Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

wonderpup

Could Aliens Really Save The Economy?

Recommended Posts

Paul Krugman suggested- partly in jest I think- that a credible threat of alien invasion would kickstart the economy as production was ramped up to meet the threat from outer space.

People would be employed, factories built, new investments made in technology ect- national and international squabbles would be set aside as mankind came together to deal with the nasty extraterrestrial invaders.

So if ET really is out there, watching the earth- could the best thing he might do for us is scare the hell out of us by parking a bloody great UFO on the Whitehouse lawn and start issuing ultimatums?

The idea has been ridiculed for obvious reasons- but is the economic point correct- would such an event lead to an economic recovery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Krugman suggested- partly in jest I think- that a credible threat of alien invasion would kickstart the economy as production was ramped up to meet the threat from outer space.

People would be employed, factories built, new investments made in technology ect- national and international squabbles would be set aside as mankind came together to deal with the nasty extraterrestrial invaders.

So if ET really is out there, watching the earth- could the best thing he might do for us is scare the hell out of us by parking a bloody great UFO on the Whitehouse lawn and start issuing ultimatums?

The idea has been ridiculed for obvious reasons- but is the economic point correct- would such an event lead to an economic recovery?

You are channelling Ronald Reagan and I claim my five Altarian dollars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Krugman suggested- partly in jest I think- that a credible threat of alien invasion would kickstart the economy as production was ramped up to meet the threat from outer space.

People would be employed, factories built, new investments made in technology ect- national and international squabbles would be set aside as mankind came together to deal with the nasty extraterrestrial invaders.

So if ET really is out there, watching the earth- could the best thing he might do for us is scare the hell out of us by parking a bloody great UFO on the Whitehouse lawn and start issuing ultimatums?

The idea has been ridiculed for obvious reasons- but is the economic point correct- would such an event lead to an economic recovery?

As far as I can see this is nothing more than a subtle variation of the 'creative destruction' idea? or should that be 'broken window' idea?

Basically, use an 'event' or in this case the threat of an event to artificially spur economic activity?!

IF ET does turn out to be hostile and, very likely, vastly technologically superior then all that economic activity in the run up to his arrival will have been a waste of time - as he proceeds to devour us for his lunch.

On the other hand if ET should turn out to be warm and friendly, like the big screen character, then all the activity will have been a waste of time and unnecessary? After all, what will we do with all those billions of anti-ET ray guns??! Indeed, if friendly, ET will just share his knowledge with us for nowt?!

It beggars the imagination that these 'interventionist' economists keep flogging the same dead horse over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Krugman suggested- partly in jest I think- that a credible threat of alien invasion would kickstart the economy as production was ramped up to meet the threat from outer space.

People would be employed, factories built, new investments made in technology ect- national and international squabbles would be set aside as mankind came together to deal with the nasty extraterrestrial invaders.

So if ET really is out there, watching the earth- could the best thing he might do for us is scare the hell out of us by parking a bloody great UFO on the Whitehouse lawn and start issuing ultimatums?

The idea has been ridiculed for obvious reasons- but is the economic point correct- would such an event lead to an economic recovery?

The problem is that any aliens technologically advanced enough to visit us are probably advanced enough to pummel us into the ground.

Nuclear makes war with aliens (either they can block them or they can't) and between earth nations pretty impractical. We need to find another way of economic reset.

One way would be to boost growth. We could do this by colonising other planets like Mars. The work required to do this would generate massive economic stimulus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rachel Maddow did a piece on this subject on MSNBC a couple of years back; tying together Alan Moore, The Outer Limits, Ronald Reagan and Paul Krugman

More suitable for an OT thread but I'll also mention French conspiranaut Serge Monast's claim that the Evil Overlords are planning a hoax alien invasion under the title Project Blue Beam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ne plus ultra of war keynesianism you mean? And the truly astronomical inflation that goes with it; isn't this just another way of saying we need a sufficiently large threat to get away with expanding the state to justify the mother of all money printing? i.e. Krugman's usual BS with knobs on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand if ET should turn out to be warm and friendly, like the big screen character, then all the activity will have been a waste of time and unnecessary? After all, what will we do with all those billions of anti-ET ray guns??! Indeed, if friendly, ET will just share his knowledge with us for nowt?!

It beggars the imagination that these 'interventionist' economists keep flogging the same dead horse over and over.

Might have some benefits. If there was a credible threat of alien invasion, I suspect the stock market would crash and freehold land would become virtual unsaleable (as it did in the war).

Nice cuddly aliens with advanced tech would make all our earth tech out of date and bankrupt most of todays corporation and not least the military industrial complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ne plus ultra of war keynesianism you mean? And the truly astronomical inflation that goes with it; isn't this just another way of saying we need a sufficiently large threat to get away with expanding the state to justify the mother of all money printing? i.e. Krugman's usual BS with knobs on.

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Krugman suggested- partly in jest I think- that a credible threat of alien invasion would kickstart the economy as production was ramped up to meet the threat from outer space.

People would be employed, factories built, new investments made in technology ect- national and international squabbles would be set aside as mankind came together to deal with the nasty extraterrestrial invaders.

So if ET really is out there, watching the earth- could the best thing he might do for us is scare the hell out of us by parking a bloody great UFO on the Whitehouse lawn and start issuing ultimatums?

The idea has been ridiculed for obvious reasons- but is the economic point correct- would such an event lead to an economic recovery?

I thought the answer to such invasion is a pre-emptive construction of a death star ?

http://anirrationalviewoftheirrational.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/white-house-rejects-death-star-proposal-waiting-for-paul-krugmans-response/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can see this is nothing more than a subtle variation of the 'creative destruction' idea?

No its actually the near opposite of creative destruction. CD is where inefficient things are replaced by more efficient things, however being forced to expend resources on dealing with an external threat is manifestly inefficient.

or should that be 'broken window' idea?

Basically, use an 'event' or in this case the threat of an event to artificially spur economic activity?!

Yes it is the broken window fallacy, and the economic activity is entirely artificial and a net loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming it's only a fictional threat :unsure: but why should it be based on expenditure on a military response.

The aliens might be sporty entertainment types so why not spend it (the economic recovery money) on things like sports facilities and entertainment centres etc - and no broken windows.

Is it because massive expenditure on that isn't particular welcomed by those that control the purse strings - except for stuff like vanity Olympics and suchlike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming it's only a fictional threat :unsure: but why should it be based on expenditure on a military response.

The aliens might be sporty entertainment types so why not spend it (the economic recovery money) on things like sports facilities and entertainment centres etc - and no broken windows.

Is it because massive expenditure on that isn't particular welcomed by those that control the purse strings - except for stuff like vanity Olympics and suchlike.

we wouldnt even need an economy if human life was under attack...we would just get on with it.

Makes me giggle, all these shows on TV where the Aliens are here,,,and we split the humans up into Military and Civilians. In a war where extermination is the intent, there are no civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming it's only a fictional threat :unsure: but why should it be based on expenditure on a military response.

The aliens might be sporty entertainment types so why not spend it (the economic recovery money) on things like sports facilities and entertainment centres etc - and no broken windows.

Is it because massive expenditure on that isn't particular welcomed by those that control the purse strings - except for stuff like vanity Olympics and suchlike.

That's more like it, we'd play to our strengths! As the ramps came down on their saucers we'd run to greet them proffering real estate opportunities and promising to show them how to maximally leverage the equity in their investments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Krugman suggested- partly in jest I think- that a credible threat of alien invasion would kickstart the economy as production was ramped up to meet the threat from outer space.

....

The idea has been ridiculed for obvious reasons- but is the economic point correct- would such an event lead to an economic recovery?

You would need savings to support the creation of such a thing, otherwise you are just diverting existing resources towards this and away from other essential economic activities.

Worse still, a "death star" serves no need or purpose once completed. Imagine all the raw materials and energy required to create this object, for it to then remain as a giant monument to nothing but our own stupidty.

It's a modern day version of Mao's great leap forward, the quality of lives would fall dramatically if such a thing were attempted (we might even starve dependng upon how much effort politicians decided to divert toward doing such a thing).

To put this in clearer terms, try to imagine what would happen if al the farmers were order to take their grain, and rather saving a surplus for re-planting, or turning some into food products, but instead glue each grain together to make a series of statues like the ones found on Easter Island.

It's clearly a crazy thing to do, and would cause misery, and yet in Krugman's eyes this would be judged a good thing, because an increase in economic activity would be the result.

Unfortunately Mr. Krugman is confusing activity with prosperity, and is proposing a stimulus purely of activity, not prosperity, which rather than creating a surplus makes scarcity worse, which causes people to have to work harder, in conjunction with his insistence on deficit spending it would also create inflation (less resources + more money = inflation), which in turn causes people to irrationally run around swapping their money for anything else at an ever increasing rate (again in Krugman's book a good thing because people are spending), until any surplus is destroyed in complete tumult of irrational choices and spending and life becomes intolerably miserable and austere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if Keynesian economists could be given an island where they can all live together and not bother the rest of us with their acquired mental illness. After a year-long stimulus programme of digging and filling in holes on the beach funded by the printing press and 10,000% hyperinflation I expect the survivors might have a better appreciation of why efficient allocation of scarce resources matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No its actually the near opposite of creative destruction. CD is where inefficient things are replaced by more efficient things, however being forced to expend resources on dealing with an external threat is manifestly inefficient.

Yes it is the broken window fallacy, and the economic activity is entirely artificial and a net loss.

It's not the broken window fallacy. That involves destroying something currently in existence so that economic activity occurs in its replacement.

The alien invasion idea would result in new different economic activity occurring to meet that threat. This would have some positive side-effects in for example R&D into sub-orbital and orbital space travel, new materials technology, and spur some general economic activity as those involved in these endeavors spent their incomes out into the wider economy.

However the amounts spent on war build up would be a massive massive waste of capital as it would exist only to fight this threat, and not improve the human condition.

So instead why don't we in the UK just spend such stimulus on a nation-wide house building project instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's more like it, we'd play to our strengths! As the ramps came down on their saucers we'd run to greet them proffering real estate opportunities and promising to show them how to maximally leverage the equity in their investments.

They'd never know what hit em.

Two years in and the London banksters would own their flying saucers, the home planet factories used to build them, and the children spawn of the invaders working to eternity to pay off their debts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would need savings to support the creation of such a thing, otherwise you are just diverting existing resources towards this and away from other essential economic activities.

Worse still, a "death star" serves no need or purpose once completed. Imagine all the raw materials and energy required to create this object, for it to then remain as a giant monument to nothing but our own stupidty.

It's a modern day version of Mao's great leap forward, the quality of lives would fall dramatically if such a thing were attempted (we might even starve dependng upon how much effort politicians decided to divert toward doing such a thing).

To put this in clearer terms, try to imagine what would happen if al the farmers were order to take their grain, and rather saving a surplus for re-planting, or turning some into food products, but instead glue each grain together to make a series of statues like the ones found on Easter Island.

It's clearly a crazy thing to do, and would cause misery, and yet in Krugman's eyes this would be judged a good thing, because an increase in economic activity would be the result.

Unfortunately Mr. Krugman is confusing activity with prosperity, and is proposing a stimulus purely of activity, not prosperity, which rather than creating a surplus makes scarcity worse, which causes people to have to work harder, in conjunction with his insistence on deficit spending it would also create inflation (less resources + more money = inflation), which in turn causes people to irrationally run around swapping their money for anything else at an ever increasing rate (again in Krugman's book a good thing because people are spending), until any surplus is destroyed in complete tumult of irrational choices and spending and life becomes intolerably miserable and austere.

Nonsense.

We have tens if not hundreds of millions in the UK and Europe who are unemployed and underemployed. It would waste and cost nothing to put them to productive use, there would be no diversion. That's the whole point of the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the broken window fallacy. That involves destroying something currently in existence so that economic activity occurs in its replacement.

The alien invasion idea would result in new different economic activity occurring to meet that threat.

Bzzzzt! A new and different economic activity involving the use of exactly the same scarce resources we have available today. If these resources are being used to fight aliens, they cannot be used for anything else. Given that the government is already allocating over 50% of GDP directly (and controlling even more through the legal system e.g. planning restrictions) do you really think the government needs to get even bigger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bzzzzt! A new and different economic activity involving the use of exactly the same scarce resources we have available today. If these resources are being used to fight aliens, they cannot be used for anything else. Given that the government is already allocating over 50% of GDP directly (and controlling even more through the legal system e.g. planning restrictions) do you really think the government needs to get even bigger?

But that's the point the economic resources are not being used for other things. Right now they are just sitting idle.

We in europe have horrific under and un- employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's the point the economic resources are not being used for other things. Right now they are just sitting idle.

We in europe have horrific under and un- employment.

Labour is nearly useless without capital. It's not possible to create capital by printing up a load of zeros on a computer, it has to be something real that is available to hand. You can tax it off people, but the elite have become highly skilled at both avoiding/evading tax and capturing the fruits of government spending for themselves so your national housebuilding programme would probably end up taxing ordinary workers to provide them with houses costing 10x their annual wage when all the hidden subsidies they also have to pay for on top of the mortgage were added up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense.

We have tens if not hundreds of millions in the UK and Europe who are unemployed and underemployed. It would waste and cost nothing to put them to productive use, there would be no diversion. That's the whole point of the idea.

That doesn't represent savngs though (you are so focused on labour and wages you can't see the bigger picture). As Dorkins said more succinctly (hat tip to previous comment that I missed) labour requires capital.

It would cost extra resources to put unemployed people to work building a death star (I'm assuming you agree with this?). They would need training + supervision (additional labour), raw materials and extra energy, which without savings in such things, it would starve other activities of these resources, and we would all become steadily poorer, in other words the opportunity cost of such a project is enormous.

Mr. Krugman's plan is purely a stimulus for activity (through Gresham's law), not one for prosperity.

If you were right the likes of Mao, Stalin, Kruschev, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc., would be hailed as the greatest economic minds of our age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that the difference in technology would mean that while we would have a booming economy for a while, when the aliens turn up we will all be wiped out.

Probably from orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't represent savngs though (you are so focused on labour and wages you can't see the bigger picture). As Dorkins said more succinctly (hat tip to previous comment that I missed) labour requires capital.

It would cost extra resources to put unemployed people to work building a death star (I'm assuming you agree with this?). They would need training + supervision (additional labour), raw materials and extra energy, which without savings in such things, it would starve other activities of these resources, and we would all become steadily poorer, in other words the opportunity cost of such a project is enormous.

Mr. Krugman's plan is purely a stimulus for activity (through Gresham's law), not one for prosperity.

If you were right the likes of Mao, Stalin, Kruschev, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc., would be hailed as the greatest economic minds of our age.

Training and supervision..... Which would result in new workers who being fungible could take the place of the trainers in the previous jobs those trainers did. Ergo minimal reallocation while long term creating new skilled workers to expand the economy in other areas.

Raw materials? Some of the unemployed would be put to work acquiring those from the earth. So no. No reallocation of raw materials. Of course they'd need tools but then we have 10s of millions of european unemployed to make them, and thousands of mothballed or underutilized plant to make those. So again no reallocation.

Ditto for energy. Build new nukes/windfarms/tidal barrage/etc.

So please explain how does this starves other activities of resources when it's obvious that it doesn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 243 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.