NAOS
Well-Known Member
That's a fallacy limited by some imaginary sales maximum. Human psychology plays a huge role in economic output. Being spurred to purchase more because I like the environment increases velocity. Sales tax revenues increase, providing funding for additional jobs elsewhere. Public transportation loads have increased moving people to this new center. No doubt many others frequented gas stations, etc. at a higher clip in their travels too and from it.
This essentially contradicts your first paragraph. New technologies create jobs by? (stimulating demand for products)
The manufacturing angle is identical to the pre-1900's farm angle. The majority of jobs as a % of the population in both these categories have disappeared and we're all better off for it.
I sincerely love it when you jump in with these well-informed economics arguments. I thought about this differently after you posted, so thanks.
I agree that the differential rate of consumption can have transformative effects on an economy. Therefore, seeing that One Brow's comments didn't acknowledge this differential and the ensuing complexity, what he said had certain limitations. That said, it is also possible that the increased rate of consumption spurred on by this mall (which is certain to happen at first) will taper off and come back to rates that equal "shuffling around." In other words, what he said has limitations, but could still be generally true. Remember, there is $2 billion invested here....
It's also certainly the case that the advanced econometrics you hinted at are themselves full of certain assumptions/fallacies. The most obvious being how they are predicated on a model of continuous growth/accumulation. That's not reducible to human psychology, but requires participation from the Earth and productive bodies. Do your econometrics account for the true costs of production? <-- too short, but I gotta run.
