Is the GDP corporatist propaganda?

[geoffrey]

The only problem I have with the GDP is it counts both gains and losses as an increase in the GDP. It needs to be adjusted according to debt (personal, business, and government) to really mean anything. You can see billions of dollars moving through an economy, but if it was all borrowed, it's just smoke and mirrors.

When you borrow money, thats still real money, its just someone else lending it to you through a broker (ie. bank or credit card company). Investment is a key ingredient in a strong economy.

If no one borrowed, our standard of living overall would be 3rd world.

[August1991]

This thread has taken a comical turn. One person's "debt" is another person's "investment".

Indeed, it may seem like smoke-and-mirrors that a young family can take "possession" of a nice, fully furnished, 2-car garage bungalow.

The Christian says: "The End is Nigh!" The Calvinist says: "Live not beyond your means!"

Ugh.

[speaker]

The real price of oil isn't dropping. The real price of oil includes not just recovery costs but a depletion allowance and environmental impact costs. The real price hasn't changed significantly since the first barrel bubbled up. This is another reason why gdp does not reflect the economic world,

Of what use is a system of measurement that recognizes borrowed money as a benefit to society but does not recognize lent money as a debit item. The only net change is the interest.

August 1991 is it the Calvinist that says "live not beyond your means" or is it the conservative. I can agree with your definition of sustainable. It must be that you haven't travelled much if you think we are leaving this place better than when we found it, that we may extend our princely lifestyle to other peoples.

[geoffrey]

This thread has taken a comical turn. One person's "debt" is another person's "investment".

Indeed, it may seem like smoke-and-mirrors that a young family can take "possession" of a nice, fully furnished, 2-car garage bungalow.

The Christian says: "The End is Nigh!" The Calvinist says: "Live not beyond your means!"

Ugh.

I'm a Christian that doens't believe the end is nigh.

The real price of oil isn't dropping. The real price of oil includes not just recovery costs but a depletion allowance and environmental impact costs. The real price hasn't changed significantly since the first barrel bubbled up. This is another reason why gdp does not reflect the economic world,

Of what use is a system of measurement that recognizes borrowed money as a benefit to society but does not recognize lent money as a debit item. The only net change is the interest.

August 1991 is it the Calvinist that says "live not beyond your means" or is it the conservative. I can agree with your definition of sustainable. It must be that you haven't travelled much if you think we are leaving this place better than when we found it, that we may extend our princely lifestyle to other peoples.

I think we all agree that the real price of oil has gone up. This is good, encourages people to find other fuels or sources of energy.

Actually, the GDP sees lent money as investment, and borrowed money in consumption, so indeed both are covered!

[Hicksey]

I think we all agree that the real price of oil has gone up. This is good, encourages people to find other fuels or sources of energy.

Its all fine and dandy that higher fuel prices will force people to find and use alternative(renewable) fuel sources. But high fuel prices hurt the economy. Mostly the working poor. By allowing fuel prices to rise you're taking disposable income from the pockets of the middle class. Same with hydro prices and nautral gas prices. Its turning people that used to go out into people that can no longer afford it. Its turning people that used to eat out to people that eat in. Its turning people that used to go shopping into people that only buy out of need because they have no other money to spend.

Keep this up and our world class economy will go down the crapper. We got to where we are economically over the last decade on the back of reasonable commodity prices.

Its no wonder we need daycare these days. Its no wonder when little Johnny screws up that people ask the inevitable "Where were the parents?" Mom AND Dad have to work to afford what they could afford on just Dad's salary 15 years ago.

[Riverwind]

Mostly the working poor. By allowing fuel prices to rise you're taking disposable income from the pockets of the middle class.

We have a myth in our society that our standard of living can only go up. I expect that most people will find their standard of living will drop in the next few decades because of higher enegry costs. This does not necessarily have to be bad - most people in the 50s lived in smaller houses and spent a lot less on entertainment/restuarants and only had one vehicle per family. At the time, people did not consider themselves deprived.

[quinton]

I watched an episode of 60 minutes recently with some Governor of Montana who is called "The Coal Cowboy".

He was strongly advocating to not burn coal, but convert it into a diesel equivalent fuel and burn it in diesel vehicles.

This was done before by Germans and South Africans during their wars apparently and uses the Fischer-Tropsch process which would produce twice as much C02 (green house gases) as normal gas or diesel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process

Anyway he said that as long as oil is over $30/barrell that this economically is a no-brainer. He says the valleys of Montanna rivers (I think in the NE part of the state -could be wrong) are loaded with coal.

Harvesting the coal would have detrimental environmental impacts, but he brushes them off as benign and says that all the mines would be restored to their original condition (Sounds absurd when you think about the Alberta tar sands and what a wasteland they are now).

Anyway my point is that originally I thought we'd be much further ahead when oil ran out. I think although oil and gas could be gone within 30 years, coal won't be and neither will the prospect of nuclear power or burning wood to generate electricity even to power cars.

So unfortunately people may very well try to keep up their "growth" until the planet is even more degraded and more species will become extinct.

Geoffrey I should have known you were a Christian. They are typically the ones who don't care about the damage to the earth and don't see any problems with our ways. After all, they have a big daddy in the sky to look after them.

Most religions are not based on respect for the land. Christianity is a good example of a religion that not only fosters irrational thought (as all religions do) but also exudes a complete disrespect for the earth and nature.

[Bryan]

When you borrow money, thats still real money, its just someone else lending it to you through a broker (ie. bank or credit card company). Investment is a key ingredient in a strong economy.

Two people have the same income. One has a huge house, and a huge mortgage. The other has a modest home, but it's paid for. The one living large appears to be very well off, while the other appears to be a pauper. That's smoke and mirrors.

When you have a country like the US where they owe trillions to foreign interests (and continue mounting 70% of their accruing deficits from foreign investors), the only investment benefit is to the out of country lender. To the US, it's just debt, yet that spending gets counted as a positive with regard to GDP when it should be counted as a negative. The ratio of debt to GDP tells you a lot more about the health of a country's economy than the absolute GDP does.

If no one borrowed, our standard of living overall would be 3rd world.

In moderation, a certain measure of debt can make sense.The dose makes the poison. If you don't produce anything of value, and you insist on living beyond your means (like the US), debt is pretty much your only option if you want more stuff. It doesn't make you more well off. On the other hand, Alberta is now debt free, and their standard of living is pretty good.

Besides, mounting debt is a huge reason why many third world countries remain where they are (of course social and political turmoil certainlt hasn't helped). It's to the point where it's literally impossible for some of them to pay even the interest, let alone the principle. What would you have them do, borrow MORE to solve that problem? Like Preston Manning used to say, "if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging."

[geoffrey]

When you borrow money, thats still real money, its just someone else lending it to you through a broker (ie. bank or credit card company). Investment is a key ingredient in a strong economy.

Two people have the same income. One has a huge house, and a huge mortgage. The other has a modest home, but it's paid for. The one living large appears to be very well off, while the other appears to be a pauper. That's smoke and mirrors.

When you have a country like the US where they owe trillions to foreign interests (and continue mounting 70% of their accruing deficits from foreign investors), the only investment benefit is to the out of country lender. To the US, it's just debt, yet that spending gets counted as a positive with regard to GDP when it should be counted as a negative. The ratio of debt to GDP tells you a lot more about the health of a country's economy than the absolute GDP does.

I would still argue that the person with the big house has a higher standard of living. Eventually they will pay it off, and they'll come out of the transaction with a much larger chunk of assests.

Nonetheless, people living outside their means isn't what I'm advocating. Everyone borrows hundreds of thousands over their lifetime, and its this responsible borrowing that makes us all more well off.

Not to mention lending to businesses, which is the most important factor in this...

If no one borrowed, our standard of living overall would be 3rd world.

In moderation, a certain measure of debt can make sense.The dose makes the poison. If you don't produce anything of value, and you insist on living beyond your means (like the US), debt is pretty much your only option if you want more stuff. It doesn't make you more well off. On the other hand, Alberta is now debt free, and their standard of living is pretty good.

Besides, mounting debt is a huge reason why many third world countries remain where they are (of course social and political turmoil certainlt hasn't helped). It's to the point where it's literally impossible for some of them to pay even the interest, let alone the principle. What would you have them do, borrow MORE to solve that problem? Like Preston Manning used to say, "if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging."

From a national point of view I somewhat agree too... running deficits as a matter of policy is not a great move. Same point of view applies to a family... if they have a balanced budget, borrowing money for major projects, or even to re-invest, is really no big deal at all.

The third world isn't a far example, because they've destroyed themselves beyond repair fiscally through corruption, not reasonable spending. It's not just the third world, look at Mexico or New Zeland as 2nd world examples of these types of problems.

Only borrow to pay for things to that increase revenues, never for things that increase expenditures.

[geoffrey]

So unfortunately people may very well try to keep up their "growth" until the planet is even more degraded and more species will become extinct.

Geoffrey I should have known you were a Christian. They are typically the ones who don't care about the damage to the earth and don't see any problems with our ways. After all, they have a big daddy in the sky to look after them.

Most religions are not based on respect for the land. Christianity is a good example of a religion that not only fosters irrational thought (as all religions do) but also exudes a complete disrespect for the earth and nature.

What a ridiculous statement. Actually I am quite the environmentalist, so you would know if you read more of my posts by jumping to such a conclusion.

Determining someone's outlook based on religion is outright bigotry. I'd rather wish you would stop with type of needless dscrimination. Thanks.

Changing the definition of economic growth won't save anything, sorry. If theres money to be made, people are going to make it. Work with the business people to save the environment, not against them.

[Hicksey]

Mostly the working poor. By allowing fuel prices to rise you're taking disposable income from the pockets of the middle class.

We have a myth in our society that our standard of living can only go up. I expect that most people will find their standard of living will drop in the next few decades because of higher enegry costs. This does not necessarily have to be bad - most people in the 50s lived in smaller houses and spent a lot less on entertainment/restuarants and only had one vehicle per family. At the time, people did not consider themselves deprived.

And what about people that don't have those things? Are we doomed to live paycheck to paycheck? And what about those who live paycheck to paycheck now?

[speaker]

I think that this is what environmentalists like Suzuki are arguing for. given that we are using up our resources like fuel faster than we should, how many ways are there that we can save energy, save expense, and save the environment at the same time.

-Conservation first.

-Developing appropriate energies for each specific location and use.

-Minimizing costs to society and individuals

That is not to say that we can make an ecologic/economic change without expense, but rather that the costs will be far worse if we don't.

[Hicksey]

I think that this is what environmentalists like Suzuki are arguing for. given that we are using up our resources like fuel faster than we should, how many ways are there that we can save energy, save expense, and save the environment at the same time.

-Conservation first.

-Developing appropriate energies for each specific location and use.

-Minimizing costs to society and individuals

That is not to say that we can make an ecologic/economic change without expense, but rather that the costs will be far worse if we don't.

My heat is nearly off most days because I can't afford $100 a month for natural gas. We wear sweaters and wool socks around the house. Short of living outdoors I cannot conserve more than that. I used to go for drives in the car as entertainment. I haven't been out for a drive 6 months. I drive to work (18 miles) and home and to the grocery store--that's it. I'd go for a smaller vehicle if I could afford to buy one, but my van gets 29MPG on the highway, so the savings would be negligable anyway. I've had to stop using my dishwasher. I've started wearing things like jeans twice before washing them so long as I don't sweat in them. During the summer months we air dry what we can.

I can't conserve more.

If prices keep going up, the one luxury I enjoy--this computer--will have to go.

Like it or not, there are a lot of people in my boat. Believe it or not, you're going to hurt the poor irreparably if a balance between economic sustenace and environmental measures isn't achieved.

[geoffrey]

I think that this is what environmentalists like Suzuki are arguing for. given that we are using up our resources like fuel faster than we should, how many ways are there that we can save energy, save expense, and save the environment at the same time.

-Conservation first.

-Developing appropriate energies for each specific location and use.

-Minimizing costs to society and individuals

That is not to say that we can make an ecologic/economic change without expense, but rather that the costs will be far worse if we don't.

My heat is nearly off most days because I can't afford $100 a month for natural gas. We wear sweaters and wool socks around the house. Short of living outdoors I cannot conserve more than that. I used to go for drives in the car as entertainment. I haven't been out for a drive 6 months. I drive to work (18 miles) and home and to the grocery store--that's it. I'd go for a smaller vehicle if I could afford to buy one, but my van gets 29MPG on the highway, so the savings would be negligable anyway. I've had to stop using my dishwasher. I've started wearing things like jeans twice before washing them so long as I don't sweat in them. During the summer months we air dry what we can.

I can't conserve more.

If prices keep going up, the one luxury I enjoy--this computer--will have to go.

Like it or not, there are a lot of people in my boat. Believe it or not, you're going to hurt the poor irreparably if a balance between economic sustenace and environmental measures isn't achieved.

Agreed Hicksey. These attitudes from so called environmentalists are from those so privledged that they don't understand that their goals would crush not only the working poor but the middle class as well. It will create a larger rich-poor divide, with the rich able to buy all the new regulated high priced equipment and fuels, and the less well off unable to function in society anymore.

Very dangerous path to go down.

[Hollus]

So unfortunately people may very well try to keep up their "growth" until the planet is even more degraded and more species will become extinct.

Geoffrey I should have known you were a Christian. They are typically the ones who don't care about the damage to the earth and don't see any problems with our ways. After all, they have a big daddy in the sky to look after them.

Most religions are not based on respect for the land. Christianity is a good example of a religion that not only fosters irrational thought (as all religions do) but also exudes a complete disrespect for the earth and nature.

What a ridiculous statement. Actually I am quite the environmentalist, so you would know if you read more of my posts by jumping to such a conclusion.

Determining someone's outlook based on religion is outright bigotry. I'd rather wish you would stop with type of needless dscrimination. Thanks.

Changing the definition of economic growth won't save anything, sorry. If theres money to be made, people are going to make it. Work with the business people to save the environment, not against them.

Geoffrey:

I cant believe you consider yourself an environmentalists! I have read many of your posts:playing in the rockies and depending on industry to reform itself does not make you an environmentalist, or even environmentaly concious. If you are 'quite the environmentalist' as you say, than why dont you make a few posts to address environmental concern, rather than being one of the loudist voices on the board defending industry and economic growth based on population growth and consumption?

You say: "These attitudes from so called environmentalists are from those so privledged that they don't understand that their goals would crush not only the working poor but the middle class as well."

What goals are you talking about? Sustainable development? good environmental stewardship? The pursuit of a better economic system?

You said:" Determining someone's outlook based on religion is outright bigotry. I'd rather wish you would stop with type of needless dscrimination. Thanks."

Does that only apply to descrimination towards your religion? Or is it alright to lump a bunch of opposing views into the term "so called environmentalists" and discredit them for being privilaged and ignorant without any explanations of why they're goals would:"create a larger rich-poor divide, with the rich able to buy all the new regulated high priced equipment and fuels, and the less well off unable to function in society anymore." Isnt that the direction we're currently headed?

By the way, organized religion is mind control. Spirituality is fine, but group ideology is a very dangerous path to go down.

[geoffrey]

Geoffrey:

I cant believe you consider yourself an environmentalists! I have read many of your posts:playing in the rockies and depending on industry to reform itself does not make you an environmentalist, or even environmentaly concious. If you are 'quite the environmentalist' as you say, than why dont you make a few posts to address environmental concern, rather than being one of the loudist voices on the board defending industry and economic growth based on population growth and consumption?

You say: "These attitudes from so called environmentalists are from those so privledged that they don't understand that their goals would crush not only the working poor but the middle class as well."

What goals are you talking about? Sustainable development? good environmental stewardship? The pursuit of a better economic system?

I personally think these goals can be reached within the capitalist system. However much I value the environment as a critical priority, I can't justify making people starve, sit in the cold or lose their job for needless environmental controls (like Kyoto).

Protect our water, protect our soil, ban poisions in the air (poisions are not CO2). Thats an environmentalist I could support. At the same time, realise that industry is responsible for our current privledged lifestyle.

You said:" Determining someone's outlook based on religion is outright bigotry. I'd rather wish you would stop with type of needless dscrimination. Thanks."

Does that only apply to descrimination towards your religion? Or is it alright to lump a bunch of opposing views into the term "so called environmentalists" and discredit them for being privilaged and ignorant without any explanations of why they're goals would:"create a larger rich-poor divide, with the rich able to buy all the new regulated high priced equipment and fuels, and the less well off unable to function in society anymore." Isnt that the direction we're currently headed?

I explained clearly why it would create a larger rich-poor divide. The rich can buy the new products and fuels that cost much more from regulation, and the poor lose their jobs and can't afford more expensive items when they can barely afford to survive as is.

Taxing or fining companies makes them charge more for their products, to the point where only rich people can afford them.

Is it the direction we are heading? Not really. Gasoline prices have increased slower than inflation, gas is cheaper now than in the 60's and its also unleaded. Consumers benifet from lower prices, and the environment benifets from no lead. The companies paid the cost of unleading gas now, through whatever means they needed to to stay competitive! It's a brilliant example of how the capitalist system works perfectly from an environmental perspective.

By the way, organized religion is mind control. Spirituality is fine, but group ideology is a very dangerous path to go down.

Believe what you wish, I really don't feel like being lectured to about my religious beliefs, which do happen to be more spiritual and theological oriented than following the book line by line. I make my own judgements based on what I've read, I just happen to believe in Jesus and the Church. I don't see a reasonable criticism of my religous beliefs as I've never used to them to justify anything I've ever said on these forums. I'm purely secular to anyone else and in my political views, my religion or spirituality is a completely private matter between myself and God. This is actually the first time here I've spoke in detail beyond just the Chrsitian definition. I'd like to keep it my last.

[quinton]

Hollus, I don't think geoffrey will ever make sense.

This statement takes a new prize for stupidity:

Gasoline prices have increased slower than inflation, gas is cheaper now than in the 60's and its also unleaded. Consumers benifet from lower prices, and the environment benifets from no lead. The companies paid the cost of unleading gas now, through whatever means they needed to to stay competitive! It's a brilliant example of how the capitalist system works perfectly from an environmental perspective.

Who cares about the oil spills? Nevermind the government subsidies to get gas as cheap as it is today.

Oh and you say gasoline was more expensive in 1960 than today?

Seems hard to believe when oil adjusted for inflation was $20/barrel in 1960 and $50/barrel in 2006.

http://www.fintrend.com/ftf/images/charts/...ation_chart.htm

Could it be that oil was cheaper in 1960 than 2006, but gasoline wasn't?

Nope sorry Geoffrey, you're still wrong.

They follow each other in a tight correlation:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2005/gas_tax-e.html

Next time do your research before you cite your rubbish and include a reference to your information.

Hollus, thanks for putting Geoffrey in his place again.

[Hollus]

geoffre said:“I personally think these goals can be reached within the capitalist system. However much I value the environment as a critical priority, I can't justify making people starve, sit in the cold or lose their job for needless environmental controls (like Kyoto).”

I don’t disagree with this statement. I think where our viewpoints diverge is on what form of a capitalist system we endorse. I’m sure you have a better understanding of the intricacies of economics than I, as that is your area of study. My understanding of the topic has been shaped mostly from direct relation to pulp and paper industry, upon which my hometown of twenty years was built; as well as a healthy dose of left and right propaganda.

My basic idea is this: Markets are a human construct but they are the result of human action, not human design. Markets emerge as an unintended consequence of the pursuit of self-interest. Therefore, markets are created by consumers who choose between competing alternatives. This competition drives innovation and technology as market competitors strive to be the best. All capital is initially derived from natural resources; labor adds value in the process of production; consumers facilitate the process by providing a market.

This is the inevitable process by which modern human societies,(from earliest trade to space age) interact as individuals and groups within a society and as a species with their environment. The cause is the driving force of self interest; and, the effect is the unavoidable markets and institutions that result.

The field of economics has grown out of the observation and management of this process to include a wide range of theories and practices, all of which have determining effects on societal structure and ecological impact. As I understand, the difference between the varying ideologies, differ to the point of how much intervention is used in managing supply and demand, and by what techniques are used in the distribution of wealth. At one extreme you have a government controlled economy at the other you have an economy controlled by those who own capital.

Between these two extremes, lay the fertile ground in which a healthy democracy may be built. As democracy depends upon the art of compromise, its success is dependent on its actors’ ability to represent their best interests. It is in this ability to represent ones interest that I find the inequities that contributes to miss-management by our current democratic system. Alex Carey wrote: “The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance, the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.” In the US alone, more than a trillion dollars is spent each year in a conscious campaign, referred to as ‘marketing’. The goal is to teach you to be a docile employee and an isolated consumer, motivated by a social status based on material consumption.

In a recent protest of bc government plans for a new freeway through pristine wilderness to facilitate the 2010 Olympics, the council of west Vancouver approved funds for a PR contractor to guide the community on how to garner the most public attention to their cause(a less damaging option). The freeway planners cried foul play, as if it was unfair for a protest group to be allotted the means to equal representation. Was it foul play, or is it just leveling the playing field in the arena of free speech?

The corporate world as we know it depends on coerciveness. Noam Chomsky argues that: “The wealthy use free-market rhetoric to justify imposing greater economic risk upon the lower classes, while being insulated from the rigors of the market by the political and economic advantages that such wealth affords.” Is our current systems design, not socialism for the rich as Noam remarked: "Markets for the poor and state protection for the rich."

Geoffrey: You don’t believe in “making people starve, sit in the cold or lose their job for needless environmental controls (like Kyoto).”, well neither do I. However, millions of people are starving and homeless as a result of our trickle down economics. The resource derived capital that we live so comfortably on in north America comes from around the world. We capitalize on the desperation of those without the means of developing their own resources. The argument that these countries are to blame for their own miss management is a fallacy when you consider the political meddling we exercise by pacifying regions for corporate interest, of which there are many examples. One such example would be the exile of President Aristide out of Haiti: By providing weapons and political support to rebel factions through the guise of the International Republican Institute, the US(with the help of Canada and France) dethroned the socialist leaders government- which had been elected by an overwhelming majority- for corporate interest(more specifically mining).

I don’t believe that the transition to a more responsible egalitarian society has to be so drastic as to displace the lower and middle classes from what little they already have in comparison to those that control them. We just need to rethink our actions and developments as individuals and nations. Sure there will be concessions and compremise, but I imagine it would be much less drastic than those we will face when we collide with that brick wall Suzuki is talking about.