EPTI take it the graphs were based on data from the CIA factbook, which is notorious for confusing Poland with Portugal. I'd double check other data, too, if I were you, since that is no longer as reliable a source as once thought.
The World Economy: Some Data - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
True_Spike
Poland3426 Posts
I take it the graphs were based on data from the CIA factbook, which is notorious for confusing Poland with Portugal. I'd double check other data, too, if I were you, since that is no longer as reliable a source as once thought. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 28 2013 15:23 Introvert wrote: No, I know the difference there. I didn't word that the way I wanted to. I know the deficit is the amount spent over the $$ revenue, and the debt is essentially the accumulation of that. What I was trying to say...I don't know. I didn't know if it was just another word for deficit, but that made little sense, hence my initial confusion. But I'd be less confused by this if it had some sort of linked source. Really? The GDP is about 15-16 trillion, and the total debt so far is almost 17 trillion. The graph is for net debt. Net debt excludes the debt the government owes itself and stands at ~$11T. Gross debt, which includes the debt the government owes itself, stands ~$17T. Hope that helps. | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
Due to its population density (the lowest in the world), inhabitants of Australia are "living the dream" and it seems like folly to try and replicate the Australian conditions in another country with 50 times more people living in every square mile. The United States also experienced a utopia-like economy for its first couple hundred years. It's a natural consequence of the low population density. All that talk about "liberty" is well and good for New World countries where they have detached houses even in ghettos. However, the data says that it simply doesn't work for countries with high population density. E.g. the UK has one of the highest "ease of doing business" indices in the entire world and is the most underperforming economy in Europe. (Half-assed conjecture about history: I suppose the main reason South America didn't experience the success of the English-speaking colonies is that the Catholics weren't as zealous as the Puritans and didn't kill as many natives.) | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On August 28 2013 12:57 aksfjh wrote: Not completely. A lot of the debt was already accumulated in the Lost Decade, where they kept trying to stimulate the economy, but would then stop before it gained traction. There's also the problem they've had with deflation, which has pushed the debt up quite a bit. They have a generational problem. Their equivalent of the US's WW2 and Baby Boomer generations are incredibly tight fisted. After 30+ years as a first world economy, Japan is still too dependent on exports for their economy. Their citizens would rather lend their government cash than spend it. Their government is trying to spend money to stimulate their economy because their citizens wouldn't. | ||
|
legor
32 Posts
On August 28 2013 22:40 GreenGringo wrote: Due to its population density (the lowest in the world), inhabitants of Australia are "living the dream" and it seems like folly to try and replicate the Australian conditions in another country with 50 times more people living in every square mile. The United States also experienced a utopia-like economy for its first couple hundred years. It's a natural consequence of the low population density. All that talk about "liberty" is well and good for New World countries where they have detached houses even in ghettos. However, the data says that it simply doesn't work for countries with high population density. E.g. the UK has one of the highest "ease of doing business" indices in the entire world and is the most underperforming economy in Europe. (Half-assed conjecture about history: I suppose the main reason South America didn't experience the success of the English-speaking colonies is that the Catholics weren't as zealous as the Puritans and didn't kill as many natives.) This is complete rubbish. A low population density does not have positive effects on GDP per capita. I checked for some studies to proove this point, but this fact seems must be so obvious that research in this area doesn't exist. So I looked for a correlation: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BDaw1SI.png) obviously there is none. | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
On August 29 2013 03:08 legor wrote: Obviously it is ridiculous to take a bunch of countries that are mostly desert and use them to work out a correlation. And obviously your entire post is a strawman, as I never claimed there was a general correlation.This is complete rubbish. A low population density does not have positive effects on GDP per capita. I checked for some studies to proove this point, but this fact seems must be so obvious that research in this area doesn't exist. . My only point was that an utterly extreme case of vast resources and land to expand into is almost certain to lead to a growing and healthy economy. Lo and behold, that is exactly what we find again and again throughout history as frontier regions were settled and grew into thriving communities. If I were wrong, then the New World would never have been settled in the first place. There would be more prosperity in clustering together in one area. Everyone knows that that is preposterous and it makes perfect economic sense to expand into an area with extremely low population density -- regardless of your chart that completely misses the point and speaks to nothing but an inability to think critically. | ||
|
legor
32 Posts
The low population density was not the reason the New World was settled. Escape from political prosecution and pioneer spirit was. One of the surprising features of modern economic growth is that economies with abundant natural resources have tended to grow less rapidly than natural-resource-scarce economies. In this paper we show that economies with a high ratio of natural resource exports to GDP in 1971 (the base year) tended to have low growth rates during the subsequent period 1971-89. This negative relationship holds true even after controlling for variables found to be important for economic growth, such as initial per capita income, trade policy, government efficiency, investment rates, and other variables. We explore the possible pathways for this negative relationship by studying the cross-country effects of resource endowments on trade policy, bureaucratic efficiency, and other determinants of growth. We also provide a simple theoretical model of endogenous growth that might help to explain the observed negative relationship source | ||
|
FallenStar
Spain118 Posts
Also, I have a question for OP: What are we supposed to discuss here exactly? The state of current world economics? The possible results in the economy of certain countries because of certain politics? And lastly, I ask this as a favor, could someone put a warning, or a note, or something that reminds people not to use too many technical things? Or at least, explain them or giving a link of a source that has a "for dummies version" of what's being said. I feel really lost when I read an economics thread, and yeah, maybe I shouldn't take part if I don't know, but at least I would like to know what the heck is going on, not necessarily post. Pretty please? | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
On August 29 2013 05:57 legor wrote: English-speaking America was settled mainly by Puritans who were the dominant faction in the British Isles at the time. If your logic were true, it would have been the Catholics who were pioneers to escape the massive persecution following the Reformation.Then how come the richest countries in the earth are small city states like Hongkong or Singapure and not huge countries with high ressources like Russia? The low population density was not the reason the New World was settled. Escape from political prosecution and pioneer spirit was. Anyone with even passing knowledge of history can tell you that America was seen as the "land of opportunity" and e.g. millions of Irish immigrants flocked to America in the 19th century not to escape from political persecution, but to escape from famine. Regarding your question about city states: again you seem to think I'm arguing for a negative correlation between population density and wealth. That's not what I'm doing. I'm arguing there's a strong positive correlation between wealth and mining untapped resources and expanding into fertile land. Not to mention advantages such as modern city planning and the ease of macromangement of an economy when there's so many cheap places to build. | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
On August 29 2013 05:57 legor wrote: One of the surprising features of modern economic growth is that economies with abundant natural resources have tended to grow less rapidly than natural-resource-scarce economies. Maybe that conclusion would appeal to somebody who's not of theoretical bent and tends to search for incidental correlations that have no rhyme or reason to them. The obvious point remains that abundant natural resources, by the very definition of the concept, doesn't do you any harm. I think you'll find the correlation is explained if you understand that a single culture occupies most of the world's oil supply, and this culture is significantly behind the world average everywhere it preponderates, not just in the oil-rich states. My point remains that Australia, as having the lowest population density in the world, is in a unique situation and its economic development seems to follow the pattern of that of the USA and Canada. | ||
|
legor
32 Posts
1. There is no clear correlation between ressources and economic growth. 2. Please show evidence for positive impact of "modern city planning". Paris, London, Berlin weren't planned. They seem fine. 3. Please show evidence for positive impact of "many cheap places to build". That would give countries in Africa or Russia a huge advantage. How come they don't prosper? Not always does our daily intuition transfer into such a complex field like economics. Even if there exists an example that fits your story. The obvious point remains that abundant natural resources, by the very definition of the concept, doesn't do you any harm. If ressources lower economic growth comapred with countries that do not have those ressources. Rssources do harm by the very definnition of the concept. My point remains that Australia, as having the lowest population density in the world, is in a unique situation and its economic development seems to follow the pattern of that of the USA and Canada. Other countries have a lower population density than Australia. If you refuse to understand more difficult concepts, at least try to get the basics right. It is not that hard. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32742 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 29 2013 05:53 GreenGringo wrote: Obviously it is ridiculous to take a bunch of countries that are mostly desert and use them to work out a correlation. And obviously your entire post is a strawman, as I never claimed there was a general correlation. My only point was that an utterly extreme case of vast resources and land to expand into is almost certain to lead to a growing and healthy economy. Lo and behold, that is exactly what we find again and again throughout history as frontier regions were settled and grew into thriving communities. If I were wrong, then the New World would never have been settled in the first place. There would be more prosperity in clustering together in one area. Everyone knows that that is preposterous and it makes perfect economic sense to expand into an area with extremely low population density -- regardless of your chart that completely misses the point and speaks to nothing but an inability to think critically. Historically agriculture was the main economic activity and so the amount of agricultural land a country had (as well as the quality of the land) was the primary indicator of a nation's economy. Egypt was rich because the Nile provided a huge volume of highly productive farmland. So way back in the colonial era (and beyond), yes, countries would expand their power by gaining control over more land, the agricultural products the land provided and the trade of various agricultural goods. Since the industrial revolution, however, the importance of land has given way to the importance of manufacturing. More recently the importance of industry has given way to the importance of the service industry. Both those trends pushed down the importance of agriculture and land and raised the importance of things like human capital, machines, infrastructure and institutions. It is not obvious, to economists anyway, that cities should exist at all. Crowds of people mean congestion and costly land and labour. But there are also well-known advantages to bunching up. When transport costs are sufficiently high a firm can spend more money shipping goods to clusters of consumers than it saves on cheap land and labour. Workers with specialised skills flock to such clusters to be near to the sorts of firms that hire them. Such workers make a city still more attractive to growing companies. The deep pool of jobs and workers improves matches between employer and employee, boosting productivity and pay. There are benefits to being close to the competition, too. In the car industry’s early days Detroit’s entrepreneurs kept a close eye on rivals, learning to tweak designs and business models until a lucky few succeeded spectacularly. Silicon Valley’s technological metabolism is powered by similar competitive co-operation. When new firms or workers create more value for other residents than they add to the costs of congestion, a city enjoys what economists call “increasing returns to scale”: a metropolis becomes more attractive and productive as it grows. Increasing returns are a recipe for breathtaking growth Link | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
On August 29 2013 06:33 legor wrote: I'm pretty sure there's a correlation between extracting wealth out of the ground and getting wealthy. You're just being stupid by comparing countries across radically different cultures and situations.Can you simply stop making those unbased assumptions? 1. There is no clear correlation between ressources and economic growth. On August 29 2013 06:33 legor wrote:2. Please show evidence for positive impact of "modern city planning". Paris, London, Berlin weren't planned. They seem fine. Right...so we have these historic capital cities. Therefore building on old land can't be an inconvenience or constraint. Nice argument.On August 29 2013 06:33 legor wrote:3. Please show evidence for positive impact of "many cheap places to build". That would give countries in Africa or Russia a huge advantage. How come they don't prosper?. Cheap land can't be good or otherwise building in the desert or a frozen barren wasteland would confer an advantage. What a brilliant and incisive mind you have.On August 29 2013 06:33 legor wrote:Not always does our daily intuition transfer into such a complex field like economics. Even if there exists an example that fits your story. Or guys from a real scientific field know how to apply their common sense and look for explanations of phenomena -- not place their faith in meaningless, pedantic correlations. | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
On August 29 2013 06:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Good point there (and much better than quoting -- as a previous poster did -- pedantic charts on raw and unqualified data that only loosely relates to the matter at hand).Since the industrial revolution, however, the importance of land has given way to the importance of manufacturing. More recently the importance of industry has given way to the importance of the service industry. Both those trends pushed down the importance of agriculture and land and raised the importance of things like human capital, machines, infrastructure and institutions. However, I would respond: (1) It's not for nothing that experts quote Russia as a potential superpower. It's because of their land and resources. The value of these is rising, not falling. (2) Cheap land with excellent living conditions means your population is spending less on housing and has cheaper cost of living. Rent in the UK is significantly higher than in the US, and the cost of housing is nearly 3 times as high. Take money out of the average consumer's pocket and the economy will feel the difference. | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 29 2013 07:04 GreenGringo wrote: Good point there (and much better than quoting -- as a previous poster did -- pedantic charts on raw and unqualified data that only loosely relates to the matter at hand). However, I would respond: (1) It's not for nothing that experts quote Russia as a potential superpower. It's because of their land and resources. The value of these is rising, not falling. (2) Cheap land with excellent living conditions means your population is spending less on housing and has cheaper cost of living. Rent in the UK is significantly higher than in the US, and the cost of housing is nearly 3 times as high. Take money out of the average consumer's pocket and the economy will feel the difference. 1) Well Russia used to be an actual superpower, so I'm not too impressed that, one day, Russia may be a superpower again. Sure, it's recent success is due to selling commodities, but keep in mind that commodities tend to run in long cycles. Just because commodity prices had a long 15 year run higher doesn't mean that the next 15 will be so bright. In 1990 South Korea and Russia both had roughly the same per capita income. Today, resource rich Russia's per capita income lags far behind smart South Korea's. 2) You have a fair point that land restrictions can lead to high land prices, but that's more of an issue of how income gets distributed throughout the economy rather than a restriction on economic activity. For example, in London rents are sky high and absorb a lot of productivity increases (source). That sucks, but it doesn't mean that London is a poor or undesirable place to live. | ||
|
Yuljan
2196 Posts
On August 29 2013 06:52 GreenGringo wrote: I'm pretty sure there's a correlation between extracting wealth out of the ground and getting wealthy. You're just being stupid by comparing countries across radically different cultures and situations. That doesnt make any sense. The wealthiest countries are in europe and the population density is quite high there. I can find you a correlation for eating bananas and being wealthy but that doesn't prove anything. Furthermore if you just cherry pick "different cultures/situations" you will have a nice but meaningless correlation. Your argument is wholly dependent on the US, Canada and Australia right? So we can basically say lots of land works for white people but noone else? Ignore everything that doesnt fit your worldview and make a theory. Thats a good start. You should study economics. I am serious. Right...so we have these historic capital cities. Therefore building on old land can't be an inconvenience or constraint. Nice argument. Right... so we have these non planned cities that do well. Therefore building on new land is always better and more effective. I guess all those new buildings in the chinese ghost cities create alot of wealth for the population. On August 29 2013 06:33 legor wrote:3. Please show evidence for positive impact of "many cheap places to build". That would give countries in Africa or Russia a huge advantage. How come they don't prosper?. Cheap land can't be good or otherwise building in the desert or a frozen barren wasteland would confer an advantage. What a brilliant and incisive mind you have.Or guys from a real scientific field know how to apply their common sense and look for explanations of phenomena -- not place their faith in meaningless, pedantic correlations. I am really interest in a "real" scientific field that doesnt use math. Common sense and real science in the same sentence? We should let our bakers write the journals then. On second thought please keep studying your arts major. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On August 29 2013 06:26 GreenGringo wrote: The obvious point remains that abundant natural resources, by the very definition of the concept, doesn't do you any harm.. That's actually not true at all. Economists have come up with multiple theories to explain the "oil curse." One idea is that areas with abundant national resources create stronger incentives for domestic leaders and/or imperial colonialists to form extractive dictatorships, which tend to inhibit economic growth. This is because in areas without significant natural resources, as a dictator, you don't have as much to gain by forcing your population to extract resources for you. In addition, without significant natural resources to trade, your state is doomed to failure unless it figures out an efficient way to be self-sustaining, i.e. Australia and the U.S. Historically, this efficient and self-sustaining system has usually been capitalism/democracy. Furthermore, areas with abundant resources historically made better targets for colonialism. This is why the Spanish colonized Central and South America (the Aztecs and Incas had gold to take), while the English got North America (which had fewer natural resources). Spain essentially got 'first dibs' because the Spanish Armada was the world's most powerful navy at the time when Europeans started to colonize across the Atlantic. If anyone's interested in this subject, I got most of the info here out of this book. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
also are you using government numbers for china? you can't trust them, they are communists you know it says so right on the label  | ||
| ||
