Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

PROOF gay marriage hurts the GDP!

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 3:36:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Alright, bear with me here, because I am about to ruin your worldview...

GDP is defined as the final market value of goods or services in an economy over a certain period of time. This definition specifically mentions market goods and services. This means that illegal goods do not contribute to the GDP and, crucially, the exchange of goods that do not contribute to the economy.

An example of a good which does not contribute if I mow the lawn of my parent, or if I looked after the family farm. I am not paid for my service, because I am part of the 'household' and so we all count as one economic unit. By contrast, if I were brought in to another farm, I would have to be paid for my work. If I am part of the household, I do not contribute to GDP; if I am not, I do contribute to GDP.

So now suppose a man worked on the farm. He contributes to GDP by being paid for his work. Now assume he marries the male owner of the farm. This gay marriage means they now fall under the same household, and so he does not have to pay him for his work - when he gets paid, it is just an exchange of money within the household, or the household paying itself, which is not a market good.

As when they marry they are no longer contributing to the GDP, this means their marriage 'hurt' the GDP. In other words, their gay marriage hurt the GDP! It's terrible! :(

(there is one problem with this argument - the economics is sound - but it's just a funny thing really that makes GDP more sketchy as a measure of an economy)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 6:29:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Holy crap, this is a wonderful example of why looking at the economy in terms of the flow of money, instead of in terms of resource availability and scarcity, is flat out wrong. Thank you, good person, you've made my day.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 8:38:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 3:36:15 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Alright, bear with me here, because I am about to ruin your worldview...

GDP is defined as the final market value of goods or services in an economy over a certain period of time. This definition specifically mentions market goods and services. This means that illegal goods do not contribute to the GDP and, crucially, the exchange of goods that do not contribute to the economy.

An example of a good which does not contribute if I mow the lawn of my parent, or if I looked after the family farm. I am not paid for my service, because I am part of the 'household' and so we all count as one economic unit. By contrast, if I were brought in to another farm, I would have to be paid for my work. If I am part of the household, I do not contribute to GDP; if I am not, I do contribute to GDP.

So now suppose a man worked on the farm. He contributes to GDP by being paid for his work. Now assume he marries the male owner of the farm. This gay marriage means they now fall under the same household, and so he does not have to pay him for his work - when he gets paid, it is just an exchange of money within the household, or the household paying itself, which is not a market good.

As when they marry they are no longer contributing to the GDP, this means their marriage 'hurt' the GDP. In other words, their gay marriage hurt the GDP! It's terrible! :(

(there is one problem with this argument - the economics is sound - but it's just a funny thing really that makes GDP more sketchy as a measure of an economy)

British conservatives are like american conservatives X2. To bad you had to tread down this road.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
slo1
Posts: 4,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 10:52:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 3:36:15 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Alright, bear with me here, because I am about to ruin your worldview...

GDP is defined as the final market value of goods or services in an economy over a certain period of time. This definition specifically mentions market goods and services. This means that illegal goods do not contribute to the GDP and, crucially, the exchange of goods that do not contribute to the economy.

An example of a good which does not contribute if I mow the lawn of my parent, or if I looked after the family farm. I am not paid for my service, because I am part of the 'household' and so we all count as one economic unit. By contrast, if I were brought in to another farm, I would have to be paid for my work. If I am part of the household, I do not contribute to GDP; if I am not, I do contribute to GDP.

So now suppose a man worked on the farm. He contributes to GDP by being paid for his work. Now assume he marries the male owner of the farm. This gay marriage means they now fall under the same household, and so he does not have to pay him for his work - when he gets paid, it is just an exchange of money within the household, or the household paying itself, which is not a market good.

As when they marry they are no longer contributing to the GDP, this means their marriage 'hurt' the GDP. In other words, their gay marriage hurt the GDP! It's terrible! :(

(there is one problem with this argument - the economics is sound - but it's just a funny thing really that makes GDP more sketchy as a measure of an economy)

That is silly. Everyone knows that unmarried gay men on the farm work for free.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 6:48:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 3:36:15 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Alright, bear with me here, because I am about to ruin your worldview...

GDP is defined as the final market value of goods or services in an economy over a certain period of time. This definition specifically mentions market goods and services. This means that illegal goods do not contribute to the GDP and, crucially, the exchange of goods that do not contribute to the economy.

An example of a good which does not contribute if I mow the lawn of my parent, or if I looked after the family farm. I am not paid for my service, because I am part of the 'household' and so we all count as one economic unit. By contrast, if I were brought in to another farm, I would have to be paid for my work. If I am part of the household, I do not contribute to GDP; if I am not, I do contribute to GDP.

So now suppose a man worked on the farm. He contributes to GDP by being paid for his work. Now assume he marries the male owner of the farm. This gay marriage means they now fall under the same household, and so he does not have to pay him for his work - when he gets paid, it is just an exchange of money within the household, or the household paying itself, which is not a market good.

As when they marry they are no longer contributing to the GDP, this means their marriage 'hurt' the GDP. In other words, their gay marriage hurt the GDP! It's terrible! :(

(there is one problem with this argument - the economics is sound - but it's just a funny thing really that makes GDP more sketchy as a measure of an economy)

I can't tell whether this was meant to be a troll post or not.
Nolite Timere
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 6:58:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 3:36:15 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Alright, bear with me here, because I am about to ruin your worldview...

GDP is defined as the final market value of goods or services in an economy over a certain period of time. This definition specifically mentions market goods and services. This means that illegal goods do not contribute to the GDP and, crucially, the exchange of goods that do not contribute to the economy.

An example of a good which does not contribute if I mow the lawn of my parent, or if I looked after the family farm. I am not paid for my service, because I am part of the 'household' and so we all count as one economic unit. By contrast, if I were brought in to another farm, I would have to be paid for my work. If I am part of the household, I do not contribute to GDP; if I am not, I do contribute to GDP.

So now suppose a man worked on the farm. He contributes to GDP by being paid for his work. Now assume he marries the male owner of the farm. This gay marriage means they now fall under the same household, and so he does not have to pay him for his work - when he gets paid, it is just an exchange of money within the household, or the household paying itself, which is not a market good.

As when they marry they are no longer contributing to the GDP, this means their marriage 'hurt' the GDP. In other words, their gay marriage hurt the GDP! It's terrible! :(

(there is one problem with this argument - the economics is sound - but it's just a funny thing really that makes GDP more sketchy as a measure of an economy)

People that shave their own heads instead of going to a barber hurt the nation's GDP. There's plenty of examples in this in culture. Frequently, these cost saving measures are even considered good by those that utilize them.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 4:21:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 6:58:48 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/5/2014 3:36:15 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Alright, bear with me here, because I am about to ruin your worldview...

GDP is defined as the final market value of goods or services in an economy over a certain period of time. This definition specifically mentions market goods and services. This means that illegal goods do not contribute to the GDP and, crucially, the exchange of goods that do not contribute to the economy.

An example of a good which does not contribute if I mow the lawn of my parent, or if I looked after the family farm. I am not paid for my service, because I am part of the 'household' and so we all count as one economic unit. By contrast, if I were brought in to another farm, I would have to be paid for my work. If I am part of the household, I do not contribute to GDP; if I am not, I do contribute to GDP.

So now suppose a man worked on the farm. He contributes to GDP by being paid for his work. Now assume he marries the male owner of the farm. This gay marriage means they now fall under the same household, and so he does not have to pay him for his work - when he gets paid, it is just an exchange of money within the household, or the household paying itself, which is not a market good.

As when they marry they are no longer contributing to the GDP, this means their marriage 'hurt' the GDP. In other words, their gay marriage hurt the GDP! It's terrible! :(

(there is one problem with this argument - the economics is sound - but it's just a funny thing really that makes GDP more sketchy as a measure of an economy)

People that shave their own heads instead of going to a barber hurt the nation's GDP. There's plenty of examples in this in culture. Frequently, these cost saving measures are even considered good by those that utilize them.

Two answer both questions: it is a satire post. The argument is pretty much true, so it just goes to show the silliness of appeals to GDP as an infallible standard of wealth, as the self-sufficient household has no contribution to GDP, even if they live in a mansion.

Also, you've just shown that self-shaving is clearly economically disastrous. I am no longer going to use my trimmer, but pay the barbers instead. All hail the GDP!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 4:29:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 4:21:46 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/16/2014 6:58:48 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/5/2014 3:36:15 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Alright, bear with me here, because I am about to ruin your worldview...

GDP is defined as the final market value of goods or services in an economy over a certain period of time. This definition specifically mentions market goods and services. This means that illegal goods do not contribute to the GDP and, crucially, the exchange of goods that do not contribute to the economy.

An example of a good which does not contribute if I mow the lawn of my parent, or if I looked after the family farm. I am not paid for my service, because I am part of the 'household' and so we all count as one economic unit. By contrast, if I were brought in to another farm, I would have to be paid for my work. If I am part of the household, I do not contribute to GDP; if I am not, I do contribute to GDP.

So now suppose a man worked on the farm. He contributes to GDP by being paid for his work. Now assume he marries the male owner of the farm. This gay marriage means they now fall under the same household, and so he does not have to pay him for his work - when he gets paid, it is just an exchange of money within the household, or the household paying itself, which is not a market good.

As when they marry they are no longer contributing to the GDP, this means their marriage 'hurt' the GDP. In other words, their gay marriage hurt the GDP! It's terrible! :(

(there is one problem with this argument - the economics is sound - but it's just a funny thing really that makes GDP more sketchy as a measure of an economy)

People that shave their own heads instead of going to a barber hurt the nation's GDP. There's plenty of examples in this in culture. Frequently, these cost saving measures are even considered good by those that utilize them.

Two answer both questions: it is a satire post. The argument is pretty much true, so it just goes to show the silliness of appeals to GDP as an infallible standard of wealth, as the self-sufficient household has no contribution to GDP, even if they live in a mansion.

Also, you've just shown that self-shaving is clearly economically disastrous. I am no longer going to use my trimmer, but pay the barbers instead. All hail the GDP!

LOL. Well, maybe those that shave their hair can sell their hair to wig-creating businesses. GDP growth just might yet happen! :P
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 4:31:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Correction:

GDP growth might just yet happen!

(I'm still getting use to this whole English language business.)
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 5:01:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 6:29:00 PM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
Holy crap, this is a wonderful example of why looking at the economy in terms of the flow of money, instead of in terms of resource availability and scarcity, is flat out wrong. Thank you, good person, you've made my day.

Both are important.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 1:16:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 3:36:15 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Alright, bear with me here, because I am about to ruin your worldview...

GDP is defined as the final market value of goods or services in an economy over a certain period of time. This definition specifically mentions market goods and services. This means that illegal goods do not contribute to the GDP and, crucially, the exchange of goods that do not contribute to the economy.

An example of a good which does not contribute if I mow the lawn of my parent, or if I looked after the family farm. I am not paid for my service, because I am part of the 'household' and so we all count as one economic unit. By contrast, if I were brought in to another farm, I would have to be paid for my work. If I am part of the household, I do not contribute to GDP; if I am not, I do contribute to GDP.

So now suppose a man worked on the farm. He contributes to GDP by being paid for his work. Now assume he marries the male owner of the farm. This gay marriage means they now fall under the same household, and so he does not have to pay him for his work - when he gets paid, it is just an exchange of money within the household, or the household paying itself, which is not a market good.

As when they marry they are no longer contributing to the GDP, this means their marriage 'hurt' the GDP. In other words, their gay marriage hurt the GDP! It's terrible! :(

(there is one problem with this argument - the economics is sound - but it's just a funny thing really that makes GDP more sketchy as a measure of an economy)

Agree the economics are sound, but it fails to take account of the labor market dynamics, which would fundamentally change the outcome of this scenario.

So, basically what has occurred here is that a laborer has decided that they're willing to do the same work for far less pay (indeed no pay). This dramatically lowers the cost of doing business for the farm. This makes the farm's products more competitive, thereby growing profits and increasing investment into the farm. With these profits and investments, the farm generates more economic output, which creates more economic activity for the money multiplier to take into effect. This causes GDP to increase.

This is the exact dynamic that is occurring in developing nations. Apparently the GDP increase is more than enough to offset the decrease stemming from the lack of multiplying effects of the laborer's former wage.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 3:22:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 1:16:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/5/2014 3:36:15 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Alright, bear with me here, because I am about to ruin your worldview...

GDP is defined as the final market value of goods or services in an economy over a certain period of time. This definition specifically mentions market goods and services. This means that illegal goods do not contribute to the GDP and, crucially, the exchange of goods that do not contribute to the economy.

An example of a good which does not contribute if I mow the lawn of my parent, or if I looked after the family farm. I am not paid for my service, because I am part of the 'household' and so we all count as one economic unit. By contrast, if I were brought in to another farm, I would have to be paid for my work. If I am part of the household, I do not contribute to GDP; if I am not, I do contribute to GDP.

So now suppose a man worked on the farm. He contributes to GDP by being paid for his work. Now assume he marries the male owner of the farm. This gay marriage means they now fall under the same household, and so he does not have to pay him for his work - when he gets paid, it is just an exchange of money within the household, or the household paying itself, which is not a market good.

As when they marry they are no longer contributing to the GDP, this means their marriage 'hurt' the GDP. In other words, their gay marriage hurt the GDP! It's terrible! :(

(there is one problem with this argument - the economics is sound - but it's just a funny thing really that makes GDP more sketchy as a measure of an economy)

Agree the economics are sound, but it fails to take account of the labor market dynamics, which would fundamentally change the outcome of this scenario.

So, basically what has occurred here is that a laborer has decided that they're willing to do the same work for far less pay (indeed no pay). This dramatically lowers the cost of doing business for the farm. This makes the farm's products more competitive, thereby growing profits and increasing investment into the farm. With these profits and investments, the farm generates more economic output, which creates more economic activity for the money multiplier to take into effect. This causes GDP to increase.

This is the exact dynamic that is occurring in developing nations. Apparently the GDP increase is more than enough to offset the decrease stemming from the lack of multiplying effects of the laborer's former wage.

You're right in most of this. The difference is though that there is no increase in labour in my example - his form of payment changes. While the former is taken into account in GDP, the latter would not be. Thus, according to GDP measurements, GDP has decreased even though the same amount of goods are produced.

That is what I am trying to get across at least. In any case, I believe the man would be paid some money for working on the farm, even though that payment is not taken into account by GDP. Though, if his wage does change as a result of his newfound marital status, then this point is certainly valid. I'll probably change 'farm' to something like 'lawn' or dog-walking, to make it somewhat more explicit. Ahh well.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...