Finally... > General Discussion
Armchair Economics Thread - Re-Resurrection
McTraveller:
So many conversations in other threads end up talking about economics. It's probably about time we have a dedicated thread for it.
Minimum wage, UBI, everyone-owns-everything, nobody-owns-anything, monetary theory, employment, AI, tax theory, cash is king, but barter is ace! Have at it, for this one low-low price!
EDIT: I guess I should have proposed an initial discussion... how about this one, from reading some other recent threads:
Under what conditions is advertising a net economic benefit and/or when does it become a detriment? Some alternative phrasing: is all advertising bad, or can it be good? I'm personally astonished that some of the biggest companies today by revenue are simply advertising companies.
WealthyRadish:
--- Quote from: McTraveller on January 26, 2020, 07:56:50 am ---Under what conditions is advertising a net economic benefit and/or when does it become a detriment? Some alternative phrasing: is all advertising bad, or can it be good? I'm personally astonished that some of the biggest companies today by revenue are simply advertising companies.
--- End quote ---
I think originally the most apparent argument in favor of permitting the existence of commercial advertisement is that it can be used to stimulate consumption of new products, giving companies greater power and incentive to create new markets.
The more obvious argument today in favor it would be that it facilitates a massive new digital market in services that are free to the user but paid for by advertisement.
Personally I think both these justifications are a crock of grade A horseshit, and it should be banned or restricted to purely local physical spaces.
Loud Whispers:
What do you guy think of the Jevons paradox? I learned about it when I encountered 3 dozen Chinese men named Jevon who didn't know why they were named Jevon. It took much searching and the Jevon's paradox was the only thing close to explaining the Jevonspiracy.
Basically the paradox goes that when technological advances make power output of machines more efficient, thus reducing consumption of fuel/electricity, it stands to reason that consumption goes down. Yet the consumption increases, because the owner of the new efficient machines reduce their costs by consuming less, and thus use their new funds to expand operations & make more money.
So how do you get investors to stop expanding operations within a capitalistic model, given that "green" innovations which increase efficiency or renewable energy production will not stop human investors from increasing absolute output & absolute consumption? And if the paradox cannot be resolved within a capitalist model, what modifications or changes are to be made?
MrRoboto75:
--- Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 26, 2020, 05:59:54 pm ---So how do you get investors to stop expanding operations within a capitalistic model, given that "green" innovations which increase efficiency or renewable energy production will not stop human investors from increasing absolute output & absolute consumption? And if the paradox cannot be resolved within a capitalist model, what modifications or changes are to be made?
--- End quote ---
Capitalism wants infinite growth to please investors with new short term profits.
MetalSlimeHunt:
it's almost as if capitalism is bad
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version