Conversation is the base, then explanation then a form for plot?? and perhaps some characters?? Add on after story has evolved???
““The growth of human capital whether measured by the amount spent on education as a percentage of GDP or as a direct monetary contribution to an individual education,…”
“Hang on, thats a mouthful, what’s GDP?”
It was not of particular importance to what he was saying, the use of these terms, once so integral and now ivied over was intended only to show his firm grasp of the subject matter. Not provide an answer however may imply ignorance and since the question has been asked it must be at some point be answered and thus laid to rest. Thankfully, in such a case we can rely on characters to have that basic human wish to flout their intelligence.
“Gross Domestic Product is basically the sum of production, it was usually given in terms of how much each individual in each country earned, this made it more palatable for consumption so to speak. People liked to hear that they collectively earned so and so much which they could then compare…”
The answer may in fact not be quite correct: Nevertheless as both the answer and the question are constructs imagined by the human mind their existence is at best finite and as was previously stated, the definition is of little or no interest to the conversationm which continues despite the necessity of defining the relevance of irrelevance.
“…trended towards the argument that as spending on education increased so then did the GDP.”
“Your statement being that an educated population is of greater worth?”
The evolutionary mechanism which rules that survival is determined solely by survivability, may often ruled ignorance to be more fitting than intelligence. Thus while some may quickly reduce the argument to its bones, others are still searching for the kill. Ignoring the fact that the meat may be poisoned as was pointed out earlier, inspiration must wait until the game has been properly degusted by all.
“So then… as the population increased”
“Due to increased investment in education”
“The population increased proportionally with education?”
“No… well… maybe… Population increased proportionate with spending on education but…”
“Population growth has a pretty direct correlation with individual prosperity which…”
“the poor grow quicker”
“Population growth has a pretty direct correlation with individual prosperity which…”
“the rich grow richer”
“Population growth has a pretty direct correlation with individual prosperity which…”
“the rich grow richer because of the increased number of poor available to do their work for them, while the poor replace their populaiton at a disporportionately high rate in order to climb out of poverty.
” So the richness of the rich and the number of the poor is reciprocitous”
“Reciprocal?”
He seemed happy with this argument, thinking that some things still can be thought rather than googled. Although once thought out loud, written down and uploaded, the thought would be googleable and valued based on the number of believers it attracted (the number of hits?).
“Population growth has a pretty direct correlation with individual prosperity which has a pretty direct correlation with increased education.”
“Is an educated population of greater worth?”
The logic in the marketplace being that an increasingly educated population leads to increased prosperity is is therefore of greater worth. Conversely Darwinian logic would state that the worth of a population is solely dependant on their ability to survive. We might argue for a while about who is logically more correct but since values in the market democracy must ultimately be subscribed based on market share the ideas/beliefs of the individual are largely worthless when cotrasted with the will of the mob. However it may be poertinent to state that while the survival characteristic may be enhanced by individuals ability to adapt (intelligence/technology) ultimately species survivability depends upon the ability of the physical environment to support life. Humans are not as the popular myth would have superior to nature, or at least not yet, however and indeed, the popular definition of “worth” in the market democracy totally disregards the physical environment.
And “an educated population leads to increased contribution to economic growth”
“Educated people got paid more?”
“Relatively yes… and therefore spent more and this encouraged growth”
“Higher levels of education also meant that new jobs needed to be invented all the time”
“Higher levels of education allowed for a broader base from which human ingenuity could be extracted which lead to more jobs being created”
“And the old jobs?”
At this point you might wonder what is to be meant by old jobs. Physical labour is an old job that is now becoming a new job and as such will serve to portray the infallibility of the market. How creating “gyms” allows for growth.
“Needed to be done by machines or poor people”
“Either imported for that purpose, our outsourced”
“What?”
“The jobs were physically moved to so-called cheaper countries in order to maximise profits”
“Which paid for an increasingly un-useful society of riches and leisure?”
“But…”
“Whoever said that societies ought to be useful?”
“Exactly”
“It was a moral response possibly due to…”
“Brainwashing??”
“The dark side of the force!”
“Pavlov’s dogs!”
“Social conditioning takes all of these forms and many more”
“We are conditioned to believe that we owe something for our existence”
“Justification of…”
“But…”
“There is nothing that needs to be justified!”
“No but all too often the economic expansion that is bringing us all these riches and leisure is viewed as being out of control and it is in relation to this”
“That we take moral values upon us”
“That moral behaviour is imposed upon us”
“Stop saying us, you decide for yourself”
“And they decide for us”
“Whatever…”
“The morality of usefulness was in modern times seen to be an antidote to the market. If something wasn’t useful then is was directly detrimental to human survival, because the exhaustion of natural resources if not useful could not be justified”
“But the ability of the market to sell anything leads to everything being useful depending on how you characterise usefulness”
“And the morality of use was swallowed into the market, such that usefulness is now dependent not upon usefulness but on an objects ability to create a pool of sales”
“Such that if the market existed it must have had a use”
“Therefore because morality exists it must have a use”
“Possibly, getting back to the point”
“Which was?”
“The morality of usefulness and the wish to justify an existence cheapened by the growing number of people partaking in it”
“All the moral precation on precaution denied the inventiveness of the spirit and the search or longing for a better past denied the…”
“The future”
A chuckle at this as the implausibility of the argument is today more noticeable than ever.
“Meant that having a game plan over and above the search for profit…”
“This is the problem with the argument of all fundamentalists. Either they deny the existence of that which doesn’t fit their positioning with regards belief or they contradict…”
“Rather: Rely on the existence of another set of beliefs to contradict”
“To contradict what then? The truth?”
“Fundamental to fundamentalists is the wish”
“And the ability”
“Through propaganda”
“And social conditioning”
“To either deny of contradict the truth”
“Or those truths that do not fit their theories”
“Or bend the truth to fit their theories”
“One can not bend the truth, it exists outside of our selves, propaganda either contradicts or denies…”
“Or bends”
“Like you are doing!”
A bit from the narrator/commentator about the need for a conversation to have a point otherwise it will slowly, or in some cases rather rapidly peter out, can you peter out rapidly?? Anyway the point was that fundamentalist in the form of environmentalists where seen to be provide a certain section of the population with a reason for existence. Is the forceful application of a moral standpoint on populations not adhering to it justifiable? The environmentalist was the terrorist of the third world….
“The future was then to be based upon market decisions made by all based on an imperious mixture of propaganda and truth”
“Or the propagation of certain aspects of the one truth”
“Arguing then that the marketplace is evil because it lacks moral principles”
“Is an attempt by certain fundamentalists to regain control and tends to ignore that the market is fashioned in true democratic style by the decisions of the people”
“Misinformed people”
“Indeed, at first, but the need to increase in human capital in order to provide for continued economic growth led to even more spending on education”
“And with the increasing availability of information the population became truly informed”
“And the market started running itself based on the will of the people”
“Pipe dream”
And when they made a bad decision they could be seen crying publicly in the streets while at the same time acceding to the demands of a fate that encouraged them to believe in the inevitability of everything. The decision might have been bad but the lesson had to be learnt and since the majority of people only learn from their mistakes, mistakes must occur. The focus that earlier human societies had placed on blame was here entirely absent; the governments of the past had spent years and sometimes centuries trying to apportion blame that was now placed directly at the feet of the population that knew the blame was theirs whether apportioned through ignorance or intlligent argument.
““The growth of human capital whether measured by the amount spent on education as a percentage of GDP or as a direct monetary contribution to an individual education, is also subject to the law of decreasing marginal returns.”
Ceteris Paribus 