China Successfully Launches Remote Sensing Satellite

[ChinaWall65]

If maximizing utility is selfish, then count me in.

Maximizing utility of yourself while ignoring the utilities of others is selfish. Let me get this straight, you are won't donate any money to anyone because you want to maximize your inidividual utility?

Isnt this the economic system followed by everyone apart from North Korea? Maybe you should migrate there and see how u like socieites that are built around not maximising Utility.

First of all, these are donations, you still haven't explained how and why you compared individual donating money to help out the less fortunate to a government taking people's incomes. And second, your arguement about your previous flawed arguement is still flawed. Maximizing individual utility is not a ecnonmic principle followed any single country. All government are created to protect and provide for the utility of the majority and/or the country. There is no individual utility in any government's principle towards its people.

My point was, to force growth above its "natural" level is transfering income from current generation to future generations.

First, isn't the whole ideal behind economics to help accelerate growth? Isn't that the entire ideal of the enlightenment thinkers. Second, you didn't define what the natural level is. We know all countries have benefactors who donate money every single day, hence donations are part of the normal and in my definition, natural, part of the economy because it is present in everyday life, therefore, you can't force growth above natural level because the economy is at the natural level. Third, you are still saying "transferring income," while you ought say tranferring part of income. But then, that is still flawed in your prospective. For example, when someone pay for their children's college, they are transferring a significant amount of income to a future generation out of their own will. So, are you saying all loving parents and all who seeks a better education is purposely violating your principle of growth at "natural level?" Or would you like to differentiate the defination between tranferring income and donations.

 

[sigatoka]

Maximizing utility of yourself while ignoring the utilities of others is selfish. Let me get this straight, you are won't donate any money to anyone because you want to maximize your inidividual utility?

Maximizing individual utility is not a ecnonmic principle followed any single country.


First, isn't the whole ideal behind economics to help accelerate growth?
what the natural level is.

So, are you saying all loving parents and all who seeks a better education is purposely violating your principle of growth at "natural level?"

I dont donate money for i have none of my own.....yet.

I meant as individuals we maximise our own Utility, the goals of governments should be to maximise the sum of all individuals utility.

The idea of economics is to Maximsie Utility within the constraints of scarcity. The natural level of growth is that which would prevail if the government didnt do funny things like corruption (which lowers growth) or overinvestment in pulic goods (which increases growth above natural) both lower Utility But many including me agree that above Natural growth rate is better than Below.

No. The economic explaination requires an understanding of biology. We want our children to live, be successful in attracting mates and procreate thus continuing our lineage. Bequething resources assists in this.

 

[ChinaWall65]

I dont donate money for i have none of my own.....yet.

But would you if you had any mone? Keep in mind that you said you want to maximize individual utility.

I meant as individuals we maximise our own Utility, the goals of governments should be to maximise the sum of all individuals utility.

That cannot ever be true. The job of government is to maximise the utility of the MAJORITY, since it's impossible to get ALL individuals to agree on a single subject. That means the maximization of the individual utility of individuals in the minority is in conflict with the goals of government. So your theory is wrong. This is what I mean by your flaws, you take so many extremes that are not even slightly feasible in the real world.

The idea of economics is to Maximsie Utility within the constraints of scarcity. The natural level of growth is that which would prevail if the government didnt do funny things like corruption (which lowers growth) or overinvestment in pulic goods (which increases growth above natural) both lower Utility But many including me agree that above Natural growth rate is better than Below.

So you are saying the definition of natural level of growth depends on what lowers growth below natural level and what increases growth above natural level. And lower growth and higher growth depends on the definition of natural level. You are using circular reasoning, which means your statement is still without warrant.

No. The economic explaination requires an understanding of biology. We want our children to live, be successful in attracting mates and procreate thus continuing our lineage. Bequething resources assists in this.

But that is still transferring to future generations. Parents have a choice to maximize utility of themselves or the utility of their lineage, or children. Lineage consitutes future generations. You are just manipulating facts, you can't agree with me and then say you disagreed with me.

 

[bushsuck]

You know I aint gonna die tomorrow. Communism in China will die before me.

then I hope u live a long long life. I should remind u even if china is no longer communism, it'll still be called: communism, at some point it'll go from practical to ritual, but it will always be there, it'll simply be called "the new communism way", and right now china is anything but communist, more of a capitalist country but without the social benifits and a semi-free market. and to whoever said chinese farmer were lazy, dat's just stupid, just about every bit of food is made by farmers(duh), def more than what he did.

politically, it will change, the current way can not last, but it will take a hero to create a turning point, and without a turning point, it'll never turn around, despite the fact that it seem to be taking steps toward another way, like the limit from calculus.