demand would drive prices up greatly, and be much less efficient of all resources involved. Many of the everyday items we purchase cost next to nothing to manufacture, the money spent is more on the supply line, sales and marketing end of the product.

[airshifter]

This whole debate about over vs underproduction seems silly to me as it depends entirely on what market you're operating in.

For expensive products production should exactly match demand as items are made to order.

For most products production levels should slightly exceed demand to cater for DOA items and to ensure market share is not lost purely due to unavailability of items. Once the production line is set up the cost of producing more units is only a small part of the overall cost of development and production for a particular item so it makes sense to produce more than required. Also if excess stock is left over that is often not the manufacturer's problem but the retailers'

Even in the case of some products which are a "guaranteed sale" to the retailer, the manufacturer more often stands to make greater profits though saturation of the item to ensure that nobody wanting one goes without. The profits on the units sold far outweighs the cost of buying back the units that remain unsold. As often as not the manufacturer convinces the retailer to continue selling the item at a reduced price that is usually still making both of them money while promoting the brand and expanding their potential customer base for future sales.

I do fully agree that for the vast majority of common items that consumers purchase on a regular basis, underproduction is never desired. Starter's point is also quite valid in that overproduction should be trimmed as close as possible, but most industries don't worry about it much in lower cost items. The discounted items often created by such excess allow for potential to expand the customer base by luring them in with the low price.

[Rollo]

This whole debate about over vs underproduction seems silly to me as it depends entirely on what market you're operating in.

Markets are incredibly efficient at establishing one thing only - Price.

If a major supplier can radically cut off supply to a market, they can massively shift the supply curve to the left. This can have quite marked effects if the demand for a particular good is relatively inelastic. The 1973 Oil Crisis is a good example of this. By shutting off oil wells, OPEC made the prices rocket.

[Malbec]

Markets are incredibly efficient at establishing one thing only - Price.

If a major supplier can radically cut off supply to a market, they can massively shift the supply curve to the left. This can have quite marked effects if the demand for a particular good is relatively inelastic. The 1973 Oil Crisis is a good example of this. By shutting off oil wells, OPEC made the prices rocket.

That assumes a near dominant share of the market though by a single supplier.

In most market segments there are usually several suppliers available and therefore a failure of one to supply will eventually lead to a loss in market share.

[ioan]

The point of view has very little to do with the reality of product production and distribution. I've never said we need all that is produced... you certainly don't need the computer you respond on, or for that matter food purchased at a store. But reality shows that the majority of the world capable of purchasing such things does, and we do so frequently.

Modern production and distribution methods are one of the primary reasons we get products for the costs we do. Producing only on demand would drive prices up greatly, and be much less efficient of all resources involved. Many of the everyday items we purchase cost next to nothing to manufacture, the money spent is more on the supply line, sales and marketing end of the product.

Allow me to disagree, the POV is very important.
You look to it from the POV of the person who wants to get most for his buck no matter the consequences.
I do not share your POV and will pay more for products if that makes the Earth a better place in the long term.
Money is not everything.

[ioan]

Markets are incredibly efficient at establishing one thing only - Price.

Exactly. The issue is that people and society generally got to the point where price is the only thing that matters. A rather sad situation IMO.

[schmenke]

Exactly. The issue is that people and society generally got to the point where price is the only thing that matters. A rather sad situation IMO.

That’s far too general, and somewhat offensive ioan.

It’s priorities that dictate the POV you mention.

For example, I too am willing to generally pay a little more for products that have been produced in a more environmentally friendly manner, however with a family of 4 to support, I need to limit family spending as a priority. I’ll buy the less expensive toothpaste from Wallmart rather the more expensive “organically” produced stuff that may help save a tree.

For many, limitations of personal finances govern their consumer choices.

[anthonyvop]

Allow me to disagree, the POV is very important.
You look to it from the POV of the person who wants to get most for his buck no matter the consequences.
I do not share your POV and will pay more for products if that makes the Earth a better place in the long term.
Money is not everything.


And what makes a better place is all a matter of POV as well.

You might think that some "Green" product is better but I prefer to support businesses that create jobs which puts food in people's belly's and medicines in the cabinet.

Then there is the matter of protecting one's self. Why should I spend money on one product because somebody like You or Al Gore says it better for the earth when I can by a similar and probably better product for less money which is beneficial to what is more important to me?

What I try to do is avoid products that are heavily subsidized by taxes taken from the Productive. I despise cronyism!

[airshifter]

Allow me to disagree, the POV is very important.
You look to it from the POV of the person who wants to get most for his buck no matter the consequences.
I do not share your POV and will pay more for products if that makes the Earth a better place in the long term.
Money is not everything.

The difference is that I am looking at it from the side I see as reality and what major companies do. I work for a brokerage that represents major brands and there is in fact product savings through efficiency in larger production runs. This doesn't mean I support this as the only model, it's just the reality for most common consumer products that the masses buy.

I can however fully agree that there are times price alone should not be the deciding factor and doing what you think is personally right is the way to go. I do the same myself in dealing with certain purchases. Though most of us can't always do what is socially or morally right due to limits of budget, even if we do it when we can it might influence the market. If you haven't already checked it out you might want to check out the site on Race Aficianado's signature lines. http://www.thehungersite.com

Having said that I now more than ever wish I could enjoy veal for dinner. It's one of the things I draw the line on, even if it's a "dumb animal" that suffers. But even though I love the taste of it, I won't ever order it.

[ioan]

And what makes a better place is all a matter of POV as well.

You might think that some "Green" product is better but I prefer to support businesses that create jobs which puts food in people's belly's and medicines in the cabinet.

Then there is the matter of protecting one's self. Why should I spend money on one product because somebody like You or Al Gore says it better for the earth when I can by a similar and probably better product for less money which is beneficial to what is more important to me?

What I try to do is avoid products that are heavily subsidized by taxes taken from the Productive. I despise cronyism!

Protective one's self is a short sighted view with a very bleak future.
I do not have kids, I hope I will have in a few years though, however I am trying to do my best for them to enjoy life just as I did when I was a kid living on a farm in the mountains close to the nature.
I believe that we have a moral obligation to live a life as good as possible conditioned however by making sure that our children and grand children will inherit a world that is at least as good as the one we have got from our parents and grandparents.
This is my most important principle in life.

PS: producing better quality products that cost more but also are more environmental friendly does not mean that there will be less work, au contraire it means that more and better quality work is needed to ensure that the product meets the highest quality we expect to get.

[ioan]

The difference is that I am looking at it from the side I see as reality and what major companies do. I work for a brokerage that represents major brands and there is in fact product savings through efficiency in larger production runs. This doesn't mean I support this as the only model, it's just the reality for most common consumer products that the masses buy.

I can however fully agree that there are times price alone should not be the deciding factor and doing what you think is personally right is the way to go. I do the same myself in dealing with certain purchases. Though most of us can't always do what is socially or morally right due to limits of budget, even if we do it when we can it might influence the market. If you haven't already checked it out you might want to check out the site on Race Aficianado's signature lines. http://www.thehungersite.com

Having said that I now more than ever wish I could enjoy veal for dinner. It's one of the things I draw the line on, even if it's a "dumb animal" that suffers. But even though I love the taste of it, I won't ever order it.

I understand you views on the whole situation and also that you did look at it from a realistic POV.
I also understand that most people sadly can rarely, if ever, afford to do what is morally and socially right.
On the other hand I think that there won't be a change in better as long as we do not try to tip the balance as much as each of us can.

PS: there is no such thing as a 'dumb animal', it's another live being that dies to feed another one. IMO opinion what's important is that we should only kill animals when we really need them to feed ourselves and not in order to make a habit out of eating good meat daily just because it is cheap nowadays. However i think that this is a theme for another thread to discuss if it is or not morally right to eat meat and if yes then what is appropriate behaviour and what is not.

[ioan]

That’s far too general, and somewhat offensive ioan.

I did not mean to offend anyone however some things have to be said even if they are not politically correct.



It’s priorities that dictate the POV you mention.

For example, I too am willing to generally pay a little more for products that have been produced in a more environmentally friendly manner, however with a family of 4 to support, I need to limit family spending as a priority. I’ll buy the less expensive toothpaste from Wallmart rather the more expensive “organically” produced stuff that may help save a tree.

For many, limitations of personal finances govern their consumer choices.

I fully understand what you mean. I've had very hard times in my life as a student when I could barely afford the cheapest food and walked for hours as I couldn't afford to pay the bus.

[anthonyvop]

Protective one's self is a short sighted view with a very bleak future..

History has proven that idea very wrong.




However i think that this is a theme for another thread to discuss if it is or not morally right to eat meat and if yes then what is appropriate behaviour and what is not.

Even to suggest this totally removes any moral standing you might have maintained in this debate.

[BDunnell]

That’s far too general, and somewhat offensive ioan.

It’s priorities that dictate the POV you mention.

For example, I too am willing to generally pay a little more for products that have been produced in a more environmentally friendly manner, however with a family of 4 to support, I need to limit family spending as a priority. I’ll buy the less expensive toothpaste from Wallmart rather the more expensive “organically” produced stuff that may help save a tree.

For many, limitations of personal finances govern their consumer choices.

I don't think ioan's comment is offensive at all — after all, aren't you, in effect, agreeing with him?

For what it's worth, I mix and match — with foodstuffs, I make as much effort as I can to buy genuinely organic produce, and from local suppliers. The shops you buy such items in are far nicer and it doesn't cost so much more. For household supplies like toothpaste, washing-up liquid and so forth, I'm perfectly happy with buying them in a supermarket for price reasons.

[BDunnell]

You might think that some "Green" product is better but I prefer to support businesses that create jobs which puts food in people's belly's and medicines in the cabinet.



What I try to do is avoid products that are heavily subsidized by taxes taken from the Productive. I despise cronyism!

Maybe you might like to expand on this by providing specific examples.

[BDunnell]

The difference is that I am looking at it from the side I see as reality and what major companies do. I work for a brokerage that represents major brands and there is in fact product savings through efficiency in larger production runs. This doesn't mean I support this as the only model, it's just the reality for most common consumer products that the masses buy.

It can be extremely counter-productive, though, can't it? I mean, waste must be considered a bad thing, no matter what one's political and environmental views might be.

[BDunnell]

Even to suggest this totally removes any moral standing you might have maintained in this debate.

No it doesn't. It just means that ioan might have different views as to vegetarianism compared to yours. No-one should have a problem with that.

[BDunnell]

I believe that we have a moral obligation to live a life as good as possible conditioned however by making sure that our children and grand children will inherit a world that is at least as good as the one we have got from our parents and grandparents.
This is my most important principle in life.

My male grandparents — well, one of them — fought in the Second World War. I hope, therefore, that achieving your hopes is no pipedream. It ought not to be difficult.



PS: producing better quality products that cost more but also are more environmental friendly does not mean that there will be less work, au contraire it means that more and better quality work is needed to ensure that the product meets the highest quality we expect to get.

Yes. Leaving aside any environmental issues, or even, in many cases, issues of cost, a lot of people consume a lot of (word I can't use). Of course, it is their choice to do so, but it saddens me that they cannot see that there are better alternatives that do not cost the earth. It saddens me even more that anyone should seek to argue against this on the grounds that caring about the environment is in some way a wishy-washy, left-wing concern. They should simply recognise that to consume 'greener' produce is to consume nicer, better-quality produce. How can this be negative, unless one has an undue level of respect for big business?

[Rollo]

History has proven that idea very wrong.

Bollocks.

The entire of civilization is predicated on collective purchasing. Be it questions of insurance, national security, the police forces, heck even the formation of corporations itself is ultimately based on the idea of a collection of people making collective purchases.

[anthonyvop]

No it doesn't. It just means that ioan might have different views as to vegetarianism compared to yours. No-one should have a problem with that.

Vegetarianism is one thing

but

To compare animals as having the same rights as Human is disgusting, immoral and worse that even the most racist of thought.

[anthonyvop]

Maybe you might like to expand on this by providing specific examples.

During some recent car shopping I avoided all GM and Chrysler products and For some construction on one of my homes I refused to use a license contractor.

[airshifter]

PS: there is no such thing as a 'dumb animal', it's another live being that dies to feed another one. IMO opinion what's important is that we should only kill animals when we really need them to feed ourselves and not in order to make a habit out of eating good meat daily just because it is cheap nowadays. However i think that this is a theme for another thread to discuss if it is or not morally right to eat meat and if yes then what is appropriate behaviour and what is not.

In my case I have no problem with eating meat from animals, but the reason I put "dumb animal" in quotes is due to the fact that I don't agree with it. Regardless of the mental capacity of the animal in question I see no valid reason to allow the animal to suffer, and I think veal crosses that line.



It can be extremely counter-productive, though, can't it? I mean, waste must be considered a bad thing, no matter what one's political and environmental views might be.

True waste very rarely occurs in the current supply chain. At worse items are usually sold at a discount or in some cases donated. This is often used to further product promotion. In the case of food items often the food goes to local charities that are always looking for such donations.

[gadjo_dilo]

For example, I too am willing to generally pay a little more for products that have been produced in a more environmentally friendly manner, however with a family of 4 to support, I need to limit family spending as a priority. I’ll buy the less expensive toothpaste from Wallmart rather the more expensive “organically” produced stuff that may help save a tree.

For many, limitations of personal finances govern their consumer choices.

I do the same but now I'm falling in the other extreme: buying a lot of products which I don't neccesarily need at the moment only because a certain shop sells very cheap. They say that abroad the hypermarkets ( like Carrefour, Cora, Kaufland, Metro, Lidl, Auchann, etc. ) are placed outside big cities. But here there are many of them, some of them even in the centre of the city. When I go to a regular supermarket near my home I'm very careful with the products I choose but when I'm in a hypermarket I always pick products thinking " I can't find it at this price anywhere else and it's good to have it in the house". When I have to pay I'm bemused. I look in the basket and see a lot of rubbish things but I have to pay 1/5 of my salary. It's not only me who act this way. If you'll see the baskets in a romanian hypermarket you'd think the end of the world will come next day.

[ioan]

History has proven that idea very wrong.

Care to elaborate?




Even to suggest this totally removes any moral standing you might have maintained in this debate.

BS, typical vop rubbish supported by nothing, not even hot air.

[ioan]

Vegetarianism is one thing

but

To compare animals as having the same rights as Human is disgusting, immoral and worse that even the most racist of thought.

From a biological POV we are all animals.
Sure we like to think that we are smarter and have more rights, however all we are achieving with our 'superior' intelligence is to destroy the nature that feeds us, something all the other animals are able to understand much better than we do. Funny isn't it?
Most of our actions are useless and only performed for fun and pleasure, without thinking on the impact we have on our environment.

From my POV life = life no matter what kind of animal we are talking about.

Back to the point of eating meat.
Animals do hunt and kill to it and they do not kill more than what they need. Compare that to what we do and you might see who's got the higher moral ground in this situation, the human animal or another animal?
For what it's worth I would kill an animal if that is the way to save myself from starvation, but that's pretty much as far as I would go.

[ioan]

I do the same but now I'm falling in the other extreme: buying a lot of products which I don't neccesarily need at the moment only because a certain shop sells very cheap. They say that abroad the hypermarkets ( like Carrefour, Cora, Kaufland, Metro, Lidl, Auchann, etc. ) are placed outside big cities. But here there are many of them, some of them even in the centre of the city. When I go to a regular supermarket near my home I'm very careful with the products I choose but when I'm in a hypermarket I always pick products thinking " I can't find it at this price anywhere else and it's good to have it in the house". When I have to pay I'm bemused. I look in the basket and see a lot of rubbish things but I have to pay 1/5 of my salary. It's not only me who act this way. If you'll see the baskets in a romanian hypermarket you'd think the end of the world will come next day.

Thanks for this example!
It's just what I see around myself no matter the country or continent I am in. People buying things they will never use, and food they will never eat.
I still hope that one day this will change, however for this to happen big changes in education and mass media regulation are needed.
There was a movie (I think it's called 'Free Rainer') a few years ago about how retailer chains are studying the behavior of consumers, and in this movie it was about a certain town in Germany, Hassloch if I remember right, that was chosen as some kind of standard testing grounds and where people leaving there were basically used as some kind of marketing lab rats.
I suggest you watch it if you can find it.
A couple more good movies/documentaries to see are 'We feed the world' and 'Let's make money'. Have fun.

[gadjo_dilo]

Thanks for this example!
It's just what I see around myself no matter the country or continent I am in. People buying things they will never use, and food they will never eat.
I still hope that one day this will change, however for this to happen big changes in education and mass media regulation are needed.
There was a movie (I think it's called 'Free Rainer') a few years ago about how retailer chains are studying the behavior of consumers, and in this movie it was about a certain town in Germany, Hassloch if I remember right, that was chosen as some kind of standard testing grounds and where people leaving there were basically used as some kind of marketing lab rats.
I suggest you watch it if you can find it.
A couple more good movies/documentaries to see are 'We feed the world' and 'Let's make money'. Have fun.

But some friends who spent last Christmas in Bruxelles were surprised to see that people in hypermarkets had just a few items in their baskets. while on good romanian tradition they filled theirs to the top.

I think that in my case it's also the syndrome of the empty fridge. I remember the times when the wind was blowing into my fridge and I was going to sleep asking myself what shall I eat tomorrow at work. It's like I fear the fridge will be again empty.

I also remember that when I was a kid and food wasn't a problem people would buy 100g of something, a half or quarter of a bread, a small package of..., half of kilo of fruits or vegetables, etc. Now you can't be considered serious without buying kilos of everything. That's why we become fat and lazy.

[BDunnell]

Vegetarianism is one thing

but

To compare animals as having the same rights as Human is disgusting, immoral and worse that even the most racist of thought.

What hyperbolic nonsense.

[BDunnell]

During some recent car shopping I avoided all GM and Chrysler products and For some construction on one of my homes I refused to use a license contractor.

I was thinking about foodstuffs and household items.

[gadjo_dilo]

From a biological POV we are all animals.
Sure we like to think that we are smarter and have more rights, however all we are achieving with our 'superior' intelligence is to destroy the nature that feeds us, something all the other animals are able to understand much better than we do. Funny isn't it?
Most of our actions are useless and only performed for fun and pleasure, without thinking on the impact we have on our environment.



Now I read this and put it together with your POV regarding the sense of life ( The God-thread ) and I'm becoming really dizzy.....

And I'm still at work.....

[anthonyvop]

Care to elaborate?


Civilization itself was built on the back of the the individual's self-interest.

[anthonyvop]

I was thinking about foodstuffs and household items.


I try to avoid Ethanol products as well as products produced by Cargill and ADM.

[anthonyvop]

Back to the point of eating meat.
Animals do hunt and kill to it and they do not kill more than what they need.

Another of those warm and fuzzy myths Treehuggers like to spew when in fact Nature is full of occasions when "animals" kill for other reasons besides food. Including just for fun.

Dogs, Cats, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Bears, Killer whales and even your beloved Dolphins all have been observed killing for other reasons besides food.

Bottlenose Dolphins Killing Harbor Porpoises in California - YouTube (http://youtu.be/VBul5j30V98)

[anthonyvop]

What hyperbolic nonsense.

In your opinion.

But then again we all know that I established and maintained the Moral High Ground here a long time ago.

[BDunnell]

In your opinion.

But then again we all know that I established and maintained the Moral High Ground here a long time ago.

Oh yes, of course. How stupid of me to have forgotten. It must be your Unnecessary Use of Capital Letters that conveys it.

[ioan]

Civilization itself was built on the back of the the individual's self-interest.

Totally wrong. Civilization was built by groups of people not by individuals on their own.

[ioan]

In your opinion.

But then again we all know that I established and maintained the Moral High Ground here a long time ago.

:rotflmao:

[anthonyvop]

Totally wrong. Civilization was built by groups of people not by individuals on their own.

In your warped left-wing fantasy world. Name me one great achievement in human history that was created by a "group" and not either an individual or lead by an individual.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I think Mr Vop might be confusing civilisation with barbarism.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

In your warped left-wing fantasy world. Name me one great achievement in human history that was created by a "group" and not either an individual or lead by an individual.

That is a stupid question as groups tend to appoint leaders.

The greatest achievement in human history could be the Apollo moon landings. I think NASA is a group of people.

[Lousada]

In your warped left-wing fantasy world. Name me one great achievement in human history that was created by a "group" and not either an individual or lead by an individual.

The Founding Fathers of the US were a group of people. The Manhattan Project was a group of people.

[Rollo]

The Founding Fathers of the US were a group of people. The Manhattan Project was a group of people.

From the Constitution no less, I present the first six words:
We the People of the United States...

Last time I checked, "people" was a plural. Nope, it still is.

Even the word "corporation" comes from the Latin "corpus" which means a body, in this case a body of shareholders, which is still a collective.

[BDunnell]

Name me one great achievement in human history that was created by a "group" and not either an individual or lead by an individual.

The Wright brothers' first sustained powered heavier-than-air flight.

[Rollo]

The Wright brothers' first sustained powered heavier-than-air flight.

..which was funded and owned by the Wright Cycle Company. :D

[schmenke]

...The greatest achievement in human history could be the Apollo moon landings. ....

For mankind? No.