For more about non-separateness, check this guy –

Damn. This is not good and likely related to the confusion on the rest of the post. If a widget producer sells goods for consumption in his country, the consumer uses purchasing power. If the widget producer exports them, his country’s purchasing power is not affected.

At this point I feel like I am arguing with the echo of my own quotes taken out of context.

Those quotes are not out of context. The contention is those who “consume” more than they “produce” are a drain. Yet the stated goal is easier satisfaction of needs.

To clarify, are trust fund babies whose fathers were fabulously rich a “leak” or do the digits on their bank account balance make it not so? Are stay-at-home mothers a “leak,” or are they okay because their husband pays for them? Are children a “leak,” or are they okay because they are expected to be productive later, or because their parents pay, or because the state pays? Are the disabled a “leak,” or are they okay because of what could have been?

“Mal-investment. Mal- according to whom?”

According to the bust at the end of the boom. Is this even a serious question?

“Again, It’s as if many do not realize the “economic” models you employ are often damn near mutually exclusive from each other, yet they are used in the same analysis. ”
Is there a point you are trying to make? Cause I am not getting it. You still haven’t pointed out precisely how are the “models” I am using mutually exclusive. Hell, you haven’t even pointed out the specific models you are talking about.

“but then…”
Srsly? Do I constantly have to guess what you are trying to say? Or are you just copy-pasting random quotes of mine just to annoy me?

At this point I feel like I am arguing with the echo of my own quotes taken out of context.

You can’t have economic growth without saving capital and investing the saved capital into production.

Exporting gets you the cash-flow from your production without consuming.

I never implied that investment just for the sake of invetment is a brilliant idea and we should start creating bubbles left and right. Mal-investment is always bad.

Mal-investment. Mal- according to whom?

What I was saying was that if production lags behind the rise in demand (consumption) and doesn’t catch up to it, your economical situation starts deteriorating.

x,y,z………..The whole supply and demand thing.

Again, It’s as if many do not realize the “economic” models you employ are often damn near mutually exclusive from each other, yet they are used in the same analysis.

——————-

With slightly more precise terms – people want to be richer so that they can achieve a greater satisfaction of their needs.

but then…

You can’t be ‘just’ a consumer. In order to be a consumer you need to be producing someting in the first place…….It is a parasite-host relationship that is beneficial only for the leak

If you let prices rise, yes, obviously no shortages. One of the beauties of democracy however is that shortages are often caused so that the electorate can be satisfied. Prices are kept low so that everyone is happy and by the time the shortage happens you are out of office. That was the scenario I had in mind. Yes, obviously if you let prices readjust at a higher level you will not get shortages. But you start getting growing levels of poverty and soon enough starvation if consumption keeps outpacing production.

“Is that supposed to read that if all countries were net exporter’s everything would be solved?!?”
Where did I imply this?

“Or is it supposed to read that countries should be investing in overcapacity and empty cities like China is accused of doing?”
I am not an expert on China’s economy but I am pretty sure those cities don’t remain empty for long. But no, obviously you shouldn’t be investing in pointless projects that can’t produce a sufficient return. Those are just a waste of capital. Those are bubbles. That’s why so many people are warning that China is a bubble, but since I lack research on the topic I can’t comment further.
I never implied that investment just for the sake of invetment is a brilliant idea and we should start creating bubbles left and right. Mal-investment is always bad. What I was saying was that if production lags behind the rise in demand (consumption) and doesn’t catch up to it, your economical situation starts deteriorating.

“Growing richer, for what?”
Why does anyone want to be richer? So that he lives better.
With slightly more precise terms – people want to be richer so that they can achieve a greater satisfaction of their needs.

as compared to what?

but the growth of production must always outpace the growth of consumption if you want to be able to consume more in the future and not less.

ok.

If the reverse is happening and is not fixed, your economy gets more and more strained, you get shortages, and at some point you end up in Africa.

High prices lead to shortages? What is meant by “gets strained?”

You can’t have economic growth without saving capital and investing the saved capital into production. I know that most mainstream economists (read: keynesian vodoo priests) seem to not get this basic fact, but it should be fairly obvious. (actually this stuff should be common sense to anyone who has any experience managing his own money)

Is that supposed to read that if all countries were net exporter’s everything would be solved?!? Or is it supposed to read that countries should be investing in overcapacity and empty cities like China is accused of doing? Or is it supposed that China is run by “keynesian vodoo priests” trying to make the change towards a consumption driven economy?

———————

I am most interested in your answer to this:

The incentive is that if it invests them it will become even richer and more productive in the future. THis is how we got here in the first place. Resources are being continuously re-invested in productive activities in order to make the process even more productive resulting in the economy growing richer.

Growing richer, for what?

There is no contradiction there. Yes, stuff is produced only so that it can be consumed (at least that’s how monkey economics work), but the growth of production must always outpace the growth of consumption if you want to be able to consume more in the future and not less. If the reverse is happening and is not fixed, your economy gets more and more strained, you get shortages, and at some point you end up in Africa.

You can’t have economic growth without saving capital and investing the saved capital into production.
I know that most mainstream economists (read: keynesian vodoo priests) seem to not get this basic fact, but it should be fairly obvious. (actually this stuff should be common sense to anyone who has any experience managing his own money)

and

If at some point the process is not reversed[…] the economy will soon collapse under the immense pressure of rapidly increasing consumption at the expense of production.

———————

The incentive is that if it invests them it will become even richer and more productive in the future. THis is how we got here in the first place. Resources are being continuously re-invested in productive activities in order to make the process even more productive resulting in the economy growing richer.

Growing richer, for what?

as if identity is not a product of evolution, as if communes are not competing, as if capitalism was inforced by individuals and not by the state…..

makes only sense in “your” anglosaxon worldview. lonely individuals maximazing their chances for survival.

but since your “civilazation” is in decline it is sounds convinient for you to fantasize about the emergence of AI that is assembling itself from the future, preferably through the agency of some lonely egomanical individual in order to disolve all “painfull” and “autoritarian” human bonds that, like autists, you can not feel.

……what kind of civilization proposes to exit…instead of fight?…what kind kind of civilization abandons the place where their dead are burried to live in techno-utopian-disneyland?