Does anyone still deny the causes of the Great Depression...

[Kushinator]

And how does the US compare to those countries when it comes to growth/production?

Depends. Norway, France, Luxembourg, Ireland, etc..., all have similar productivity rates with similar income/capita. No comment on mobility?

 

[phattonez]

Depends. Norway, France, Luxembourg, Ireland, etc..., all have similar productivity rates with similar income/capita. No comment on mobility?

I made my comment about mobility, I guess I should state it directly for you. Mobility is great, but not when it comes at the expense of growth. A Communist country would have excellent mobility but no growth, so the mobility wouldn't really mean much.

Those European countries you listed don't compare to the economic numbers of the US. They may have greater mobility, but it cuts into their growth so I'd say it's not really worth it.

 

[Kushinator]

I made my comment about mobility, I guess I should state it directly for you. Mobility is great, but not when it comes at the expense of growth. A Communist country would have excellent mobility but no growth, so the mobility wouldn't really mean much.

Those European countries you listed don't compare to the economic numbers of the US. They may have greater mobility, but it cuts into their growth so I'd say it's not really worth it.

Do you have a source for this statement?

 

[PeteEU]

I made my comment about mobility, I guess I should state it directly for you. Mobility is great, but not when it comes at the expense of growth. A Communist country would have excellent mobility but no growth, so the mobility wouldn't really mean much.

Those European countries you listed don't compare to the economic numbers of the US. They may have greater mobility, but it cuts into their growth so I'd say it's not really worth it.

Growth aint everything. In my opinion there is way too much focus on growth and in the case of the US economy a growth of 3% is needed just to maintain the status quo (according to growth economists..), and that is idiotic. You cant constantly grown 3+% forever.. it is just unrealistic.

 

[phattonez]

Growth aint everything. In my opinion there is way too much focus on growth and in the case of the US economy a growth of 3% is needed just to maintain the status quo (according to growth economists..), and that is idiotic. You cant constantly grown 3+% forever.. it is just unrealistic.

You can't just throw such a statement out there without any argument to defend it.

 

[phattonez]

Do you have a source for this statement?

Are the European economies better than the US economies? I don't want to work looking for European data if I don't have to.

 

[Kushinator]

Are the European economies better than the US economies? I don't want to work looking for European data if I don't have to.

Based on your previous post, i would have figured this to be common knowledge.

Those European countries you listed don't compare to the economic numbers of the US. They may have greater mobility, but it cuts into their growth so I'd say it's not really worth it.

Do you expect me to reference your statements?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Are the European economies better than the US economies? I don't want to work looking for European data if I don't have to.

Of course you are ignoring that much of the US economic growth was based on credit growth fueled by cheap fiat currency debt creation, creating serial bubbles. That growth is now in decline, while so are some European countries the ones mentioned by Goldenboy are not, and have good income mobility

 

[phattonez]

Based on your previous post, i would have figured this to be common knowledge.



Do you expect me to reference your statements?

I'm asking YOUR opinion.

 

[phattonez]

Of course you are ignoring that much of the US economic growth was based on credit growth fueled by cheap fiat currency debt creation, creating serial bubbles. That growth is now in decline, while so are some European countries the ones mentioned by Goldenboy are not, and have good income mobility

I'm not defending all of the actions of the US economy, you know my problems with the way the government meddles in it.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I'm not defending all of the actions of the US economy, you know my problems with the way the government meddles in it.

Your problem is with the meddling of the US economy

My issue is with the health or foundation of the US economy being "overvalued"

Productivity growth in the US has been based on imports and financial invovation (MBS, CDS etc) rather then a general improvement in the productivity of US workers to produce goods or usefull services. Which is one reason the US has a large trade deficit.


Combine everything the actual state of the US economy is that more closely resembling that of Ireland. An economy that had the illusion of real growth, income and wealth gains, but in actuallity it was debt that created the illusion rather then actual income growth and wealth creation

 

[PeteEU]

Your problem is with the meddling of the US economy

My issue is with the health or foundation of the US economy being "overvalued"

Productivity growth in the US has been based on imports and financial invovation (MBS, CDS etc) rather then a general improvement in the productivity of US workers to produce goods or usefull services. Which is one reason the US has a large trade deficit.


Combine everything the actual state of the US economy is that more closely resembling that of Ireland. An economy that had the illusion of real growth, income and wealth gains, but in actuallity it was debt that created the illusion rather then actual income growth and wealth creation

The last decade of US growth was due to rising house prices and not much more. Because people were able to re-mortgage their homes to finance their consumption, then consumption was continued and hence growth was maintained, despite no real growth in wages or income for a majority of American's.

And I would say the US economy would be more like Greece's than Irelands if it was not for the fact that the currency is a world currency.

 

[Kushinator]

I'm asking YOUR opinion.

As implied in earlier posts, we are not forced to trade growth for mobility. As the Scandinavian model suggests, they are not necessarily inverses of each other (on extreme ends i would agree).

 

[Kushinator]

The last decade of US growth was due to rising house prices and not much more. Because people were able to re-mortgage their homes to finance their consumption, then consumption was continued and hence growth was maintained, despite no real growth in wages or income for a majority of American's.

And I would say the US economy would be more like Greece's than Irelands if it was not for the fact that the currency is a world currency.

That's a bit of bias. Since 2000, we have witnessed an amazing leap in industry/social networking (thereby allowing the sharing of ideas on an unprecedented scale). The US is the world leader in patents per year. However, competitive issues are ever present as we spend a great deal more money to achieve this. Here is an interesting article: patent trolls

 

[Ahlevah]

Standard of living improved, what's the problem?

The problem, I think, is you need to read a Dickens' novel. It would help round out your perspective.

 

[drz-400]

The last decade of US growth was due to rising house prices and not much more. Because people were able to re-mortgage their homes to finance their consumption, then consumption was continued and hence growth was maintained, despite no real growth in wages or income for a majority of American's.

And I would say the US economy would be more like Greece's than Irelands if it was not for the fact that the currency is a world currency.

The euro and USD are both world currencies.

 

[phattonez]

Your problem is with the meddling of the US economy

My issue is with the health or foundation of the US economy being "overvalued"

Productivity growth in the US has been based on imports and financial invovation (MBS, CDS etc) rather then a general improvement in the productivity of US workers to produce goods or usefull services. Which is one reason the US has a large trade deficit.


Combine everything the actual state of the US economy is that more closely resembling that of Ireland. An economy that had the illusion of real growth, income and wealth gains, but in actuallity it was debt that created the illusion rather then actual income growth and wealth creation

I can't argue with that, but I would probably argue about your proposed solutions.

 

[phattonez]

As implied in earlier posts, we are not forced to trade growth for mobility. As the Scandinavian model suggests, they are not necessarily inverses of each other (on extreme ends i would agree).

*sigh*.

Many leftists often point to the "superiority" of Scandinavian "socialism." Leftists often use Denmark and Sweden as their examples, since they are the most successful Scandinavian nations. I already covered this issue in an earlier post, but I feel it is important to rehash this topic and to post a refutation of this leftist fallacy. For this post, we shall define Scandinavian countries as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland. Some might dispute whether we should consider Finland and Iceland as Scandinavian, because of cultural differences (Finland) and geographical barriers (Iceland), though we the point of this post is not to argue whether or not these countries are Scandinavian, but to dispute the fact that they are indeed successful socialist states.

First of all, most leftists will use the USA as the measure of laissez faire capitalism. We all know that this is completely false, so I won't go into detail refuting this casuistry here but I'd like to point several things out: Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia were all rated as "more free," according to the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. It would probably be better to compare these Scandinavian nations to Hong Kong or Ireland than to the United states.

Furthermore, Scandinavian nations are not nearly as socialist as leftists claim they are. Although the United States ranks higher than these nations on the Index of Economic Freedom, Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas. Denmark has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S. Sweden has greater business freedom and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom, monetary freedom, property rights enforcement, investment freedom, and financial freedom to the United States. Finland has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, and freedom from corruption than the United States, while having comparable property right enforcement, financial freedom, and trade freedom. Norway, the least successful Scandinavian nation, has greater freedom from corruption than the United States while having comparable business freedom, trade freedom, and property right enforcement. Iceland has greater business freedom, fiscal freedom, and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom and property right enforcement. In many ways, Scandinavian countries are more "laissez faire" than the United States.

To finish of this deal, here are some articles, excerpts, etc. about the failure of specific welfarist policies the Scandinavian countries follow, change occurring in these nations, and the like:

The Sweden Myth (LvMI)

How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden (LvMI)

Sweden: Poorer Than You Think (LvMI)

Can the United States Learn from the Nordic Model? (Cato)

Sweden: From Capitalist Success to Welfare-State Sclerosis (Cato)

Should Scandinavia Be Our Model? Podcast (Cato)

Should the United States Be More Like Scandinavia? Policy Forum (Cato)

Johnny Munkhammar in Defense of Free Market Capitalism in Sweden Weeky Video (Cato)

Sweden Repeals Wealth Tax (Cato)

Sweden is a Tax Haven? (Cato)

The Welfare State Causes Sickness (Cato)

If the Swedish State is Socialist, What is Ours? (Cato)

New Challenge to the Nordic Welfare Model (Cato)

Introduction to Economics Review (Mackinac)

Free Enterprise in Action Review (Mackinac)

Institutions and Analysis (Mackinac)

Where Are the Omelettes? (Mackinac)

Scandinavian Irony (FEE)

Are High Taxes the Basis of Economic Growth? (FEE)

Sweden: Tightening the Screws (FEE)

Swedish Welfare (The New American)

Sweden after the Swedish model.

EU vs USA.

NORWAY: LOWER LIVING STANDARDS THAN THE US

Here is one more thing of interest to everyone interested in living standards in Scandinavian countries vs. the US. First, according to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the CIA World Factbook, the USA has a higher GDP per capita than any Scandinavian nation with the exception of Norway. Norway has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, right after free market paradises such as Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, and oil rich nations such as Qatar and Kuwait.

Although Norway's GDP per capita seems to be boosted by huge oil and natural gas production, do Norwegians actually enjoy higher living standards than Americans? I dare say that they don't. A quick look around worldsalaries.org shows that:
1. Americans enjoy higher average disposable (after tax) AND gross (before tax) income than Norwegians do.
2. Americans enjoy a significantly lower cost of living than do Norwegians (1.00 vs. 1.487).

Here (url: Regional Account 2007 - Oslo has highest GDP per employed person) is another source of Norwegian disposable income. As you see, average household disposable income is 176503 NOK, which is approximately $29,373. Note that the USA has a per capita disposable income of about $21,500. Since the average US household consists of two wage earners, it follows that US household disposable income is higher than Norwegian household dispoable income.

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism - The Mises Community

 

[phattonez]

The problem, I think, is you need to read a Dickens' novel. It would help round out your perspective.

That's not much of an argument. If standard of living has improved, then what is the problem?

And a lot of the problems with Britain at the beginning of the industrial revolution had to do with building codes which created overcrowding in growing cities.

 

[Ahlevah]

That's not much of an argument. If standard of living has improved, then what is the problem?

The problem as I see it is how you get there. Americans improved their standard of living for many decades on the backs of slaves. We achieved the greatest good for the greatest number. Do you not see a moral problem with that argument?

 

[phattonez]

The problem as I see it is how you get there. Americans improved their standard of living for many decades on the backs of slaves. We achieved the greatest good for the greatest number. Do you not see a moral problem with that argument?

Who's defending slavery?!

 

[Ahlevah]

Who's defending slavery?!

During Dickens' time, British industrialists took American cotton picked by slaves and wove it into goods in mills employing workers in deplorable conditions. "But living standards improved! So what's the problem?" Isn't that your argument?

 

[phattonez]

During Dickens' time, British industrialists took American cotton picked by slaves and wove it into goods in mills employing workers in deplorable conditions. "But living standards improved! So what's the problem?" Isn't that your argument?

This is a red herring. Slavery is exploitation and I'm not defending it. It's not as if you take away slavery and standard of living would not have improved.

 

[Ahlevah]

This is a red herring.

How is it a red herring? My main point is that how one arrives at a result is more significant than the result itself. You seemed to claim that as long as living standards in general rose in Victorian England there wasn't a problem. I countered that it was a problem, because much of the prosperity was built on the backs of American slaves and the plight of industrial workers depicted so forcefully in Dickens' writings. That goes to reinforce my main point.

 

[phattonez]

How is it a red herring? My main point is that how one arrives at a result is more significant than the result itself. You seemed to claim that as long as living standards in general rose in Victorian England there wasn't a problem. I countered that it was a problem, because much of the prosperity was built on the backs of American slaves and the plight of industrial workers depicted so forcefully in Dickens' writings. That goes to reinforce my main point.

The poor industrial workers who came from the manors where they lived at subsistence level? Basically anything is better than living at subsistence level, the standard of living for them improved. The big problem that they faced was poor living conditions which were caused by building codes that did not allow housing to be built quickly enough to meet the increasing demand.

As for slaves, there is no way you are claiming that if you take away slavery that standard of living would have stagnated or decreased, are you?