Population Explosion and How to Fix It

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
<<< I’ll keep this post shorter, since you’ve given me a complex.

I didn’t mean that your post was too long. I simply truncated it to save room on the page. I am in no position to have anything to say to anyone else about long posts.

pwrlifter198 wrote:
<<< I spent much of my military career in the rural south of the US where there exists a level of poverty most northern and mid-western states don’t see. Union membership represents about 8 percent of the working population in these “right to work” states and wages hover around 20 percent below the national average. >>>

Welcome to the big bad world. The difference between us is that you believe it is both possible and the responsibility of EVERYBODY to assure that NOBODY goes without. I know that artificially engineered compassion in the form legislatively coerced resource redistribution serves only to penalize productivity. See how well 40 years of the war on poverty is working by your own declaration?

pwrlifter198 wrote:
<<< Most of the countries south of our border don’t have any of the poison pills you rail against and I’d be willing to bet you wouldn’t trade places with anyone there on your worst day. >>>

This can’t be a serious statement.

pwrlifter198 wrote:
As to, I haven’t seen shit, I am curious as to how many stamps are in your passport, sport. Your entire frame of reference seems crafted by your immediate surroundings.

You have been exposed to much more than you’ve actually seen with any clarity.

pwrlifter198 wrote:
Also, I love how you choose the villains in your stories. Detroit is a cautionary tale about top-heavy corporations with no fiscal discipline. It is also an example of American companies having to compete with foreign companies that don’t have similar nuts to crack. Japanese auto manufacturers don’t have to shoulder the costs of medical insurance or legacy costs, because their government picks up the tab. This is one reason some large corporations, pharma and for-profit hospitals excluded, have put their considerable political weight in the form of 527s behind health care reform. It is an enormous expense.

Please continue making my arguments for me. Thanks.

pwrlifter198 wrote:
Try imagining your city now with no safety net. You’d be tripping over the homeless if you aren’t already. Crime and suicide rates would skyrocket and public safety would be a pipedream. If you’d prefer that Mad Max world, then you can have it. >>>

ROFLMAO!!! Perfect description of present day Detroit Michigan. ROFLMAO!!!

The once mighty motor city. The former industrial nucleus of the globe that put the world on wheels and onetime economic engine of the United States. A haven for anybody with the will to work and at least as safe as any other big city in the nation… until the 60’s when people like you inflicted the rest of us with your deluded neo communist vision.

Today Detroit is a murderous third world shithole pickled in sickness and violence. Almost wholly dependent upon your precious compassionate social programs.

I do believe that you personally believe what you believe with honest motivations. You are simply very very tragically wrong.
[/quote]

I am not sure which of my “neo communist visions” you were referring to, but unionisation of the automotive industry took place well before the 60’s (look up National Labor Relations Act). However, I am no longer certain which of my ideas you find the most repugnant. I posted first on this thread to simply state, albeit sarcastically, that the New Deal and the programs that grew out of it were in response to an implosion of a largely unchecked free-market, not the cause of it.

If you had a magic wand, which government programs would you end tomorrow? Perhaps the VA would be your first to go. After all there are about 250,000 homeless vets right now, those lazy, communist bastards. Nobody promised them a rosegarden. Perhaps you would squash Social Security pension payments and eliminate the $806 windfall that my grandmother receives every month. God knows all she did to deserve that hefty sum was work as a waitress for 50 years, 30 in the same place. Maybe we could get rid of disability payments for the blind and disabled. Slack-asses need to get a job making ballpoint pens. Of course when you create a net, any net, you are going to catch some unintended people in said net (too many uses of the word “net”). This happened in the “war on drugs” and the “war on poverty.” Incidentally, if you want to spend the most money possible on a fix, wage war on a problem.

Are you going to take down your poster of Ronald Reagan you have hanging up in your shower? He did double the social security tax taken out of everyone’s paycheck. The good news for the uber-affluent is that they don’t pay that tax for too long in any year. The CEO of Exxon, for example, is done paying Social Security taxes by lunchtime January 2nd each year. This is just one of the reasons ameteur capitalist Warren Buffet is on record stating that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does. Warren Buffet and Ronald Reagan, two flaming liberal communists.

Listen, I love capitalism. I agree that it encourages inovation and creativity and is the engine that drives our economy. I also love bench-pressing and am pretty good at it (T-rex like short arms mixed with a lifetime committement), but I don’t think it’s the only exercise in the gym. I also don’t believe that if one rep is good, then one-thousand reps done in succession must be great. The answers to life’s complicated problems never exist on any extreme, they are found at the intercection of ideas. Solutions come by a miriad of arduous compromises made by people with differing views. The founders did a good thing when they made the legislative process painfully slow and requiring debate. They had just freed themselves of a highly efficient monarchy and knew that efficiency doesn’t always equal better outcomes.

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
Then move to an island, form your own government…

I don’t feel like arguing with you anymore, since you either can’t or don’t want to understand what I wrote. I would suggest that you stop using the “if you don’t like it, leave” argument - you might just get your wish, and then this country would be well and truly fucked.

PS you forgot about the curl rack[/quote]

I am curious as to where you would go. The US has it’s problems no doubt, but cite an example for me with more freedom of movement and more opportunity than the US. We have a long way to go on things like literacy and health-care, and our current economic state is not as its best (OK understatement), but given the options, I’ll take the US over any place I’ve lived or visited. Even the examples I’ve cited with better access to healthcare, etc. don’t hold a candle to us in the liberty department. You’ll say, yes, but all that is in jeopardy now that we have a liberal president and a liberal congress. Don’t worry, you still have a 5-4 lead in the Supremes and they have the final word on all Congressional powers. (look up Supreme Court and New Deal). One of the great powers we have as US Citizens is the right to bitch freely about what we don’t like. Jefferson and company really went out on a limb on this one. We were and are an experiment still in the works. We have no predicessors and no peers. We will be fine.

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
I posted first on this thread to simply state, albeit sarcastically, that the New Deal and the programs that grew out of it were in response to an implosion of a largely unchecked free-market, not the cause of it.
[/quote]

Yes, but many of the people you are arguing with understand economics and do not buy the official story.

What part of the free market went unchecked? Quick! go get your 7th grade civics book.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
I posted first on this thread to simply state, albeit sarcastically, that the New Deal and the programs that grew out of it were in response to an implosion of a largely unchecked free-market, not the cause of it.

Yes, but many of the people you are arguing with understand economics and do not buy the official story.

What part of the free market went unchecked? Quick! go get your 7th grade civics book.[/quote]

Not so different from today, people and corperations were allowed to borrow for speculative investments. Both implosions, then and now, were born of the belief that the current system was fail proof. The speculation this time was on rising property values and sub-prime mortgage rates of return. As for understanding economics, congratulations on having that one pinned down. You would have a hard time getting two economic professors in the same University to agree on the exact causes of the Great Depression or our current economic turmoil, but good for you for figuring it out before any of the “book worms” did. And you accuse me of being high-minded.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Dustin wrote:
John S. wrote:
The liberals Utopian dream?

Nah, a statist’s utopian dream.

Not sure how you got statist out of that, Perhaps we should have a look at the liberals dream leader.[/quote]

“Liberals” want to murder millions of people? How the heck is a murderous dictator their leader? Some of you need to quit listening to the Glenn Becks and Michael Savages of the world. They don’t know what they are talking about.

And what makes an individual a liberal?

It’s amusing to see people throw that term at others in an attempt to describe them without even knowing what it means.

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
I posted first on this thread to simply state, albeit sarcastically, that the New Deal and the programs that grew out of it were in response to an implosion of a largely unchecked free-market, not the cause of it.

Yes, but many of the people you are arguing with understand economics and do not buy the official story.

What part of the free market went unchecked? Quick! go get your 7th grade civics book.

Not so different from today, people and corperations were allowed to borrow for speculative investments. Both implosions, then and now, were born of the belief that the current system was fail proof. The speculation this time was on rising property values and sub-prime mortgage rates of return. As for understanding economics, congratulations on having that one pinned down. You would have a hard time getting two economic professors in the same University to agree on the exact causes of the Great Depression or our current economic turmoil, but good for you for figuring it out before any of the “book worms” did. And you accuse me of being high-minded.
[/quote]

That is a failure of government not protecting the natural rights of its citizens. Not a failure of the free market.

The free market cannot fail. People either profit or go bankrupt.

How does the market fail if people by their own natural inability to succeed cannot profit?

How does it therefore become the job of government to protect people from their own inability to profit?

Everything you describe is not the failure of the market but rather the failure of government to protect its citizens.

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
Not so different from today, people and corperations were allowed to borrow for speculative investments. Both implosions, then and now, were born of the belief that the current system was fail proof. The speculation this time was on rising property values and sub-prime mortgage rates of return.

[/quote]
I just wanted to point out that the above is a fairly exacting assertion of what caused both the great depression and the current one.

And then this follows it:

Please tell me Iâ??m not the only one that noticed the extreme hypocrisy contained within one paragraph.

Oh no, the government had nothing to do with the current collapse. It was all evil corporations.

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
<<< Yet another long post (no complex required)>>>
[/quote]

I really don’t mean this in a sarcastic way this time, but you are late to the discussions here. Every last point you mention has been plumbed in exasperatingly comprehensive detail by myself and others in the last year or so that I’ve been posting in this particular board.

Suffice it to say that I haven’t heard a substantively new argument in years and your posts are no exception.

I wholeheartedly agree with Jefferson:

[quote]Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1791: (emphasis mine)
The Constitution allows only the means which are necessary, not those which are merely convenient, for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give ANY non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed[/quote]

James Madison

[quote]James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.[/quote]

[quote]James Madison, Federalist 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce[/quote]

Franklin Pierce

[quote]President Franklin Pierce said in 1854:
I must question the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy … I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.[/quote]

And many other American statesman of yore who understood the notion of the allegedly charitable redistribution of private wealth to be be utterly repugnant to the defining principles of this nation. The mistake was ever starting down this road in the first place. Redistribution damages economies, punishes production and locks most of it’s recipients into eternal subcultural dependence. No study or textbook you can quote will ever dissuade me from that view. I quite simply know better.

I feel like I’m playing a mean game of whack-a-mole all by my lonesome. DD, as to my hypocrisy, I did offer a theory, but I did not state that my theory was the only one that could be considered viable. I enter most conversations with the realization, even the hope, that I might learn something. I am rarely disappointed.

Trib and Max, I have nowhere in my post argued morality. I do not even attempt here to argue right or wrong. As to Constitutionality, I’ll leave those issues to the Supremes, as the Constitution does. I am a pragmatist and I do bend to the laws of the universe. The universe moves towards entropy, or the lowest state of energy, no exceptions. Desperate people will do almost anything when survival is at stake. Placating the masses is the least expensive way to reach entropy.

Trib, as to my arriving late to the conversation, be patient, I am a quick study. I am not even saying that academically you’re wrong; just that it is unknowable whether you are right, because current market forces will never allow us to undo what’s been done. So why waste time waxing nostalgic for the days before public assistance began?

Finally, quit worshiping at the golden calf of the free market. It is a model, a good one, but a model, with its flaws. Markets are amorale. Therefore if there is more money in making your illness chronic than in curing it, prepare for the Aids cocktail, rather than the vaccine. If war is profitable to major corporations, or politicians for that matter, then don’t look peace in the Middle East.

[quote]Dustin wrote:
John S. wrote:
Dustin wrote:
John S. wrote:
The liberals Utopian dream?

Nah, a statist’s utopian dream.

Not sure how you got statist out of that, Perhaps we should have a look at the liberals dream leader.

“Liberals” want to murder millions of people? How the heck is a murderous dictator their leader? Some of you need to quit listening to the Glenn Becks and Michael Savages of the world. They don’t know what they are talking about.

And what makes an individual a liberal?

It’s amusing to see people throw that term at others in an attempt to describe them without even knowing what it means.[/quote]

A liberal is someone who thinks taking from others is ok, see tax the rich to pay for health care. They have this desire to put everyone into classes as sort of a collectives attitude. As history has shown this attitude sets up guys like Mao, also see Hitler and Stalin.

They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, so one could make the argument liberals are insane.

A liberal thinks it is ok to be a slave to the government. This crap about helping people is a farce, 70 years of there plans has done nothing but create a culture of dependency(more problems). Liberals are easily persuaded it is ok to murder its own people, see planned parenthood.

@ pwrlifter198:

You and I view the human race in general and this nation in particular from 2 irreconcilably disparate foundational paradigms.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
@ pwrlifter198:

You and I view the human race in general and this nation in particular from 2 irreconcilably disparate foundational paradigms.[/quote]

I’m fine with pwrlifter’s worldview as long as he seeks to implement it with his pocketbook, not mine.

We had a word for taking the fruits of someone’s labor and giving it to someone else against their will. Someone jog my memory here.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
@ pwrlifter198:

You and I view the human race in general and this nation in particular from 2 irreconcilably disparate foundational paradigms.

I’m fine with pwrlifter’s worldview as long as he seeks to implement it with his pocketbook, not mine.

We had a word for taking the fruits of someone’s labor and giving it to someone else against their will. Someone jog my memory here. [/quote]

I think its called theft.

[quote]John S. wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
@ pwrlifter198:

You and I view the human race in general and this nation in particular from 2 irreconcilably disparate foundational paradigms.

I’m fine with pwrlifter’s worldview as long as he seeks to implement it with his pocketbook, not mine.

We had a word for taking the fruits of someone’s labor and giving it to someone else against their will. Someone jog my memory here.

I think its called theft.[/quote]

How about “slavery?”

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
<<< I’m fine with pwrlifter’s worldview as long as he seeks to implement it with his pocketbook, not mine. >>>[/quote]

I’m not.
Regardless of who’s pocketbook is looted to implement it, the disastrous consequences to the rest of society remain the same.

[quote]John S. wrote:
The liberals Utopian dream?[/quote]

The only problem is that this study was funded by a conservative organization??

OK, Imm going to write slowly and use small words. The current outcomes that you see around you were inevitable. By your own arguments, free-markets breed innovation, innovation breeds efficiency. Efficiency translated equals fewer people, i.e. workers, are required to deliver goods and services to the market place.

Here’s the false choice most frequently served up by conservative commentators, “get out of the way and let businesses create jobs.” The problem with that choice is that enterprises are not in the business of creating jobs; their role is to deliver goods and services to the market place as efficiently and inexpensively as possible. No CEO has ever gone to a board meeting and reported, “Good news, I have managed to increase the number of workers necessary to produce our widgets.”

So let your futuristic game software writing minds leap to the natural conclusion, the market becomes more efficient, fewer workers are needed to maintain the mechanism, which means fewer niches for individuals to fill. The law of competitive exclusion states that no two species will occupy the same niche and compete for exactly the same resources in the same habitat for very long. This is biology and physics we’re arguing here, not philosophy.

Next consider that politicians deal in a currency of influence and power, but also need money to fund campaigns which have become increasingly more expensive. This leaves them in the uncomfortable position of promising jobs that are not forthcoming to individuals no longer needed, while promising the affluent that their status is safe.

The job of policymakers in a representative government then becomes a race to the bottom of figuring out how to look the least hypocritical. The end result is, no one can present to me a scenario in which the outcome we currently have would be different. It may have been delayed, but even that is unlikely.

John S wrote:
A liberal is someone who thinks taking from others is ok, see tax the rich to pay for health care. They have this desire to put everyone into classes as sort of a collectives attitude. As history has shown this attitude sets up guys like Mao, also see Hitler and Stalin.

My friend John S. has really gone out on a limb here. Stalin was set up by desperate poverty and a huge disparity in classes between a corrupt and weak aristocracy and the commoners. He just used the mechanisms available to him, as did Hitler. Also, a Jeffersonian non-interventionist policy of the US and her allies gave Hitler years to build his army, commit atrocities, and position himself for his Blitzkrieg campaign.

As for Mao, he doesn’t belong in the same category as Stalin and Hitler. His revolution preyed on the ignorant peasants of rural China and took decades. The US helped in that one by undermining the sitting regime and orchestrating its fall. We did a repeat of this in the 70’s with Iran and ushered in the Ayatollah.

Education is the enemy of oppression. Every single leader you mentioned preyed on the ignorance of the masses to catapult themselves into power. By your analogy however, Paul the Apostle would have to be lumped into that category:

2 Corinthians 8: 13-15 13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, 15as it is written:"He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."b NIV

This has been fun, but I have a real live job to tend to, not an abstract one. So, I suggest you all put down your copy of the Economist you have tightly clinched in your twenty-something fists, leave your parents basement, and go get some sun. Your vitamin D deficiency is starting to show.

Then you can all meet back in your secret cave, finish writing your own version of John Madden Football 22 you hope will finance your code writing for the secret software that will rid the planet of pinko-communist liberals like me.

Trib, when I was twenty-something I was an enlisted US Army Ranger infantryman. I was beating the raise-yourself-by-your-bootstraps drum while listening to Rush during my lunch hour when most of the posters here thought Bugs-Bunny was the most interesting thing on TV. I may be one of three liberal ex-Rangers in the whole world and the other two are likely ex-officers.

If you think I came by my world view after a semester of social sciences at the on-post college classroom I managed to earn my undergrad in, you’re sadly mistaken. Digging in your heels and being unwilling to challenge your own worldview is the beginning of ignorance. Read, no immerse yourself in opposing views. If your point of view is worth its salt, it will stand the scrutiny.

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
OK, Imm going to write slowly and use small words. The current outcomes that you see around you were inevitable. By your own arguments, free-markets breed innovation, innovation breeds efficiency. Efficiency translated equals fewer people, i.e. workers, are required to deliver goods and services to the market place.
[/quote]

You are missing the larger picture. Yes, technology improves productivity but capital goods also become more numerous and therefore can employ more people. Wages increase because capital good become more numerous than the people who can employ them in productive enterprise.

In fact, even in Soviet Russia there were so many tractors being built but not enough people to operate them and they rusted in the fields while the masses went hungry. That is why socialism ultimately failed. The planners had no way to know when to scale back production of certain capital goods because there was no notion of profitability. They had quotas to fill and that is all they knew.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[/quote]

Lift, just when I think I have you figured out, you suprise. Take this thread, “Population Explosion and How to Fix It.” I was certain your response would be something like, “Populations don’t explode. That’s collectivist thinking. Only individuals explode. And when they do, it’s a messy business.”

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
OK, Imm going to write slowly and use small words. The current outcomes that you see around you were inevitable. By your own arguments, free-markets breed innovation, innovation breeds efficiency. Efficiency translated equals fewer people, i.e. workers, are required to deliver goods and services to the market place.

Here’s the false choice most frequently served up by conservative commentators, “get out of the way and let businesses create jobs.” The problem with that choice is that enterprises are not in the business of creating jobs; their role is to deliver goods and services to the market place as efficiently and inexpensively as possible. No CEO has ever gone to a board meeting and reported, “Good news, I have managed to increase the number of workers necessary to produce our widgets.”

So let your futuristic game software writing minds leap to the natural conclusion, the market becomes more efficient, fewer workers are needed to maintain the mechanism, which means fewer niches for individuals to fill. The law of competitive exclusion states that no two species will occupy the same niche and compete for exactly the same resources in the same habitat for very long. This is biology and physics we’re arguing here, not philosophy.

Next consider that politicians deal in a currency of influence and power, but also need money to fund campaigns which have become increasingly more expensive. This leaves them in the uncomfortable position of promising jobs that are not forthcoming to individuals no longer needed, while promising the affluent that their status is safe.

The job of policymakers in a representative government then becomes a race to the bottom of figuring out how to look the least hypocritical. The end result is, no one can present to me a scenario in which the outcome we currently have would be different. It may have been delayed, but even that is unlikely.

John S wrote:
A liberal is someone who thinks taking from others is ok, see tax the rich to pay for health care. They have this desire to put everyone into classes as sort of a collectives attitude. As history has shown this attitude sets up guys like Mao, also see Hitler and Stalin.

My friend John S. has really gone out on a limb here. Stalin was set up by desperate poverty and a huge disparity in classes between a corrupt and weak aristocracy and the commoners. He just used the mechanisms available to him, as did Hitler. Also, a Jeffersonian non-interventionist policy of the US and her allies gave Hitler years to build his army, commit atrocities, and position himself for his Blitzkrieg campaign.

As for Mao, he doesn’t belong in the same category as Stalin and Hitler. His revolution preyed on the ignorant peasants of rural China and took decades. The US helped in that one by undermining the sitting regime and orchestrating its fall. We did a repeat of this in the 70’s with Iran and ushered in the Ayatollah.

Education is the enemy of oppression. Every single leader you mentioned preyed on the ignorance of the masses to catapult themselves into power. By your analogy however, Paul the Apostle would have to be lumped into that category:

2 Corinthians 8: 13-15 13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, 15as it is written:"He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."b NIV

This has been fun, but I have a real live job to tend to, not an abstract one. So, I suggest you all put down your copy of the Economist you have tightly clinched in your twenty-something fists, leave your parents basement, and go get some sun. Your vitamin D deficiency is starting to show.

Then you can all meet back in your secret cave, finish writing your own version of John Madden Football 22 you hope will finance your code writing for the secret software that will rid the planet of pinko-communist liberals like me.

Trib, when I was twenty-something I was an enlisted US Army Ranger infantryman. I was beating the raise-yourself-by-your-bootstraps drum while listening to Rush during my lunch hour when most of the posters here thought Bugs-Bunny was the most interesting thing on TV. I may be one of three liberal ex-Rangers in the whole world and the other two are likely ex-officers.

If you think I came by my world view after a semester of social sciences at the on-post college classroom I managed to earn my undergrad in, you’re sadly mistaken. Digging in your heels and being unwilling to challenge your own worldview is the beginning of ignorance. Read, no immerse yourself in opposing views. If your point of view is worth its salt, it will stand the scrutiny.
[/quote]

You completely oversimplified the market in order to suit your thoughts. You left out a HUGE chunk of what innovation provides. (I find it ridiculous you are arguing the evils of innovation on the internet, but I digress). Mainly you left out market creation and expansion.

What happens when you increase efficiency through technology? Goods get cheaper, and production must increase. Not to mention, people then have more opportunity to spend on luxury items, opening other markets.

Let me attempt to illustrate to you with small words and a simple example. Farming. You know, the old mcdonald guy for those elementary books. When this country was founded 95% of the population were farmers. Today, because of technological innovation, farming employs only about 5% of the population. Did technology destroy 90% of employment opportunity in that time? If not for the innovation in farming technology, 95% of people would still be farming and all the other markets that currently employ that other 90% wouldnâ??t exist.

When ford created the assembly line, he made it to where everyone could afford a car. This didnâ??t reduce the number of people employed making cars. It greatly expanded it. And as a nice side benefit, more people got to own cars. But I guess we could just go back to custom hand made cars that only the rich could afford.

Innovation leads to new markets, efficiency leads to market expansion. Maybe you should switch to highschool books or something. Or maybe youâ??d rather us all stay farmers.