Do you think America is doomed, or that it hit a bump in it's progression as a nation? - General

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37504537]We've already gone over this. For some reason, they say desire has nothing to do with demand, even though almost every definition of demand I have seen mentions desire. They also seem to ignore the point that I've said that desire AND ability to pay both affect the demand curve, but it seems that's somehow wrong.[/QUOTE] I'm saying desire [b]without ability to pay[/b] has nothing to do with demand. Desire without ability to pay does not shift the demand curve, it's not even on the demand curve. Someone without the ability to pay for an education will not be supplied with one, outside of extraordinary circumstances, no matter what their desire is to go.

[QUOTE=Noble;37504671]I'm saying desire [b]without ability to pay[/b] has nothing to do with demand. Desire without ability to pay does not shift the demand curve, it's not even on the demand curve. Someone without the ability to pay for an education will not be supplied with one, outside of extraordinary circumstances, no matter what their desire is to go.[/QUOTE] Well isn't not being able to pay a lack of demand?

[QUOTE=Noble;37504671]I'm saying desire [b]without ability to pay[/b] has nothing to do with demand. Desire without ability to pay does not shift the demand curve, it's not even on the demand curve. Someone without the ability to pay for an education will not be supplied with one, outside of extraordinary circumstances, no matter what their desire is to go.[/QUOTE] As I said, desire and ability to pay both affect the demand curve. I think we should get back to the actual argument (who's at fault for the skyrocket in college costs) instead of nitpicking over what our words mean. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] we all agree that desire and ability to pay affect demand. We also all agree that wanting to buy something, but not having the money to, does not affect the demand at the current price. Our only argument is whether wanting something, but not having enough money to buy it at the current price, affects other parts of the demand curve (e.g. at a price you can afford). This isn't really an argument worth arguing, because it's pointless. So, let's actually argue the big things.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37504728]Well isn't not being able to pay a lack of demand?[/QUOTE] There has to be willingness to buy as well as the ability to buy. If both of those conditions are not met there is no demand. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37504987]As I said, desire and ability to pay both affect the demand curve. I think we should get back to the actual argument (who's at fault for the skyrocket in college costs) instead of nitpicking over what our words mean. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] we all agree that desire and ability to pay affect demand. We also all agree that wanting to buy something, but not having the money to, does not affect the demand at the current price. Our only argument is whether wanting something, but not having enough money to buy it at the current price, affects other parts of the demand curve (e.g. at a price you can afford). This isn't really an argument worth arguing, because it's pointless. So, let's actually argue the big things.[/QUOTE] It actually is a big thing though if we're talking about the government artificially stimulating demand and being at fault for the high prices that came as a result. Sure there could be a lot of desire for people to get college degrees, but without government giving people the ability to make good on that desire, the real demand would not be affected. If you're argue that the demand curve can be affected merely by desire alone, absent the ability of those people to pay, then you are not going to get my argument, which is why I'm trying to address it.

[QUOTE=Noble;37505260]There has to be willingness to buy as well as the ability to buy. If both of those conditions are not met there is no demand. It actually is a big thing though if we're talking about the government artificially stimulating demand and being at fault for the high prices that came as a result. Sure there could be a lot of desire for people to get college degrees, but without government giving people the ability to make good on that desire, the real demand would not be affected. If you're argue that the demand curve can be affected merely by desire alone, absent the ability of those people to pay, then you are not going to get my argument, which is why I'm trying to address it.[/QUOTE] what about people who can get college educations, but chose not too? When the desire to get a college education goes up, they have the money, and therefore will buy one. Not everyone skips college because of money, some do because they don't think it's worth it. But now, with the pressure to go to college increasing, people who earlier would have just saved the money are deciding to get an education. Do you see how only desire changed, but demand went up?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37505301]what about people who can get college educations, but chose not too? When the desire to get a college education goes up, they have the money, and therefore will buy one.[/quote] They didn't want one at first. Since demand requires both willingness to buy and ability to buy, there was no demand there. If they change their mind and decide to buy (and have the ability to do so), then yes, there is a demand. [quote]Not everyone skips college because of money, some do because they don't think it's worth it. But now, with the pressure to go to college increasing, people who earlier would have just saved the money are deciding to get an education. Do you see how only desire changed, but demand went up?[/QUOTE] Yes, and I've been saying that desire is a [i]part of[/i] demand, just that when there isn't the ability as well as the desire (there must be both), there is no demand. If there was just desire, and the government then steps in provides the ability to make good on that desire, then that artificially stimulates demand higher than it would be in a free market, and causes the price to rise. That is what my argument has been about from the beginning.

So the pressures of society cause an increase in desire, which in turn causes government to artificially stimulate ability, causing a great increase in demand. Sounds about right.

[QUOTE=Noble;37505495]They didn't want one at first. Since demand requires both willingness to buy and ability to buy, there was no demand there. If they change their mind and decide to buy (and have the ability to do so), then yes, there is a demand. Yes, and I've been saying that desire is a [i]part of[/i] demand, just that when there isn't the ability as well as the desire (there must be both), there is no demand. If there was just desire, and the government then steps in provides the ability to make good on that desire, then that artificially stimulates demand higher than it would be in a free market, and causes the price to rise. That is what my argument has been about from the beginning.[/QUOTE] yes, government loans can artificially lower prices, allowing people who other wise would not go to college the chance to go. But, the fact that their is more pressure to go to college also plays a major role. People who might otherwise skip going to college (but can afford it) will go if they are pressured into it. That's the biggest problem, not government loans. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Fenderson;37505593]So the pressures of society cause an increase in desire, which in turn causes government to artificially stimulate ability, causing a great increase in demand. Sounds about right.[/QUOTE] agreed. But if there was no government, would private companies come in to fill the void?

Why do more than 40 percent of Americans think the universe began after the domestication of the dog? - Richard Dawkin I'll just leave this here [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating" - Megafan))[/highlight]

To determine whether or not America is "doomed" we must first look at exactly what is wrong. Then, we must determine if these problems are fixable or if they're each enclosed in an insular metaphorical system that can't be altered and is fated to rot from the inside until it bursts. I guess things could work out if scientists discovered a material that acts like kryptonite to assholes, or extraterrestrials took over the world and instated a benevolent dictatorship, or Kalki decided to show up 415,000 years early and kill everyone.

It's a demand curve because different people have different desires to pay. You contribute to the demand curve for helicopters right now, because you have some amount of money that you'd be willing to pay for a helicopter. Those who demand less than the equilibrium price aren't simply dropped from the equation. They still participate, even though they can't buy helicopters.

[QUOTE=Morcam;37583422]It's a demand curve because different people have different desires to pay. You contribute to the demand curve for helicopters right now, because you have some amount of money that you'd be willing to pay for a helicopter. Those who demand less than the equilibrium price aren't simply dropped from the equation. They still participate, even though they can't buy helicopters.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't even be on the demand curve. If you don't have both the willingness [b]and ability[/b] to pay, you don't contribute to demand. The fact that I'm willing to pay $100 or so for a helicopter is completely meaningless since no one is going to supply one at that price. Ask anyone who has studied economics if desire alone, regardless of someone's ability to pay, is what determines the demand curve.

When there are many other countries in the world that are much more democratic than USA, I think there should be an eyebrow raised... Usa has turned into a banker ran state that uses riot police and mass propaganda to impose their will on usa citizens and on weaker countries. Is america doomed? Following the very advanced decay it's in from a cultural perspective, I think it's just a matter of time until usa will starve to death with their food in their hand... I am sick and tired of all the stereotypes that it produces and mass markets them all around the world. I am trying very hard to not get intoxicated with americanisms as I call them. I would much rather know america is minding it's own business and stops exporting so much mediocrity to the world. Yes America is doomed to fail very soon but the big problem is that it's rulers will not go down without attempting to drag everybody down with them. They are holding europe with one hand and they are desperate pulling europe down along with them. Some time soon, europe is going to let go of america and let it fall into the abyss it has created. In the last 10 years, I have yet to see a healthy good looking product made by usa or a movie masterpiece. Everything is being mass produced in usa and nothing has any real value to it and the world is getting sick of america with each day that passes. Each day that passes and makes the world sick of america, america is slowly losing products that it can sell in other countries because interest disappears for them. As a guy that lives in europe, I don't buy american products. I don't eat american foods and I don't buy american products and like me there are many others. No coca cola, no pepsi, no american fast foods and no hollywood movies for me. They all make me sick. I've had them for a time in the 90's but I am fed up with them. I rather eat food from those countries that get bombed by america in the middle east since they are so much better at taste and so much healthier and diverse! America can either start now and try to live on it's own and isolate itself completely from the world, or they can try and fix their country by ruining other countries instead. The world is not infinite and there will come a time when there will be no more countries to fuck around with and to plunder and then there will be tough as shit to survive by yourself. Maybe Israel will remain USA's last friend and help them with some nukes when the time is right, who knows.

[QUOTE=Noble;37588128]I wouldn't even be on the demand curve. If you don't have both the willingness [B]and ability[/B] to pay, you don't contribute to demand. The fact that I'm willing to pay $100 or so for a helicopter is completely meaningless since no one is going to supply one at that price. Ask anyone who has studied economics if desire alone, regardless of someone's ability to pay, is what determines the demand curve.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but I [I]have [/I]studied economics, which is why I'm quite confident you're not sure what you're saying. The demand curve models, in simple terms, the number of units that will be purchased at any given price point. An easy example is if there are two people living on a deserted island. You, who will buy 1 helicopter at $100 and a billionaire who will buy one helicopter at $3M, two at $1.5M, and three at $1M. The demand curve is then very simple. At the price point of $3M, the market demands 1 helicopter. At 1.5M, it's two, at 1M, it's three, and at $100, it's four. Some random guy who has a helicopter factory will now have to decide how many helicopters he can provide at each price. At $3M he'd sell 10, at $1.5M he'd sell two, at $1M he'd sell one, and at $100 (unsurprisingly) he'd sell 0. The equilibrium price is obviously $1.5M. Congratulations, you just contributed to a demand curve! [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=3dwizard;37597466] As a guy that lives in europe, I don't buy american products. I don't eat american foods and I don't buy american products and like me there are many others. No coca cola, no pepsi, no american fast foods and no hollywood movies for me. They all make me sick. I've had them for a time in the 90's but I am fed up with them. I rather eat food from those countries that get bombed by america in the middle east since they are so much better at taste and so much healthier and diverse! [/QUOTE] What the hell? Are you aware that that's very, very strange?

[QUOTE=Morcam;37597809] What the hell? Are you aware that that's very, very strange?[/QUOTE] It's not strange at all. Maybe it would be strange if you understood that I eat the foods that I said I eat, directly from those countries which is not the case. I have restaurants here in my country with certain cuisines. I rather go to a iranian or lebaneese or indian themed restaurant than to an all american fast food joint where all they sell is shitty chemical toxic food that doesn't even satisfy your hunger... I stopped drinking shitty coca cola, pepsi, sprite, fanta and all that crap many years ago! I don't drink energy drinks or other shit like that either because I can always replace them with some nice belgian beers wihch are 100 times more natural and contain less chemicals! And the thing is, many others do the same here, that's why obesity is not such a big problem in europe as it is in usa. But that's besides the point I was trying to make. I was trying to point out that europeans are not all brainwashed with american shit and they are starting to rapidly reject what america has to offer. We have our own currency, our own foods, our own electronics. The more we quit on american products, the faster america will have financial problems. And we do know here in europe most of us at least, that america desperately wants the euro to collapse in eurpe so that europe starts using more dollars like in the 90's Ever since euro got activated in europe, america has problems and now that china is giving usa the finger, america is going down fast. USA is not responsible enough to be a super power anymore. USA is a ghost of it's former self and the fact that it has so many weapons is a danger to itself and to the entire world. Israel and Usa should be disarmed in my honest opinion as they constitute a danger for the entire world. USA and Israel are ticking bombs. I personally hope that Iran truly has nukes and is prepared to use them on whoever attacks them.

[QUOTE=Morcam;37597809]The demand curve models, in simple terms, the number of units that will be purchased at any given price point.[/quote] Yes, and no purchase will take place if a buyer doesn't have the ability to pay for it. [quote]At the price point of $3M, the market demands 1 helicopter.[/quote] yes [quote]At 1.5M, it's two[/quote] yes [quote]at 1M, it's three[/quote] yes [quote]and at $100, it's four.[/quote] no. Where did this come from? Why wouldn't the billionaire demand 30,000 helicopters at the price of $100? (3 million/100) [quote]Some random guy who has a helicopter factory will now have to decide how many helicopters he can provide at each price. At $3M he'd sell 10, at $1.5M he'd sell two, at $1M he'd sell one, and at $100 (unsurprisingly) he'd sell 0. The equilibrium price is obviously $1.5M. Congratulations, you just contributed to a demand curve![/QUOTE] Yes, but in a meaningless way. It would still be 1.5M with or without my existence (because a buyer able to buy 0 of the commodity is essentially the same thing as there being no buyer there at all), so I've contributed nothing to curve.

[QUOTE=Noble;37601788]Yes, and no purchase will take place if a buyer doesn't have the ability to pay for it. yes yes yes no. Where did this come from? Why wouldn't the billionaire demand 30,000 helicopters at the price of $100? (3 million/100) Yes, but in a meaningless way. It would still be 1.5M with or without my existence (because a buyer able to buy 0 of the commodity is essentially the same thing as there being no buyer there at all), so I've contributed nothing to curve.[/QUOTE] Diminishing marginal returns. Buying 3 helicopters is a stretch, but buying 30,000 would be entirely useless. Just because you can probably afford a hundred loaves of bread every week doesn't mean you actually buy them. Also, you do contribute to the demand curve in an essential way. If the producer drops his price to 100$ because helicopters suddenly become very easy to produce (a change in the supply curve), how many helicopters will be sold? The demand curve doesn't twitch. You just told me you'd buy one, and the millionaire would still buy his three. The new equilibrium quantity is four.

He could just buy them just for the exchange value alone, not the use value. If the producer drops his price the quantity demanded is going to go up, not stay the same, except in special circumstances (and this isn't one of them). If the price fell in such a way, the billionaire would probably be able to purchase the entire stock by himself because he could continuously outbid me. He will continue to do this as long as helicopters have any value to him (again, not just use value, but also exchange value).

Do you think that some of the steps to take to fix America could be if they got rid of the electoral college and gave voting rights to prisoners?

[QUOTE=Noble;37606684] If the producer drops his price the quantity demanded is going to go up, not stay the same, except in special circumstances (and this isn't one of them). [/QUOTE] Yes, and that is a shift ALONG the demand curve, not a shift OF the demand curve. That is a crucial difference. Why would the billionaire buy all the helicopters? You already said you will only pay $100 for one. If he buys all of them and trys to get you to pay $1000... You won't buy one. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37607006]Do you think that some of the steps to take to fix America could be if they got rid of the electoral college and gave voting rights to prisoners?[/QUOTE] We could definitely get rid of the electoral college. Having your voting powers in an exclusively federal election set by what state you live in makes no sense. I'm not sure that voting rights to prisoners would make much difference. I understand that some people are in prison for a short period of time for a minor crime that has no bearing on their rights as citizens, so yes, they ought to be able to vote. At the same time, some are never going to be released, so are they actually citizens?

I just don't understand how a government can keep being a government when over 50% (let alone 91%) of the population isn't satisfied. Why aren't 91% of the Americans demanding change? And the general voting system (for presidents at least) is totally flawed imo. I don't see the logic behind winning by 51% grants you 100% of the votes of the state. That can lead to some serious off-balance in the end. You could theoretically become president by winning in just enough states with 50.1%, and the loosing by 100% in all the other states. That amounts to about 25% of the votes for you, and 75% against you total? I may have misunderstood something, but that's how I think it works.

[QUOTE=Morcam;37610852]I'm not sure that voting rights to prisoners would make much difference.[/QUOTE] I believe it would. A significant number of Americans are imprisoned, a good few million that are disenfranchised. [QUOTE=Morcam;37610852]I understand that some people are in prison for a short period of time for a minor crime that has no bearing on their rights as citizens, so yes, they ought to be able to vote. At the same time, some are never going to be released, so are they actually citizens?[/QUOTE] Being in prison doesn't mean you should suddenly lose a whole variety of rights. You are still a citizen and should still be granted the same basic rights everybody else has.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37616090]Being in prison doesn't mean you should suddenly lose a whole variety of rights. You are still a citizen and should still be granted the same basic rights everybody else has.[/QUOTE] You already lose a variety of rights when you're put in prison. That's why its prison. Most importantly, you lose your right to freedom. Losing your right to vote seems to pale in comparison to the fact you can't walk around the outside world.

[QUOTE=Morcam;37621524]You already lose a variety of rights when you're put in prison. That's why its prison. Most importantly, you lose your right to freedom. Losing your right to vote seems to pale in comparison to the fact you can't walk around the outside world.[/QUOTE] A prisoner is still a citizen of the state they reside in, they should have a say in political matters.

I think the bi-partisan system is going to cut us in half. We're becoming so entrenched in whatever our own beliefs are, and demonizing the "other side" so thoroughly that we hate each other and instead of working together to better ourselves we're constantly at each other's throats.

If you are interested in learning about why America is in the state it is, I would recommend reading 'The World We're In' by Will Hutton. As he says in the introduction, he is 'critical of America without being anti-American'. If anyone has already read it, I'd be interested to see what you thought of it.

As an outsider, here's what I see: 1. America have really screwed themselves over in debt and other economic crises 2. They then blame this on the current president if they're liberal 3. The funny thing is, the liberal president was just trying to deal with the debt left upon them by the last president Then America will eventually collapse under their own weight and bring the world down with them if they don't fix this. The worst part is that Rupert Murdoch then goes and votes in the presidents that give him money - which are the presidents that cause this goddamned debt crises. Correct me if I'm wrong, Americans. I don't live there so I'd really like to hear about it.

[QUOTE=3vans;37698135]1. America have really screwed themselves over in debt and other economic crises[/quote] For sure [QUOTE=3vans;37698135]2. They then blame this on the current president if they're liberal[/quote] I assume you mean if they're conservative. [quote]3. The funny thing is, the liberal president was just trying to deal with the debt left upon them by the last president[/quote] It's been nearly 4 years, that excuse is getting old. Also, Obama was in support of the $700B TARP bailout in 2008 under Bush. [url]http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/TARP/[/url] [quote]The worst part is that Rupert Murdoch then goes and votes in the presidents that give him money[/QUOTE] What

I believe that America will be doomed if Obama gets his second term. What people don't understand is that Obama is a complete communist and nobody can see through him because of the fact that about 90-95 percent of the people in the media are democrat. Time magazine has been sucking up to Obama for months and his "town man" personality has made everyone see him as the good guy. For instance, he keeps saying, "We will strengthen the middle class and create everyone equal!" That is what communism is defined as, and he even has become disgusting in his political tactics with the Tell a neighbor act and the act to give more taxes to rich people and less taxes to poor people. We are screwed if he gets a second term.

[QUOTE=yy958;37771447]I believe that America will be doomed if Obama gets his second term. What people don't understand is that Obama is a complete communist and nobody can see through him because of the fact that about 90-95 percent of the people in the media are democrat. Time magazine has been sucking up to Obama for months and his "town man" personality has made everyone see him as the good guy. For instance, he keeps saying, "We will strengthen the middle class and create everyone equal!" That is what communism is defined as, and he even has become disgusting in his political tactics with the Tell a neighbor act and the act to give more taxes to rich people and less taxes to poor people. We are screwed if he gets a second term.[/QUOTE] Nice satire.