What are other countries doing that the U.S. should be doing?

[GRB 080319B]

What policies/actions are other countries implementing to grow their economies that the U.S. could learn from and emulate? Emphasis on fast-growing developing countries, such as China, India and Brazil.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43359312/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/"

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043235,00.html"

 

[mege]

Those fast-growing countries are also some of the most socially divided in the modern world. I've said this in other threads, but I feel strongly that the US has to be it's own innovator to succeed. We still are a unique country with a unique set of principles, another country's ideas will be hard to apply.

If there are any lessons to be learned, it's that the unbridled socialist programs need to have limits. Sweden is learning that right now and is adapting it's economy towards a freer system. While they still lean predominately to the left with their public companies being 50%of their GDP (down from 70%ish 2 decades ago), they're cautiously shrinking their public share in the economy in favor of private enterprise. In the US, we're lucky that the general populace has such a high matter of wealth that the inching fees and taxes don't effect us as much as some of the more tightly budgeted Eurpoean familys (though that perception is changing).

(Swedish PM Fredrik Reinfeldt) has reduced the labor taxes that pushed almost all home repairs into the black market. He has championed a simple powerful idea: Work should pay better than benefits. He is prevailing.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Yeah... well, there is the fact that China is still a developing country. Growth in companies and countries is not linear, nor is it exponential. It's more logarithmic in nature (once you start the growth anyway). It grows very quickly at the beginning, then slows down as there is less to improve.

Also, China is in a HUGE bubble right now. They've built entire cities (one I read was capable of housing several million people) on speculation alone (read: only a couple thousand live there, and nobody is buying except investors).

I don't know as much about India or Brazil, but those are also developing and I assume the same rules apply to them.

 

[Proton Soup]

if you're brasil, you rape the environment to grow soya and cut timber. china, you force developers to build housing no one can afford, and shopping malls where there are no shops. india, you find rich western countries you can provide call center services to.

it's been a long time since the US could enjoy the wild growth that comes from stealing the natives' land and exploiting the natural resources. but maybe we could building bridges to nowhere until we're poor enough to be a call-center to OPEC nations.

seriously tho, in many ways, it's a lot easier to build something from nothing, than to maintain growth forever.

 

[Zarqon]

Why do you consider it a good thing to have such a growth?

It's obvious that some elements of the society cannot continue to grow as they have in the past, for example the population growth will stop fairly shortly. And since some parts of society will stop growing, why shouldn't it be possible for the the growth of the overall GDP to also slow down while still maintaining a healthy society?

If the US right now had the growth that china/brazil does I would be scared.

 

[mege]

Why do you consider it a good thing to have such a growth?

It's obvious that some elements of the society cannot continue to grow as they have in the past, for example the population growth will stop fairly shortly. And since some parts of society will stop growing, why shouldn't it be possible for the the growth of the overall GDP to also slow down while still maintaining a healthy society?

If the US right now had the growth that china/brazil does I would be scared.

What evidence do you have that population growth will stop in the US? While the birthrate is starting to level off at a sustainable level, we still have a significant amount of immigration.

 

[aquitaine]

China most certainly does not do capitalism better than America. Although one thing that the US does need is somewhat less restrictive property rights laws, at this point it's almost impossible to build anything anywhere because there's always one or two holdouts. Of course that was something of a generalization, but there is a point.

 

[Ryumast3r]

What evidence do you have that population growth will stop in the US? While the birthrate is starting to level off at a sustainable level, we still have a significant amount of immigration.

I think they meant in general. There are still a lot of countries with huge amounts of growth, but all of Europe has pretty much stalled, Canada and the USA have all but stalled, China's going to stall in a few years (population ratio in kids of like 6 boys to 1 girl is not going to sustain a population), etc. As countries become developed the birth-rate stalls, and slowly but surely countries are getting there.

 

[loseyourname]

This is like asking how a 22 year-old can be more like a 2-year old and the answer is he can't. Our challenge is to not become completely stagnant or even worse to collapse, but we're never going to see 10% annual GDP growth unless it's a recovery following a collapse.

 

[Al68]

Why do you consider it a good thing to have such a growth?

Because a higher standard of living is better than a lower one.

It's obvious that some elements of the society cannot continue to grow as they have in the past, for example the population growth will stop fairly shortly. And since some parts of society will stop growing, why shouldn't it be possible for the the growth of the overall GDP to also slow down while still maintaining a healthy society?

Because maintaining the current standard of living means foregoing a higher one. What if we had maintained an 1850 standard of living instead of improving it through economic growth? What dramatic improvements will our grandchildren and their grandchildren miss out on if we become stagnant?

What are we missing out on today because of bad economic policies of the past? A society so rich that food is essentially free? That electricity and clean water are too cheap to meter? That only sounds crazy to those who are unaware of how difficult (expensive) such things were to obtain in the past. The things we take for granted today didn't exist, or only existed for the privileged few, only a few decades ago. The poorest of Americans today live better than 99.9999% of humans that ever lived because of sustained economic growth. We shouldn't even joke about it not being important.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Because a higher standard of living is better than a lower one.Because maintaining the current standard of living means foregoing a higher one. What if we had maintained an 1850 standard of living instead of improving it through economic growth? What dramatic improvements will our grandchildren and their grandchildren miss out on if we become stagnant?

Again, it is impossible to expect 10% GDP growth in the US every year for... basically ever. We're all saying that we should strive to grow, and should work hard for it because of the improvements that WILL be made if we do, but 10% a year (with the exception of recovery periods) is nigh impossible. Nothing can grow infinitely and keep growing infinitely and at such a rapid pace, it's just not stable.

 

[mege]

Again, it is impossible to expect 10% GDP growth in the US every year for... basically ever. We're all saying that we should strive to grow, and should work hard for it because of the improvements that WILL be made if we do, but 10% a year (with the exception of recovery periods) is nigh impossible. Nothing can grow infinitely and keep growing infinitely and at such a rapid pace, it's just not stable.

While 10% GDP growth is quite a mark to hit in a year (it's happened), it's importaint to remember that if the economy isn't growing, it's shrinking. Is it better to have consistent small growth? or is it better to have a near equilibrium economy with potential for shrinkage?

 

[Al68]

Again, it is impossible to expect 10% GDP growth in the US every year for... basically ever. We're all saying that we should strive to grow, and should work hard for it because of the improvements that WILL be made if we do, but 10% a year (with the exception of recovery periods) is nigh impossible. Nothing can grow infinitely and keep growing infinitely and at such a rapid pace, it's just not stable.

I agree, and never said otherwise. A 10% (overall) growth rate every year is, as you say, not a realistic expectation for a large population.

 

[Zarqon]

What evidence do you have that population growth will stop in the US? While the birthrate is starting to level off at a sustainable level, we still have a significant amount of immigration.

Well, during the last century we had an exponential population growth. If that would continue it would only be a matter of a couple of hundred years to get to a population density higher than 1 person per square meter land area, which is obviously impossible. I don't know whether it will stop increasing in 20 years or 50 years, but it will stop, and I think it will happen on the time scale that even persons alive today will see it.

Because a higher standard of living is better than a lower one.Because maintaining the current standard of living means foregoing a higher one. What if we had maintained an 1850 standard of living instead of improving it through economic growth? What dramatic improvements will our grandchildren and their grandchildren miss out on if we become stagnant?

What are we missing out on today because of bad economic policies of the past? A society so rich that food is essentially free? That electricity and clean water are too cheap to meter? That only sounds crazy to those who are unaware of how difficult (expensive) such things were to obtain in the past. The things we take for granted today didn't exist, or only existed for the privileged few, only a few decades ago. The poorest of Americans today live better than 99.9999% of humans that ever lived because of sustained economic growth. We shouldn't even joke about it not being important.

I'm not talking about stopping improving our living standards, but that is not the same thing as having a GDP that increases significantly slower than during the last century.

An example: I consider it a quality of life to be able to do a lot of freetime/recreational activities (as opposed to work). In a better and improved future I see the average person having more free time, with less work (over-)time. Of course, decreasing the time spent working means decreasing the total amount of production (thus decreasing the GDP) but this is not necessarily bad for the quality of life/living standards!

 

[jsgruszynski]

Yeah... well, there is the fact that China is still a developing country. Growth in companies and countries is not linear, nor is it exponential. It's more logarithmic in nature (once you start the growth anyway). It grows very quickly at the beginning, then slows down as there is less to improve.

Also, China is in a HUGE bubble right now. They've built entire cities (one I read was capable of housing several million people) on speculation alone (read: only a couple thousand live there, and nobody is buying except investors).

I don't know as much about India or Brazil, but those are also developing and I assume the same rules apply to them.

Strictly it's logistic. Exponentially rising at the "start", then slows and then exponentially asymptotic to a limit. Peak Oil curves, Technology Adoption curves, etc. all logistic.

 

[WhoWee]

Labor costs are lower in those countries.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-prays-for-salary-spike-in-india-china/737387/

 

[Ryumast3r]

Strictly it's logistic. Exponentially rising at the "start", then slows and then exponentially asymptotic to a limit. Peak Oil curves, Technology Adoption curves, etc. all logistic.

That's what I meant. Thank you. It was late and I knew something was wrong just couldn't think of what. :P

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I like Germany's utilization of tax expemptions to promote manufacturing and international exportation. Germany is a manufacturing and export powerhouse specifically because of their tax benefits for exporters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany#Exemptions_2

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Another good (and ironic) example: Russian energy exploration/exports. Russia is a huge exporter of oil and natural gas to Europe because they're more willing to utilize their natural resources. Ironically, 20 years after the end of the Cold War the Russians are more capitalist about energy production than the U.S. is...

 

[Al68]

'm not talking about stopping improving our living standards, but that is not the same thing as having a GDP that increases significantly slower than during the last century.

An example: I consider it a quality of life to be able to do a lot of freetime/recreational activities (as opposed to work). In a better and improved future I see the average person having more free time, with less work (over-)time. Of course, decreasing the time spent working means decreasing the total amount of production (thus decreasing the GDP) but this is not necessarily bad for the quality of life/living standards!

You're talking about two different issues here. "Standard of living" is normally used as a measure of economic prosperity, not quality of life. As such, slower GDP growth is the same thing as slowing the improvement of our overall standard of living.

Your value of free time/recreation is a subjective measure of quality of life, and can't be measured in an objective way. Even so, greater overall productivity results in fewer hours required to obtain a given financial standard of living, while lower overall productivity results in more hours required for the same standard of living.

 

[Gza]

Universal healthcare

/thread

 

[Zarqon]

You're talking about two different issues here. "Standard of living" is normally used as a measure of economic prosperity, not quality of life. As such, slower GDP growth is the same thing as slowing the improvement of our overall standard of living.

Your value of free time/recreation is a subjective measure of quality of life, and can't be measured in an objective way. Even so, greater overall productivity results in fewer hours required to obtain a given financial standard of living, while lower overall productivity results in more hours required for the same standard of living.

You are correct that they are two different things, but I don't think they are entirely unrelated. In particular, I don't see why it is obvious that we should pursue higher living standards and not a higher quality of life?

As I see it, having a high GDP is not an end goal in itself, but rather a means to an end, e.g. improving the living standards. But if this comes at the cost of the quality of life not increasing then I don't think it's clear what the aim should be. More free time is surely an increase in quality of life, because people can chose what to do with the time (if you still want to work more you can do that too).

 

[Al68]

You are correct that they are two different things, but I don't think they are entirely unrelated. In particular, I don't see why it is obvious that we should pursue higher living standards and not a higher quality of life?

As I see it, having a high GDP is not an end goal in itself, but rather a means to an end, e.g. improving the living standards. But if this comes at the cost of the quality of life not increasing then I don't think it's clear what the aim should be. More free time is surely an increase in quality of life, because people can chose what to do with the time (if you still want to work more you can do that too).

I don't think we are in much disagreement. Higher GDP as a result of higher productivity/efficiency is obviously better than a higher GDP due to working harder and longer for it.

As far as whether to pursue a higher living standard or more free time/recreation, that's an individual determination. But a growing GDP ultimately results in having more choice in the matter. You don't have much choice in the matter if a day's hard work is barely enough to survive, as was common in the past.

 

[WhoWee]

Why would there be any expectation of the highest standard of living in the world to increase - at least until everyone else (in the race) catches up?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Universal healthcare

/thread

Got any examples of countries which are successfully implementing it?

 

[lisab]

Got any examples of countries which are successfully implementing it?

Define 'successful'. Perhaps look at indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.

I can't help but notice no one is scrapping their system to adopt ours.

 

[WhoWee]

Define 'successful'.

In the context of this thread - please. How would universal healthcare help grow the US economy?

 

[turbo]

In the context of this thread - please. How would universal healthcare help grow the US economy?

Universal health-care coverage would be a boon to small businesses - you know, the ones that can actually fuel job-growth very rapidly. Maine is filled with lots of small businesses that can't afford to offer health-care coverage to their employees, who are often a mix of full-time, seasonal, or part-time employees. This lack of coverage is most keenly felt in the northern parts of the state, where wood-harvesting and trucking jobs are often taken by Canadians (non-residents). They can take these jobs (often seasonal and often moving with the harvest as different wood-lots are cut) in large part because they and their families have health-care coverage that is not tied to their employment. That is a BIG advantage. It offers them mobility in a changing job-market.

 

[WhoWee]

Universal health-care coverage would be a boon to small businesses - you know, the ones that can actually fuel job-growth very rapidly. Maine is filled with lots of small businesses that can't afford to offer health-care coverage to their employees, who are often a mix of full-time, seasonal, or part-time employees. This lack of coverage is most keenly felt in the northern parts of the state, where wood-harvesting and trucking jobs are often taken by Canadians (non-residents). They can take these jobs (often seasonal and often moving with the harvest as different wood-lots are cut) in large part because they and their families have health-care coverage that is not tied to their employment. That is a BIG advantage. It offers them mobility in a changing job-market.

The Maine wood-harvesting industry aside - how would "Universal health-care coverage would be a boon to small businesses" in the rest of the country? How would it help the manufacturing sector?

 

[turbo]

The Maine wood-harvesting industry aside - how would "Universal health-care coverage would be a boon to small businesses" in the rest of the country? How would it help the manufacturing sector?

Forget wood-harvesting and turn to the tourism industry, small fishing-boat operators, including seasonal operators that switch from shrimping to lobstering to dragging for scallops, the restaurant/hotel trade, ski areas, rafting companies, etc. They would all be greatly benefited by having access to employees with portable health-care coverage.

Our tea-party governor is dead-set against even the very weak ACA, though he claims to be pro-business. Somehow, the right-wing manages to fool the press, which never seems to ask the right questions in respect to WHY universal health care coverage would be a bad thing for business. Maine is overwhelmingly a small-business state. Except for a few large paper-manufacturers, defense contractors, chip-makers, etc, most businesses are small, and many need access to seasonal and/or part-time labor to handle surges in demand. Universal portable health-care coverage would make it much easier to meet those needs.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

So, what I'm getting is that no one has any examples of a successful (and/or economically viable) universal healthcare system?

Universal healthcare is like communism- dependent on a utopian dream of human nature, but ultimately collapses from the real thing.

 

[AlephZero]

So, what I'm getting is that no one has any examples of a successful (and/or economically viable) universal healthcare system?

Do France, Germany, Sweden, the UK, (or most other EU countries for that matter) count as examples?

So far as I can tell, one basic problem with the US system is that the only truly "universal care" available is "emergency care", which is a fundamentally inefficient and ineffective way to provide a service. Ignoring arguments about which country's care facilities are "better", I don't think there is much argument that prevention is cheaper than cure.

 

[WhoWee]

Will someone please explain how universal health care would grow the economy of the US?

 

[Alfi]

Got any examples of countries which are successfully implementing it?

Do France, Germany, Sweden, the UK, (or most other EU countries for that matter) count as examples?

add Canada to that list.


People get sick and are helped to heal and get back to work, without the loss of their homes.
It's not free. We all pay into it and hope we never need it.

 

[WhoWee]

Do France, Germany, Sweden, the UK, (or most other EU countries for that matter) count as examples?

add Canada to that list.

People get sick and are helped to heal and get back to work, without the loss of their homes.
It's not free. We all pay into it and hope we never need it.

No - not in the context of universal health care being a solution to economic growth in the US.