freediver wrote on Sep 5
th, 2024 at 4:05pm:
TGD:
Mainstream flat-earth economists say population increase increases demand and consumption, and hence GDP.
It does. But like the author, you completely miss the point.
Which is...?
Quote:Why? Because they tell the same truth that you do? You are inventing a strawman, so tell us what it is.
Typical FD confusion and obfuscation: mainstream neoclassical economists DON'T "tell the same truth as I do"; commonsense tells us there is no shortage of resources in our modern AI and IT economies which are a barrier to enabling increasing common prosperity - the barriers are political, NOT economic.
Note: you will have to tell us what the "stawman" is, before I can tell you what it is ......
Quote:"This means this measure of living standards has been falling for 18 months –"
Which is true - the question is: why is it so? There has been no loss of resources in Oz - despite the fact we plan to IMPORT gas - more political madness driven by neoclassical dunderheads who have zombified politicians' brains.
Quote:Hence, he misses the point. A recession in which living standards increase due to population decline is preferable to economic growth in which living standards decrease due to population growth. So yes, they would actually prefer a recession.
More narrative resulting from confused flat-earth neoclassical mainstream dogmas (and your zombified brain):
1. if living standards increase, there is no "recession" worth the name, regardless of whether the population is increasing or decreasing
2. economic growth which relies on population growth alone is unsustainable.
Quote:For TGD's benefit, economists acknowledge quite openly the limits of GDP as a measure of real wealth. My macroeconomics lecturer went through all sorts of ways in which it can fail to measure declining productivity and declining living standards. No-one who has actually studied economics says the things that you do.
Funny - the above is exactly what I am saying.
But what your 'macroeconomics' lecturer DIDN'T do was explain how governments can mobilize the nation's resources to achieve continuous increase in living standards, regardless of population growth rates.
Deplorable dummy that he was.
Quote: Unless they studied it at the CCP institute for anti-western propaganda.
Back to front again: the CCP is mostly listening to its Western-trained flat-earth neoclassical economists in charge of the PBofC, which is why China - even with its vast internal market - is suffering a marked slowdown in (real) economic growth (while Yellen is accusing China of industrial "over-capacity") because of US 'decoupling' efforts.
Quote: As the OP demonstrates, journalists do often miss the point completely.
You're not kidding. They are hooked on mainstream
'balanced budget' insanity, thinking the
currency-issuing government's budget is subject to the same restrictions as their own household budgets. And the mainstream neoclassical fools Bullock and 'Doctor' Chalmers are playing their silly "you are responsible" games - on their fat salaries, while Oz living standards are falling.
Quote: Don't confuse the two. Economists have gone to greater effort than any other profession to inform journalists and the public about the reality of what they teach.
No kidding; the flat-earthers have fooled most of us (including you)...
Quote: They need to, because communists like you and people who think intuition is a substitute for understanding (The Greens) always get the economics backwards.
That's the wrong reason why economists have "gone to all that effort"; not to mention economists are divided; eg the AI's Richard Dennis supports Green's policies (ie high taxes to support necessary government spending).
The real reason is they can't admit all that hard work at uni was based on obsolete economic fallacies re
'scarcity in the face of unlimited wants', the basis of neoclassical theory.
Forum
Pages: 
