BF2S Forums Milton Friedman on "Greed"

lowing wrote:

According to this Norway pails in comparison to most other nations hell, even the US is not a major player and Norway is behind us. So no, they are not all that important. But obviously they like to think they are. ask varegg
http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/b … serves.jpg

How old is that chart?  It lists the USSR as a nation on there...lol

http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/b … fuels.html

Apparently, the average price per gallon in the USA is $1.11, haha!

This one is newer:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … l_reserves

Uzique wrote:

all of that is so insignificant in the scope of the next 250-500 years. who cares if china has to import women?

sounds like you've got some petty bitch against china.

it'll have growing pains but it's gonna grow to be a big bad grown-up, whether you like it or not.

Cybargs's point remains though...  Having an amazingly large population is hard to deal with in terms of economic organization.  It is true that this massive labor force is great for certain projects (like the 3 Gorges Dam), but in terms of raising the standard of living for all of its people, that's going to be much harder.

Even when factoring in England's success at industrialization with lesser technology in the 1800s and early 1900s, England still had an advantage that China doesn't -- a very urbanized population.  While it is true that China's urban centers are some of the largest in the world, they still have a massive rural population.

If current trends are any indication, China will advance the standard of living among its urban population by leaps and bounds, but the rural population will likely be left behind and will continue to burden China in some respects.

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

all of that is so insignificant in the scope of the next 250-500 years. who cares if china has to import women?

sounds like you've got some petty bitch against china.

it'll have growing pains but it's gonna grow to be a big bad grown-up, whether you like it or not.

Cybargs's point remains though...  Having an amazingly large population is hard to deal with in terms of economic organization.  It is true that this massive labor force is great for certain projects (like the 3 Gorges Dam), but in terms of raising the standard of living for all of its people, that's going to be much harder.

Even when factoring in England's success at industrialization with lesser technology in the 1800s and early 1900s, England still had an advantage that China doesn't -- a very urbanized population.  While it is true that China's urban centers are some of the largest in the world, they still have a massive rural population.

If current trends are any indication, China will advance the standard of living among its urban population by leaps and bounds, but the rural population will likely be left behind and will continue to burden China in some respects.

A lot of people are moving to the coastal cities for sweatshop jobs.

chinas economic power exists on its coastal provinces.  china is still dirt poor when you look at its other regions

eleven bravo wrote:

chinas economic power exists on its coastal provinces.  china is still dirt poor when you look at its other regions

Average Chinese person makes around 300 usd a month in a sweatshop in a coastal city anyway. They have a lot to catch up.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Norway's significance in global economy is a very minor one lowing, you are correct ... never made a point of how significant we are did I?

Turq and Uzi got the point I was trying to make, you didn't ...

I'm done here debating against your ignorance ...

I got what you were saying but by comparing an economic powerhouse like the US to Norway, and how "we should do it". You really are comparing apples to oranges now aren't you? 

And if you admit Norway has dick to do with the world economy it really isn't much of a horn you blow by saying how great your regulation works and offer your little affected economy as proof now is it?.

LMAO!! Still can't get enough of your superiority complex. never gets old.

Lowing, of all people, you shouldn't be criticizing anyone's "superiority complex."  Varegg was not suggesting Norway is superior to the U.S.  He was saying your stance against regulation is proven wrong by Norway's success.

Now look, I think you, Varegg, and I can all agree that America's size means that it can't regulate in the same ways as Norway with the same effectiveness.  A larger economy requires a different strategy from a small one, but that doesn't mean that all regulation in a large economy is bad.  Regulation can work for America -- it just needs some serious reform -- as does our government in general.

I guess you missed the part where he used govt. regulation as the reason for Norways "hicup" economically. That it was govt. regulation, and not the fact that Norway is not a signifcant player in world affairs as the reason it is not suffering. It is an apples to oranges comparison and proves nothing, and it is this bullshit proof of his that I address.

and no turquoise i have not dismissed or ignored anyones argument because I think I am better than they are and shouldn't be bothered to have to put up with them..that bullshit is reserved for those with weak ass arguments and trolls.

Last edited by lowing (2010-08-12 09:42:55)

im all for a global language-- whatever that might be.

Uzique wrote:

im all for a global language-- whatever that might be.

Me too as long as it is English

lowing wrote:

I guess you missed the part where he used govt. regulation as the reason for Norways "hicup" economically. That it was govt. regulation, and not the fact that Norway is not a signifcant player in world affairs as the reason it is not suffering. It is an apples to oranges comparison and proves nothing, and it is this bullshit proof of his that I address.

I can't speak for Varegg, but regulation is more responsible for stability than growth.  Growth is generally based around resources and trade policies.  Ideally, regulation just serves as a safeguard against abuses and exploits of the system that can be detrimental to long term growth.

My argument is that America, like any other nation, needs some regulation to keep things stable.  Norway serves as an example where regulation has worked quite well in keeping them stable.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

I guess you missed the part where he used govt. regulation as the reason for Norways "hicup" economically. That it was govt. regulation, and not the fact that Norway is not a signifcant player in world affairs as the reason it is not suffering. It is an apples to oranges comparison and proves nothing, and it is this bullshit proof of his that I address.

I can't speak for Varegg, but regulation is more responsible for stability than growth.  Growth is generally based around resources and trade policies.  Ideally, regulation just serves as a safeguard against abuses and exploits of the system that can be detrimental to long term growth.

My argument is that America, like any other nation, needs some regulation to keep things stable.  Norway serves as an example where regulation has worked quite well in keeping them stable.

and yet you address nothing of my response to Varegg and his claims and his "proof". Norway is stable not because of govt. regulation but because they risk nothing, and ride the backs of those that do.

It's funny that you claim that.  Do you realize just how unstable of a proposition that is?  Sure, as a smaller nation, you can be more opportunistic, but if Norway truly just "rode on the backs of risk-takers", that would actually make them about as vulnerable as the risk takers themselves -- if not more so.

Norway's weakness is that it isn't especially diversified as an economy.  It currently doesn't have to be, but when its oil and gas run out, they will have to depend on other industries they don't currently have as much of a stake in.  Right now, the risk they are taking is basing their economy on a dwindling resource.  I'm sure they will gradually shift more emphasis to other sectors of their economy as time passes, but again, you can't say they aren't risk takers.

America takes the risks that it does because of its power level.  If we were the size of Norway, we'd probably be a lot less involved in world affairs, and we'd have a tiny military budget.  So, it's not some uniquely American trait that makes us risk takers, although you could say that our mindset is somewhat unique regarding things like regulation -- at least among highly developed nations.

So, I would agree with you that we are risk takers in that we employ less regulation in our markets -- which allows for more volatility in the business cycle, but I don't think that's a good thing a lot of the time.

On the other hand, some would say our lack of regulation is a necessity because of the extent at which we choose to compete with industries in the developing world.

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

a 'well paid' middle-class worker in victorian britain (itself a minority) earned about £44 a year, that's about £2,800 in today's money.

most workers (61% average) made about 20p a week in today's money, and couldn't even hold a job for a year- 40% were "irregularly employed".

it's all fucking relative, as i keep saying. you shit on china to make yourself feel more comfortable... but they'll iron out the creases. we did.

Uzique, I understand your points, but so far, it seems like you're the one injecting the most emotion into this debate.  None of us have it out for China, but you seem abnormally defensive of their potential.  What gives?...

i welcome our red overlords with wide-open and eagerly anticipating arms

lol...  I wasn't implying that.  But seriously, I understand China has a lot of potential.  I think the big question will be when they actually reach a point where they are the world's largest economy.  There's still quite a gap between them and America, for example.

all im stating is that the point of their maturity and 'coming of age' will happen. people seem to enjoy focussing on what's holding them back, in tiny amounts. but the fact is there's a big red wave surging out at sea and it's gonna break upon the shore of western progress preeeeetty soon.

WOW... at john... using GDP as an assessment of a communist state. hahahaha.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-08-12 11:29:32)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I can't speak for Varegg, but regulation is more responsible for stability than growth.  Growth is generally based around resources and trade policies.  Ideally, regulation just serves as a safeguard against abuses and exploits of the system that can be detrimental to long term growth.

My argument is that America, like any other nation, needs some regulation to keep things stable.  Norway serves as an example where regulation has worked quite well in keeping them stable.

and yet you address nothing of my response to Varegg and his claims and his "proof". Norway is stable not because of govt. regulation but because they risk nothing, and ride the backs of those that do.

It's funny that you claim that.  Do you realize just how unstable of a proposition that is?  Sure, as a smaller nation, you can be more opportunistic, but if Norway truly just "rode on the backs of risk-takers", that would actually make them about as vulnerable as the risk takers themselves -- if not more so.

Norway's weakness is that it isn't especially diversified as an economy.  It currently doesn't have to be, but when its oil and gas run out, they will have to depend on other industries they don't currently have as much of a stake in.  Right now, the risk they are taking is basing their economy on a dwindling resource.  I'm sure they will gradually shift more emphasis to other sectors of their economy as time passes, but again, you can't say they aren't risk takers.

America takes the risks that it does because of its power level.  If we were the size of Norway, we'd probably be a lot less involved in world affairs, and we'd have a tiny military budget.  So, it's not some uniquely American trait that makes us risk takers, although you could say that our mindset is somewhat unique regarding things like regulation -- at least among highly developed nations.

So, I would agree with you that we are risk takers in that we employ less regulation in our markets -- which allows for more volatility in the business cycle, but I don't think that's a good thing a lot of the time.



On the other hand, some would say our lack of regulation is a necessity because of the extent at which we choose to compete with industries in the developing world.

Gotta disagree, because as Norway rides the coat tails of other nations, when those risks go south all Norway has to do is cut lose and minimize damage while those that took the risk get buried.

Again, he claims Norway's "hicup" in its economy is a direct result of govt. control...and then insinuates they are the model the rest of us should follow. This is bullshit. They had a hicup in their economy because their economy is nothing more than a fuckin hicup in world affairs to begin with.

Yes it may be by govt. design, but hey, someone has to lead the way and sure as FUCK ain't FUCKIN" Norway.