What is Digg?40 Comments
- Disgod, on 11/04/2009, -1/+24You mean to tell me that driving around means that people will be spending more of their money, rather than sitting at home where the opportunities to spend money are greatly decreased? Truly this staggering news.
- JanusTheDoorman, on 11/04/2009, -6/+19What's that about correlation and causation?
Oh right, correlation between think tanks and and oil companies leads to causation of pointless studies that nonetheless sound ominous. - AlienMushroom, on 11/04/2009, -1/+8 Study Finds That Driving Has a Positive Effect on OIL COMPANIES' Economy.
- Floodle, on 11/04/2009, -5/+11Sponsored by OPEC
- farboo, on 11/04/2009, -2/+7GDP is a measure of only one thing: economic activity in the market. It does not measure quality of life, well-being, or wealth. Disasters (the Exxon Valdez spill is a famous example) can increase GDP because they create economic activity (cleanup, treatment of affected people), but it doesn't mean they're a good thing.
- fr3nch, on 11/04/2009, -1/+6Im pretty sure having someplace to go is more relevant to economic prosperity than actually driving to get there.
- twohoundogs, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4"The study was funded by the Bipartisan Policy Center"
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/about
Yea those evil bastards like Tom Daschle and George Mitchell. - PeppermintPig, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5@gsm54321
Reading comprehension fail.
It's not living without food. It's living without being forced to buy food.
And getting food without paying for it is called farming. Can you say agrarian culture? - bshock, on 11/04/2009, -2/+5Possibly because you have a 25% chance of being seriously injured or killed during a lifetime of driving, and this contributes to the health care industry, our 6th largest expense?
- PeppermintPig, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4Of course it's not a bad thing, but vehicular transportation still has a beneficial effect on the individual who works from home.
- Dauntless1, on 11/04/2009, -3/+6Maybe we should consider an economic model that doesn't require forced spending on the part of the lowest income earners simply to survive.
- regeya, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4Yeah...check out the Cascade Policy Institute's website.
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/2009/10/14/rationing- ...
The front page rakes cap-and-trade over the coals, rakes a former Democratic Oregon governor over the coals for, um, well just read it because it's a bizarre, reaching analogy, rakes public education over the coals (a mandatory education is anti-freedom, dontchaknow) and extolls the virtues of individual accounts as a way of saving Medicare. Ah, and there's a big item in the rail about a talk about the Age of Reagan http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/0243 ... (NOTE: If you're easily sickened by pseudo-historical propaganda, don't click)
Conservative thinktank. Take with a HUUUUUUUUUUUGE grain of salt.
(Note for the idiots: I said nothing about similar liberal thinktanks because it's irrelevant here, but the same applies.) - Dauntless1, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4What they fail to point out is that saving money by staying home isn't a bad thing.
- richardweaver, on 11/03/2009, -5/+7Could be good for the economy, doesn't mean it's good for the environment.
- charlietuna, on 11/04/2009, -2/+4I suspect most economic activity beyond the level of the Amish is destructive.
- inactive, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2conclusion: GDP is useless
- Dauntless1, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3@govsucks
Fine, I didn't clarify enough obviously. We have an economic model driven solely by the spending of the people least able to afford it. When those people don't have money to spend, our economy tanks. Why is driving the economy the sole responsibility of middle class and lower society? Why should our economic success be a measure of how good companies are at convincing average joe to buy a tv instead of food? - Dauntless1, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2It's interesting how stupid some people have to be to think a savings account can fix every problem a person will ever have. The fact is if you make under 50k a year and have a family you don't make enough money to save enough for a given disaster like cancer. Isn't gonna happen.
- Lane, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3Yes, it's the "Pull over I have to pee" stimulus package.
- drazen77, on 11/04/2009, -2/+4Last time I checked, the Econuts and the Left have made it virtually impossible to build any "clean" power plants. Not a single nuclear reactor has been built in 30+ years. It provides clean energy. New designs have practically sidelined the waste product at the end of fuel life, but ***** if you ever see it as the EPA and its ***** crazy supporters continue throw our economy down the toliet.
- Gregfr, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3Being fat is probably also good for the economy as it makes you consume more.
The point is that it's not because something is good for the GDP that it is desirable. Economists should focus on well being and positive effects for society instead. - PeppermintPig, on 11/04/2009, -3/+4"Why is driving the economy the sole responsibility of middle class and lower society?"
Insomuch that you want things for yourself, you should be willing to work for them. It reflects your ambitions. But it's more than just that. People CAN and SHOULD be living in abundance and be able to care for those who are less able as well. There are reasons why we are not as well off as we could be.
Since the industrial age, more and more products have been created by AND for its producers. Via competition and innovation, these products become increasingly cheaper and superior in quality/efficiency. Here's an example: Given medical advances, costs should be going down, right?
"Why should our economic success be a measure of how good companies are at convincing average joe to buy a tv instead of food?"
Or how about why should the success be based on the GDP, a broad and abstract scale of judging things for the benefit of analysts in the government, far away from the very real problems and solutions needed by the people? For whom is it a success??
People want televisions. Building televisions requires people, which means jobs for those people, which means a paycheck: money for food, shelter, medicine, and pursuing their own interests and lifestyle choices.
The person buying the TV benefits. They consider the TV worth more than the money they give in exchange, and the company vice versa. The people producing the TV believe the money they get is worth the time spent, and will try to find better employment if possible (whatever that means to them, since some people are willing to take a job that pays less if it means more time for family)...
Why do government programs continue to grow but never solve the problems it claims it was meant to fix?? New problems are even created, and bureaucrats continue to vote for their own employment. You know how companies exclude employees from winning their own contests? Why isn't it similar with such blatant corruption running through government.
The question of prosperity is tied to the way in which power is matched with accountability, and how consent is granted (or not), which leads either to abuses real solutions based on what people are actually seeking. - govsucks, on 11/04/2009, -4/+5Funny, I'm not forced to spend on anything but government.
- drifter, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1are you serious? a disaster can also have a negative effect on the GDP, if the amount of cost involved or lost cost involved is great then the GDP gets hurt.
Also countries with a high GDP usually have a higher standard of living. - gwolf, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Yes ... But is it really necessary to use dirty energy sources to achieve these ends.
Your describing the status quo, we already know about.
Try describing some solutions instead of continuing the legacy of not doing anything because it wont fix everything by next Tuesday.
We had better come up with some solutions before reality imposes it's own. - govsucks, on 11/04/2009, -3/+4"taxation or regulation will cause a significant decrease in economic output."
As usual. - Taiyoryu, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1That's why measurements like the Genuine Progress Indicator should be used. The GDP is a valid statistic but one that is misused and misinterpreted because it does not take into account that negative effects can lead to positive economic growth.
- sholt, on 11/04/2009, -2/+3"Study Finds That Confidence Has a Positive Effect on Drinking"
Fixed. - farboo, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Of course it does both, but in the short term a disaster can tend to increase economic activity, especially locally (since people from outside come to the affected area). And of course that applies to only certain kinds of disasters (a hurricane or earthquake that destroys businesses is more likely to lower the local GDP).
And yes, GDP per capita correlates ROUGHLY with standard of living, but not perfectly. There are better measures. - Taiyoryu, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2I would contend that people drive more when the economy is good, rather than the conclusion that the economy is good when people drive more.
- rizzo2008, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2If you can't drive as much you don't make as many compulsive stops to buy stuff, dont take as many errands, trips, vacations etc this is kinda obvious.
- juslen, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1Yup.. instead of producing clean energy the government just taxes and regulates businesses and produces nothing. The only pollution reduction the government does properly is destroying the economy so fewer people have jobs and fewer people are able to pollute by driving to work every day.
Some of you crazy environmental advocates should look up Spain once, their energy taxes have nearly bankrupt the country. So think twice before you start cheerleading for the government to save the planet. They do nothing but line their own pockets. how else is Al Gore on track to being a billionair.. what the hell has he ever done besides travel the world as a career politician and an environmental advocate.
Wake up! - brad3378, on 11/04/2009, -3/+3How about a prostitution, marijuana, and alcohol based economy?
- d3dm, on 11/04/2009, -2/+2Vrroom Baby, Vrroom!
- gsm54321, on 11/04/2009, -4/+4Holy ***** everyone!
govsucks has figured out how to live without food! - Dauntless1, on 11/04/2009, -2/+1@peppermintpig
I never said anyone should get things they haven't worked for, I said our economy shouldn't be set up in such a way that when people buy the things they and their families need instead of blowing money on things they want the economy suffers.
Essentially the setup now means if lower income families are being smart with their money our economy tanks because no-one is buying stupid *****. Our economy is based off of the hope that poor people will be stupid. There is no logical train of thought where that is a good thing. - nogero, on 11/04/2009, -2/+1Calling themselves bi-partisan is bi-*****. This is a group of far rightwing fanatics including radio talk show host Lars Larson. How did this ever make Digg? Buried!
Longtime Oregon resident - rizzo2008, on 11/04/2009, -5/+4shut up oil doomer/anarcho-primitivist
- NYConcepts, on 11/04/2009, -5/+3So does jerking off. Who gives a *****?
- juslen, on 11/04/2009, -7/+4Tell me exactly what is good for the environment. Most people don't realize that the farm land which feeds 300+ Americans is fertilized by nitrogen fertilizer which is created using bi products from burning coal. And natural fertilizer from livestock is very limited. And I don't know if you heard the news, methane created by livestock is a major Co2 contributor.
So it looks like feeding people destroys the environment. And cars provide transportation for working Americans so they can put food on their tables.
People who preach about the environment are some of the biggest hypocrites in the world. I bet all of you walk to work, eat organic food and never purchase products that are shipped from outside of your home state. Lower your standard of living, pay more for your food, pay higher taxes, be a patriot of mother earth and sacrifice for what you believe in.
But please don't preach to others ;)
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is