Study: U.S. Economic Status: Again, #1 in the World

Post Reply New Topic

The US economy runs on borrowing from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, etc. Federal debt is rising as a percentage of GDP (rising faster than the country's ability to pay - in other words, current fiscal policy is flatly, plainly unsustainable - US fiscal irresponsibility is on a par with 1970s Mexico), and consumers are also borrowing as if there were no tomorrow. Somehow that doesn't sound like a healthy economy to me (better than Italy, but still...).

So Sargon, your argument is that China cannot possibly catch up with the US because Japan didn't? What kind of argument is that? It's not as if they had to keep growing at present rates for decades to catch up. Sure, they might still blow it - and it's also possible that the US will blow it. It's not a fundmaental law of nature that the US or the Western world be at the top and they can be replaced, as has happened many times in history.

Wow, people seem to love to purposely misinterpret my words here. I never said that China can't possible catch up with the U.S. because Japan didn't (and never implied that). What I said was there is no certainty that China will catch up with U.S. by 2015 and historically there has always been fears of these rapidly growing economies, but those fears never meet reality. Sure, it is possible China, but it is equally possible China won't (keep in mind no county has been able to experience such high growth rates forever, it will "stabilize" so to speak).

I'll agree that the U.S. fiscal policy is unstable and problematic, however consumer spending is not really much of a problem (nor is their borrowing).



GDP and GDP per capita are the best single indicators of a nation's wellbeing and quality of life. No other metric can come close to equaling that. I haven't studied UK history in that level of detail, but I assume their GDP was high, but their GDP per capita was lower, hence the lower welfare per person (although, as I recall the heavy industry lead to the industrial revolution, which actually helped more people in Britain with higher wages and shorter hours). Everyone seems to like to think the government saved them from the evil businesses, and everyone was better off because of it with no cost. The no cost partly is flatly incorrect, but again, since I haven't studied that in depth on the UK I can't really go into it much. As for Europe vs. US quality of life, there are some noticeable differences (look how much stuff Americans can afford vs Europeans as well as their houses and amenities that go with them, such as AC during the summer). Sure, two areas are pretty close in terms of quality of life though, but I'd say Americans tend to have a slight advantage vs. the average European. Resource depletion is no problem again if we adhere to the market (government interference might lead to resource depletion though).

Sargon, your general approach is that whatever increased the creation of wealth is great for the country no matter how that wealth is distributed or who benefits. You continually sneer at the fact labor costs rise which is the result of better pay for the men who do the work and, as a matter of fact, form the overwhelming bulk of the consumer economy. If you do not pay laborers a decent wage they don't have the means to buy the goods they produce which is what keeps the economy going.
I doubt you give a damn about the truth but you can learn a good deal about the great depression at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depr ... and_income.

Any reasonable analysis of US health statistics compared to the rest of the world demonstrates how far behind the US is in caring for its population.

I'm sorry. you're pushing a line of baloney.

Sure, an isolated island with only 10 people would be pretty constricted. But Luxembourg has tourism, light manufacturing (dentures, other medical supplies), and banking. I thought pretty much every country traded internationally - while there are a few semi-autarchic nations, even Albania has come in out of the cold. Luxembourg and Singapore and Hong Kong are perfectly viable from an economic standpoint as I see it - there might be issues with respect to national defense and militarism for some smaller states, but I don't see major diseconomies of scale when it comes to business. If anything, there is the opposite - Singapore has a fairly unified vision of the world, has a culture of business that is reinforced by the general social fabric, and is more nimble than some bigger countries.

Does this 'bigger is better' idea apply to families? Is someone automatically better off if they come from a house with 8 first degree relatives than 4? Or is it the per capita income of the household? What about cities? Is someone in a big city automatically better off than someone from a medium sized city? After all, they are part of a bigger economy.

It's no use arguing with Right-Libertarians, Neo-Liberals, and other believers of Free Market Fundamentalism, it's like a religion to them.

I think it would be wiser to go with experts who have studied the great depression for years than a wikipedia article of unknown authors who have their own viewpoints (wikipedia certainly has its uses on certain subjects, no doubt). Also, I never disputed inequality exists, only that it is not a bad thing (unless it is acquired via unsavory means such as murdering and looting). We have a difference of opinion on what constitutes "caring for a population", but that does not mean the economist viewpoint is unreasonable (indeed, the economist viewpoint is empirically and logically based, it just does not have that emotional component that people seem to crave when making policy). Statistically, the U.S. has the world's largest GDP, and the highest GDP per capita given its size (as in using comparable countries); this is an indisputable fact. Empirically, you have not demonstrated you other goals actually translate into better results (for example, sure, most of Europe has "free health care', but when controlling for non-medical factors, they don't live any longer than Americans).



I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but if I say "some" or "average" that does not mean all. No where did I ever say that bigger GDP is always better than bigger GDP per capita, only that in those small countries with high GDP per capita have low overall GDP and using one method is not necessarily better than the other (there are advantages to both). It is rather poor form to take something when clearly did not imply to apply it everything and try to apply it to everything. Similarly I never implied "bigger is always better" (in terms of GDP and GDP per capita, it generally is), so your implication that I would say bigger families are always better is completely baseless, not too relevant to the topic and not worth my time to talk about.



A more accurate statement would be it is not very useful arguing based on emotion with economist types as they is not normally a factor when making decisions. Economists care about results and effective means to ends. Making statements with no background in the subject (i.e. on the Great Depression) or empirically have not been proven do not make good arguments. The reason the free market tends to be favored is because statistically, more favorable results occur under it. If you can prove otherwise without feeling, I am always open to new ideas (in fact, I enjoy them greatly if they make some sense and do not conform to my viewpoint or make me change my views).

Yes, he does argue that is true. I don't think that he sneers at that, because I would bet that his arguments on sweatshops and poor labor conditions is based upon the idea that labor costs rise. I do think that Sargon would not agree with your shallow Keynesian-ish idea, as here is how he would likely see it:

Y(K,L) = C(Y-T) + I(r*) + G + NX

If C falls, then I or NX must increase, as the wealth of the economy is based upon production and these produced resources are not completely non-existent but must be used. Basically, he is relying on Say's law, and your argument is that if the distribution of wealth changes, then money will somehow cease to flow at all, or that the flow will be incredibly, which, off-hand, does not seem that logical. The issue cannot ever really be a matter of distribution but coordination, and I don't see a reason to think that a long-run trend will necessarily disrupt a short-term process, at least any more than any other long-run trend. I really do not think that most economists really believe the inequality explanation anyway, and instead will look to why financial markets failed, which would have to be an error with the supply for some reason, as the great depression was a deflationary spiral.

No, it shows how much the US has a malfunctioning health care system. The issue isn't necessarily care, Singapore has a model of health care where every group involved pays significantly less and gets better outcomes than the US, so the issue is the mechanism.

Actually, I tend to doubt that. Umm... one of the times I talked to Sargon, he admitted to graduating from one of the better economics universities in the nation, and a lot of his thinking really just seems reflective of the intellectual slant of that university(certain universities are better known for developing certain ideas and lines of thinking, like the University of Chicago).


Well, it has ideological meaning just like all other people seem to have for their ideas, and the levels vary from individual to individual. One of the issues hurting communication is a difference in ethical goals, and perhaps different tendencies in methodology. Really though, if we looked, I would not be surprised if on average, our right-libertarians, neo-liberals, and other free market fundamentalists actually have a stronger economics background than their opposition in many cases. Perhaps you may try to get around this with your metaeconomic claims, but I think that those are up for debate, and still there would be question on the extent of your background in economics, the history of economic thought, and other things of that nature.