Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    This Bennett woman is clueless. When asked if she wanted perpetual recessions, she said that GDP was a lousy measure and we needed "human measures", not a measure of "profit".

    The silly puerile fanatic doesn't seem to be aware that GDP is not a measure of profit. You could in theory have a zero profit society and still have GDP growth. GDP is the measurement of the total value of all the goods and services produced in that year, basically it's the sum of all output. If you want GDP to reduce, you are axiomatically saying you want lower living standards
    GDP equates to growth and for that profits are always made to invest in growth.

    Also she is right, high GDP doesn't mean an equal and fair socieity, if it did America would be amazing and 40 million people would have healthcare (which they don't atm, as they are poor).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    This Bennett woman is clueless. When asked if she wanted perpetual recessions, she said that GDP was a lousy measure and we needed "human measures", not a measure of "profit".

    The silly puerile fanatic doesn't seem to be aware that GDP is not a measure of profit. You could in theory have a zero profit society and still have GDP growth. GDP is the measurement of the total value of all the goods and services produced in that year, basically it's the sum of all output. If you want GDP to reduce, you are axiomatically saying you want lower living standards
    I don't believe I've ever seen her or anyone else say they are aiming for zero/negative growth. A move towards a different measure of success is not to aim for negative growth. They basically want a happiness index, as did Cameron just a few years ago.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    I don't believe I've ever seen her or anyone else say they are aiming for zero/negative growth. A move towards a different measure of success is not to aim for negative growth. They basically want a happiness index, as did Cameron just a few years ago.
    Quote, from the Greens website. Policy number EC201

    EC201 To this end, the Citizens' Income (see EC730) will allow the current dependence on economic growth to cease, and allow zero or negative growth to be feasible without individual hardship
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kumon)
    GDP equates to growth and for that profits are always made to invest in growth.

    Also she is right, high GDP doesn't mean an equal and fair socieity, if it did America would be amazing and 40 million people would have healthcare (which they don't atm, as they are poor).
    The fact that high GDP doesn't equal a fair society doesn't mean that a contracting economy will lead to one
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kumon)
    I am so happy they said this. At least they stand up for what they believe in.
    I hate to employ the old reductio ad Hitlerum but...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Quote, from the Greens website. Policy number EC201
    That's not what it says. It says that its citizen's income policy will mean that should the economy go through a period of negative or zero growth, people won't suffer as much. No where does it say that negative or zero growth is the aim of the green party.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by kumon)
    GDP equates to growth
    Now it doesn't...growth in GDP equates to growth...
    If we have a GDP of, say, £1bn this year, and then again next year (after accounting for inflation) there hasn't been any real growth, in fact, if GDP equates to growth then how come the economy can still contract?

    and for that profits are always made to invest in growth.
    Not necessarily, I might pay somebody, say, £10 per hour. In that hour they can make 10 pencils. I then sell each of those pencils for £1 (with no cost associated with the sale) and no profit has been made, but there is a contribution to GDP of £10 there. Now, if that worker goes and spends that £10 on food they've generated no "profit" either, before you start arguing on a personal level. Profit is not necessary, I think all you have to do is look at businesses making a loss to see that.

    Also she is right, high GDP doesn't mean an equal and fair socieity, if it did America would be amazing and 40 million people would have healthcare (which they don't atm, as they are poor).
    As young_guns said, a decrease in GDP won't necessarily make it any fairer either, and if it does it won't in a good way (as in everybody will be equally badly off)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Quote, from the Greens website. Policy number EC201
    Except they've now gone and ditched the citizens income after it got destroyed by Andrew Neil. Which is laughable since they hate labour's compromise so much. If they Green party were commentating on the Green party right now they'd be calling them "closet Tories".
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Except they've now gone and ditched the citizens income after it got destroyed by Andrew Neil. Which is laughable since they hate labour's compromise so much. If they Green party were commentating on the Green party right now they'd be calling them "closet Tories".
    And basically everybody else in the country
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Except they've now gone and ditched the citizens income after it got destroyed by Andrew Neil. Which is laughable since they hate labour's compromise so much. If they Green party were commentating on the Green party right now they'd be calling them "closet Tories".
    Good point. Abandoning the Citizens Income essentially undermines every single criticism of Labour that they made on the basis of Labour "selling out" (i.e. putting to the electorate policies that will actually see them elected)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Now it doesn't...growth in GDP equates to growth...
    If we have a GDP of, say, £1bn this year, and then again next year (after accounting for inflation) there hasn't been any real growth, in fact, if GDP equates to growth then how come the economy can still contract?


    Not necessarily, I might pay somebody, say, £10 per hour. In that hour they can make 10 pencils. I then sell each of those pencils for £1 (with no cost associated with the sale) and no profit has been made, but there is a contribution to GDP of £10 there. Now, if that worker goes and spends that £10 on food they've generated no "profit" either, before you start arguing on a personal level. Profit is not necessary, I think all you have to do is look at businesses making a loss to see that.


    As young_guns said, a decrease in GDP won't necessarily make it any fairer either, and if it does it won't in a good way (as in everybody will be equally badly off)
    Growth for whom? 1% not the 99%
    Except you have the cost of time means it's a loss you idiot.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    The fact that high GDP doesn't equal a fair society doesn't mean that a contracting economy will lead to one
    People want high gdp for growth and ultimatley making citizens mroe well off in order to be HAPPY.
    You can be happy with less. Stop being a greedy scum.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by kumon)
    Growth for whom? 1% not the 99%
    Except you have the cost of time means it's a loss you idiot.
    GDP as commonly quoted, as clearly demonstrated, doesn't necessarily mean gain, and who it is for is largely irrelevant and cannot be directly drawn. GDP also cares not about time.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    GDP as commonly quoted, as clearly demonstrated, doesn't necessarily mean gain, and who it is for is largely irrelevant and cannot be directly drawn. GDP also cares not about time.
    Execept economists and bankers who use it do, as credit agencies based debt levels over time you ejit.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kumon)
    People want high gdp for growth and ultimatley making citizens mroe well off in order to be HAPPY.
    You can be happy with less. Stop being a greedy scum.
    (Original post by kumon)
    Execept economists and bankers who use it do, as credit agencies based debt levels over time you ejit.
    You Greens really are an incredibly angry and bitter lot.

    Go on, stamp your tiny foot.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kumon)
    I am so happy they said this. At least they stand up for what they believe in.
    They don't really, though, do they? They're already backpedalling on the Citizens' Income and have said it won't be in their manifesto
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    They don't really, though, do they? They're already backpedalling on the Citizens' Income and have said it won't be in their manifesto
    Probably better to judge them on their manifesto then...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Greens = idealist party with heart in the right place but their heads aren't working.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Not entirely sure how tactful a statement this is from the Party but if you care about the Royal family that much that touching them is an instant vote-loser then I'm worried...
    worried that we have a different viewpoint from you?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    If we assume isidewith has correct information things are rather terrifying:
    Increase corporation tax
    Don't peruse free trade
    [generally] increase taxes
    less restriction on benefits
    increase foreign aid
    decrease military spending
    No HS2
    No to nuclear
    remove fees (and I expect not reduce numbers)
    More immigration
    loosen the definition of terrorism
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.