as an economist, you should know that developed countries like the US cannot grow as much as a nation from the third world (remember solow growth model, marginal productivity of capital?).
Besides, what's so bad about China and India catching up? It also helps our economies.
Well, no offense to you, Captain Capitalism, but 3% RGDP growth in a developed economy with one of the highest standards of living in the world already is excellent, especially given the demographics of the US, which show a rapidly aging population.
In China, much of that 10% YOY GDP growth is in infrastructure that has been missing for the 100+ years in which the US was reinventing the world and its standard of living.
No offense taken guys, but this is where I vehemently disagree with conventional economic 'wisdom' that a developed country can onlyl grow at 3%.
Why?
Ireland was able to manage 8% for 16 years and it was a developed nation.
It is the attitude that "we can't" that I don't like about the paltry 3%.
Innovation and creativity is the single most powerful force in all of economics and if people put their minds to it, a country could maintain an economic growht rate of 8% I'd say.
Besides if you look at the "development spectrum" let's say all economies become developed.
Will there not be a new fundamental change in economics that will once again take developed nation to a higher plateau?
Call me an old fashioned American, but 3% is just not Old School American. It's French. It's from the "good enough" crowd. It's from modern day Gen X'ers, "eh, that's good enough. I don't want to excel at anything."
Put me in charge of the US and I could have us running at at least, LEAST 6% RGDP growth and social security and medicare wouldn't be a problem.
Of course that would require all the leftists in the US to leave or at least do what I say, which means we're condemned to think 3% is "great" economic growth.
Ten percent growth with a tightly controlled currency? You're kidding, right? Let that currency trade freely, or are yor precious Chinese afraid of a TRULY free market?
So how come that the most free economy of the world, Hong Kong, which is indeed a developed country, grows only at 4-5% now?
Ireland was not a developed country when it started its super growth cycle in the late 1980s. It had a GDP comparable to Greece or Portugal, barely better than some communist countries then.
I'm serious, if we train people to create, go into the sciences, engineering, etc., and work smarter and not harder, and combine it with extremely free market economics (tax rate under 10%, good governance) 8% is attainable.
So, in other words, return to the economic world of the pre-New Deal/Great Society era, suitably updated to take into account technological and social changes? I don't seem to recall too many "(Insert Term)-Studies" courses floating around college campuses prior to the 1950's, for example.
9 comments:
Great chart. Kinda spooky, actually.
It could be even more insightful, in per capita figures, I think.
Capt,
as an economist, you should know that developed countries like the US cannot grow as much as a nation from the third world (remember solow growth model, marginal productivity of capital?).
Besides, what's so bad about China and India catching up? It also helps our economies.
Well, no offense to you, Captain Capitalism, but 3% RGDP growth in a developed economy with one of the highest standards of living in the world already is excellent, especially given the demographics of the US, which show a rapidly aging population.
In China, much of that 10% YOY GDP growth is in infrastructure that has been missing for the 100+ years in which the US was reinventing the world and its standard of living.
No offense taken guys, but this is where I vehemently disagree with conventional economic 'wisdom' that a developed country can onlyl grow at 3%.
Why?
Ireland was able to manage 8% for 16 years and it was a developed nation.
It is the attitude that "we can't" that I don't like about the paltry 3%.
Innovation and creativity is the single most powerful force in all of economics and if people put their minds to it, a country could maintain an economic growht rate of 8% I'd say.
Besides if you look at the "development spectrum" let's say all economies become developed.
Will there not be a new fundamental change in economics that will once again take developed nation to a higher plateau?
Call me an old fashioned American, but 3% is just not Old School American. It's French. It's from the "good enough" crowd. It's from modern day Gen X'ers, "eh, that's good enough. I don't want to excel at anything."
Put me in charge of the US and I could have us running at at least, LEAST 6% RGDP growth and social security and medicare wouldn't be a problem.
Of course that would require all the leftists in the US to leave or at least do what I say, which means we're condemned to think 3% is "great" economic growth.
Ten percent growth with a tightly controlled currency? You're kidding, right? Let that currency trade freely, or are yor precious Chinese afraid of a TRULY free market?
So how come that the most free economy of the world, Hong Kong, which is indeed a developed country, grows only at 4-5% now?
Ireland was not a developed country when it started its super growth cycle in the late 1980s. It had a GDP comparable to Greece or Portugal, barely better than some communist countries then.
Because they're told they can only grow at 4-5%.
;)
I'm serious, if we train people to create, go into the sciences, engineering, etc., and work smarter and not harder, and combine it with extremely free market economics (tax rate under 10%, good governance) 8% is attainable.
So, in other words, return to the economic world of the pre-New Deal/Great Society era, suitably updated to take into account technological and social changes? I don't seem to recall too many "(Insert Term)-Studies" courses floating around college campuses prior to the 1950's, for example.
Galbraith Delenda Est.
Post a Comment