The Secret

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,693
San Diego
What a strange thing to say. GDP per capita is and has been increasing world wide for as long as we can measure it, up to short term fluctuations. Just google "gdp per capita" and the country of your choice.

The power of a nation might rest on it's total GDP, but the quality of life of its inhabitants depends far more on the GDP per capital. Capitalistic states tend to care far more about the latter than any system resembling planned economy.
No- the GDP has not been increasing for as long as we can measure it.
No- GDP per capita has NOT been increasing the the US. Nor in Britain, Nor in France. Dividing gross GDP by population is NOT a true measure of per capita GDP growth.- It only measure productivity divided by population, NOT the distribution of that wealth.
In point of fact, the Middle class is SHRINKING. Their real inflation adjusted wages are falling. ( that is- their income is not increasing as fast as the costs of living. )

- tellingly, because of cheap labor overseas, trinkets keep getting cheaper. But Housing, Water, Electricity, and healthcare costs keep rising out of proportion to GDP.

Mature market Nations that have population growth see GDP growth because MORE people means MORE sales of services and products.
Mature Market Nations with stagnant or declining populations are in recession.

And Nations like China and India see large growth because they are NOT mature markets- 600 million Chinese still live in rural poverty- which means as industry and better paying jobs begin to infiltrate those regions, those people can suddenly start to BUY products and services- that is they have NEW markets opening. That is how they grow so much.
The US grew at those rates, too, when we had unrestrained immigration.

Beyond actually having MORE resources ( conquest ) or having new markets to sell into ( market share) the ONLY source of growth is when we discover some NEW application for a resource we already have. For example- when we figured out that the weak crappy ore all over the navajo basin could be used to make Nuclear reactors because it was uranium. Or when we figured out how to triple the yield of wheat per acre thru quadro-tricale hybridization. New uses for resource we already have spur growth.

It does not matter that there is MORE money- when only 10% or the population gets the entire increase for just themselves.


Oh- and capitalism is NOT a political construct. There are no "capitalist States"- It is an economic structure. And ALL actual States are Socialistic.
Even dictatorships have to spend public monies on infrastructure.

YOUR country is a Socialist system of managing and providing for the entire population.

A certain amount of 'free enterprise" is certainly good for spurring invention and industry... however, too much capitalism results in income inequality- which is WHY there was a russian revolution and labor riots all over the US and Europe.
Its why there was a french revolution, too.

ALL computer models of 'capitalism' prove it to be a ponsi scheme. It redirects wealth into the hands of just a few- ( the game monopoly was created to try and illustrate this fact to Americans )
There is no such thing as a "free market" because the very FIRST thing that wealth buys in a free market is the power and influence to rig the market.

The State has a vested interest in supporting free enterprise ONLY to the extent that it makes life better for the citizenry- the minute it starts to impoverish the citizenry the State is requited to step in and regulate free enterprise and re-distribute income inequality. ( because Capitalism IS REDISTRIBUTION of the wealth of labor to the ownership class. )
One example of impoverishment is the reduction of taxation on the rich. This means that the burden of Government cost is shifted onto the shoulders of the working class.
And it means less revenue for the government. this often results in failure to create or maintain infrastructure. ( ironically, the infrastructure that Private enterprise utilizes to make their owners money )
When corporations that make profits pay their labor so low that the government must subsidize those wages with food stamps - which are paid for by taxes on the working class and NOT by taxes on those corporations, that is the ownership class impoverishing the working class thru a tax graft.

These are actions promoted by and funded by the ownership class.
When bankers committing a massive fraud crash the world economy and governments have to pay off those private debts just to keep the economy working- that is SOCIALISM subsidizing the loses of private ventures.

So- sorry- but UNREGULATED and UNTAXED capitalism is nothing other than wage theft.
Every 'regulation' on the books that conservatives decry was DEMANDED by prior generations to curb the criminal avarice of corporations and the owners that run them.

Like it or not, you live in and your beloved private ventures are enabled by a socialist government that is re-distributing wealth- to your army- your fire department- your road repairs- etc...
But also in the form of subsidies of the yachts and jet planes of the super wealthy- subsidizing the wages of Walmarts employees- and tax breaks to corporations.

The only question is WHO is being served by that socialist construct? Right now, in the west, we have had 30 plus years of conservative economic theories and the rich are definitively a lot richer... while poverty is actually increasing in nations like the US and Britain.

Once ALL nations have mature markets... there will be ZERO growth. The ponsi scheme will have run out of new rubes.

Then what?

Either equitable division of resources... or the rich will be dragged off their yachts and jets and get their head chopped off- Like every other time things got out of balance.
 
Mar 2018
984
UK
I don't have the time or inclination to read a whole rant, and these two sentences are enough to convince me that the post is a rant and contains no meaningful information.

Dividing gross GDP by population is NOT a true measure of per capita GDP growth.
Now you are just embarrassing yourself. Read that sentence again. Now if you want to argue that GDP per capita is not the most important thing to the welfare of the middle class, then say so. But don't say things which are false by definition.

ALL computer models of 'capitalism' prove it to be a ponsi scheme
I can't even begin to process this. If you have a even half decent computer model of capitalism, go and claim your nobel prize in economics, people have been trying to do this since the first computers. I'm also very impressed that you have a list of "ALL" computer models that do this, where did you find it?
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,301
But even this implies that the Romans would have conquered Scandinavia if there was wealth there worth taking. The idea of "empires must expand or die" is based on the assumption that new sources of wealth must be acquired. The Romans would have conquered more wealth, if such wealth existed and could be conquered.
Oh sure (and they did for quite a while)... But there is not always economically viable territories to conquer....

This lesson was well understood by the US, which is why it never conquered Mexico or other weaker south american countries despite multiple military expeditions and despite having the capability to do so... and which is why it dit not acquire additional territory in Asia (beyond a few islands and temporarily the Philipinnes) or Europe after WW2, but prefered indirect control which provided benefits (and still does) without having to bear the high costs.....

Also I am not sure where this concept (expand or die) comes from, other than the visions of Adolf and his Lebensraum concept (and even then , Germany was only looking for economically viable territories at its doorstep)
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
5,009
Dispargum
Also I am not sure where this concept (expand or die) comes from, other than the visions of Adolf and his Lebensraum concept (and even then , Germany was only looking for economically viable territories at its doorstep)
When Lincoln and other Republicans articulated the belief that slavery must be contained to where it already existed the South responded with arguments that slavery must expand or die. I came across a reference that the Early Medieval king Charles the Bald practiced expand or die. Having limited power to tax his subjects he could only finance his kingdom by plundering foreign lands. It's not clear if Charles articulated 'expand or die' himself or if that was applied to him retroactively by a later historian.
 
Mar 2018
984
UK
When Lincoln and other Republicans articulated the belief that slavery must be contained to where it already existed the South responded with arguments that slavery must expand or die. I came across a reference that the Early Medieval king Charles the Bald practiced expand or die. Having limited power to tax his subjects he could only finance his kingdom by plundering foreign lands. It's not clear if Charles articulated 'expand or die' himself or if that was applied to him retroactively by a later historian.
What's the point though? Sure, some old rulers and some historians believed it. That doesn't mean it's true. You have to give actual arguments for that, not just appeals to authority.
 

Edratman

Forum Staff
Feb 2009
6,792
Eastern PA
When Lincoln and other Republicans articulated the belief that slavery must be contained to where it already existed the South responded with arguments that slavery must expand or die. I came across a reference that the Early Medieval king Charles the Bald practiced expand or die. Having limited power to tax his subjects he could only finance his kingdom by plundering foreign lands. It's not clear if Charles articulated 'expand or die' himself or if that was applied to him retroactively by a later historian.
I believe that the motivation behind the Southern desire to expand slavery was based upon simple political math. Slave states had a slight numerical advantage in the US Congress in the first "four score" years of the Republic. The proscription of slavery in the new states meant that the political advantage the pro-slavery states enjoyed at the onset of the nation was diminished and their political weight was fated to turn into an inconsequential minority if substantial numbers of non-slave states were added to the union.
 
Jan 2017
14
Fairfax, VA
The idea that empires must expand or die has been expressed a lot more than once.
You might find World Systems Theory or Dependency Theory interesting. A quick check on the internet finds them only being applied to capitalism, but I find ideas like core regions, peripheral regions, and the transfer of wealth apply to pre-capitalist times as well.
Your link to the “Dependency theory” is interesting and makes sense.
I did not make myself clear, and as a result I got response that diverted the River of thought to another channel all together.
From the beginning man lived by hunting and gathering, some tribes became more successful than others. The success drove the productive tribes to expend. Other productive tribes, as Plato said “get stung by a drone”, that were affected by the luxury, made those societies lazy and that leads to collapse — that is not in my equation of the secret. Now the secret is not a real secret, everyone knows about it, but don’t really realize, just like the Masonic Secret, which is written for all to see — “know thyself”

The underlying problem of success that leads to overpopulation is ever present in any society that didn’t “Taste the sting of a drone”.
A perfect example of the successful nation of the 21 century is China. China is looking to expand (for what ever reason)
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
5,009
Dispargum
What's the point though? Sure, some old rulers and some historians believed it. That doesn't mean it's true. You have to give actual arguments for that, not just appeals to authority.
I'm offering it as insight into what some old rulers believed to explain their behavior. Even if expand or die is untrue, if an old ruler believed it to be true he would still apply the theory and try to expand. If he believed that stagnation equals death, he would not deliberately stagnate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olleus
Mar 2018
984
UK
The underlying problem of success that leads to overpopulation is ever present in any society that didn’t “Taste the sting of a drone”.
A perfect example of the successful nation of the 21 century is China. China is looking to expand (for what ever reason)
It's been pointed out to you that success does not necessarily lead to overpopulation. Can you explain to us why success necessarily leads to a Malthusian over population?

Yet, China is most interested in acquiring (or increasing its hold) on some of the most overpopulated areas of the planet: Hong Kong and Taiwan. If China was looking to expand to reduce it's overpopulation, it should be expanding in exactly the opposite direction! The example you give is a demonstration of exactly the opposite of the statement you gave: power hungry states always want to maximise their population.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
5,009
Dispargum
I believe that the motivation behind the Southern desire to expand slavery was based upon simple political math. Slave states had a slight numerical advantage in the US Congress in the first "four score" years of the Republic. The proscription of slavery in the new states meant that the political advantage the pro-slavery states enjoyed at the onset of the nation was diminished and their political weight was fated to turn into an inconsequential minority if substantial numbers of non-slave states were added to the union.
I agree with you about the need to politically expand, but there was an economic component, too. In the first half of the 19th century the center of gravity of the slave population had shifted from the Upper South to the Deep South as cotton replaced tobacco as the main plantation crop. In the 1850s slave owners in Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky made more money selling slaves than tobacco. Many Southerners expected that trend to continue as some yet undiscovered western crop eventually replaced cotton. Slave owners in Mississippi were expecting to make more money selling slaves to New Mexico than they would earn selling cotton.