The Decline and Fall of Europe.

[Thorgalaeg]

Those are 2004 numbers. 2005, and 2006 estimates show the U.S. GDP (PPP) is higher than the E.U. You're going to have to keep adding countries to the EU, in order to keep up. The U.S. economy grows nicely, while you're just adding more nations into your 'club'. Not really an accurate picture of real growth rate.

2006 estimates? it is a bit too early, isnt it? I would like to see the 2005 numbers anyway.

And since you are speaking about growth rates i would expect a very fast growth rate in next years due to the new members in my ´club´.

Apples and oranges, anyway. Why not compare Germany, to the NAFTA countries, combined? heh.

Why? i was answering to Winner´s post if you want to make some comparations, go on.

 

[The Last Conformist]

GDP per capita is a very bad indicator of real living standard. Especially for egalitarian societies in Europe.

Assuming "real living standards" are what we want to measure, the median disposable income adjusting for PPP may be your best bet.

luiz suggested GDP per capita divided by the GINI index in another thread, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what that actually measures.

 

[Lotus49]

GDP per capita is a very bad indicator of real living standard. Especially for egalitarian societies in Europe.

Purchasing power parity (PPP) is not the same thing as GDP per capita, as you probably know (but your post hinted maybe you didn't). But regardless, money is still money, and it's that exact 'egalitarian societiy' that you mention, is why Europe's prime economic powers are growing at a rate that here in the U.S., we would consider 'recessionary'.

Here, we talk about Social Security, and how it is a long-term problem, that seriously needs to be fixed. But compared to the relative-issue (the working class supporting the retired class) problems in Europe, our SS issues are very minor. And that's just one part of the overall problem hindering growth in Europe (especially the large-economy nations there), but a very significant one.

Btw, regarding my previous reply, the final 2005 GDP numbers are still being forulated, but here's the CIA's est. for last year, based on what has already been reported (still waiting on some final 4th quarter reports). LINK

And at 2006 estimated growth rates, there is no question - the US economy is larger than the EUs... as we speak/type.

Note: I did not start this 'mine is bigger than yours' debate.

I still want to compare the NAFTA economy to any single country in the EU. Who wants to step up to the plate?

 

[CartesianFart]

The following is a 2005 list of billionaires by nationality:

United States - 341

Germany - 57
France - 14
Italy - 10
Spain - 10 =European Union= 115
Sweden - 9
Switzerland - 8
Austria - 4
Denmark - 3


Turkey - 8 ?



Russia - 27
United Kingdom - 24
Japan - 24
Canada - 17
Hong Kong - 15
India - 12
Mexico - 10
Brazil - 8
Saudi Arabia - 7 The rest of the World are run by them,like a princely states.
They will never unify.
Taiwan - 7
Australia - 6
Israel - 6
Malaysia - 5
Singapore - 4
South Africa - 2
New Zealand - at least one (Graeme Hart)


I don't think these 'capitalists' will go away shortly,with United States winning most of them.I see the good future for United States and Europe for a long run.As long as they can get along.

 

[Steph]

Bozo: Well listen to Mr Greenspan now! If anyone increased their productivity they'd be a lot better off! As for cutting the hours of work, you'd have to speak to the French about that one, it's they that think it is a good idea.

No sir, no we don't think that!

 

[Lotus49]

luiz suggested GDP per capita divided by the GINI index in another thread, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what that actually measures.

Take a look at this link. Albeit the 2004 numbers, this is the GNI (Gross National Income) method of looking at nations' economies. Think of GDP as inward looking only - based on a certain currency (USD), whereas the GNI method is actually better for 'comparing' the size economies of different nations, worldwide. GDP = national stage (internal economy)... GNI = international stage (internal & external economy). -Based on where the money is actually based/returned. I.e., if you had a huge economic superpower, that sucked money in from all over the world (like *cough* say, the U.S.), your GNI number reflects that strength.

If that doesn't make sense, read this right quick:

Wiki link

Note, that China's economy suddenly gets cut down 75%, roughly. That is actually the true size of China's economy, when externally compared that of other world economic powers. And also, it was mentioned earlier, and I want to say something about the U.S. 'trade deficit'. This number (that everyone likes to throw around) does not include intellectual property exports. If it did... magically the 'deficit' would disappear.

The devil is in the details. You just have to look deep, to really understand what's going on. If you don't look deep, you can be lead to believe anything a politican or media outlet wants you to believe.

Anyway, even though it's the 2004 numbers, study that first link. That is actually the best statisitc to use for comparison, in terms if the SIZE of nation's economies, throughout the world. I.e., who is accumulating the most wealth, and moving the most money, etc. China, for example, while growing very quickly, still has a long way to go.

I'm sure, I'll have to explain the GNI thing more. Don't feel I've really hit the nail on the head here.....

 

[The Last Conformist]

That's GNI, not GINI.

 

[Lotus49]

That's GNI, not GINI.

Ah yes, that's what I get for reading too quickly, combined with sitting too far from the screen.

GINI... fascinating. Brought up by a Brazilian, you say. Hmmm, I wonder why...

*cough* Well, first off, in recent times (like the chart shows) Brazil as a nation really is moving in the right direction, and is going about many things in a very intelligent manner. In fact, one of my favorite stocks is Petroleo Brasileiro. Anyway, next pic:

While most developed European nations tend to have Gini coefficients between 0.24 and 0.36, the United States Gini coefficient is above 0.4, indicating that the United States has greater inequality. Using the Gini can help quantify differences in welfare and compensation policies and philosophies. However it should be borne in mind that the Gini coefficient can be misleading when used to make political comparisons between large and small countries (see criticisms section).

Might as well have just posted the link to Wiki. Anyhow, while interesting, I do take some issue with this GINI "measure of inequality" measurement. Hey, sure, ideally everyone would have everything they need & want. But, here's where the capitalist pig in me comes out: a society based strongly on competition, is going to be more productive, and bear more fruit, economically speaking.

Sure, we have economic inequality in the U.S. Especially *cough* now that the Republicans are in a mini-dynasty of power. If you're in the oil biz, this is your heyday. But yeah, sure, it sucks for the people that don't have health care, and the people that can barely get by.

BUT... this is a society that lets the hard workers, the more highly skilled, more intelligent, cream of the crop - rise to the top. This is a system that gives you what you deserve, based on how you perform compared to others. I, myself, am one of the smarter people on the planet, thus this is a system that allows me to flourish (without even working that hard, heh!)

If I was in, say, the Soviet Union, no matter how skilled, smart, or talented I was, I'd still be getting paid the same as some person down the road, shoveling coal. Point being, the state doesn't properly value my services, and is therefore suffering economically by not doing so.

Besides, here in America, when it really comes down to it, no matter how much of a dirtbag you are, there IS a safety net that's going to catch you. It won't be much. But, if you are lazy, and have no initiative, you'll still be able to get by. But, you'll GET what you deserve. Thus, we attract skilled people, and people with work ethic. Therefore, we are productive. And, you see where we have gotten to ... #1 on the list there at the top of my previous post.

And I'm sure I don't need to tell you that this nation was basically built into what it has become by immigrants. We all seem to agree that Europe was the master of the world prior to WWI. But why then, was the U.S. so quickly poised to take the spot shortly thereafter? Immigrants from Europe... during the Victorian era. Skilled workers, hard workers, smart people, flowing in by the MILLIONS, seeking opportuniy that simply existed here, much much more than it did in Europe. "Land of Opportunity" I'll take that over 'equality' any day.

In a capitalist society, people are forced, and thus tend - to become productive, and competitive. In a more socialist society... hey... let's just be complacent. Why not? What's my incentive to get off my @ss, when everything's already provided. All I have to do is the bare minimum.

No wonder growth is slower. The further left you go, politically, the slower you grow. Unless of course, you rule by fear with the iron fist. But it's still not the same result, as the US/USSR Cold War showed. Besides, their economy, in the end, was a total joke. Left vs. Right... that's already been decided. What were we debating, again?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

That and a war that killed 10 million of Europes young men.

 

[The Last Conformist]

@Lotus: Interesting post, but you didn't even attempt to answer my implied question.

Incidentally, it's true that Europe is more socialistic and has generally has had less growth than America for the last 150yrs or so, but the socialism-low growth correlation doesn't hold up very well inside Europe.


(As for Land of Opportunity, the US nowadays has less social mobility than most northern European countries. Makes it kinda hard to believe in the American Dream of openness to all talents.)

 

[Thorgalaeg]

@lotus, It seems that this 'mine is bigger than yours' debate is really important for you, so i will answer.

Purchasing power parity (PPP) is not the same thing as GDP per capita, as you probably know (but your post hinted maybe you didn't). But regardless, money is still money, and it's that exact 'egalitarian societiy' that you mention, is why Europe's prime economic powers are growing at a rate that here in the U.S., we would consider 'recessionary'.

Here, we talk about Social Security, and how it is a long-term problem, that seriously needs to be fixed. But compared to the relative-issue (the working class supporting the retired class) problems in Europe, our SS issues are very minor. And that's just one part of the overall problem hindering growth in Europe (especially the large-economy nations there), but a very significant one.

Btw, regarding my previous reply, the final 2005 GDP numbers are still being forulated, but here's the CIA's est. for last year, based on what has already been reported (still waiting on some final 4th quarter reports). LINK

And at 2006 estimated growth rates, there is no question - the US economy is larger than the EUs... as we speak/type.

If you say there is not question...
Even looking at CIA factbook figures US PPP GDP is larger in 2005 for a ridiculous tiny margen (12,370,000,000,000 to 12,180,000,000,000) and If you look at GDP oficial exchange rate EU GDP is considerably larger. (12,770,000,000,000 to 13,310,000,000,000 )

OTOH 2005 US GDP figures in USA has been screwed by katrina hurricane, since the works to rebuild are added to the GDP numbers since GDP measurese production but not the negative cost of the previous destruction. This artificially has increased the US GDP for 2005 and will increase the US 2006 GDP growth rate enormously:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2005/nf20050831_8185_db049.htm
http://economics.about.com/od/hurricanekatrina/a/katrina_gdp.htm
http://www.forbes.com/home/economy/2005/08/31/katrina-hurricane-impact-cx_sr_0831impact.html

So this added to the low growth rate in EU big countries in the last year, has managed to US reaching EU GDP, but after ampliation and normal development in new members it will not last.

So, sorry my friend but you can hardly say "mine is larger that yours, no question".

 

[Xenocrates]

I have had the pleasure of looking for technology for many Chinese companies.

9 times out 10 I find it's in China already.

The other 10% has always been in Europe. I have people scouring the best brains in the USA for ideas and repeatedly coming back with zero or even worse: ideas that don't stand up to a second's scrutiny.

I am reluctant to use simplistic economic indicators to answer the question, all I can say that it's my judgement that the USA has burnt bright, very bright, but as you might expect, they couldn't keep it up. The slower-burning European flame will last longer. Could be wrong though.....

 

[Lotus49]

@Lotus: Interesting post, but you didn't even attempt to answer my implied question. [*]

Incidentally, it's true that Europe is more socialistic and has generally has had less growth than America for the last 150yrs or so, but the socialism-low growth correlation doesn't hold up very well inside Europe.


(As for Land of Opportunity, the US nowadays has less social mobility than most northern European countries. Makes it kinda hard to believe in the American Dream of openness to all talents.)

...implied question:

[*]

Assuming "real living standards" are what we want to measure, the median disposable income adjusting for PPP may be your best bet.

luiz suggested GDP per capita divided by the GINI index in another thread, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what that actually measures.

Well, the thing that comes to my mind when talking about standard of living, is the quality and quantity of goods & services available to the populace, combined with their capacity/ability to consume such goods & services (i.e. GDP per capita, for a rough average). It may sound overly simplistic, by why not just compare GDP composition by sector (agriculture/industry/services) with GDP per capita? For example, as we all should know, the U.S. economy today is predominantly a services-based economy, with that sector comprising about 80% of the economy. That's a much higher number than most other modern industrialized nations (say, for example, those in Europe). So, we have more services available, plus we have more cash to spend on them (high GDP per capita). That arguably equates to a higher standard of living, looking at the macro numbers. Granted, your mileage may vary, which is where the GINI inequality coefficient comes in, but hey - overall the standard is higher. Just not equally distributed. Ah well, who said life was fair?

As for the supposed limited social/economic mobility in the modern U.S., well, go tell that to the guy that just sold this silly website (link) to Yahoo!, for "8-figures" (i.e. 10 million dollars, minimum).

Ha! Absurd, you say. Yes, I agree. But point being, as long as you can see the angles, there's plenty of upward mobility. This is a society (and always has been) - that rewards people who break the mold, go out on a limb, think clever outside the box, etc.

If you just want to do 'what you're told', be a reliable worker, play it safe, follow the herd, and think small-minded such as "another day, another dollar"... hey, no promises. Maybe you will stay right where you are. Probably, I should say.

But the opportunity - IS there. You just have to be smart, work hard, and believe in what you're doing. Same as it's always been, really. But the glass ceiling is up there, even still.

Heck, look at me. Never set foot in a college in my life (but I will eventually, when I feel like it), yet I make significantly more than the GDP per capita of my country, just based on salary alone (and I'm young, in my mid-20s). Not to mention what I DO with my money. You really CAN'T beat the U.S. securities markets. MAN! All I do is sit here at a computer, point and click, point and click, and make tens of thousands. My kind of stuff. Anyway, HOW did I get the edge that I have? Pretty simple, I was willing to take (calculated) risks, and go out on a limb a little bit, and do things others probably wouldn't have been comfortable doing (people like to be complacent, and stay in their comfort zone). And in the end, it's paid off. Meanwhile, the guys I graduated High School with are probably still living in the same town, still working out on the same farm, bailing hay or whatever. Well, sure - you can do that. But, if you want more... it's available to you. You just have to go after it. Seek and you shall find, work and you shall be rewarded. I know people that went from collecting Coke bottles & cans to pay for meals, but started a small business out of their garage, worked hard, grew larger, sold it, and retired wealthy (all in the space of about 10 years). In fact, that was my parents. Now it's my turn, and I'm doing pretty well, I'd say.

You can't expect to become a billionaire. But millionaire? That's not so tough. Not at all, really.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The implied question was, what does GDP/capita divided by GINI measure.

 

[Lotus49]

@lotus, It seems that this 'mine is bigger than yours' debate is really important for you, so i will answer.

If you say there is not question...
Even looking at CIA factbook figures US PPP GDP is larger in 2005 for a ridiculous tiny margen (12,370,000,000,000 to 12,180,000,000,000) and If you look at GDP oficial exchange rate EU GDP is considerably larger. (12,770,000,000,000 to 13,310,000,000,000 )

OTOH 2005 US GDP figures in USA has been screwed by katrina hurricane, since the works to rebuild are added to the GDP numbers since GDP measurese production but not the negative cost of the previous destruction. This artificially has increased the US GDP for 2005 and will increase the US 2006 GDP growth rate enormously:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2005/nf20050831_8185_db049.htm
http://economics.about.com/od/hurricanekatrina/a/katrina_gdp.htm
http://www.forbes.com/home/economy/2005/08/31/katrina-hurricane-impact-cx_sr_0831impact.html

So this added to the low growth rate in EU big countries in the last year, has managed to US reaching EU GDP, but after ampliation and normal development in new members it will not last.

So, sorry my friend but you can hardly say "mine is larger that yours, no question".

U.S. gets slammed!!

OOoooooohhh!!!

Well, good. Just look at that. First the insurgency, and now this disgrace. j/k But seriously, as this shows, the West (and Japan, our great Oriental pal) totally dominate the world economy. So all this combined Western strength means there should be no excuse for us losing our edge to the rising South- and East-Asian economic powers, right?

....

The implied question was, what does GDP/capita divided by GINI measure.

Nothing worthwhile/useful/meaningful, I'd say. If someone wants to put forth a debate explaining otherwise, well I'd love to hear it.

 

[CurtSibling]

The Decline and Fall of Europe.

Europa has seen countless more struggles and battles than anywhere else.

We are not going to fall over some malcontent jihadists.

.

 

[h4ppy]

Way to not read more than the first sentence of the article.