If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Yes, I knew that would be confusing. Leaving aside all the other things that can be substituted for the marginal propensity to save, and just using the MPS, the multiplier is (amount spent) divided by (MPS). If you have $ 10k to spend and spend it on a tank you disburse that throughout the production chain of the tank, and then those workers/suppliers begin to spend, and using our usual assumptions, $ 100k in economic activity happens. But the tank is in the barn before the respending starts.
If you send the same $ 10k to a mother on food stamps, she starts the spending that ultimately results in $ 100k. But there is no tank in the barn. You either get a "quicker" return or a "larger" return (or both) when you buy the tank. This all assumes that the workers on the tank have the same MPS as the woman, which, as you indicate is probably not true. Then you get into "what" is purchased and that is never-never land.
Keynes said that saving is a social evil. Can you see why he said that? He was correct in the context of the Great Depression.
Also, I suppose the sale of marijuana in CO and OR adds to the GDP, but the same sale in other parts of the country does not.
So in one case you have consumption, and in the other consumption that leaves you with a durable asset. My question at that point would be how much of the cost of the tank is labour and therefore ready to be recirculated through the economy, and what the value is for an asset that's either gonna sit on a base somewhere or be used in a deployment. That would surely be different than an asset used to create more economic value, like a car would be.
Look at young people in Europe and the United States, most of whom deeply value the benefits of diversity and seek to live in an open and connected world. That’s the future. We just have to ensure that we don’t wreck the world before we get there.
Good piece by Zakaria, ent. Agree wholeheartedly, even if the above is a bit pollyanna. Most kids are gonna be like that, and it's just a matter of letting old racists die, but when it rushes back in in the way Trump has encouraged it to, that's a real setback. Gotta keep that stuff out of the public space, which is why, annoying as it is, political correctness is important. Fringe people need to be kept on the fringes, where they can't spread that stuff as easy.
Look at young people in Europe and the United States, most of whom deeply value the benefits of diversity and seek to live in an open and connected world. That?s the future. We just have to ensure that we don?t wreck the world before we get there.
Good piece by Zakaria, ent. Agree wholeheartedly, even if the above is a bit pollyanna. Most kids are gonna be like that, and it's just a matter of letting old racists die, but when it rushes back in in the way Trump has encouraged it to, that's a real setback. Gotta keep that stuff out of the public space, which is why, annoying as it is, political correctness is important. Fringe people need to be kept on the fringes, where they can't spread that stuff as easy.
I dunno....I like Fareed, but he might be falling into the same trap that sprung Brexit and Trump on him.
IMO, environment plays a large role. I think Fareed might be correct about many urban and/or well-off youths in this country, but you'll find a lot of xenophobia among younger people in rural areas or in economically challenges statutes. Children of xenophobes are likely to be xenophobes themselves as well, IMO.
2016 has demonstrably proven that we aren't nearly as culturally evolved as many believed.
Children of xenophobes are likely to be xenophobes themselves as well, IMO.
That's why you need political correctness. They can get it at home, but if they don't get it outside the home, that's something they can think about. A good number of them will make the right decision. You measure progress in generations.
I don't know. As much as I would normally agree with the idea that it's an extension of economic insecurity, the data seems mixed there. And, different reasons in different countries.
Children of xenophobes are likely to be xenophobes themselves as well, IMO.
That's why you need political correctness. They can get it at home, but if they don't get it outside the home, that's something they can think about. A good number of them will make the right decision. You measure progress in generations.
Agree. PC goes afield sometimes- as our conservative friends in here often point out- but there is nothing wrong with ingraining respect for others.
Children of xenophobes are likely to be xenophobes themselves as well, IMO.
I don't know. As much as I would normally agree with the idea that it's an extension of economic insecurity, the data seems mixed there. And, different reasons in different countries.
Well, we have to keep in our respective lanes here I think; values learned in the home aren't necessarily economically-driven. Different reasons may lead to the same beliefs. This is why I counsel against making too broad of sociological assumptions.
Comment