<< If this is the best you can do as a critique of Adam Smith, you really need to try a lot harder. >>

Scuuze me, I have responded to the first sentence only. I am sure I will find much more to criticise him about as I read on…. if I can bring myself to do that!

It is fascinating that you have gone into considerable detail regarding the labour / resources bit, and yet you tow such a simplistic line with GDP.

Yes, resources and labour are somewhat complex. Some countries do well with very little of their own natural resources…. but with a great deal of imported resources… a la Japan.

<< If we had "heaps of resources, and very limited labour", what would be the state of our GDP? And would we, individually, be as well off as we are? >>

Interesting question. If we had limited labour, we would presumably have a much smaller population. So we’d have a much smaller GDP. But we’d have a much larger amount resource per capita and a slower rate of exploitation and hence much more for the future. I can’t imagine that we’d be worse off….. and we’d certainly be better off in the longer term, all else being equal.

<< Keep your mind open, in particular avoid colouring what you read with your virulent anti-immigration views. >>

It is a pity you have to make statements like this. You know full well what my issue is with very high immigration / population growth, and that it does amount to being anti-immigration.

I’ve said this to you many times – please refrain from making false assertions, and try to just say things as they really are, as you know they are, and not in an exaggerated or outrightly false manner.

And please also get away from this idea that you are the teacher here, and let’s bring it back a level-playing-field discussion…… please.

.... and that it does NOT amount to amount to being anti-immigration.

Sheesh!

fcknmngrlpftrtypos!! ):>{

master/ludwig/docter/of getting it correct

quote<<and that it does NOT amount to being anti-immigration.

Sheesh!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

dont be distracted/thats how the old fox gets us
we follow his redirection/even directed accusation

but he is/as we all are
weary of putting his beloved pearls of wishdom/before the great unwashed masses/only shrugging their shoulders and scratching their grrrasses

but i can help clarify/the codeed meaning of demons/revealed in the letter of the word

each letter=a word/emotion/feeling

f=few
[or fall/or follow[ie lacking individual choice

c=see

k=king/regal\rOYAL-MESS/

N=GOOD FRIEND
n=NOT-YET

m=Marriage/union\mutual advantage

R=rightious
g=god[the-sun]natures/nuture

r=correct/[re-ASSURENCE;PROPER/AUTHORITY

l=FREINDHIP/STANDING[upright]
p=propaganda[proper ganger

f=intercourse[of course]
t=balance
r=rightfuly/deliverd

t=balance
y=why!
p=proper-seeing
o=completion
o/GREAT COMPLETION
0-NONconclusive/accounting
s=serphant/[servant/the lord\satan

!!
OO

(00):>{-*$=securitised/under=written

the mark f the beast=your signature
your signature/created\your sig*-nature
[ie/the\person-under/the\act.satan only controls those who sought his advantage
they app-lied/by beggig[apply=beg/same/same

govt gave/you/licence[permission to do that otherwise
unlawfukll*[for a personA/created under the act/to do\
by controling the fictions they control you

gdp=
gods[ie;sun/ie\satans
destructive/propaganda*

G*D*P/=\see?

But I am, Ludwig.

>>If you are not willing to talk about sustainability in relation to GDP and economic growth, then basically you are not even willing to think about the future at all.<<

Just as soon as I am convinced that you actually know what GDP is, then we can usefully have a discussion on its relationship with sustainability. Until then, you are simply blowing hot air.

>>Sorry, but this is not a teacher/pupil relationship, it is a discussion between two people who both know a bit about economics and related stuff<<

When one half of the discussion team airily dismisses Adam Smith's contribution as irrelevant, then it is clear that a significant amount of teaching and learning is essential, merely in order to get to the starting gate of a meaningful debate.

>>Different types of economic growth are irrelevant in GDP<<

Quite so. Which brings into question why you keep harping on about GDP in the context of sustainability. GDP, as you say, is entirely indifferent to the "type" of growth or decline that it is measuring. Which of course is in complete contradiction to your illusion that GDP is somehow used as a forecasting tool.

Here's a good pair of questions:

>>Don’t you think that I understand GDP by now? What is it about GDP that you think I don’t understand?<<

No, you don't understand it at all. Take for example your views on Adam Smith's first paragraph.

>>If we had limited labour, we would presumably have a much smaller population. So we’d have a much smaller GDP. But we’d have a much larger amount resource per capita... I can’t imagine that we’d be worse off<<

You would have more resource per capita, but fewer resources to create value from it - iron ore doesn't mine itself, you know. Therefore the actual economic activity would be lower. Your assumption that we'd somehow not be worse off is based on nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

Which does not support a view that you know anything at all about GDP, let along economics in general.

between persed-lips

*<</
Here's a good pair of questions:

>>Don’t you think that I understand GDP by now? What is it about GDP that you think I don’t understand?<<

Adam Smith's first paragraph.

>>If we had limited labour, we would *presumably
have a much smaller population.><

sire/you could construe/to presume/WRONGLY
LIMITED LABOUR[in an aging population]
AS/MORE NEED BE CARRIED/AND FEWER TO carry-on
thus presumption hits reality/stagflation/bail-in//bubble goes on

if more/retirees/that jobs
or than workers?

<<>>,,So we’d have a much smaller GDP./But we’d have a much larger amount resource per capita...""

YES WE GOT THE SCRAP VALUE OF THEM STAINLESS STEEL BEDS
WE COT INDUSTRY BY TYING A LITER SIZE BOTTLE OF UNSUSED HANDGEL/ON EVERY BED/THERE IS JOBS IN CHECKING THE EXPIRY DATES/BUT THAT USUALY COUNTS AS A LOSS

<<I can’t imagine that we’d be worse off<<

<Your assumption that we'd somehow not be worse off is based on nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.::

GDP=GODS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
[thats spin for satans destructive pain
blowing up bigger bubb-le troubles yet again

<<Which does not support a view that you know anything at all about GDP, let along economics in general.""

how come the media obsesses about it
were in the $$$hit/that well known abriviation was a big part of the diversion/as our bankaccounts get bailed-into wortles non voting shares in a bankrupted/mortgaged to the hilt big too big to fail wann k

Sorry Pericles, you’re getting too far into la la land.

Can you just tell me exactly, succinctly, what you think I don’t understand about GDP.

Tell me exactly what GDP is if you think I don’t know.

Thankyou.