Yet Another Charming Economic Theory: Negative Economies of Scale
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

alt.philosophy Profile…
 Up
Yet Another Charming Economic Theory: Negative Economies of Scale         


Author: BretCahill
Date: Jun 24, 2008 17:02

>> The issue here is _growth_ rates.
>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.

If that were true Somalia would have the highest growth rate on the
planet.

Care to try again?

Bret Cahill
33 Comments
Re: Yet Another Charming Economic Theory: Negative Economies of Scale         


Author: BretCahill
Date: Jun 24, 2008 20:08

At least this one wasn't so disreputable as to try to change the
headers.
>>>> The issue here is _growth_ rates.
>>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>>> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
>> If that were true Somalia would have the highest growth rate on the
>> planet.
>> Care to try again?
> Once you understand the difference between something that is easier to
> achieve and something that is a certainty.

And?
> Somalia certainly would be better off if they weren't in civil war, for
> example. �And if they had a better economic infrastructure, and a
> capitalist system.

Then it was clearly moronic to say small economies have higher growth
rates.
> But they'd only have the "highest" rate in the world if they were the
> smallest country in the world,
Show full article (1.19Kb)
no comments
Re: Yet Another Charming Economic Theory: Negative Economies of Scale         


Author: Bret Cahill
Date: Jun 24, 2008 20:56

The more they dodge . . .
>> At least this one wasn't so disreputable as to try to change the
>> headers.
>>>>>> The issue here is �growth �rates.
>>>>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>>>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>>>>> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
>>>> If that were true Somalia would have the highest growth rate on the
>>>> planet.
>>>> Care to try again?
>>> Once you understand the difference between something that is easier to
>>> achieve and something that is a certainty.
>> And?

Notice the dodge?
>>> Somalia certainly would be better off if they weren't in civil war, for
>>> example. ?And if they had a better economic infrastructure, and a
>>> capitalist system.
>> Then it was clearly moronic to say small economies have higher growth
>> rates.
Show full article (1.24Kb)
no comments
Re: Yet Another Charming Economic Theory: Negative Economies of Scale         


Author: Bret Cahill
Date: Jun 24, 2008 21:35

> And as far as economics are concerned! �It's called "economies of
> scale." �

You mean _negative_ economies of scale.

The economic theory is/was,

"It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller."

Let us admit it: No one can find gems this funny anywhere else on the
planet!

Bret Cahill
no comments
Re: Yet Another Charming Economic Theory: Negative Economies of Scale         


Author: tg
Date: Jun 25, 2008 04:06

On Jun 25, 12:25 am, Larry y.com> wrote:
> In article
> <79a34bff-19e7-46e2-a60e-cfe648771...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>  Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The more they dodge . . .
>
> We don't know who you're accusing of dodging since you obstinately
> insist on snipping the attribution information from your posts...
>
>
>
>>>> At least this one wasn't so disreputable as to try to change the
>>>> headers.
>
>>>>>>>> The issue here is ?growth ?rates.
>
>>>>>>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>
>>>>>>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate. ...
Show full article (2.48Kb)
no comments
Re: Yet Another Charming Economic Theory: Negative Economies of Scale         


Author: Bret Cahill
Date: Jun 25, 2008 05:20

> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.

The Chinese have an _enduring_ 8%% growth rate while we have an
_enduring_ recession.

Do the math: ln(4)/ln(1.08) = 18

In less than 18 years we will be smaller than China.

Bret Cahill
no comments
Re: Yet Another Charming Economic Theory: Negative Economies of Scale         


Author: Bret Cahill
Date: Jun 25, 2008 06:06

>>> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
>> The Chinese have an _enduring_ 8%% growth rate while we have an
>> _enduring_ recession.
> How long has their growth rate been 8%%?

At least 2 decades and they are now moving into high tech.
> How long do you claim we've been in a recession?

Our recession just started. 80%% of Americans seem to believe it is
permanent.
>> Do the math: �ln(4)/ln(1.08) = 18
>> In less than 18 years we will be smaller than China.
> So move to China.

The political situation in the U. S. will deteriorate along with the
economy and they'll start using some of the 50,000 nukes on other
countries.

With globalization everyone must be free, not just the Chinese.

Bret Cahill
no comments
Re: Yet Another Charming Economic Theory: Negative Economies of Scale         


Author: ZerkonX
Date: Jun 25, 2008 06:18

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:35:27 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
> "It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller."

growth rate and economy are linked by resources.
no comments
Re: Yet Another Charming Economic Theory: Negative Economies of Scale         


Author: The Trucker
Date: Jun 25, 2008 07:03

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:18:09 +0000, ZerkonX wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:35:27 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>> "It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller."
>
> growth rate and economy are linked by resources.

What is the definition of "economic growth" and why is it necessarily
"good"? If the amount of constant value money moving around in the
economy is the definition of economic growth then I would posit that this
is not necessarily good and can actually be quite bad. It can be quite
bad even expressed as a per capita value. To my way of thinking, the
objective of political economics is to increase the well being of the
middle class. The GDP can soar as we all work 2 or 3 jobs. But that is
certainly not indicative of a "good" economy. So economic growth as
measured by GDP is fascist pig shit.
Show full article (1.16Kb)
no comments
Re: Yet Another Charming Economic Theory: Negative Economies of Scale         


Author: presidentbyamendment
Date: Jun 25, 2008 07:43

On Jun 24, 8:02 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>>> The issue here is _growth_ rates.
>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
>
> If that were true Somalia would have the highest growth rate on the
> planet.
>
> Care to try again?
>
> Bret Cahill

Of course it's true. It's also easier to innovate, and numerous small
companies
are more survivable than one big one.
no comments
1 2 3 4