Social Social Thread - Talk About Anything (You Are Allowed to Talk About)!

[asianaussie]

weeaboos and people who like anime/manga are far removed, mainly because weeaboos are shameless about it lol

 

[Gowa]

Anyways, like half my Japanese class is Koreans that only talk to each other and judge me for being half Korean and not being able to speak it all, and I still stuck with it :3

I don't know which is worse. Koreans judging you for not speaking Korean or those same Koreans wanting to learn Japanese.

lol

 

[The Star King]

Not sure what's wrong with the second one unless you're talking about the stupid Korean/Japanese hate.

 

[Gowa]

oh no but nevermind ^_^'

 

[blaze3927]

How did WWII increase America's standard of living? A detailed explanation of how sending people to die and diverting all production to tanks and bombs is going to increase standard of living. Is it going to be demand side explanations again?

How is the economy not driven by resources? I mean, in particular, Solow's model attributes long run economic growth to advances in technology. But resources, in the form of labor and capital, are important to the development and implementation of technology (plus capital accumulation can increase economic growth as well). At least you didn't explicitly bring up the broken window fallacy (yet).

I'm an econ minor by the way. I think I'm a little ahead of econ for dummies.



Your own source disagrees with you. Although I guess she does say that other economists agree lol. But they are still making a correlation causation mistake, or assuming that GDP is the end all of economic growth or using flawed Keynesian models.

WWII increasing standard of living in america, economically:

-US dollar become international standard, US GDP becomes huge percentage of worlds total.
More money, more jobs, less unemployment, baby boom. now it just comes down to what you define as" better" standard of living (bigger tv's? more technology? more money?)
because there was a lot more "wealth", and technology in america after WWII.

WWII increasing standard of living, socially:
Women
-over 6million women employed, from WWII women rights/power/equity go nowhere but up.

African Americans
-Not properly educated on this, but definitely a stronger push for equal rights after WWII for negroes.

The money institution vs resource based economy
- wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
resource - available source of wealth; a new or reserve supply that can be drawn upon when needed
Solow's model assume that we take the neo-classical economy approach. if you take it and I dont, which i dont, then it's a loop argument.
Keynesian was a standard in text books for ages, then debunked, then resurged. then debunked. No comment. as i could be eating my words in 5 years time.
Resource based economies assume that everything is in limited supply, the only problem with that, is that resources is moved by money. Money is NOT a resource
before I continue, have you read modern money mechanics? because a lot of my argument from here will presume you have read modern money mechanics, which explains in detail the creation of money/inflation/interest etc.

 

[Gammelnorsk]

i took japanese at school originally because i didnt get to go to the ninth grade due to medical stuff and when i was picking my classes for that year i wanted to take french

but it was full

so the counseler was like wow u should take japanese class the kids in it are really cool


little did i know that listening to her advice would cause me to have a deep hate for all things japan years later

 

[ballin4life]

WWII increasing standard of living in america, economically:

-US dollar become international standard, US GDP becomes huge percentage of worlds total.
More money, more jobs, less unemployment, baby boom. now it just comes down to what you define as" better" standard of living (bigger tv's? more technology? more money?)
because there was a lot more "wealth", and technology in america after WWII.

WWII increasing standard of living, socially:
Women
-over 6million women employed, from WWII women rights/power/equity go nowhere but up.

African Americans
-Not properly educated on this, but definitely a stronger push for equal rights after WWII for negroes.

The money institution vs resource based economy
- wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
resource - available source of wealth; a new or reserve supply that can be drawn upon when needed
Solow's model assume that we take the neo-classical economy approach. if you take it and I dont, which i dont, then it's a loop argument.
Keynesian was a standard in text books for ages, then debunked, then resurged. then debunked. No comment. as i could be eating my words in 5 years time.
Resource based economies assume that everything is in limited supply, the only problem with that, is that resources is moved by money. Money is NOT a resource
before I continue, have you read modern money mechanics? because a lot of my argument from here will presume you have read modern money mechanics, which explains in detail the creation of money/inflation/interest etc.

The things you mention aren't directly caused by the war. The US becoming the international standard was caused by the Bretton Woods agreement after the war, for example.

There was a large recovery in the US economy after the war, to be sure.

Anyway I'm saying that war itself is not an economic good. It's possible (although unlikely) for there to be secondary effects that actually are good for the economy - like if someone's war research leads them to discover a new type of battery or something (technological advances). The war itself is wasting resources and hurting the economy. This is seen clearly in war rationing, increased taxes to pay for the war, etc.

Money is in limited supply (although central banks can increase that supply), and at the time of WWII it was actually backed by gold (a resource). Anyway, any conception of economic activity will be based on transactions, where one side trades money for a good or service. War is going to limit transactions, because no goods or services are being produced besides guns, tanks, etc.

I know about the money creation process and what central banks do.

 

[DMoogle]

I know this has gone to far off topic. But if we move the discussion to the social thread, it gonna last 3 posts and then someone talks about how nice the weather is, or what kind of sandwich they are gonna buy on sunday. So my advice would be to just make a discussion thread here in the 64 section. Would that be okay? I dont know the rules for that, but it seems like a good solution.

In my experience, topics moved to the social thread DO continue their discussion, and I've seen discussion on one topic continue for over 100 posts in this thread. The 64 section is generally for 64 discussion. The General Discussion forums would be the place to start a new thread, if you feel so inclined.

EDIT: Oh, and I just moved a bunch of posts from that thread into here.

 

[Olikus]

In my experience, topics moved to the social thread DO continue their discussion, and I've seen discussion on one topic continue for over 100 posts in this thread. The 64 section is generally for 64 discussion. The General Discussion forums would be the place to start a new thread, if you feel so inclined.

EDIT: Oh, and I just moved a bunch of posts from that thread into here.

Okay I guess it can work. Wasnt totally sure about the rules, so had to ask

 

[Battlecow]

This is the only pro-USA argument that makes sense.

USA participating in the war caused the industry to boom. The people who weren't sent over to fight had job opportunities open up building weapons and such. The people who were sent over left jobs which were taken over by people who had none. It definitely helped. Plus everything that WOTG said, what a top lad!

OK so maybe you're right (although I tend to side with ballin'; his argument sounds more smarterer) and it helped us- I didn't deny that. It helped you guys more though, as evidenced by the fact that you still live in a country independent of Germany.

Battlecow: I think you'll find that the first computer was made by a German then developed further by the British, Electricity is a toss between an Italian and a Scotsman. Hilariously enough you failed to mention the internet, which was pretty much an American thing.

I specified PC. The personal computer was all Gates, AFAIK, and since you aren't typing on the ENIAC, I thought it was more relevant.

We've invented so many things that I sometimes lose count.

I don't know if you're being tongue in cheek (like I may or may not be)

I plead the fifth. Or whatever you limeys call it.

but seriously, the British Empire is one of the most important things to happen to the world, and that's a fact that cannot be argued.

I never attempted to argue it. You guys are mega-important. In fact, I'd say you're the second-most important nation currently in existence.

I think you can guess who #1 is.

 

[Ocean]

lol at american and british arguments.

I hope you both realize that this century is going to be controlled by the chinese, neither of you two.

 

[WOTG]

@Ballin, War is not good, people die and blow s*** up; everyone understands that... however it is not a coincidence that there was a massive economic growth following WWII. It is common knowledge that the War had large effects on many changes economically, socially, politically, and technologically for the world today.
Not every War is going to give us all massive results, but that one did.

@Battlecow, I doubt USA would be "top dog" if it weren't a nation separate but connected to Europe.

 

[blaze3927]

The things you mention aren't directly caused by the war. The US becoming the international standard was caused by the Bretton Woods agreement after the war, for example.

There was a large recovery in the US economy after the war, to be sure.

Anyway I'm saying that war itself is not an economic good. It's possible (although unlikely) for there to be secondary effects that actually are good for the economy - like if someone's war research leads them to discover a new type of battery or something (technological advances). The war itself is wasting resources and hurting the economy. This is seen clearly in war rationing, increased taxes to pay for the war, etc.

Money is in limited supply (although central banks can increase that supply), and at the time of WWII it was actually backed by gold (a resource). Anyway, any conception of economic activity will be based on transactions, where one side trades money for a good or service. War is going to limit transactions, because no goods or services are being produced besides guns, tanks, etc.

I know about the money creation process and what central banks do.

The Brenton Woods system was introduced almost directly because of wwII, the social factors were admittedly indirect.
The Brenton woods system was accepted by US allies in Europe to fund their trade, because most of europe was economically pushed to exhaustion.
This enabled US to have world economic dominance which carried through to the 21'st century.
So in America we have a huge increase in demand for workers,
-because of a number of the workforce leaving for war- still getting paid
-more job creation through production of food/ammunition/clothing/weapons/tanks

So There is now more money in peoples pockets.
So once the war finishes.
The average civillian can buy more things, like cars, which creates demand for cars. which means when the government hands back the automobile factory that was temporarily used to build tanks to it's owner, it has more business, which means he can employ more people.

a very crude example, but you get the point, they had paid workers in the factories and there wasn't a short supply of resources either. Your right in thinking that production of many things that you have in your house now (textiles/tv's/radios/ fridge's etc) dropped off during the War, but after it boomed.


A quote from Jacques Fresco
At the beginning of World War II the U.S. had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war

This resource driven boom was controlled, with price fixing etc.

 

[ballin4life]

@Ballin, War is not good, people die and blow s*** up; everyone understands that... however it is not a coincidence that there was a massive economic growth following WWII. It is common knowledge that the War had large effects on many changes economically, socially, politically, and technologically for the world today.
Not every War is going to give us all massive results, but that one did.

@Battlecow, I doubt USA would be "top dog" if it weren't a nation separate but connected to Europe.

It's not a coincidence, but it's still not a consequence of the war itself. The economy recovered after the war was over when the government contracted.

blaze,

Bretton woods happened in large part because of WWII, but that's certainly not the only reason (gold flows and stuff from before the war were also important). And it's still not a direct consequence of the war - obviously not every war leads to a monetary conference, so there must be other factors involved.

Lastly, the economy still isn't driven by demand. It's driven by supply to fill that demand. More money in people's pockets doesn't do anything unless there is a supply of things they can buy (equivalently, that prices are low enough for them to afford things).

I do agree that immediately after the war the US economy got back on track, but it wasn't because of the war, it was markets realigning themselves as government spending decreased.


If wars are so good for the economy, why not just fake a war right now? We could produce a bunch of tanks, bombs, and guns, but NOT actually kill anyone. Surely this would lead to an economic boom, right? Not really, because the money/resources (labor, capital) for this production have to come out of the private sector, reducing the production of actual goods.

 

[The Star King]

Lastly, the economy still isn't driven by demand. It's driven by supply to fill that demand. More money in people's pockets doesn't do anything unless there is a supply of things they can buy (equivalently, that prices are low enough for them to afford things).

Erm, I'm not exactly minoring in economics like you are, but isn't it obviously driven by both? >_> Both of them affect the price of any product, and there is no market for said product if either of these things don't exist.

 

[ciaza]

​

The views expressed in this comic are the views of the creator and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of myself, or my country. Ciarán makes no representation concerning
and does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of
any statement, information, data, finding, interpretation, advice, opinion, or view
presented.

Just thought they were funny =3

 

[ballin4life]

Erm, I'm not exactly minoring in economics like you are, but isn't it obviously driven by both? >_> Both of them affect the price of any product, and there is no market for said product if either of these things don't exist.

Obviously. There is no point in supplying things that people don't want (like bombs, tanks, guns, etc).

But the idea of stimulating demand in an economy is fundamentally misguided. People have the things they want, and firms should adjust to supply those things. The idea that we should adjust what people want (say by providing subsidies or tax benefits, like in the current housing market) ignores the purpose of the economy to supply what people actually want. If people don't want houses, you shouldn't try to stimulate demand for houses.

Similarly, just giving people extra money doesn't help the economy unless there is additional production of goods/services to exchange for that money. The money that a government can give people also has to come from somewhere, e.g. taxes or borrowing, and these both place additional burdens on the economy.

 

[#HBC | ѕoup]

hey guys

hey hey guys

what if

what if

now read me here

what if america stopped trying to get into everyones affairs?

also i haven't been paying attention to this mini debate hall but i digress.

 

[Sempiternity]

Hey!

Listen!

 

[WOTG]

It's not a coincidence, but it's still not a consequence of the war itself. The economy recovered after the war was over when the government contracted.

The economy was massively recovering during the war, and peaked afterwords.

Lastly, the economy still isn't driven by demand. It's driven by supply to fill that demand. More money in people's pockets doesn't do anything unless there is a supply of things they can buy (equivalently, that prices are low enough for them to afford things).

The economy is driven by productivity, which is driven from demand, which is accessed by supply.

I do agree that immediately after the war the US economy got back on track, but it wasn't because of the war, it was markets realigning themselves as government spending decreased.

Markets were able to get back on track because of the massive increase of production, giving more jobs, increases the rate of consumers giving more traffic to marketers, ensuing more jobs in the market.

If wars are so good for the economy, why not just fake a war right now? We could produce a bunch of tanks, bombs, and guns, but NOT actually kill anyone. Surely this would lead to an economic boom, right? Not really, because the money/resources (labor, capital) for this production have to come out of the private sector, reducing the production of actual goods.

It wouldn't make sense to massively produce those when there is no high demand for the war.

Obviously. There is no point in supplying things that people don't want (like bombs, tanks, guns, etc).

But the idea of stimulating demand in an economy is fundamentally misguided. People have the things they want, and firms should adjust to supply those things. The idea that we should adjust what people want (say by providing subsidies or tax benefits, like in the current housing market) ignores the purpose of the economy to supply what people actually want. If people don't want houses, you shouldn't try to stimulate demand for houses.

Similarly, just giving people extra money doesn't help the economy unless there is additional production of goods/services to exchange for that money. The money that a government can give people also has to come from somewhere, e.g. taxes or borrowing, and these both place additional burdens on the economy.

It was the effects of the depression and massive demand and propaganda for the war that had that effect on the economy. This is not the case with every war, and no one is saying that we need war to strength the economy. War CAN strength the economy given the correct circumstances.

hey guys

hey hey guys

what if

what if

now read me here

what if america stopped trying to get into everyones affairs?

also i haven't been paying attention to this mini debate hall but i digress.

Its one of those try and lets see things. The current Foreign Policy is there ultimately to ensue there are no more rising Hitlers... however there are a handful of countries who are upset because of Western interventions.

 

[ballin4life]

The economy was massively recovering during the war, and peaked afterwords.

According to what measure? GDP will be flawed because it will be based on government calculations of the values of tanks, bombs, etc. People's standard of living didn't increase during the war. It increased after.

The economy is driven by productivity, which is driven from demand, which is accessed by supply.

How is productivity driven from demand? It's more like demand defines what is productive, but it's supply that actually makes you productive.

Markets were able to get back on track because of the massive increase of production, giving more jobs, increases the rate of consumers giving more traffic to marketers, ensuing more jobs in the market.

There was a massive increase of production after the war. During the war, the production of tanks, bombs, etc. obviously increased, but the production of other things decreased because all the resources were used for the war effort.

It wouldn't make sense to massively produce those when there is no high demand for the war.

Obviously. But is there ever really demand for war? It's more like the government forces war upon everyone.

It was the effects of the depression and massive demand and propaganda for the war that had that effect on the economy. This is not the case with every war, and no one is saying that we need war to strength the economy. War CAN strength the economy given the correct circumstances.

What circumstances? The US is in a recession right now... are you saying that if people supported the war in Iraq/Afghanistan then the economy would be better? I just don't see how this is the case.

Its one of those try and lets see things. The current Foreign Policy is there ultimately to ensue there are no more rising Hitlers... however there are a handful of countries who are upset because of Western interventions.

A handful is putting it lightly. Also our foreign policy is part of what is making us go bankrupt. Maintaining tons of bases around the world is a huge expense, and especially silly in countries like Germany that are our allies and are stable.

 

[dandan]

If you go by the Keynesian economics (which of course is not empirically true, though it is really suited for a major economic depression, like the one the us was in) you would see that he thought that an increase in government spending will help raise the production, which in turn will raise the labor and the economy as an whole.

just for some simple numbers, at the start of the war, before the us took part, it spent (dollar values in billions of constant 1940 dollars)
1940 - 9.47$
and as the war continued
1944 - 72.62$

I guess that if you want to read more about it (though I have only read small portions), you can go here:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII

 

[Battlecow]

lol at american and british arguments.

I hope you both realize that this century is going to be controlled by the chinese, neither of you two.

One of these days, they'll make a move on Taiwan, and then we'll see. I wouldn't count America out just yet. When was the last time a Chinese person invented something? Oh right, gunpowder. More than a thousand years ago.

Although to be perfectly honest, the main objection I have to this theory is that I hear it- this is an honest estimate- somewhere around 3-4 times every day, expressed with different degrees of fervor and sincerity.

​

Wait, so because we both have great actors, musicians, scientists, writers, etc., and we both have had good leaders and bad leaders and good moments historically and bad moments historically, we're exactly the same? For Christ's sake, you could say the same things about China, and it's a totalitarian dictatorship that wakes up every morning and takes massive ****s on human rights. And who here linked their own worth to that of their country? Dumb comic.

 

[asianaussie]

I can't see the comic because CHINA HAS BLOCKED IMAGE SITES lol selective media too good

China is going to rise, whether America likes it or not. What aren't you counting America out of? Control of the century? America will never be weak, what with it's thousand or so nukes. On the other hand, it won't ever be the powerhouse it was in the last century, not with China on the horizon.

Spoiler

Eventually America is going to ragequit and nuke the world, and when that happens, remember I called it.

 

[ciaza]

This is true. If there is one thing the science-fiction show Firefly has taught us is that we will all speak Chinese in the future (if only to curse).

My call though is that Japan has some crazy high-tech device ready to hold the world captive at any time.

 

[WOTG]

According to what measure? GDP will be flawed because it will be based on government calculations of the values of tanks, bombs, etc. People's standard of living didn't increase during the war. It increased after.

That reason for the GDP to be flawed makes no sense to me. The GDP is determined by the rate of Production, regardless of what it is. Food and other household items are always being produced. The fact that people were being given more jobs because of the demand and increase in production(even just for weapons), made it more better for markets to flourish. Increasing "right" after, how's that doubting the war had influence?

How is productivity driven from demand? It's more like demand defines what is productive, but it's supply that actually makes you productive.

Because the economy is the flow of money. More productivity = more money. People produce more if others demand more... Everything pretty much goes hand in hand.

There was a massive increase of production after the war. During the war, the production of tanks, bombs, etc. obviously increased, but the production of other things decreased because all the resources were used for the war effort.

:| As long as things are being produced, (more) people have jobs, (more) people can consume products from markets, (more) people have jobs in markets, and the flow of money is good.

Obviously. But is there ever really demand for war? It's more like the government forces war upon everyone.

For the most part >_> but it really depends on the cause and reason to fight.

What circumstances? The US is in a recession right now... are you saying that if people supported the war in Iraq/Afghanistan then the economy would be better? I just don't see how this is the case.

MAYBE. People supporting the war would support production into it. That's also if the war required massive production anyways, which it doesn't.

A handful is putting it lightly. Also our foreign policy is part of what is making us go bankrupt. Maintaining tons of bases around the world is a huge expense, and especially silly in countries like Germany that are our allies and are stable.

Yeah I guess so...

 

[ballin4life]

That reason for the GDP to be flawed makes no sense to me. The GDP is determined by the rate of Production, regardless of what it is. Food and other household items are always being produced. The fact that people were being given more jobs because of the demand and increase in production(even just for weapons), made it more better for markets to flourish. Increasing "right" after, how's that doubting the war had influence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP#Standard_of_living_and_GDP and the section right after about limitations of GDP. Basically GDP and Standard of Living are usually strongly correlated, but this isn't perfect, and one of the times when it isn't is when the government is doing most of the spending. Since the government is "buying" all the tanks, guns, etc, there isn't a good pricing mechanism. The government just pays whatever it wants to for those. Since war efforts make up the vast majority of GDP, it all depends on how the government decides to price the tanks, guns, etc.

To use an extreme example, the government could raise GDP by paying $1 billion for a rocket ship, even though it is difficult to say what the "market price" of a rocket ship really is.

Because the economy is the flow of money. More productivity = more money. People produce more if others demand more... Everything pretty much goes hand in hand.

The economy is the flow of goods/services in exchange for money.

Where does the extra production come from when people "demand more"? What resources (labor, capital) go into this production?

Really, on the aggregate level it isn't possible to "demand more". People have to make spending decisions based on their budgets, so spending more in one area means spending less in another. Now, if you are going to say "well, we give them more money so they have more money in their budgets", you have to consider where that money comes from.

:| As long as things are being produced, (more) people have jobs, (more) people can consume products from markets, (more) people have jobs in markets, and the flow of money is good.

Ok, but then it all comes from initial production. Remember that the companies that are producing things and giving people jobs must get that money from somewhere. Usually, they get them from consumers in exchange for whatever product they produce, which is good. But in the case of the government, they get it from taxes, which are involuntary and are higher than the value of the government's services.

Basically, giving people jobs isn't enough, because the money to pay those jobs has to come from somewhere. They need to be productive jobs.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Brief interruption and then please carry on.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=12072647

Also I love this thread.

 

[Peek~]

>mf as I watch a livestream of the Egyptian riots

 

[Sempiternity]

I find the whole thing amusing.

"HAH! Take that! No nets for you! (this couldn't possibly go wrong)"

 

[blaze3927]

So the brenton woods agreement was created in part becaus eof wwII
The economy is driven by demand, the US (government obv) had a demand for a ****eload of weapons/ammo/goods at wwII. It didn't have the monetary supply. so it created the monetary supply necessary by going to the federal reserve and getting a whole lot of promissory bonds. These bonds (aka the us dollar) where kept valuable and not over inflated (at this time) by rigorous price controls, and the huge amount of natural resources/production lines it drew upon.
A huge and largely successful operation by the government of the time.
This amount of spending went straight into production and remained there because the factories/resource production sites weren't bombed/claimed because USA isn't on the battlefield.
this saw a huge spike in GDP, and after the war when US still had all their factories/production sites/metals etc it boosted the economy greatly through agreements like the brenton woods one. where the US used it's dollar to help get europe back on it's feet, and eventually the money it loaned was paid back etc. sending more valuable dollars, into us pockets, keeping the standard of liviing on a rise.

 

[ballin4life]

But during the time of war, those factories could have been producing more cars for Americans if there were no war, right?

 

[NixxxoN]

How someone can see a world war as a "succesful economical operation" baffles me

 

[Ocean]

because it was.

it's not that it was planned for this way, but it did get us out of the great depression.

 

[ballin4life]

... no it didn't ...

The Great Depression didn't end until the war was over.

 

[Korrupshen]

Anyone here experienced sleep paralysis or astral projection

 

[Frogles]

why would you at astral projection? sounds pretty cool to me. i ALMOST experienced it till i chickened out and snapped myself out of it. i haven't been able to get close since then.

 

[Sempiternity]

Seems like a steaming load of **** to me.

The astral projection part.

 

[ballin4life]

Sleep paralysis is not legit. Don't have much more to add than that. I thought there might be a link with lucid dreaming though which is awesome.

 

[Ocean]

I tried to self-induce sleep paralysis in attempt to lucid dream once, but I couldn't get it.

I've had an out of body experience before. it was terrible.