CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 35 minutes ago, PeterMP said: Economics is very much a science. Thats just your opinion. It’s really up for debate. Quote You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to pass your opinions off as facts, which is what you did. Quote I did find this article interesting https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/2011/08/economies-of-scale-do-not-equal.html?m=1 I guess it just depends where we are at on the curve (and ultimately, having to choose, I would say we are closer to diseconomies of scale) Increases in productivity can increase gdp and decreases in productivity can decrease gdp, so it just depends on if economies for scale/scope increase or decrease productivity. They do increase productivity to a point, but at a certain scale and scope productivity decreases.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 I think Economics is generally considered a social science (Also my worst subject) but CCG has a point in that the results aren’t always repeatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 On 2/16/2019 at 3:46 PM, CousinsCowgirl84 said: Thats just your opinion. It’s really up for debate. Increases in productivity can increase gdp and decreases in productivity can decrease gdp, so it just depends on if economies for scale/scope increase or decrease productivity. They do increase productivity to a point, but at a certain scale and scope productivity decreases.... No, it isn't really up for debate. Even your posts indicate that it is science. In the arts, you don't make statements like if A is true, then B is true. If we have economies of scale (and not diseconomies of scale), companies being larger will increaes GDP is not an artistic statement. That's a scientific statement. It isn't an easily tested scientific statement, but it is inherently a scientific statement. Now, yes, under the some conditions, large companies can increase GDP. It is possible for large companies to increase GDP. It is possible that breaking up Amazon, FaceBook, etc. will decrease GDP. It is also possible that breaking them up will increase GDP. (And it is possible that it will have no real effect on GDP). Your initial post only stated the breaking them up will decrease GDP. On 2/8/2019 at 1:30 PM, CousinsCowgirl84 said: Fair enough. If you want to to go down that route breaking up a larger company into smaller ones is less efficient and will lower gdp but it might allow the bottom to grow. In fact, breaking up the larger companies might cause GDP to INCREASE AND allow the bottom to grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 12 minutes ago, PeterMP said: No, it isn't really up for debate. Even your posts indicate that it is science. In the arts, you don't make statements like if A is true, then B is true. Ok... Quote Now, yes, under the some conditions, large companies can increase GDP. It is possible for large companies to increase GDP. It is possible that breaking up Amazon, FaceBook, etc. will decrease GDP. It is also possible that breaking them up will increase GDP. (And it is possible that it will have no real effect on GDP). Now it sounds like an art again... I agree with what you are saying, I did not originally consider diseconomies of scale (which is why, upon doing more investigation, brought it up). But, it hasn’t been proven that amazon is causing diseconomies of scale, either. (Not that you were saying it was, just that if you are debating breaking large companies, that information would be valuable) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.