Do you Social Security fearmongers realize you can't get something for nothing?

[flacaltenn]

OMG OOpydOO:

This is getting truly weird.. You are so focused about a single persons sweat labor.

Inventing the PC and putting it into every home expanded "the game" for everyone. TRILLIONS of work hours saved. The same thing for tractors.

Even AFTER the PC -- innovations like Google have added BILLIONS of dollars of REAL WORTH to the economy. Same deal with FedEx.

C'mon man -- quit while you still have the PhD in Physics to look forward to..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Economics is not in the natural world, which exempts it from the laws of physics.

LOL! Well its not supernatural, is it? That makes it natural. Economics is a social science that investigates the production, distribution, consumption, etc. of goods and services by people - and people are constrained by the laws of physics

Newton's laws certainly do not apply to it in any way.

Newton's laws apply to all non-relativistic macroscopic cases. People most certainly are subject to these laws.

Come to think of it, Newton's laws do not apply to everything in the natural world. They totally fail in a superconductor, and they don't work that well in a semiconductor when we try to apply them to the flow of electricity.

I don't really get your point. Superconductors behave according to the laws of physics, they just don't happen to be Newton's laws.

That means that, unless you define natural world differently than most people, your statement is without merit.

Most sane people consider themselves to be part of the natural world, except maybe their "spiritual being" - but economists don't consider that aspect.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

FOOD generation is NOT a zero sum game.

Sure it is. The energy that goes into food from the sun and Earth is at the expense of entropy production.

If I eat -- I don't take food from your mouth.

Clearly the perspective of someone fortunate enough to live in a nation where hunger is a serious issue only for a minority of people.

If the supply of food is limited, then by consuming food, necessarily, one leaves less for others. A farm can only produce so much. Granted - at this point in the U.S., our farms are not at their maximum production - but - they do have a maximum output for any given season.

No more than one person's wages STEALS from someone else's pockets.

It doesn't steal. It does cause a debit, though. If I pay you wages I lose a share of the goods and services of the U.S. economy - I do it in exchange for your labor services though, so my sum is zero. If I am a businessman, I attempt to profit off your labor services - but I do so at risk to my own financial well being, and business risk has value.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Then money must be magic because GDP keeps going up.

Don't confuse him, he's a physicist not an economist

Financial and economic theory is based on the same math and often times the same basic processes. For instance, options prices can be modeled using nearly the same equations that model heat diffusion.

So fucking what?

And a cantaloupe is a melon.

There, happy?

 

[westwall]

Yes, since they have gone capitalistic their production has skyrocketed. They are now probably more capitalistic then we are.

Sure, if you consider single party rule by the Communist Party of China to be "more capitalistic than we are"

Selective editing is not allowed on this forum bucko, I suggest you copy the ENTIRE quote.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

GDP goes up because production of goods and services are going up. They are all paid for, however, resulting in a zero sum.

The fact that they are all paid for does not make it zero sum.

Zero sum is an aspect of game theory that says that every gain is balanced by a loss for another person.

And it is.

If I provide labor (physical or mental), that takes effort on my part. I lose my physical time and energy. That is a loss to me - the money I am paid is a gain, exactly equal to the loss. Therefore the sum of the liability of losing my effort and time and the gain of my income is zero.

It is not "zero sum" in the sense that there is a net production of goods and services. Take a coal mine, for instance. The coal in the Earth is useless. When the miners take it out and make it available for use - then there is a net gain of usable natural resources. But that gain is balanced by the miner's labor and by the mine owners investment risk - both of which take time, effort, and/or expose one to liability (the miner may lose an arm - the mine owner may not profit and go under)

What if you decide that your time and labor is worth $15 and I pay you $95 because I decide what you have produced is worth $150 to me? Does that invalidate the $80 I paid you, or does it prove you have no idea what you are talking about when you claim that economics is a zero sum game?

GDP is the measure of total market value of an economy, and is not zero sum, because it is actually possible for everyone in the system to benefit. If one person gets a bigger piece of cake someone else bakes another one.

We can't make an infinite amount of cake, that should be obvious. If someone can make 5 cakes an hour, maybe if they have some automation they can extend that to 20 cakes an hour - but then, they still can't make more than 20 cakes X 168 hours = 3360 cakes per week, can they? And even that is without sleep. Sure, someone might be in the background investing in technology that would boost that person's output to 25 cakes an hour - but if that person is told to make more than 3360 cakes next week, they physically cannot.

Unfortunately, as you know, our economy is actually far from maximum production levels. In fact - at first at least, as the number of workers fails to replace the number of retirees grows every year - it will be positively beneficial, as it will put people back to work. The baby boomers will be tapping not only their SS income but all their other investments as well, and as they retire, the unemployed will take their place.

But at a certain point, when retirees exceed workers to such a degree that demand cannot be met - prices go up.


Here's another example - there is a peak rate right now at which oil can be extracted from the ground - and - there is a peak rate at which that speed of extraction can increase.Maybe the oil industry can extract X bbl/yr right now, and maybe they can extract Y bbl/year/year for every year after - but if the rate of increasing demand for oil exceeds X + Y*t - the price MUST go up.

If we are not at maximum production levels, than we are not anywhere close to operating in a zero sum game.

By the way, SS is only a small part of the economy, one which I have repeatedly argued is unsustainable as it is currently structured. Trying to stretch that to claim that the entire economy is unsustainable just proves how uninformed you are. Productivity has actually gone up even though the size of the workforce is declining because we have productivity aids called machines now, we are no longer reliant on muscles to manufacture things. There are even new things called computers that allow people to do math a lot faster than we used to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Financial and economic theory is based on the same math and often times the same basic processes. For instance, options prices can be modeled using nearly the same equations that model heat diffusion.

So what?

So physics and finance are very similar. Especially statistical physics.

Christianity and Hinduism are also very similar, except for the parts that are different.

Do you have a point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OMG OOpydOO:

This is getting truly weird.. You are so focused about a single persons sweat labor.

Inventing the PC and putting it into every home expanded "the game" for everyone. TRILLIONS of work hours saved. The same thing for tractors.

Even AFTER the PC -- innovations like Google have added BILLIONS of dollars of REAL WORTH to the economy. Same deal with FedEx.

C'mon man -- quit while you still have the PhD in Physics to look forward to..

You were much nicer about it than I was.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Economics is not in the natural world, which exempts it from the laws of physics.

LOL! Well its not supernatural, is it? That makes it natural. Economics is a social science that investigates the production, distribution, consumption, etc. of goods and services by people - and people are constrained by the laws of physics

Are you sure you want to claim you are a physicist?

Natural world refers to the world of nature, life, and the planet we live on. Cities are not natural, but we often include them in the natural world because they impact nature. Explain to me what your definition natural world is that it includes money, which is a concept invented to facilitate and control trade.

Newton's laws certainly do not apply to it in any way.

Newton's laws apply to all non-relativistic macroscopic cases. People most certainly are subject to these laws.

We are not talking about people, we are talking about economics.

That point made, Newton's first law does not apply to people. we can be merrily traveling in one direction and change velocity without being acted on by an outside force. (By the way, I am using velocity in the way a physicist would, including both direction and speed.)

Come to think of it, Newton's laws do not apply to everything in the natural world. They totally fail in a superconductor, and they don't work that well in a semiconductor when we try to apply them to the flow of electricity.

I don't really get your point. Superconductors behave according to the laws of physics, they just don't happen to be Newton's laws.

Newton's laws are part of the laws of physics. The fact that, even though they are physical laws, there are things that do not obey them, proves that your blanket claim that everything in the natural world, however you define that, is subject to the laws of physics is stupid.

That means that, unless you define natural world differently than most people, your statement is without merit.

Most sane people consider themselves to be part of the natural world, except maybe their "spiritual being" - but economists don't consider that aspect.

Most sane people also realize that not everything is part of the physical world. In fact, there was an article in Psychology Today in 2009 that made exactly that point.

Do the Laws of Physics Permit Any Exceptions? | Psychology Today

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Don't confuse him, he's a physicist not an economist

Financial and economic theory is based on the same math and often times the same basic processes. For instance, options prices can be modeled using nearly the same equations that model heat diffusion.

So fucking what?

And a cantaloupe is a melon.

There, happy?

What's your problem?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What if you decide that your time and labor is worth $15 and I pay you $95 because I decide what you have produced is worth $150 to me?

Then my labor is clearly worth $95. Its worth whatever is paid and accepted for it. Ultimately the dollar amount is not really relevant, its the amount of goods and services I can get in return for the dollar amount that matters.

Does that invalidate the $80 I paid you, or does it prove you have no idea what you are talking about when you claim that economics is a zero sum game?

It really depends on what you include in the sum. You exclude business risk.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

OMG OOpydOO:

This is getting truly weird.. You are so focused about a single persons sweat labor.

Inventing the PC and putting it into every home expanded "the game" for everyone. TRILLIONS of work hours saved. The same thing for tractors.

Even AFTER the PC -- innovations like Google have added BILLIONS of dollars of REAL WORTH to the economy. Same deal with FedEx.

C'mon man -- quit while you still have the PhD in Physics to look forward to..

I'm still not convinced the economy can produce an arbitrarily high amount of goods and services. Its physically not possible, for one thing.

 

[The T]

Where was Social Security authorized in the US Constitution?

OP? Can you answer it?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That point made, Newton's first law does not apply to people. we can be merrily traveling in one direction and change velocity without being acted on by an outside force.

This has got to be the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard anyone say about physics. No, sorry moron, you're not exempt from Newton's first law. When you are walking and change directions, your feet exert a force on the Earth in the opposite direction you wish to turn and the Earth exerts a force exactly equal but opposite in magnitude. I sure hope you aren't opposed to funding high school physics better because you're clear proof that the system has failed.

The fact that, even though they are physical laws, there are things that do not obey them, proves that your blanket claim that everything in the natural world, however you define that, is subject to the laws of physics is stupid.

The only things which are exempt from Newton's laws are 1) very fast things 2) extremely heavy things and 3) very tiny things. Sorry, but the entirety of the rest of the entire fucking UNIVERSE is subject to Newton.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Where was Social Security authorized in the US Constitution?

OP? Can you answer it?

The 16th amendment authorizes income based taxation. Article I Section 8 Clause 1 Authorizes expenditures for the general welfare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then my labor is clearly worth $95. Its worth whatever is paid and accepted for it. Ultimately the dollar amount is not really relevant, its the amount of goods and services I can get in return for the dollar amount that matters.

I am paying you more than you think it is worth. If economics is actually zero sum that would be impossible because there would be no way to pay you more than you are worth without taking it away from anyone else. People get raises all the time, there is no corresponding decrease in pay for everyone else.

It really depends on what you include in the sum. You exclude business risk.

No it doesn't.

 

[The T]

Then my labor is clearly worth $95. Its worth whatever is paid and accepted for it. Ultimately the dollar amount is not really relevant, its the amount of goods and services I can get in return for the dollar amount that matters.

I am paying you more than you think it is worth. If economics is actually zero sum that would be impossible because there would be no way to pay you more than you are worth without taking it away from anyone else. People get raises all the time, there is no corresponding decrease in pay for everyone else.

It really depends on what you include in the sum. You exclude business risk.

Not it doesn't.

Bravo!

 

[The T]

Where was Social Security authorized in the US Constitution?

OP? Can you answer it?

The 16th amendment authorizes income based taxation. Article I Section 8 Clause 1 Authorizes expenditures for the general welfare.

General Welfare Clause doesn't mean what you think it does. it doesn't mean supporting people that don't know how to exercise thier liberty and fail and others have to pay for thier failure.

Try the EU or the Soviet. You may subscribe to them anytime you like. It requires that YOU relinquish your American status and move there.

You have no fucking clue.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I am paying you more than you think it is worth.

The mere act of accepting the higher pay increases the market value. If I buy X at an auction and I'm prepared to pay Y for it but I wind up getting it for Y - dY - what is the price of X at that moment in time, Y, or Y - dY?

People get raises all the time, there is no corresponding decrease in pay for everyone else.

Higher incomes ultimately require a higher money supply, and every dollar of money that is created is balanced by the exact same amount of debt.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

General Welfare Clause doesn't mean what you think it does. it doesn't mean supporting people that don't know how to exercise thier liberty and fail and others have to pay for thier failure.

I'm not really sure what you're babbling about exactly, but the courts have adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the general welfare clause, and it most certainly allows the Congress to fund pensions .

Try the EU or the Soviet. You may subscribe to them anytime you like. It requires that YOU relinquish your American status and move there.

You have no fucking clue.

Wow. What can I say to that? Wolverines!!!!