This is an interesting way to look at the US economy...
Yes and no. It is not per capita. And frankly does the size of the US â demographically and economically â really benefit Americans ?
All the countries with superb socio-economic outcomes tend to be smaller countries with stable populations.
Is being obese an advantage? Less blood to the head, reduced mobility, promising future of opioid dependence?
The USA looks a little like some 3rd world countries that are in the midst of a Neo-Malthusian crisis. Lots of population growth, lots of angry young men and scarce resources. It is pretty damn clear that liberals and self-styled progressives do not understand the scarce resource part especially in regards to immigration, both legal and illegal.
SInce you brought it up....
Of course that's your contention. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian — Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year — you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
This is an interesting way to look at the US economy...
Yes and no. It is not per capita. And frankly does the size of the US — demographically and economically — really benefit Americans ?
All the countries with superb socio-economic outcomes tend to be smaller countries with stable populations.
Is being obese an advantage? Less blood to the head, reduced mobility, promising future of opioid dependence?
The USA looks a little like some 3rd world countries that are in the midst of a Neo-Malthusian crisis. Lots of population growth, lots of angry young men and scarce resources. It is pretty damn clear that liberals and self-styled progressives do not understand the scarce resource part especially in regards to immigration, both legal and illegal.
Unlikely. The stylized facts suggest that financial bubbles that turn into financial crises rarely follow each other.
But the current President of the USA has already contributed to a slower growth trajectory going forward. So, by comparison, if Hillary Clinton had been elected president, I would have expected faster growth rates over the next decade or so than will occur under Trump.
Unless mainstream contemporary economics is all wrong...... If it is then you can easily count on the USA being GREAT AGAIN. Protectionism, increased economic and financial uncertainty, tweeted threats, arbitrary changes of rules (de facto expropriation): all guaranteed to make the USA richer.
The thing I love about Trump is that he reminds me so much of Neo-Marxist guided populists. So lots of old lefties, and many self-styled progressives should feel rather comfortable with Trump's policies. Never mind that Neo-Marxist regimes in developing economies have been an absolute disaster. This is also something that many old lefties and self-styled progressives share in common with Trump: a complete and utter disdain for evidence-based science.
Poverty is spiritually enriching! Screw markets! Let the privileged set up committees to look after themselves!
Remarks to an aspiring politician by Andrew Undershaft, CEO of the giant defense contractor Undershaft & Lazarus.
From George Bernard Shaw’s play, Major Barbara (1906).
"I am the government of your country; I, and Lazarus. Do you suppose that you and half a dozen amateurs like you, sitting in a row in that foolish gabble shop, can govern Undershaft and Lazarus?
“No, my friend; you will do what pays us. You will make war when it suits us, and keep peace when it does not. You will find out that trade requires certain measures when we have decided on those measures.
“When I want anything to keep my dividends up, you will discover that my want is a national need. When other people want something to keep my dividends down, you will call out the police and military.
“And in return you shall have the support and applause of my newspapers, and the delight of imagining that you are a great statesman.
“Government of your country! Be off with you, my boy, and play with your caucuses and leading articles and historic parties and great leaders and burning questions and the rest of your toys. I am going back to my counting house to pay the piper and call the tune."
That was excellent. "Democrats always turn up to gun-fight with a butterknife". ha.
Pretty damning analysis on status quo governments worldwide and I like his explanation of why Trump won the election. But the trouble is, what conclusions can you draw from this? What is the way forward?
He made me think the best solution was to prevent people over the age of 60 voting..
Mark Blyth giving incisive, spot on readings of US and international political and economic dynamics.
That was excellent. "Democrats always turn up to gun-fight with a butterknife". ha.
Pretty damning analysis on status quo governments worldwide and I like his explanation of why Trump won the election. But the trouble is, what conclusions can you draw from this? What is the way forward?
He made me think the best solution was to prevent people over the age of 60 voting..
Mark Blyth giving incisive, spot on readings of US and international political and economic dynamics.
The video was removed, presumably because the professor speaking for the Democrats was embarrassing, capable of speaking only in Hillary's talking points.
...American economic revival will require far more radical measures than what the Trump administration is contemplating. It will require a systematic industrial policy that rebuilds the depleted productive capabilities of the US economy, ranging from worker skills, managerial competences, industrial research base and modernised infrastructure. To be successful, such industrial policy will have to be backed up by a radical redesigning of the financial system, so that more "patient capital" is made available for long-term-oriented investments and more talented people come to work in the industrial sector, rather than going into investment banking or foreign exchange trading.
... the improvement in infrastructure is an ingredient in a genuine strategy of American economic renewal. However, as you suggest in your question, this may meet resistance from fiscal conservatives in the Republican-dominated Congress. It will be interesting to watch how this pans out, but my bigger worry is that Mr. Trump is likely to encourage "wrong" kinds of infrastructural investments — that is, those related to real estate (his natural territory), rather than those related to industrial development. This not only will fail to contribute to the renewal of the US economy but it may also contribute to creating real estate bubbles, which were an important cause behind the 2008 global financial crisis.
I'm sure an amateur Austrian economist as bright as you are can put together a much more convincing takedown of Keynesian economics.
Just don't forget the Law of Holes.
This one is accessible and an obvious illustration of the broken window fallacy, a concept baked into Keynesian economics.
There is of course more to it—Keynes was wrong about more than one thing—but this is a good starting point.
I'm not an Austrian or Australian economist but I don't see why you say he got it wrong. Sounds to me like he described the situation correctly. You might not like it. Economic stimulus by injecting money, as a concept, doesn't necessarily depend on the 'value' of the investment. But IMO that doesn't mean it is a bad concept, it is just up to the government and society to invest in things that a) are of value, and b) values that are not well factored into private investment decisions. Like environmental sustainability, defense, science, and health.
The above is the reality of our economy. 2/3 of the GDP is pure consumption. Consuming and creating waste...but it does make the world go around. So we consume, but how are we financing our consumption? Increasingly with debt financing; both at the public level (national deficit) and private level among the middle and lower classes - credit is the "steam engine" of today's US economy.
I'm no economist, but as a species it seems we move forward (create wealth?) when we create new technologies and systems that are more efficient. From this we can measure wealth in terms of leisure time, access to safe food and water... Otherwise we simply shift wealth, with my pile hopefully getting bigger than your pile, while you borrow the $ you need to consume...keep food on the table and the tv and cell phones turned on.
I guess I can think of worse things. The hole is a waste but what if, instead of buying hole-digging time, people bought Monster gold-plated speaker wire for their stereo? And threw out their old wire? The wire (either wire) might only ever carry Air Supply and Paul Harvey reruns.
The above is the reality of our economy. 2/3 of the GDP is pure consumption. Consuming and creating waste...but it does make the world go around. So we consume, but how are we financing our consumption? Increasingly with debt financing; both at the public level (national deficit) and private level among the middle and lower classes - credit is the "steam engine" of today's US economy.
I'm no economist, but as a species it seems we move forward (create wealth?) when we create new technologies and systems that are more efficient. From this we can measure wealth in terms of leisure time, access to safe food and water... Otherwise we simply shift wealth, with my pile hopefully getting bigger than your pile, while you borrow the $ you need to consume...keep food on the table and the tv and cell phones turned on.
The company that makes Cards Against Humanity solicited donations to dig a giant hole.
No reason, just dig a hole. Just to dig a hole. An utterly pointless gesture.
They raised $100,573 and dug.
I'm posting this here just to point out the absurdity of some economic orthodoxy. This exercise increased GDP because money changed hands, but resulted in a net destruction of wealth. Diesel fuel was burned, earthmovers inched closer to their ends of life, people spent hours of their lives that fed, housed, healed, and improved the lives of no one. In the end the land in which the hole was dug has—by any measure—declined in value. The earth as a whole is worse off. But John Maynard Keynes calls it a win.
I'm sure somebody will step up to declare this a net positive because the guys who drove the earthmovers got paid, the refinery workers got paid, the people who make earthmover parts will eventually get paid a bit earlier than otherwise. Money moved! Hooray!
But wealth—the sum total of resources, land, and man-hours available to useful things—declined. Mankind is worse off. The money that changed hands didn't increase, it just changed hands. Whatever productive use it would have had at the hands of its original owners will not happen. This happened instead.
This is your economy on Keynes. Any questions?
I'm sure an amateur Austrian economist as bright as you are can put together a much more convincing takedown of Keynesian economics.
