Interesting movie

[Magn]

>Yes, that's called liquidity. And stop using the term society. It is abigous and poorly defined and no giant wiki link will change that.<

You need something that is loosely defined to describe something that is complex beyond clear definition.

The term society is still applicable to describe a list of varying factors (beyond economics) that unite a population body in a certain territory.

Differing philosophers have tried their hands at it. Imo, the most successful of them probably was Regis Debray.

>The government can't own workers. That's called slavery.<

Well, forgive my loose wording, but I meant the work done by the worker which can be bought.

I still think you are playing along the wording and little nitpicks in order to avoid discussing the meat of the matter.

>Spending money on education increases the supply of human capital in the economy and increases the long term output of the economy; WMDs don't do that. I'm not really sure why you consider total output 'progress' rather than the change over time and then talked about education and WMD.<

But the matter is still there.

You can increase production capacity all you like, but it is all for naught if mores are such that most of what is produced is garbage.

>Conclusions are always limited in their usefulness. What's wrong with that?<

Well, there is limited and there is severely limited.

If you limit the scope of your vision to economics, you'll have a very hard time arguing about politics which must take other matters into consideration too.

>Many economic variables can be measured. GDP and GNP are good examples. I'm not really sure why they have to 'exist in vacuum'. But you keep making bizzare claims and contradictions so I'm used to it.<

What I mean is that economy is influenced by diverse factors (including religion, war, how much education is valued, social ranking, the list goes on and on).

You can simply look at the economic variables and think they give you plenty of information to see the whole, but the economy is not the whole, it is a piece of the system.

>Conclusions are always limited in their usefulness. What's wrong with that?<

Well, its like saying: We will never be perfect so lets never try to improve ourselves.

Its a pessimistic take.

Our conclusions will never be infinite in scope, but that doesn't entitle us to sit on our Laurels and not try to increase it.

>What group can be trusted with everything? What's your point?<

The government at least, is elected and has to answer to the electorate.

In my view, thats more reliable than a group of wealthy individuals who isn't.

>to maximize economic efficiency and economic welfare government intervention in these areas is justified<

You know, part of the philosophical idea is transcendence or to go beyond the models we make to represent reality and come up with better ones.

I think you've become a bit fixated on the economic model and should try expending your horizons.

>I'm both an atheist and an agnostic. Why is it one or the other?<

By definition an atheist believes that god can't exist.

An agnostic just asserts that he can't know either way.

You can't both believe that a god doesn't exist and admit that he might, but you can't be sure.

>No, the government just needs money.<

Not if the government controls certain companies.

>This is a debate? Really? I thought it was more like me correcting you on your false statements and that's about it.<

Thats not possible.

You tend to limit yourself to economics and therefore, what you can correct me on is severely limited.

>You can still believe in things that you are not absolutely sure about without faith because you might have some evidence to justify that belief.<

And what constitutes evidence?

What you see with your senses?

Can you bring me any solid justification that some supra genius entity is not simply creating a fake reality for you to live in, fooling you at every turn?

>I support 'self-contained' economies? Really? And here I thought open economies with trade and labour mobility were good and added economic efficiency. I'll just add that to the list of things I didn't know I suppored.<

See? Tunnel vision, I'm telling you.

I'm not talking about self-contained as in no outside trade.

I'm talking about self-contained as in: the concept of 'economy' existing by itself without other things to support it.

>Wheretf did this come from? What's with all these bizzare accusations. I haven't said anything about how others should run their lives, all I have stated is what is best for the economy.<

You called people who can't save idiot.

I'm not prepared to make that claim.

I think they might be limited in that respect and might need assistance or a solid change of mindset, but I wouldn't be prepared to say that they have no intellect.

>Yeah, sure they do... And i'm sure they worship dead jesuses and ped-- (wait, can't say that or OMAC will censor me) and i'm sure they blow up buildings and start witch hunts as well.<

Actually, I find atheists most amusing in their attempts to oppose organized religion.

I mean, what is the point of outright offending religious folks when there is nothing to be gained from the offense?

Some (such as yourself) go further and get the funny notion that because we can't be sure of a creating god, ethics should go out the window dismissing any value it might have for a specie that need to live in organized society.

>Cupidity? Yes well I agree that economic expansion driven by someone's love life isn't a good idea. Oh, you mean stupidity! So stupid economic decisions are bad? Wow! Way to go Capn Obvious! What's your point?<

No, I mean cupidity.

The desire of amassing wealth for the sake of amassing wealth.

The view of money and possessions as an end rather than a mean.

>No, I really don't have morals. I'm not constrained by them like other people.<

Such a noble pursuit.

One then has to wonder how it is that they didn't throw you in jail and throw away the key already if you organized your life in this way.

Must have been fear that kept you in line.

>Of course I'm in denial; I'm an atheist; I deny the existance of god.<

Then, you can't be an agnostic. Sorry.

>Ah so you agree that rich have a lower propensity to consume than poor people. Wow! You agree with my simply, blatantly obvious statement that somehow caused all your posts and these random accusations of what you think I believe.<

Yes, they also encourage the use of credit cards (even, or actually, especially when they know the owner of the card is an irresponsible spender) and bombard us with ads in order to leech at our income with useless gizmos.

>Yes, there are criminals out there. What's your point? Actually why bother asking, you never have any point.<

No, I'm sure that in your rigid economic view of the world, I don't have much of a point to make.

Like I said before, this discussion with you is a waste of time.

shame on me for perpetuating it.

>Yes, that would definatly happen if you weren't smart enough to make food consumption tax exempt. There are positive externalities associated with the nutrition of food so it would make sense to subsidise food rather than tax it.<

you'd have to go beyond food.

You'd have to make one for clothing, housing, basic furniture and other basic commodities I can't think of right now.

I'd be a buraucratic nightmare.

>Ooh! Maslov's pyramid! I've never heard of that before! Oh wait I have! What are you, an art's student / philosophy student / former IB student?<

Actually, the model is of interest in that it is true enough that if lower level needs are not met, higher level considerations go out the window.

But if you must know my curriculum, I hold a bachelor of computer sciences and also a specialization in statistics.

I like perusing works in philosophy and history as a hobby, because I'm aware that my scientic interest is too narrow to make me a balanced person if I hold myself only to it.

[The Truth]

"The term society is still applicable to describe a list of varying factors (beyond economics) that unite a population body in a certain territory."

Blah, blah, blah. I don't care. This is an economics thread; don't know why you want to turn it into a philosophy thread. Oh wait, maybe you don't know any economic theory and therefore have to turn to your inferior philosophy to determine what you believe is best for 'society'.


"I still think you are playing along the wording and little nitpicks in order to avoid discussing the meat of the matter."

That's what I do.


"You can increase production capacity all you like, but it is all for naught if mores are such that most of what is produced is garbage."

If what you are increasing production in is not valued by the economy then you aren't increasing production are you. By production I mean economic output as in GDP.


"Well, there is limited and there is severely limited."

Recognizing the limits of your conclusions that you can make given the method of arguement is a good thing.


"If you limit the scope of your vision to economics, you'll have a very hard time arguing about politics which must take other matters into consideration too."

Pfft! No it doesn't. Ok, maybe politics involves alot of lying and various fallacies such as appealing to emotion, circular reasoning and strawmen arguements as well as following your irrational political ideology in order to be elected. But do you think those populist morons that are elected into power know what is best for society? No, they just follow their idiotic political ideology.


"What I mean is that economy is influenced by diverse factors (including religion, war, how much education is valued, social ranking, the list goes on and on)."

I think you fail to understand the distinction between classical economics and non-classical economics and what exactly falls under the field of economics.


"The government at least"

The government can be trusted with everything? Really? Have you not heard of government corruption?


"is elected and has to answer to the electorate."

Nah, it's elected to follow it's idiotic political ideology by more idiots who believe in this ideology.


"In my view, thats more reliable than a group of wealthy individuals who isn't."

These individuals follow predictable patterns and their choices are controlled by market forces.


"You know, part of the philosophical idea is transcendence or to go beyond the models we make to represent reality and come up with better ones."

Incorrect. That's called the scientific method!


"I think you've become a bit fixated on the economic model and should try expending your horizons."

My horizons are wide. I just value economic theory over philisophical nonsense when discussing the economy.

"By definition an atheist believes that god can't exist."

Incorrect, atheists believe that god doesn't exist, not that it can't.


"An agnostic just asserts that he can't know either way."

Indeed they do.


"You can't both believe that a god doesn't exist and admit that he might, but you can't be sure."

Of course you can. You can know that you are not absolutely certain but still hold beliefs about that subject. I can see an empty cup and believe there is no water in it but I cannot know with 100% certainty.


"And what constitutes evidence? What you see with your senses?"

Yes.


"Can you bring me any solid justification that some supra genius entity is not simply creating a fake reality for you to live in, fooling you at every turn?"

No.


"I'm talking about self-contained as in: the concept of 'economy' existing by itself without other things to support it."

You are too vague. What are these 'other things'.


"You called people who can't save idiot."

Well of course they are idiots. However, that in no way implies that I want to force people how to live. They should have the free choice to make this decision; I just believe that the market and your economic structure should not reward / penalise bad behaviour.


"I think they might be limited in that respect and might need assistance"

Yes, and what is a better assistance than distorting their incentives to make it more favorable to do productive behaviour. Say, 'If you save, i'll give you a $100 dollar tax credit" or something.


"Actually, I find atheists most amusing in their attempts to oppose organized religion."

moi aussi.


"I mean, what is the point of outright offending religious folks when there is nothing to be gained from the offense?"

What do you mean there is nothing to be gained? Their reaction is priceless... Ok, maybe I can put a price on it but it's quite valueable.


"Some (such as yourself) go further and get the funny notion that because we can't be sure of a creating god, ethics should go out the window dismissing any value it might have for a specie that need to live in organized society."

Nah, even if there were a god ethics should still go out the window.


"The desire of amassing wealth for the sake of amassing wealth."

And such a noble goal that is!


"The view of money and possessions as an end rather than a mean."

No, money is a means to whatever end you desire; people need money to fufil their desires be it climbing mount everest, going on a tropical vacation, or getting a suicide vest to blow yourself up in the name of allah. Obtaining more money means more means to achieve whatever end you desire; thus more ends can be achieved.


"One then has to wonder how it is that they didn't throw you in jail and throw away the key already if you organized your life in this way."

Because I didn't break the law, duh. What, are you endorsing thought police now?


"Must have been fear that kept you in line."

Indeed, fear is a wonderful thing.


"I don't have much of a point to make."

I'm glad you agree.


"You'd have to make one for clothing, housing, basic furniture and other basic commodities I can't think of right now."

Yep, what's your point?


"I'd be a buraucratic nightmare."

I'll assume you typed It'd rather than I'd. Yes, it's such a beuraucratic nightmare that we already do it through the GST! And it certianly wouldn't be more of a beuraucratic nightmare than filing income taxes *sarcasm*.


"the model is of interest in that it is true enough that if lower level needs are not met, higher level considerations go out the window."

Indeed, that is true. Your point?


"But if you must know my curriculum, I hold a bachelor of computer sciences and also a specialization in statistics."

McGill?


"I'm aware that my scientic interest is too narrow to make me a balanced person if I hold myself only to it."

Why must someone aspire to become a 'balanced' person?


Oh, and fyi, incase you were confused earlier, Canada doesn't have a social security system in the sense that the americans do, thank non-god! Only that loser province Quebec does.

[Magn]

>Blah, blah, blah. I don't care. This is an economics thread; don't know why you want to turn it into a philosophy thread. Oh wait, maybe you don't know any economic theory and therefore have to turn to your inferior philosophy to determine what you believe is best for 'society'.<

Plz, don't be naive.

It is human nature to philosophize.

Your firm stance in a primary economic perspective is a philosophy in itself.

>That's what I do.<

So I see.

>If what you are increasing production in is not valued by the economy then you aren't increasing production are you. By production I mean economic output as in GDP.<

So you increase production to increase production.

This is all very circular.

>Pfft! No it doesn't. Ok, maybe politics involves alot of lying and various fallacies such as appealing to emotion, circular reasoning and strawmen arguements as well as following your irrational political ideology in order to be elected. But do you think those populist morons that are elected into power know what is best for society? No, they just follow their idiotic political ideology.<

For you, I imagine that would be the case, yes.

Human civilization is a bunch of numbers to be crunched right?

As much as the idea might sound appealing to someone in my field, I must reject it as incomplete.

>I think you fail to understand the distinction between classical economics and non-classical economics and what exactly falls under the field of economics.<

Then, enlighten me. That would be your first worthwhile comment in this entire exchange as far as I'm concerned.

>The government can be trusted with everything? Really? Have you not heard of government corruption?<

Yes, look where that got the liberals.

>Nah, it's elected to follow it's idiotic political ideology by more idiots who believe in this ideology.<

Yes, its so much more rational to increase the production for the sake of increasing production.

Of course, the above is not an ideology in itself, no. Keep kidding yourself.

>Incorrect. That's called the scientific method!<

You think modern science came out of a vacuum?

Tsk tsk.

Before modern science, there was philosophy.

It might interest you to know that Newton's main work was called Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

>My horizons are wide. I just value economic theory over philisophical nonsense when discussing the economy.<

Which is itself the only significant factor of human civilisation in a non-existent society,

Where is your horizon exactly? I fail to see it.

>Of course you can. You can know that you are not absolutely certain but still hold beliefs about that subject. I can see an empty cup and believe there is no water in it but I cannot know with 100% certainty.<

Well, given that you will shape all of your actions around the belief that the cup has no water, one can conclude that the belief is very strong.

>You are too vague. What are these 'other things'.<

Religion, culture, language, accumulated knowledge, values, I'm there are quite a few others which I'm not recalling at this very moment.

>Well of course they are idiots.<

No, they are not.

You have no sense of ethics, remember?

There is no right or wrong action. If there is no right or wrong action, then you cannot attribute a desirable course of action that the intelligent individual will be able to discern.

You are in denial with yourself.

Anyways, Enough for today.

[The Truth]

"It is human nature to philosophize."

Ok... Your point?


"Your firm stance in a primary economic perspective is a philosophy in itself."

Pfft! Call it what you want, but it only makes sense to use economic tools when discussing issues concerning the economy.

The only reason you resort to using philosophy to evaluate economic policy is because you lack the economic tools to examine that policy. I have both economic and philosophical tools to examine that policy, you don't, that is why I use different tools than you.


"So you increase production to increase production. This is all very circular."

... I think you misread my comment. I was responding to your earlier comment. I was saying that producing garbage won't increase economic production because it isn't valued by the economy.


"Human civilization is a bunch of numbers to be crunched right?"

Yep, we are all just one giagantic song resonating in an eleven dimentional world. (that was a reference to super string theory in case you didn't get it)


"As much as the idea might sound appealing to someone in my field, I must reject it as incomplete."

Of course models are always (or almost always incomplete). That's why you must always try to improve them to more closely approach reality.


"Then, enlighten me. That would be your first worthwhile comment in this entire exchange as far as I'm concerned."

Ok, classical economics makes alot of assumptions primarily that humans are rational beings that generally look out for their own best interests in order to make their models. However, in non-classical economics alot of those assumptions are thrown out or put to the test and non-classical economics tries to incorperate the irrational behaviour of humans and it's effects on the economy. It's an ever growing and ever changing field that is very tied to sociology.


"Yes, its so much more rational to increase the production for the sake of increasing production."

Not for the sake of increasing production; the sake could be anything you want it to be. Maybe it could be to afford better education, or perhaps to advance health care to make people live longer, or maybe to fund research into new areas of study and advance your knowledge. No matter what your desired ends are, you need means to get there and having more production capabilities gives you more means. We wouldn't be able to have this conversation if there wasn't a strong enough economy to be able to develop and support the internet.


"Before modern science, there was philosophy."

What's your point?


"Where is your horizon exactly? I fail to see it."

Well that's because they are too wide to see, duh.


"Well, given that you will shape all of your actions around the belief that the cup has no water, one can conclude that the belief is very strong."

The only reason people have beliefs is precisely for methodological (yes that's a word) reasons. People need beliefs in order to make decisions it is part of our nature. I believe the pen I am holding now is blue so I can make decisions based on that belief; I believe that the internet is real so I can make decisions about whether to type this post; I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, so I don't have to worry about the world ending, etc. I don't believe in god so that I don't have to make decisions regarding him/her and can focus my decisions on other things.


"Religion, culture, language, accumulated knowledge, values,"

Personally I don't really value religion or culture but it's often included in non-classical economic models. Language is a way we communicate and is included in both all the time in economic theory. As for knowledge, knowledge is a form of human capital; an increase in human capital increases production, therefore more knowledge is good for the economy, thus knowledge is desireable.


"You have no sense of ethics, remember?"

I said I don't have morals.


"If there is no right or wrong action, then you cannot attribute a desirable course of action that the intelligent individual will be able to discern."

I reject the premise that an action needs to be right or wrong in order for it to be desireable. Lots of actions that are percieved as wrong are considered desireable and lots of actions that are percieved as right are considered desireable as well.


Also, everything I said at the begining of this thread I guarantee you is correct (with regards to economic theory) and is completely in line with many accepted economic models such as the solow model and modern economic theory.

[Magn]

Ok, I won't debate over all the nitpicks we were debating, because frankly, I consider it a waste of time.

so for the sake of my time, I'll get to the meat of the matter.

I discussed your point with my cousin who has a Phd in economics and here's his take:

Overly increasing tax on product and decreasing tax from the rich is stupid because:

a) The rich likely won't invest more anyways since if they don't have the capita to invest in what they want, they'll just borrow it

b) The rich already have big tax breaks and a lot of ways to avoid paying taxes so they don't need more tax breaks

c) The rich are more likely to invest it abroad than at home

d) Consumers buying is creating jobs and fueling the economy. If things are more expensive through taxes, customers will buy less, companies will make less money and shrink, lots of jobs will be lost and whatever money the government made from tax on products, he will lose from tax on income since there will be less workers.

There were a couple of other points he made, but these are the ones I remember the most.

[The Truth]

"I discussed your point with my cousin who has a Phd in economics"

Yeah... Sure you have a cousin.


"The rich likely won't invest more anyways since if they don't have the capita to invest in what they want, they'll just borrow it"

Rofl @ failure to understand the loans market.


"The rich already have big tax breaks and a lot of ways to avoid paying taxes so they don't need more tax breaks"

Yay at your use of using the word 'need' again. I don't care if the rich 'need' it or not; that doesn't change the fact that it's good for the economy in the long run.


"The rich are more likely to invest it abroad than at home"

While empirical evidence tends to disagree (i.e. countries with higher savings tend to have higher investment when in theory investment should be independant of savings in open economies)... Even if that were true, so what? Finding a higher return to your investment results in a higher GNP.


"Consumers buying is creating jobs and fueling the economy."

Nice work at confusing short term economics with long term economics.


"If things are more expensive through taxes, customers will buy less, companies will make less money and shrink, lots of jobs will be lost"

No duh, taxes hurt the economy (except pigouvian taxes). What's your point?


"whatever money the government made from tax on products, he will lose from tax on income since there will be less workers"

If you increase taxes on consumption, you increase government revenues (duh), unless you are on the wrong side of the laffer curve (which is unlikely and very rare in economics). Of course that's not why consumption taxes are better than income taxes. It has nothing to do with government revenues, with distribution of wealth or economic output in the short run. The difference is entirely it's effect on the economic output in the long run by making savings more appealing and increasing saving, thus investment, thus the capital stock, thus output per worker, thus GDP, thus standard of living.


"There were a couple of other points he made, but these are the ones I remember the most."

Yes, i'm sure your 5 minute 'discussion' enlightened you so much *sarcasm*.

[Magn]

>Yeah... Sure you have a cousin.<

I don't care if you believe me.

The point is, I'll believe my cousin who is family and has credentials before I believe some stranger off the internet who could be anyone pretending to be anyone.

Since you're trying to convince me (nobody except the two of us seem to care about this conversation to comment anyways so its mostly us 2), you should adapt to this reality or move on.

Anyways, he comes from Saguenay Lac St-Jean and I don't see him very often so you should consider yourself complimented that I cared enough to spend some of the limited time I have with him to approach this topic.

>Rofl @ failure to understand the loans market.<

Go into more details. This answer is very short and vague.

>Yay at your use of using the word 'need' again. I don't care if the rich 'need' it or not; that doesn't change the fact that it's good for the economy in the long run.<

Idem previous comment.

You are not giving a whole lot of justification.

>While empirical evidence tends to disagree (i.e. countries with higher savings tend to have higher investment when in theory investment should be independant of savings in open economies)... Even if that were true, so what? Finding a higher return to your investment results in a higher GNP.<

If the money is not invested in the country, then the wealth is going somewhere else.

Depending on how nationalistic you are or how you don't care, it could be fine, but the government, who is looking out for the interests of his country, should definitely try to counter this.

(The above argumentation is mine)

I remember another thing he said: The economic policy you setup also has a lot to do with your values. Its hard to argue economic policies with someone if you don't share these core values.

>Nice work at confusing short term economics with long term economics.<

Short and vague.

If you're not willing to invest the time to elaborate, you won't convince anyone.

Again, don't count on the fact that your credentials (if any), can be trusted.

>If you increase taxes on consumption, you increase government revenues (duh), unless you are on the wrong side of the laffer curve (which is unlikely and very rare in economics).<

He argued that this is not so, since you will buy less and the economy will shrink as a result.

>Of course that's not why consumption taxes are better than income taxes. It has nothing to do with government revenues, with distribution of wealth or economic output in the short run.<

This is again, not very convincing.

Elaborate.

>The difference is entirely it's effect on the economic output in the long run by making savings more appealing and increasing saving, thus investment, thus the capital stock, thus output per worker, thus GDP, thus standard of living.<

According to me, workers won't save more (they'll just spend twice as much for the same goods).

According to my cousin, there will be less workers when the economy shrinks, meaning more people who need wealfare support, less taxable source and less money for the companies who make the goods to reinvest in the economy.

>Yes, i'm sure your 5 minute 'discussion' enlightened you so much *sarcasm*.<

More than these last few days talking with you.

Now, either step it up or I will move on.

[The Truth]

"I'll believe my cousin who is family and has credentials before I believe some stranger off the internet who could be anyone pretending to be anyone."

Or maybe you should believe the facts regardless of who tells them to you. Rofl @ the appeal to authority fallacy.


"he comes from Saguenay Lac St-Jean and I don't see him very often"

Again, more appeal to authority fallacy.


"Go into more details. This answer is very short and vague."

Ok, you said:

"The rich likely won't invest more anyways since if they don't have the capita to invest in what they want, they'll just borrow it"

So according to you / your interpretation of what your 'cousin' said, the rich would invest the same if they had more money because if they didn't have the money they would just borrow it anyway. This is nonsense because from a macroeconomic perspective saving must equal investment. If the rich 'borrow' money then where do you think they get it from? If they borrowed money from the someone then that same money couldn't be borrowed by someone else, you only have so much money to borrow and that depends on the equalibrium with the supply and demand for loans in the market for loans (the price of the market being the interest rate of loans). Also, generally the rich don't 'borrow' money. They save their money and places like banks generally do the investing. Anyway, the rich have a lower propensity to consume (therefore a higher propensity to save) thus my original statement that tax cuts on the rich would result in a larger increase in the capital stock is correct.


"You are not giving a whole lot of justification."

What, do you want me to start from the beginning? How much exactly do you know? Maybe I can work with that.


"Its hard to argue economic policies with someone if you don't share these core values."

That is nonsense. Physicists that don't share core values can debate each other, Biologists that don't share core values can debate each other, so why not Economists?


"the government, who is looking out for the interests of his country, should definitely try to counter this."

So the government should try to prevent a higher GNP?


"Short and vague."

You were confusing long term and short term economics. You said that we shouldn't increase taxes on consumption because it would reduce aggregate demand by preventing people from buying as much (well that is essentially what you said). In the long run you consume what you produce and the consumption taxes make saving more favourable which increases the capital stock and long term output. You are confusing short term fluctuations in aggregate demand with the effect on the long term physical capital stock.


"don't count on the fact that your credentials (if any), can be trusted."

Even more of the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.


"He argued that this is not so, since you will buy less and the economy will shrink as a result."

So according to him, consumption taxes are on the right side of the laffer curve? Is that what he said? In pretty much any developed nation (especially north american ones), we aren't even close to the right side of the laffer curve. So if you or 'your cousin' has evidence that consumption taxes are on the right side of the laffer curve please present that evidence.


"workers won't save more (they'll just spend twice as much for the same goods)."

The change in behaviour depends entirely on their utility curves. But generally with each additional dollar a person has, they will consume portion of it and save another portion. Also, i'm not really sure how this response was related to my earlier comment about the effect of a tax shift on the capital stock thus output. What do workers 'saving' have anything to do with it? Are you somehow stupid enough to assume that a worker's physical capital depends entirely on how much they save and not what others save?


"According to my cousin"

Again, an appeal to authority.


"there will be less workers when the economy shrinks, meaning more people who need wealfare support, less taxable source and less money for the companies who make the goods to reinvest in the economy."

Yes, that generally happens. What is your point?