Why the left is against economic growth

BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Overlord
I hear you Kurt, and see your perspective, but I think as a general indicator of wealth and standard of living vehicle ownership is a legitimate factor. Not the most important one, but a factor that shouldn't be dismissed.
I with Kurt on this one and in addition to often a necessity due to substandard public transportation as described Kurt's personal experience in detail, one other major reason for the number of trucks on the roads is the USA heavily relies on them for goods transportation vs other countries using trains more heavily.
As GPD, Yes We do have a big ass GDP but. what is important is GDP per capita which we don't look so hot:
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I with Kurt on this one and in addition to often a necessity due to substandard public transportation as described Kurt's personal experience in detail, one other major reason for the number of trucks on the roads is the USA heavily relies on them for goods transportation vs other countries using trains more heavily.
As GPD, Yes We do have a big ass GDP but. what is important is GDP per capita which we don't look so hot:
Seriously? Luxembourg has a population of about 600,000. No, I didn't miss a zero. The other countries listed ahead of the US have the population of medium to large cities, and several have substantial mineral wealth. Where is the next major country in terms of population? Germany, at #16? Population 80-something million?

The trucks on the road argument is complex. The reason we use trucks for goods transportation is that the US has the best road system in the world, and we have silly-low road taxes for large trucks. in other words, trucking is subsidized. Our road maintenance leaves something to be desired, but our weak-ass congresspeople are loath to raise fuel taxes, which finance maintenance.
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Field Marshall
The trucks on the road argument is complex. The reason we use trucks for goods transportation is that the US has the best road system in the world, and we have silly-low road taxes for large trucks. in other words, trucking is subsidized. Our road maintenance leaves something to be desired, but our weak-ass congresspeople are loath to raise fuel taxes, which finance maintenance.
Most, if not all forms of transportation are subsidized, here and abroad.

As for fuel taxes being raised, no 'weak asses' here in Pennsyltucky, over the past three years we have become one of the highest(if not the highest) infrastructure taxed(per gallon) of any state or commonwealth in the country.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
We will have to agree to disagree. Hell, in Atlanta and the surrounding burbs, I even see homeless people who have cars packed with their worldly possessions.
I didn't know living in vehicles was done outside of expensive California cities. In San Jose and Santa Clara, people routinely buy older RVs and live in them because it's a lot cheaper than paying $3000/month or more for a decent one bedroom apartment. You park on streets with no parking restrictions, and get a fitness center membership for showering (or shower at the office, since many companies in the Bay Area have fitness centers). Walmart lets you park overnight. Many others buy medium to large passenger vans and do the same thing.

One thing I don't care to hear is bitching from Democrats about housing problems. In CA at least, most of the housing cost issues are caused by stupid zoning and regulatory problems that make costs skyrocket. I've lived in various CA coastal cities on and off since 1999, and the state has become profoundly stupid about housing. I get a kick out of highly-liberal places like Palo Alto and Berkeley which are the worldwide capitals of NIMBY thinking. Now there's rent control (which worked so poorly for NYC) and mandatory solar panels on new construction. Pathetic.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Most, if not all forms of transportation are subsidized, here and abroad.

As for fuel taxes being raised, no 'weak asses' here in Pennsyltucky, over the past three years we have become one of the highest(if not the highest) infrastructure taxed(per gallon) of any state or commonwealth in the country.
Most of the interstate system funding comes from the Feds.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Ninja
Another highly entertaining thread!:D

Regarding the OP's linked opinion piece, the author demonstrates some serious bias. First of all, he seems to believe anyone left of centre is hard left with no variety of opinion, which is just as bad as some socialists casting everyone right of centre as fascist.

I don't think the entire left wants to stop, retard or reverse all growth. The predominant idea is that growth must be sustainable. And, I can't argue with them on that point. I don't think anyone here would be against less developed countries achieving a standard of living in line with the OECD. However, if everyone on the planet consumed at a similarly high rate - never mind climate change - we'd have a massive environmental catastrophe on our hands, from which no amount of money would save us. So, over the next few decades, we have no choice but to change our ways, or Mother Nature is going to do it for us.
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Field Marshall
Most of the interstate system funding comes from the Feds.
agreed and to that no state has been threatened with those funds for substandard maintenance like Pa. Regardless there are far more miles of secondary roads to be maintained than interstate. Not to mention bridges !
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
Most of the interstate system funding comes from the Feds.
Federal funding for interstate highways may be a more direct subsidy that promotes the high per capita car ownership in the US, but it's not the only one. Indirect federal subsidy – low taxes – on fuel itself and fuel consumption by cars & trucks contributes heavily to this. When I was in England last October, fuel cost £1.34/liter or $6.26/gal. Not surprisingly, cars on the road were significantly smaller.

If SUVs were taxed in the USA by weight, engine size, or fuel consumption, as they are in other countries, they would be a minor fraction of the vehicles on the road. They aren't, largely because of the political influence of the US auto manufacturers.

The comparable lack of federal funding to support rail transport, both local & long distance, also contributes to the high per capita of car ownership in the US. In many parts of the country, there is no alternative to owning a car.
 
Last edited:
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Federal funding for interstate highways may be a more direct subsidy that promotes the high per capita car ownership in the US, but it's not the only one. Indirect federal subsidy – low taxes – on fuel and fuel consumption by cars & trucks contributes heavily to this. If SUVs were taxed by weight, engine size, or fuel consumption, as they are in other countries, they would be a minor fraction of the vehicles on the road.

In addition, the comparable lack of federal funding to support rail transport, both local & long distance, can also raise the high per capita of car ownership in the US. In many parts of the country, there is no alternative.
All reasonable points, but the intent of my original response was to counter BSA's claim that the US measured poorly on a GDP per-capita basis. We don't, for countries with populations bigger than cities.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
All reasonable points, but the intent of my original response was to counter BSA's claim that the US measured poorly on a GDP per-capita basis. We don't, for countries with populations bigger than cities.
Agreed only in general. For many reasons, such broad economic comparisons can be like comparing apples to oranges. It can vary widely with the details. And as we all know (or should know) the Devil is in the Details.
 
Last edited:
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Agreed only in general. For many reasons, such broad economic comparisons can be like comparing apple to oranges. It can vary widely with the details. And as we all know (or should know) the Devil is in the Details.
Absolutely. Let's say that you lived in a country where physicians earned substantially less than in the US. Medical expenses would be lower, which would make the cost of providing healthcare lower, but the lower costs would be difficult to apply in the US. For example, Denmark:


Experienced physician assistants in the US earn more than physicians in Denmark.
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Overlord
Seriously? Luxembourg has a population of about 600,000. No, I didn't miss a zero. The other countries listed ahead of the US have the population of medium to large cities, and several have substantial mineral wealth. Where is the next major country in terms of population? Germany, at #16? Population 80-something million?

The trucks on the road argument is complex. The reason we use trucks for goods transportation is that the US has the best road system in the world, and we have silly-low road taxes for large trucks. in other words, trucking is subsidized. Our road maintenance leaves something to be desired, but our weak-ass congresspeople are loath to raise fuel taxes, which finance maintenance.
Again with the dismissal of facts. I am beginning to see a pattern here.
The concept of "per capita" seems to evade you. It doesn't matter how big (or small) the country is, GDP per capita can be compared. a) We aren't lacking in mineral resources (we choose not to extract them en-masse and mining isn't needed for us at the first place) and b) Size of the county of the size of its biggest cities doesn't matter for this specific metric.
My point is simply is: Measuring the strength of the economy is far more complicated than comparing GDP or GDP per capita. Bear in mind, you mentioned the GDP first. Not I. I'd even argue that using solely GDP for this benchmark is entirely incorrect.

Road system infrastructure again was built at the expense of improving train tracks infrastructure. It doesn't matter why we went with one or another. My point simply is the amount of trucks on roads isn't an indicator of anything.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Again with the dismissal of facts. I am beginning to see a pattern here.
The concept of "per capita" seems to evade you. It doesn't matter how big (or small) the country is, GDP per capita can be compared. a) We aren't lacking in mineral resources (we choose not to extract them en-masse and mining isn't needed for us at the first place) and b) Size of the county of the size of its biggest cities doesn't matter for this specific metric.
My point is simply is: Measuring the strength of the economy is far more complicated than comparing GDP or GDP per capita. Bear in mind, you mentioned the GDP first. Not I. I'd even argue that using solely GDP for this benchmark is entirely incorrect.

Road system infrastructure again was built at the expense of improving train tracks infrastructure. It doesn't matter why we went with one or another. My point simply is the amount of trucks on roads isn't an indicator of anything.
I'm dismissing some facts because you're comparing data points that are not comparable. The concept of per capita income doesn't elude me. Tiny countries are not comparable to huge ones. You just don't like that reality because comparable data doesn't make your case.

The US interstate system was originally justified for defense purposes.

Your problem is that you've already drawn a conclusion, that the US is all messed up compared to other countries, for whatever reason, and you're looking for data points to justify your pre-conceived hypotheses.
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Field Marshall
Road system infrastructure again was built at the expense of improving train tracks infrastructure. It doesn't matter why we went with one or another. My point simply is the amount of trucks on roads isn't an indicator of anything.
I believe you have your facts twisted out of shape here ...........
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Overlord
I'm dismissing some facts because you're comparing data points that are not comparable. The concept of per capita income doesn't elude me. Tiny countries are not comparable to huge ones. You just don't like that reality because comparable data doesn't make your case.

The US interstate system was originally justified for defense purposes.

Your problem is that you've already drawn a conclusion, that the US is all messed up compared to other countries, for whatever reason, and you're looking for data points to justify your pre-conceived hypotheses.
Again, It's your point that the GDP of the country is a good indication of its economy. My point is that you are incorrect and I have facts to support it. This has nothing to do with my personal opinion.

This chart calculates GNI at PPP - which should take into account both GDP and purchasing power

No matter how you look at this, we are not at #1 spot. I asked you to find a SINGLE relevant measurement or a benchmark that shows the USA economy as a global leader, and I yet to see a single relevant answer.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
No matter how you look at this, we are not at #1 spot. I asked you to find a SINGLE relevant measurement or a benchmark that shows the USA economy as a global leader, and I yet to see a single relevant answer.
I think we're done with this discussion.

Edit:

Interesting to note this quote about the Top 10 list from thebalance.com:

The countries with the highest economic production per person have thriving economies and few residents. The top 10 GDP per capita according to the World Bank are:3

  1. Qatar: $126,898
  2. Macao: $123,892
  3. Luxembourg: $113,337
  4. Singapore: $101, 531
  5. Ireland: $83,203
  6. Brunei Darussalam: $80,920
  7. United Arab Emirates: $75,075
  8. Kuwait: $72,897.6
  9. Cayman Islands: $72,607.6
  10. Switzerland: $68,060

Five of the IMF’s top 10, Qatar, Brunei, Norway, United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait are oil exporters with small populations. These countries were fortunate enough to have access to a large, abundant natural resource that is not labor intensive to develop.

The other countries have worked hard to become regional technology and financial centers. Low tax rates and friendly business climates have induced global corporate headquarters to locate there. These sectors are not labor-intensive to develop, so wealth can be generated and distributed among a small population.
 
herbu

herbu

Audioholic Samurai
Please educate me on a single thing which republicans done so well in the last 20-30 years?
How 'bout highest minority employment ever, lowest overall unemployment ever? The list is very long for just the last 3 years. You can't, or won't accept the truth, so keep looking for arguments to refute the facts. I think we all want the same outcome. You want to achieve it your way and we want to achieve it our way. As long as you refuse to recognize any progress that occurs our way, you can never be a part of the solution... just an emotional bystander.
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top