econ101user t1_j61bvlq wrote on January 27, 2023 at 12:28 AM

Reply to comment by Tearakan in IBM Cuts 3,900 Jobs In Latest Tech Layoffs by itsonlyeva

> Our GDP is the best on the planet in the US.

Did you even bother to do a 10 second google before opening your mouth hole? The US is not the number one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

But even your incorrect cherry picking isn't a valid counterpoint to a correlation.

That's like saying "no height doesn't matter for success in basketball. My uncle is 6'6" and sucks at hoops".

> As just one example of better lives.

Cool bro. Guess what we're not just picking single examples like US and healthcare.

Look at this data plot and stop talking https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index-vs-gdp-per-capita

> Wage growth for the majority of Americans has not beat inflation

What does that have to do with anything? You think because eggs are more expensive that economic growth isn't linked to quality of life? Are you just shouting out random grievances?

> Yeah maybe look up climate change. It's a civilization ender. Especially if we can't farm because of wildly swinging temperatures and weather.

Okay what's your point? You think our choices are: grow the economy or solve climate change? That's a talking point created by fossil fuel industry interests to scare people into supporting measures to address it, staging a shift from carbon emitting activity as damaging to the economy. It's been refuted very well yet here we have not only right wing idiots believing it but left wing ones too. That's hilarious.

Tearakan t1_j61g14l wrote on January 27, 2023 at 12:58 AM

By overall GDP we are. I only went into GDP per capita when discussing actual effects on the population.

My argument about climate change is we can't keep global capitalism which is defined by endless economic growth. That's incompatible with actually surviving climate change.

Endless economic growth requires either energy increasing endlessly or increasing efficiency.

We literally cannot get to 100 percent efficiency thanks to thermodynamics.

And endlessly demanding more energy will just lead us back to climate change and resource depletion on this planet.

Finally, healthcare and life expectancy are two very important parts of a good human life. You can't just throw them away from the whole "people are getting better due to increasing GDP" argument.

econ101user t1_j61ixnx wrote on January 27, 2023 at 1:20 AM

> By overall GDP we are.

Why on gods green earth would you think that mattered?

> My argument about climate change is we can't keep global capitalism which is defined by endless economic growth.

So this is just all blather. Capitalism isn't defined by endless growth. Go find a book that defines it as such. Seriously stop talking and go find a book, open it and read it.

>That's incompatible with actually surviving climate change

Why?

> Endless economic growth requires either energy increasing endlessly or increasing efficiency. We literally cannot get to 100 percent efficiency thanks to thermodynamics.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

So let me get this straight. Your argument is that based on your made up definition that capitalism requires infinite growth, that will require infinite energy which violates the laws of thermodynamics ergo capitalism is causing climate change.

Be honest with me: are you a teenager? You need to stop. You're just saying dumber and dumber shit.

> Finally, healthcare and life expectancy are two very important parts of a good human life. You can't just throw them away from the whole "people are getting better due to increasing GDP" argument.

I didn't throw them away. Theyre in the HDI. I just didn't cherry pick like you did.

I'm going to make this straight for you: economic growth is not a bad thing. It's strongly correlated with human living conditions. A growing economy is not one that is incompatible with policies that mitigate the growth and impacts of climate change. Or in crayon: more money in the system is better for everyone, you should try to make it more fair but overall it's a good thing. You can make money off non-carbon producing activities. The technology exists today to meet the overwhelm majority of energy needs currently provided by fossil fuels. It is a policy problem, not an economic one.