Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 03:21 am, Dan Minette wrote: You and I have a different understanding of spiralling, then. The non-European ethnic makeup of GB is 2.8%. They are optimistically projecting enough immigration to make this about 6% or so in 20 years. And its the shining star. California already has white non-Hispanics as the biggest minority, not the majority. Texas will follow in about 2 years. Yes, one can see a significant minority of non-Europeans in London. That's because that is a haven for non-whites in GB. Contrast that with my neck of the woods where neither of the two mayoral candidates were European. http://society.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4605024,00.html Two boroughs of Britain have more black and Asian people than white people for the first time ever, according to figures from the 2001 census published today. Data from the £200m survey showed that there were 4.5 million people from ethnic minorities in the UK in 2001 - 7.6% of the total population. The ethnic minority population of England rose from 6% in 1991 to 9% in 2001. Whites made up 39.4% of people living in the east London borough of Newham and 45.3% in Brent in the north-west of the capital. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1556901.stm Britain's ethnic minorities are growing at 15 times the rate of the white population, newly-published research shows. Data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) between 1992-1994 and 1997-1999 showed that the number of people from minority ethnic groups grew by 15% compared to 1% for white people. The figures also revealed that on average Britain's ethnic minorities have a much younger age profile. The average age for the white population surveyed in the 1997-1999 period was 37 or less but only 26 for ethnic minorities. The report concluded: Their young age structure and the consequential large number of births and relatively small number of deaths helps to explain the disproportionate contribution of minority ethnic groups to population growth in the 1990s. Significantly the ethnic group with the youngest age profile were those who described themselves as mixed with 58% being aged 14 or under. Overall their numbers increased by 49% in the periods surveyed - the second largest growth among black groups. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 03:21 am, Dan Minette wrote: You and I have a different understanding of spiralling, then. The non-European ethnic makeup of GB is 2.8%. They are optimistically projecting enough immigration to make this about 6% or so in 20 years. And its the shining star. California already has white non-Hispanics as the biggest minority, not the majority. Texas will follow in about 2 years. Yes, one can see a significant minority of non-Europeans in London. That's because that is a haven for non-whites in GB. Contrast that with my neck of the woods where neither of the two mayoral candidates were European. http://society.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4605024,00.html Two boroughs of Britain have more black and Asian people than white people for the first time ever, according to figures from the 2001 census published today. Data from the £200m survey showed that there were 4.5 million people from ethnic minorities in the UK in 2001 - 7.6% of the total population. The ethnic minority population of England rose from 6% in 1991 to 9% in 2001. Whites made up 39.4% of people living in the east London borough of Newham and 45.3% in Brent in the north-west of the capital. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1556901.stm Britain's ethnic minorities are growing at 15 times the rate of the white population, newly-published research shows. Data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) between 1992-1994 and 1997-1999 showed that the number of people from minority ethnic groups grew by 15% compared to 1% for white people. The figures also revealed that on average Britain's ethnic minorities have a much younger age profile. The average age for the white population surveyed in the 1997-1999 period was 37 or less but only 26 for ethnic minorities. The report concluded: Their young age structure and the consequential large number of births and relatively small number of deaths helps to explain the disproportionate contribution of minority ethnic groups to population growth in the 1990s. Significantly the ethnic group with the youngest age profile were those who described themselves as mixed with 58% being aged 14 or under. Overall their numbers increased by 49% in the periods surveyed - the second largest growth among black groups. This is sad because minorities use this information to combat any attempts at birth restrictions calling them racists. The world is over-populated as it is, we need to start setting restrictions now before it get's so out of hand that we have a catastrophe. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 04:13 am, Dan Minette wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://society.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4605024,00.html Two boroughs of Britain have more black and Asian people than white people for the first time ever, according to figures from the 2001 census published today. There is a world of difference between two bouroughs and two states. snip There is a lot of difference between the impact of these two numbers. The two boroughs under discussion both send 3 MPs to Parliament. So the comparable bit of the impact is that 6 MPs are being elected from boroughs that have a white minority population. It appears that the percentage of minorities is really closer to 7.5% than 2.8%. I'm curious to see why the factbook missed the numbers by so much, since they usually get them from the governments of the countries. So, I'm now leaning strongly towards the 7.6% number that you quoted. I stopped using the 'factbook' years ago after finding several such discrepancies between it and other reliable sources. Nevertheless, it may very well be that Great Britain will end up being less European and more tending towards a GB-American alliance worldview. If this is true, then GB could end up with a population that has close to the US's present ethnic makeup in 50 years. The other alternative is that the whites will decide they don't want this, and close immigration. Like this bunch: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/ -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who study history are doomed to repeat it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
William T Goodall wrote: On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 04:13 am, Dan Minette wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://society.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4605024,00.html Two boroughs of Britain have more black and Asian people than white people for the first time ever, according to figures from the 2001 census published today. There is a world of difference between two bouroughs and two states. snip There is a lot of difference between the impact of these two numbers. The two boroughs under discussion both send 3 MPs to Parliament. So the comparable bit of the impact is that 6 MPs are being elected from boroughs that have a white minority population. How many MPs are there total? Dan mentioned Texas and California. In total, those two states send 85 out of 435 Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives. I'm not sure how many of those districts have a white minority, though, but the %age of the population being white in both those states is shrinking steadily. (Does anyone have demographic data on the congressional districts?) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
I've been quite, because I'm still overwhelm - Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 1:52 PM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 03:21 am, Dan Minette wrote: You and I have a different understanding of spiralling, then. The non-European ethnic makeup of GB is 2.8%. They are optimistically projecting enough immigration to make this about 6% or so in 20 years. And its the shining star. http://society.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4605024,00.html Two boroughs of Britain have more black and Asian people than white people for the first time ever, according to figures from the 2001 census published today. There is a world of difference between two bouroughs and two states. I'm not that familar with British political divisions, but it appears that there are 33 buroughs in London alone. The combined population of California and Texas is about 57 million and rising fast. With the population of London at just over 7 million, and 33 buroughs, the average London burough population is roughly 220,000. So, two buroughs are a bit under half a million. There is a lot of difference between the impact of these two numbers. Data from the £200m survey showed that there were 4.5 million people from ethnic minorities in the UK in 2001 - 7.6% of the total population. The ethnic minority population of England rose from 6% in 1991 to 9% in 2001. I quoted the CIA factbook for 2002. You quoted two media sources. On the whole, I would tend to believe the factbook over media sources. But, the BBC has a decent reputation, so I spent a little time looking up the numbers. It appears that the percentage of minorities is really closer to 7.5% than 2.8%. I'm curious to see why the factbook missed the numbers by so much, since they usually get them from the governments of the countries. So, I'm now leaning strongly towards the 7.6% number that you quoted. Whites made up 39.4% of people living in the east London borough of Newham and 45.3% in Brent in the north-west of the capital. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1556901.stm Britain's ethnic minorities are growing at 15 times the rate of the white population, newly-published research shows. But, as a percentage of the minority population, not as a percentage of the total population. That really that this is not absolute, but as a percentage Nevertheless, it may very well be that Great Britain will end up being less European and more tending towards a GB-American alliance worldview. If this is true, then GB could end up with a population that has close to the US's present ethnic makeup in 50 years. The other alternative is that the whites will decide they don't want this, and close immigration. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This model of Education being the principal factor would also hold through to undeveloped countries, contrary to JDG's proposal that religion is a catalyst for having children in developed countries. I don't see why you think htis is contrary. Indeed, your proposal of using Education as the primay factor doesn't explain the difference in birth rates between educated Americans and educated Europeans. Of course, some other factor is naturally at work in the non-Western civilizations of Africa and Asia, but the existence of that factor doesn't affect in any way the ability of my proposal to explain the difference in birth rates *within* Western Civilization. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This model of Education being the principal factor would also hold through to undeveloped countries, contrary to JDG's proposal that religion is a catalyst for having children in developed countries. I don't see why you think htis is contrary. Indeed, your proposal of using Education as the primay factor doesn't explain the difference in birth rates between educated Americans and educated Europeans. How much of a difference is there between the educated portions of the populations? The figures I have seen quoted are for the populations as a whole. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Comparision of ecconomic growth
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Social Security retirement age is being increased very gradually. Too gradually, if you ask me -- I'll theoretically be able to collect full benefits at 67, rather than 65. Of course, that'll be before 2050. I think that in order to keep the system running, retirement age for me ought to be more like 70. Julia If only more people were so selfless... LOL! I was just about to post who wants to wait until they are 70 to retire? I guess I'm one of the not so selfless ones... Actually, my parents waited until after age 70 to retire. And they are definitely enjoying their retirement! They just got back from a trip to Alaska! (But not on the same boat as Dan...) - jmh Youngest of a big family Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Comparision of ecconomic growth
From: Ray Ludenia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] iaamoac wrote: Moreover, hopefully by then Social Security will be means-tested, forcing those who have saved to not realy upon the efforts of those 1.5 workers for sustenance. The implication being that those who have saved should be penalised for their thrift? As a general principle I agree with your comment (means testing) but for two people with similar earnings and circumstances, it seems unfair to disadvantage the frugal one. In general, I'm not counting on social security to be there for me when I retire in 2033 or so. That said, I don't have a problem with a means test. Considering that the vast majority of people get more out of social security than they put into it, it doesn't seem that horrible to cut down a bit on the more wealthy people. No necessarily cut it out completely, but reduce it so that social security might actually be there for the poorer folks. That's why I have 401k's and stuff! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 04:23:51PM -0500, Horn, John wrote: That said, I don't have a problem with a means test. Considering that the vast majority of people get more out of social security than they put into it, it doesn't seem that horrible to cut down a bit on the more wealthy people. That is only temporary. The generation after the baby boomers will very likely pay in more than they get out. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
I'm not quite sure what you mean -- if you mean that having more children after 1 boy and 1 girl doesn't increase your costs, you're wrong. Talk to someone with 2 kids about their grocery bill for a week, and then talk to someone with 4 kids about their grocery bill. Shoes don't last forever to be handed down. If you have more kids, you need a bigger (and probably more expensive) vehicle to get them around in. Gone are the days when you could pile 4 kids in elementary school into the back of a VW Bug (and those were fun, weren't they? at least, as long as you didn't become a statistic). If you're just talking about shelter costs, it can still be tight. Say you have a 3-bedroom house and 4 kids. If you've got 4 of one gender, or 2 and 2, room-sharing isn't that big a deal, but if it's a 1 and 3 gender split, you may have a problem. I know housing is expensive in NYC. Having 3 kids to house in NYC isn't terribly easy, at least that's the impression I've gotten from conversations with Dan's cousin and his wife who live in NYC and who have 3 kids. If it's anything like that in Europe, I can see how smaller family size could result. Julia As I implied, it was time for bed for me. I meant it as it related to Russell's comment. I didn't mean to say there were no costs above 2 kids, of course you have to feed them and clothe them. But if he was talking cities, in Europe, I didn't see the need for personal transportation. And there is some limit where x kids in a room is too many, but people have been doing it for years, heck centuries, before now. Kevin T. = VRWC Not arguing, just the fog of morning ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Gautam Mukunda wrote (about birth rates): I think that probably has something to do with it. My best guess, though, is that the main reason is that the US is just so much wealthier than other countries, even other industrialized countries. It's just incredibly expensive to have kids in a modern industrialized society. You can almost track birthrates to how expensive it is - except in the US, which has much less in the way of pro-family government policies to subsidize the cost, yet it still has a birthrate of about 2.0. My best guess is that Americans are sufficiently wealthier than people in other societies that they can afford to have more kids. That's just a guess. An easy test of this theory: Do rich Americans on average have more children than the battlers? I would be astounded. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On 29 Jun 2003 at 17:33, Gautam Mukunda wrote: All of this excluding England, of course, which _has_ fixed its pension problem, and at least has healthier demographics than the rest of Europe, if not as good as the US. Umm? No, we have NOT. Germany has, by offloading it entirely onto individuals, essentially forcing them to pay as they work for their retirement. It did that some time ago, and looks to be okay. The UK, on the other hand, has an large mass of older people about to reach retirement age who do NOT have sufficient - or any - retirement cover. They are *seriously* talking about raising the retirement age because of that, in the near-term. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm referring to the problem of only 1.5 workers per retired person (if retirement stays at 65) in 2050. Which it won't. As advances in medicine make people more able-bodied older, *and* as evidence accumulates that on-going activity can help prevent Alzheimer's, I think we will see people working longer and longer. Moreover, hopefully by then Social Security will be means-tested, forcing those who have saved to not realy upon the efforts of those 1.5 workers for sustenance. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
iaamoac wrote: Moreover, hopefully by then Social Security will be means-tested, forcing those who have saved to not realy upon the efforts of those 1.5 workers for sustenance. The implication being that those who have saved should be penalised for their thrift? As a general principle I agree with your comment (means testing) but for two people with similar earnings and circumstances, it seems unfair to disadvantage the frugal one. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 02:34 pm, Ray Ludenia wrote: iaamoac wrote: Moreover, hopefully by then Social Security will be means-tested, forcing those who have saved to not realy upon the efforts of those 1.5 workers for sustenance. The implication being that those who have saved should be penalised for their thrift? As a general principle I agree with your comment (means testing) but for two people with similar earnings and circumstances, it seems unfair to disadvantage the frugal one. Regards, Ray. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/cash/story/0,6903,930367,00.html The latest twist on our social security pension system is the 'savings credit' where people with low incomes who have saved for their retirement get an *extra* top-up from the government to reward them compared to those who have not saved who receive only the minimum guarantee credit. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life - Terry Pratchett ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
The Oregonian on Sunday published a great article about this subject. It was mentioned in the article that education played the biggest role in whether or not people had children, particularly in Europe. The premise being that children interfered with professional development. This model of Education being the principal factor would also hold through to undeveloped countries, contrary to JDG's proposal that religion is a catalyst for having children in developed countries. JDG's proposal does not fit with Asian growth rates, where at least 50% of the world's population is now, and will be at in the future. Women in less developed countries are having 3.6 children ave. This trend is expected to stay through 2050. While the biggest growth rates will be in South America, which has a lot of Catholics, the majority of the population will be in Asia, which has few Christians comparatively. Does anyone know the position of non-Christian religions on promoting having children? Is it as strong in other religions as it is in most Christian religions? Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm referring to the problem of only 1.5 workers per retired person (if retirement stays at 65) in 2050. Which it won't. As advances in medicine make people more able-bodied older, *and* as evidence accumulates that on-going activity can help prevent Alzheimer's, I think we will see people working longer and longer. Moreover, hopefully by then Social Security will be means-tested, forcing those who have saved to not realy upon the efforts of those 1.5 workers for sustenance. I'm all for that. And we're doing our darnedest to save enough so that we don't need dime one of Social Security. Basically, if something more drastic than what is currently planned isn't done, the system will collapse. And we'll pay our taxes now and try to save enough to retire on without the help of anyone else, so as to NOT contribute to the problem. (We think we're being realists on this.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the truisms that has been accepted by me, and others, is that the US ecconomy has been growing faster than Europe's, and that this reflects the advantages of less governmental control of the ecconomy. Dan: In the past, you have expresed your disdain for economics and economists as unscientific because you consider economic unsuitable for producing predictions. Yet, you have now used economics to produce a prediction - namely that the relationship between government intervention in an economy and economic growth can be described as a curve, and moreover, that the Europeans are at a higher point on the curve than the US. Thus, it seems we have a contradiction from you. So, do you choose to stand by your claim that economics not a science or do you wish to stand by your predictions? :) Your choice. :) JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, but out real motto should be: We have healthy demographics, while Europe (with the exception of Britain) is about to go down the toilet because of the age of its population. Having just spent the last week or so furiously studying worldwide demographics, the situation for Europe is, to put it mildly, catastrophic. If only those countries, many of which were once heavily Catholic, had listened to the Church's teachings on the blessins of children. John D. (Well, the teaching on contraception might have had the same effect, but at least the above teaching puts a positive spin on at least desiring to have your 2.X children you are supposed to in order to maintain the replacement rate...) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: America's demographics aren't so hot either, just not as bad as Europe's. But that isn't anything to be happy about. Which, by the way, is a very good thing. As our population ages and our health and abilities in old age increase, it is a very good thing to encourage our elderly to continue to support our nation's GDP. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Secondly, it's being revised at the moment. According to _The Economist_, France and others succeeding in putting the kabosh on that, getting a moratorium on reforms until 2005 or 2006 passed. We'll see how serious they are about reform. George W. Bush is currently having our trade representative argue for a world-wide liberalizing of trade in agricultural goods, and a joint removal of subsidies - so as to permit the poorest farmers of the world sell their agricultural goods to us competitively. I can only hope that Europe won't stand in the way of this. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If only those countries, many of which were once heavily Catholic, had listened to the Church's teachings on the blessins of children. John D. Well, maybe. Given that the two countries in worst shape are Spain and Italy, probably the two most Catholic countries in Europe, it's hard to argue that Catholicism is helping here. They may not practice all that much in either country, but this started a generation ago when they definitely were practicing. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: America's demographics aren't so hot either, just not as bad as Europe's. But that isn't anything to be happy about. As William Bernstein puts it, a lot of retired Americans may be eating Alpo in 20 years. Probably a lot of people won't be able to retire. http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/103/hell4.htm I'm not in the least happy about it, but I'm not sure what you mean by not so hot. By 2050, the US's median age is going to go up by something like a year - to around 37, IIRC. That's pretty good. It's not _ideal_, but it's pretty good. Even more importantly, our problem is a matter of scratching along until things get better. My HS graduating class (1997, you old fogies - am I _still_ the youngest person on the list, for goodness sake? :-) for example, was the largest graduating class in US history, the first one larger than the largest of the baby boom. Every graduating class since mine has been larger still. If the US can hold things together from about 2030-2040, it will be fine - the Baby Boom Echo will be pouring into the workforce. Europe has no similar salvation waiting in the wings, and that's it's real problem. The US, I predict, will do what it always does - muddle on through by putting the problem off into the future. That's not in any way an ideal solution, but it will sort of kind of work in our case. Europe and Japan, by contrast, simply don't have that option, yet they don't seem to be taking any steps to fix the problem. All of this excluding England, of course, which _has_ fixed its pension problem, and at least has healthier demographics than the rest of Europe, if not as good as the US. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: America's demographics aren't so hot either, just not as bad as Europe's. But that isn't anything to be happy about. As William Bernstein puts it, a lot of retired Americans may be eating Alpo in 20 years. Probably a lot of people won't be able to retire. http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/103/hell4.html I should add one more thing - I've looked at the article, and I don't agree, but the data I'm basing that disagreement on is largely proprietary (not to my company) so I can't use it in this discussion :-( If you wait 1 year, there will be some articles and maybe a book in the mass media that discuss it some more. Look for my name very, very, very, very deep in the footnotes. But I would point you towards: http://www.deam-europe.com/pension_reforms/documents/demographics_30october2000.pdf and http://www.ced.uab.es/jperez/PDFs/GoldmanSachs.pdf Both of which are very good on the capital market implications. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 05:33:59PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/103/hell4.htm I'm not in the least happy about it, but I'm not sure what you mean by not so hot. I mean we are going to have some problems in 20-30 years, as summarized in the link I provided. If the US can hold things together from about 2030-2040, it will be fine - the Baby Boom Echo will be pouring into the workforce Agreed. But the economy isn't likely to be strong during 2020-2040. I think a depression (little or no growth, poverty, very low wages or high unemployment) is likely. That is what I mean by not so hot. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 05:42:08PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: I should add one more thing - I've looked at the article, and I don't agree, but the data I'm basing that disagreement on is largely proprietary Specifically what do you disagree with? The argument is fairly simple. Their IS an age wave nearing (traditional) retirement, surely you don't dispute that? What do YOU think will happen when they start selling all of their stocks and bonds to support their consumption in retirement? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed. But the economy isn't likely to be strong during 2020-2040. I think a depression (little or no growth, poverty, very low wages or high unemployment) is likely. That is what I mean by not so hot. Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, I'm just very skeptical. Most of the financial models I've seen suggest that the US capital markets (as opposed to those of Europe) are likely to, at worst, only slightly cash-flow negative, and even that for a short period of time. So while I would agree that a market slowdown is fairly probable, I don't think that a depression or anything like that is terribly likely. I would guess that global economic growth will transition towards the US/China/India, certainly. If India ever gets its act together and does serious reform that order might change to India/US/China, but I'm not immensely optimistic on that, sadly. Nonetheless, given intelligent reforms _now_ I don't see a depression as terribly likely (although the chance of intelligent reforms now is fairly small, since Social Security privatization has gone out the window and Europe seems to be in even worse shape), and even if they have to wait a few years, the shock shouldn't be catastrophic. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Specifically what do you disagree with? The argument is fairly simple. Their IS an age wave nearing (traditional) retirement, surely you don't dispute that? What do YOU think will happen when they start selling all of their stocks and bonds to support their consumption in retirement? Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, I think the empirical data that people do sell that much is actually a little shaky, for one, so I think that effect is overstated. Look at Japan, for example. Despite their rapid aging, they haven't actually seen a mass outflow of cash from their retirement savings system (which is the Japanese postal system, oddly enough, which pays absolutely miniscule interest rates and has well over a trillion dollars in assets, IIRC). Money is going to keep flowing into the market from other people as well. People are going to keep investing in their 401(k)s, and they will keep buying stocks. Take a look at the Goldman Sachs paper I posted a link to on capital market implications - I think the anlaytics there are pretty good, and it doesn't suggest that anything disastrous is going to happen to the American capital markets, at least. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
IMF chart appears to do some correction for labor force participation There are several types of people in economic statistics: 1) Non-workers (children, elderly, institutionalized, etc.) 2) Workers (includes both fully employed and under-employed) 3) Unemployed (these people are looking for work but cannot find it) 4) Disgruntled (these people have had so little luck finding a job that they have given up altogether, and now simply collect charity and welfare checks) The labor force participation rate is either (2+3)/population or else (2+3)/(2+3+4). That might clear up the discrepancy you are observing. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, maybe. Given that the two countries in worst shape are Spain and Italy, probably the two most Catholic countries in Europe, it's hard to argue that Catholicism is helping here. They may not practice all that much in either country, but this started a generation ago when they definitely were practicing. That would be an interesting correlation to run - Church Attendance vs. Birth Rate. I'd be surprised if the birth rate fell below the replacement level before Church Attendance started dropping precipitously. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be an interesting correlation to run - Church Attendance vs. Birth Rate. I'd be surprised if the birth rate fell below the replacement level before Church Attendance started dropping precipitously. JDG Well, it fell below replacement level only recently, but it started falling a long time ago. I believe that Mexico's population is starting to fall, actually, or will start to fall soon, so that might be a test case for you. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Gautam Mukunda wrote: I'm not in the least happy about it, but I'm not sure what you mean by not so hot. By 2050, the US's median age is going to go up by something like a year - to around 37, IIRC. That's pretty good. It's not _ideal_, but it's pretty good. Isn't median age a fairly irrelevant indicator here - you could have massive changes in demographics without affecting median age. If the US has a big group of people at or near retirement age, plus retired people who aren't dying within 10 yrs of retirement as they used to, and this is offset by a larger child population (particularly as the immigrants have a higher birth rate than the anglo-saxons that make a majority of the work force), aren't you looking at only small increases in median age but massive increases in people outside the work force. ie a much smaller proportion of the population being productive? Even more importantly, our problem is a matter of scratching along until things get better. My HS graduating class (1997, you old fogies - am I _still_ the youngest person on the list, for goodness sake? :-) for example, was the largest graduating class in US history, Is that a function of population, or people finishing school? Is high school compulsory in the US? Either way, it's certainly going to improve the situation. If the US can hold things together from about 2030-2040, it will be fine - the Baby Boom Echo will be pouring into the workforce. Shouldn't the children of the baby boomers already be in the workforce? What echo are you looking at in 2030? Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, it fell below replacement level only recently, but it started falling a long time ago. Well, for sure. Development is obviously going to cause the birth rate to fall - but to what level? To put it another way, imagine three possible societal birth rates. 1) The agricultural birth rate, where 5+ kids is the norm. (Perhaps it was once even higher?) 2) A sustainable birth rate, where 2-4 kids is the norm. 3) The catastrophe birth rate, where 0-1 kids is the norm. I suspect that for developed societies, there may be a correlation between religion and arriving at the 2nd Birth Rate vs. the 3rd Birth Rate. Speaking just in terms of Catholicism for a moment, Catholicism is a very pro-family religion. Married couples are *expected* to have children, and it is considered noble to devote yourself to sustaining a family and raising up the next generation. Thus, the primary unit of hapiness maximization in many cases is treated as the family. Secularism, however, is not nearly as pro-family. In particular, a hallmark of secularism is individualism - i.e. where one's one good is of primary importance. Children are often thought (pre- parenthood) to be an obstacle to one's own happiness. After all, they require a dramatic realtering of one's lifestyle, from how much one works to what sort of entertainment activities one pursues. Moreover, in this worldview, the primary hapiness maximization unit is the individual, and the family is simply a means to this end - and indeed, to the extent that the family interferes with individual happiness, it can be discarded. Thus, to me it seems entirely logical to see how the secular ideology can lead to the popularization of childless marriages - something which in the Catholic worldview is as much of an oxymoron as a dehydrated water bottle (infertile couples would naturally pursue adoption in the Catholic worldview). Moreover, the example of the Holy Family notwithstanding, the paragon of a Catholic family is almost always multiple children, and the phrase only child is not an entirely positive one - in contrast to the secular worldview where having just one child to love is very popular. Anyhow, I could be off-my-rocker on this, but it seems to me to be at least a plausible reason as to why America, with its stronger (albeit not necessarily Catholic) religious roots has arrived at birth rate #2, and Europe has arrrived at birth rate #3, despite our comparable levels of development. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyhow, I could be off-my-rocker on this, but it seems to me to be at least a plausible reason as to why America, with its stronger (albeit not necessarily Catholic) religious roots has arrived at birth rate #2, and Europe has arrrived at birth rate #3, despite our comparable levels of development. JDG I think that probably has something to do with it. My best guess, though, is that the main reason is that the US is just so much wealthier than other countries, even other industrialized countries. It's just incredibly expensive to have kids in a modern industrialized society. You can almost track birthrates to how expensive it is - except in the US, which has much less in the way of pro-family government policies to subsidize the cost, yet it still has a birthrate of about 2.0. My best guess is that Americans are sufficiently wealthier than people in other societies that they can afford to have more kids. That's just a guess. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 01:22:30AM -, iaamoac wrote: High unemployment would strike me very unlikely, since a large number of retirees will have a positive impact on demand. i.e. there will be more consumers of labor, and fewer suppliers. I don't see how this will produce high unemployment. Well, I think that few Americans will be willing to work enough to support the consumption of the retired baby boomers. A lot more jobs will move overseas where people are willing to work for peanuts. Moreover, Gautam's link, which projects population trends for the next 50 years, shows the US working age population (definied rather narrowly at ages 20-60 years) increasing steadly by about 30% from 2000 to 2050. That growth alone should preclude an outright prolonged contraction of GDP. You are neglecting the other side of the equation, consumption by non-workers. When the ratio of workers to non-workers goes from 4:1 (1990) to 1.5:1 (2050 est.), GDP will likely be affected. Actually, the Goldman-Sachs paper glosses over it a little, but they do mention that economic growth will be slower after 2010 for this reason. Indeed, in the long run, economic growth is primarily determined by growths in productivity. I would expect the pace of technological advancement to be unaffected by these demographics - which would also argue against a depression. Maybe. But I wonder who is going to fund the basic research necessary for this technological advancement. US corporations have very high debt levels. The US government is going to have its hands full funding Social Security and Medicare. Lastly, remember that monetary policy can be used to balance out the effects of ageing on liquidity of assets. I seriously doubt that. Monetary policy is not a fundamental effect. Number of workers vs. non-workers IS fundamental. Your statement is like saying that by wiggling the gas pedal around on a Geo Metro you can coax it to outrun a Ferrari. The best you can hope for is to keep that Geo Metro going at a steady speed, and even that is impossible if you are running out of gas. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 05:50:19PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: (although the chance of intelligent reforms now is fairly small, since Social Security privatization has gone out the window Social Security privatization isn't likely to help the problem I'm talking about. I'm referring to the problem of only 1.5 workers per retired person (if retirement stays at 65) in 2050. But perhaps that just means that people will delay retirement to 75, and by then the worst of the age wave will have past. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
I would guess that global economic growth will transition towards the US/China/India, certainly. If India ever gets its act together and does serious reform that order might change to India/US/China, but I'm not immensely optimistic on that, sadly. Gautam Mukunda I'm not presuming to say you are the only to help India, would you have any inside knowledge of someone who could help that country? My only knowledge of India was from a 20/20 program, comparing the US and democracy against other countries. The things the Indian officials didit was like watching a show called How dumb can you be? All the paperwork that had to be filled out to get anything done...maybe we should Algore there to streamline their government. Seriously, do you know of worse stories? Do you think this is a problem with most non-western (type) countries, they have promise but too many good intentions, not enough good people? And from another angle, people in western countries who don't understand how a country that does have a lot of basic services like electricity, can still be so backwards? I mean, westerners who expect electricity also expect high standards of living, good roads I've never been to Tijuana and what I remember of my time in Mexico near Brownsville Texas is sketchy at best. It just seems that if you are 30 miles from the US border in San Diego, you'd know it compared with being 30 miles into Mexico. There is plenty of poverty along the US/Mexico border on the US side, but it always sounds like it is much worse in Mexico. Why can't we raise that country up? Kevin T. - VRWC Sorry, rambling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 06:02:19PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: and they will keep buying stocks. Take a look at the Goldman Sachs paper I posted a link to on capital market implications - I think the anlaytics there are pretty good, and it doesn't suggest that anything disastrous is going to happen to the American capital markets, at least. I skimmed through it. They really gloss over the 2030 period, but they do say several times that GDP growth will slow. If GDP growth slows, so will equity returns (probably due to decreased earnings and declining multiples from selling pressures). If that happens, do you think people will be anxious to buy stocks as you suggest? And even if they do, they won't buy enough to offset the baby boomers selling. That sounds a lot like the beginnings of a 10+ year depression to me. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Social Security privatization isn't likely to help the problem I'm talking about. I'm referring to the problem of only 1.5 workers per retired person (if retirement stays at 65) in 2050. But perhaps that just means that people will delay retirement to 75, and by then the worst of the age wave will have past. Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, the US retirement age is already scheduled to be at 67 by then, and I rather imagine that it will be higher. But I don't recall seeing a demographic projection that puts the _US_ situation at 1.5:1 by 2050. Europe, certainly - Italy will be below 1:1. If that were to happen, though, there's no doubt in my mind that the retirement age would go up substantially to prevent exactly that from happening. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, it fell below replacement level only recently, but it started falling a long time ago. Secularism, however, is not nearly as pro-family. In particular, a hallmark of secularism is individualism - i.e. where one's one good is of primary importance. Children are often thought (pre- parenthood) to be an obstacle to one's own happiness. I wonder if the financial cost of raising a family of 2 kids is more in Europe than in the US? As much as housing costs have increased in the US, there has been comparable increases in the size of the average family home. In European cities, accomodation/shelter costs alone may be a stumbling block to many potential parents. In the past, it may have been acceptable to stay in the family home, but now every family unit wants their own housing, with 2.5 TVs, dishwasher and second car. The realtering of lifestyle is a big inhibition to many, but if extra costs are added above what US couples face, it may convince more couples to skip children, limit children to 1 or 2, or delay having children until too late. Cheers Russell C. who knows nothing about housing conditions in Southern Europe beyond what he sees on TV... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
At 12:20 PM 6/30/2003 +1000, you wrote: iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, it fell below replacement level only recently, but it started falling a long time ago. Secularism, however, is not nearly as pro-family. In particular, a hallmark of secularism is individualism - i.e. where one's one good is of primary importance. Children are often thought (pre- parenthood) to be an obstacle to one's own happiness. I wonder if the financial cost of raising a family of 2 kids is more in Europe than in the US? As much as housing costs have increased in the US, there has been comparable increases in the size of the average family home. In European cities, accomodation/shelter costs alone may be a stumbling block to many potential parents. In the past, it may have been acceptable to stay in the family home, but now every family unit wants their own housing, with 2.5 TVs, dishwasher and second car. The realtering of lifestyle is a big inhibition to many, but if extra costs are added above what US couples face, it may convince more couples to skip children, limit children to 1 or 2, or delay having children until too late. Cheers Russell C. who knows nothing about housing conditions in Southern Europe beyond what he sees on TV... What do you mean by realtering of lifestyle? It seems to me once you have a boy and a girl, the costs don't go up anymore. Kevin T. - VRWC want to say more, but time for sleep ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 05:50:19PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: (although the chance of intelligent reforms now is fairly small, since Social Security privatization has gone out the window Social Security privatization isn't likely to help the problem I'm talking about. I'm referring to the problem of only 1.5 workers per retired person (if retirement stays at 65) in 2050. But perhaps that just means that people will delay retirement to 75, and by then the worst of the age wave will have past. Social Security retirement age is being increased very gradually. Too gradually, if you ask me -- I'll theoretically be able to collect full benefits at 67, rather than 65. Of course, that'll be before 2050. I think that in order to keep the system running, retirement age for me ought to be more like 70. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Kevin Tarr wrote: At 12:20 PM 6/30/2003 +1000, you wrote: iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, it fell below replacement level only recently, but it started falling a long time ago. Secularism, however, is not nearly as pro-family. In particular, a hallmark of secularism is individualism - i.e. where one's one good is of primary importance. Children are often thought (pre- parenthood) to be an obstacle to one's own happiness. I wonder if the financial cost of raising a family of 2 kids is more in Europe than in the US? As much as housing costs have increased in the US, there has been comparable increases in the size of the average family home. In European cities, accomodation/shelter costs alone may be a stumbling block to many potential parents. In the past, it may have been acceptable to stay in the family home, but now every family unit wants their own housing, with 2.5 TVs, dishwasher and second car. The realtering of lifestyle is a big inhibition to many, but if extra costs are added above what US couples face, it may convince more couples to skip children, limit children to 1 or 2, or delay having children until too late. Cheers Russell C. who knows nothing about housing conditions in Southern Europe beyond what he sees on TV... What do you mean by realtering of lifestyle? It seems to me once you have a boy and a girl, the costs don't go up anymore. I'm not quite sure what you mean -- if you mean that having more children after 1 boy and 1 girl doesn't increase your costs, you're wrong. Talk to someone with 2 kids about their grocery bill for a week, and then talk to someone with 4 kids about their grocery bill. Shoes don't last forever to be handed down. If you have more kids, you need a bigger (and probably more expensive) vehicle to get them around in. Gone are the days when you could pile 4 kids in elementary school into the back of a VW Bug (and those were fun, weren't they? at least, as long as you didn't become a statistic). If you're just talking about shelter costs, it can still be tight. Say you have a 3-bedroom house and 4 kids. If you've got 4 of one gender, or 2 and 2, room-sharing isn't that big a deal, but if it's a 1 and 3 gender split, you may have a problem. I know housing is expensive in NYC. Having 3 kids to house in NYC isn't terribly easy, at least that's the impression I've gotten from conversations with Dan's cousin and his wife who live in NYC and who have 3 kids. If it's anything like that in Europe, I can see how smaller family size could result. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Social Security retirement age is being increased very gradually. Too gradually, if you ask me -- I'll theoretically be able to collect full benefits at 67, rather than 65. Of course, that'll be before 2050. I think that in order to keep the system running, retirement age for me ought to be more like 70. Julia If only more people were so selfless... On a more optimistic note, looking at demographic statistics that project future lifespans is quite shocking as well (although it is very, very strange to be reading papers where pessimistic projections are ones that involve people living _longer_ lives). But it's quite stunning to read stuff that suggests that someone of my age can (they predict), barring revolutionary medical advances, expect to live another 70 or so years, on average. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 08:51:17AM -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: years Austral France Germany Japan Sweden Switzrl UK US World - 1900-20 7.8 1.0-4.9 9.4 7.9-9.4 0.2 2.5 0.8 1920-40 12.8 1.8 6.1 6.4 3.6 6.9 5.9 8.0 7.2 1940-60 6.0 3.8 5.7-2.7 8.6 7.2 8.3 9.7 8.8 1960-80 2.7 0.0 0.6 5.9 1.1 2.5 2.5 2.4 3.2 1980-00 8.412.810.7 4.817.510.212.311.2 9.4 - 1900-2000 equities 7.5 3.8 3.6 4.5 7.6 5.0 5.8 6.7 5.8 - 1900-2000 Real GDP 3.3 2.4 2.8 4.1 2.6 2.7 1.9 3.3 2.9 - 1900-2000 Real GDP 1.6 2.0 1.8 3.0 2.0 1.8 1.4 2.0 2.1 per cap - Since no one has commented on it yet, I wanted to point out that the above data seem to contradict the conventional wisdom that Dan mentioned about America's system intrinsically promoting faster growth than Europe. Note that for equity returns 1900-2000, the US leads France, Germany, Switzerland, and UK, but Sweden beats the US, and UK is close behind the US. But as you can see, this is not an unbiased comparison, because during the first half of the century, Europe was more devastated by wars than America. Even so, Sweden and UK had equity returns close to America's. Note that during 1900-2000, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden approximately matched the US in real GDP per capita growth (and Japan beat the US by a significant margin), but France and Germany had much lower equity returns than the US over this time period. Evidently an economy as a whole can recover nicely from the devastation of war, but the stock-holders take it on the chin. For a better comparison, look at 1960-1980. Switzerland and UK equity returns both slightly beat those of the US. And in 1980-2000, France, Sweden, and UK all beat US in equity returns. I'm not going to type in all the data, but for 1980-2000 real equity returns, Belgium was 11.4, Denmark 12.0, Ireland 12.7, Italy 10.1, Netherlands 16.1, and Spain 13.5. All but Italy beat the US. If we look at real annualized equity returns from 1960-2000, the US beats 7 European countries but loses to 4. The US certainly does NOT stand out as generating much higher real equity returns than Europe during 1960-2000. 9.2 Ireland 9.1 Sweden 8.1 Netherlands 7.3 UK 6.8 US 6.5 Switzerland 6.4 France 6.3 Denmark 5.7 Belgium 5.6 Germany 5.2 Spain 1.9 Italy -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:08:03AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: I was reading a different table and the text. I think I misread the slope as the total productivity. Its interesting that Brad's paper has the US staying in front of those countries in productivity. France is at 98% of the US productivity in '98. Since the trend since then has been superior US productivity, we see the difference there. Another, more important difference relating to per capita GDP is the hours worked by Americans. Here's the '98 data for that: France 580 Germany 670 Italy 637 United Kingdom 682 12 West Europe 657 Ireland 672 Spain 648 United States 791 That is odd that Angus Maddison's Level of GDP per hour worked in 1998 differ so much from IMF's GDP per hour in 2001. It certainly shouldn't have changed so much in 3 years. I think your point about hours worked is important. Using Maddison's 791 hours and un-normalizing the IMF data on that basis, hours worked per head (Maddison) and average hours worked (IMF) looks like - IMF Maddison country - 791 791 US 638 682 UK 611 637 Italy 584 580 France 551 670 Germany - Maddison's number is 22% higher for Germany, 7% higher for UK, 4% higher for Italy, and 1% lower for France. IMF does not specify whether the average hours worked is per capita, or per employed worker. Maddison's numbers are specified as per head (per capita), and per employed worker numbers should be higher than per capita numbers (due to unemployment). But IMF's numbers are generally LOWER than Maddison's, so something strange is going on. Also, Maddison appears to use the logical formula GDP per hour = GDP per capita / hours worked per capita whereas the IMF chart appears to do some correction for labor force participation which isn't clear to me. It looks like IMF's data may have resulted from some weird manipulation, whereas Maddison's data seem reasonable to me. (Or the number of hours worked per capita by Germans went down 22% between 1998 and 2001) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On 26 Jun 2003 at 22:31, Julia Thompson wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Another example is the fact that half of the EU budget goes to subsidize inefficient farms. Really? How big is that budget? Where does the rest of it go? You mean the Common Agricultural Policy? Firstly, not all of the farms are inefficient. Secondly, it's being revised at the moment. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Here's some data I obtained from the superb compendium _Triumph of the Optimists_ by Dimson, Marsh, and Staunton. This book presents data and commentary for 1900-2000 for the returns of equities, bonds, bills, and inflation for 16 countries. I've copied some of the data below for a selection of countries. This data is the annualized percent real total equity returns (dividend reinvested plus capital gains, inflation corrected). I also included annualized percentage growth of real GDP and real GDP per capita for the 101 year period. Note that there is little to no correlation between real GDP and equity returns. Depending on what kind of economic growth you are interested in, I think a case can be made for using real equity returns, real GDP, or real GDP per capita as a metric. They are all useful in various circumstances. years Austral France Germany Japan Sweden Switzrl UK US World - 1900-20 7.8 1.0-4.9 9.4 7.9-9.4 0.2 2.5 0.8 1920-40 12.8 1.8 6.1 6.4 3.6 6.9 5.9 8.0 7.2 1940-60 6.0 3.8 5.7-2.7 8.6 7.2 8.3 9.7 8.8 1960-80 2.7 0.0 0.6 5.9 1.1 2.5 2.5 2.4 3.2 1980-00 8.412.810.7 4.817.510.212.311.2 9.4 - 1900-2000 equities 7.5 3.8 3.6 4.5 7.6 5.0 5.8 6.7 5.8 - 1900-2000 Real GDP 3.3 2.4 2.8 4.1 2.6 2.7 1.9 3.3 2.9 - 1900-2000 Real GDP 1.6 2.0 1.8 3.0 2.0 1.8 1.4 2.0 2.1 per cap - -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 09:11:02PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 06:16 PM 6/26/03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Right, but the median real wage started going down around 1980. The increase in income for all but the top 20% of households was due to the additional hours work outstripping the drop in wagers. Wanna bet? You gotta watch out for Ronn, he's nailed me a couple times recently. (I think he's taken over Alberto's responsibilities since Alberto has been shirking his duties...) Anyway, a wager is a bet. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:30:33PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/000949.html we find recent quotes from the IMF showing that the US now leads Europe in productivity per hour Huh? I read it that in 2001, Germany, France, and Italy all beat the US in productivity, as measured by GDP per worker-hour. The US was normalized to 100, and Germany, France, and Italy were 106, 115, and 117. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 04:04:13PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Yeah, but out real motto should be: We have healthy demographics, while Europe (with the exception of Britain) is about to go down the toilet because of the age of its population. America's demographics aren't so hot either, just not as bad as Europe's. But that isn't anything to be happy about. As William Bernstein puts it, a lot of retired Americans may be eating Alpo in 20 years. Probably a lot of people won't be able to retire. http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/103/hell4.htm Europe is, to put it mildly, catastrophic. True, but most of the developed world has the same problem, albeit to a lesser degree. I predict that unless we make some major advances in robotics and artificial intelligence, the 20th century will be looked upon as a singular golden age and the 21st century will be a lot slower in economic growth, if not actually declines. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
At 09:11 PM 6/26/03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:03 PM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth At 06:16 PM 6/26/03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Right, but the median real wage started going down around 1980. The increase in income for all but the top 20% of households was due to the additional hours work outstripping the drop in wagers. ^^ Wanna bet? ^^^ [snip obviously didn't get it response] *ahem* Read the post of yours I was replying to more carefully . . . ;-) Speling Flamme Maru -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:35 AM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth At 09:11 PM 6/26/03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:03 PM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth At 06:16 PM 6/26/03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Right, but the median real wage started going down around 1980. The increase in income for all but the top 20% of households was due to the additional hours work outstripping the drop in wagers. ^^ Wanna bet? ^^^ [snip obviously didn't get it response] *ahem* Read the post of yours I was replying to more carefully . . . ;-) Speling Flamme Maru OK, you got me. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:30:33PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/000949.html we find recent quotes from the IMF showing that the US now leads Europe in productivity per hour Huh? I read it that in 2001, Germany, France, and Italy all beat the US in productivity, as measured by GDP per worker-hour. The US was normalized to 100, and Germany, France, and Italy were 106, 115, and 117. I was reading a different table and the text. I think I misread the slope as the total productivity. Its interesting that Brad's paper has the US staying in front of those countries in productivity. France is at 98% of the US productivity in '98. Since the trend since then has been superior US productivity, we see the difference there. Another, more important difference relating to per capita GDP is the hours worked by Americans. Here's the '98 data for that: France 580 Germany 670 Italy 637 United Kingdom 682 12 West Europe 657 Ireland 672 Spain 648 United States 791 Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On NPR last night, they had a guy on that suggested that for the median worker, the Nordic countries have a higher standard of living than in the United States. He also suggested that there will be the rise of what he called Confucianism economics, where Asia will become the dominant economic power. He included China and India as part of Asia. He stated that in India, they are benefiting from the colonialism of Britain, which brought English as a secondary language, and significant education for the masses. There will be a demographic of 40-something's Indians who are educated, speak English, and have access to the West's technology. He did downplay Capitalism as a positive economic model. On an alternate subject, where will Africa be in 2050? They have almost completely opposite problems in regard to an aging population. Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 08:03:02AM -0700, Chad Cooper wrote: He stated that in India, they are benefiting from the colonialism of Britain, which brought English as a secondary language, and significant education for the masses. There will be a demographic of 40-something's Indians who are educated, speak English, and have access to the West's technology. The Economist just did a comparison of China to India. China has been blowing India away in growth for the past 25 years or so. There were a lot of reasons cited, but it basically comes down to bureacracy and corruption. Interesting that India is worse than China on that. The Economist said that things started to improve a little in India in the 90's, but it didn't seem that India was likely to match China's growth any time soon, if ever. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Gautam said: Herbert Stein famously said that an unsustainable trend will not be sustained. I don't quite see how this particular trend is going to end, though. By 2050, I fully expect full-spectrum anti-agathic treatments, a mature nanotechnology, human-equivalent AI and so forth. Given all that, I think the demographic arguments won't count for much. Need more workers? Just manufacture some more human-grade AIs, etc. etc. Rich, who is actually quite serious. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Comparision of ecconomic growth
By 2050, I fully expect full-spectrum anti-agathic treatments, a mature nanotechnology, human-equivalent AI and so forth. Drexler himself recently responded to Richard Smalley's claim that Molecular manufacturing is a pipedream. Drexler is still confident we will have molecular assemblers, but it will take longer that he first predicted. If you are referring to large-scale nanotechnology like MEMS, well, its here today. Recently I saw an add from Forbes mag of a new mag they have that provides investment advice to those who want to invest in nanotechnology. Given all that, I think the demographic arguments won't count for much. Need more workers? Just manufacture some more human-grade AIs, etc. etc. AI is tough to do. I would say we don't need human grade AI. I mean, who wants to deal with a bunch of (depressed) Marvin's However, I have stated on my resume that if I was to go back to school, I would either study Nanomedicine or AI pathology. I'm optimistic! Nerd from Hell Born-again Extropian Rich, who is actually quite serious. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 03:21 am, Dan Minette wrote: You and I have a different understanding of spiralling, then. The non-European ethnic makeup of GB is 2.8%. They are optimistically projecting enough immigration to make this about 6% or so in 20 years. And its the shining star. California already has white non-Hispanics as the biggest minority, not the majority. Texas will follow in about 2 years. Yes, one can see a significant minority of non-Europeans in London. That's because that is a haven for non-whites in GB. Contrast that with my neck of the woods where neither of the two mayoral candidates were European. http://society.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4605024,00.html Two boroughs of Britain have more black and Asian people than white people for the first time ever, according to figures from the 2001 census published today. Data from the £200m survey showed that there were 4.5 million people from ethnic minorities in the UK in 2001 - 7.6% of the total population. The ethnic minority population of England rose from 6% in 1991 to 9% in 2001. Whites made up 39.4% of people living in the east London borough of Newham and 45.3% in Brent in the north-west of the capital. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1556901.stm Britain's ethnic minorities are growing at 15 times the rate of the white population, newly-published research shows. Data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) between 1992-1994 and 1997-1999 showed that the number of people from minority ethnic groups grew by 15% compared to 1% for white people. The figures also revealed that on average Britain's ethnic minorities have a much younger age profile. The average age for the white population surveyed in the 1997-1999 period was 37 or less but only 26 for ethnic minorities. The report concluded: Their young age structure and the consequential large number of births and relatively small number of deaths helps to explain the disproportionate contribution of minority ethnic groups to population growth in the 1990s. Significantly the ethnic group with the youngest age profile were those who described themselves as mixed with 58% being aged 14 or under. Overall their numbers increased by 49% in the periods surveyed - the second largest growth among black groups. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Now, this is not a certainty; all curves are not regular and extremely well behaved. Thus, it would make sense to look at the local slope; which I proposed to do by comparing the ecconomic performance under Democratic and Republican administrations. I'd be more than willing to consider data after, say 1948, accepting the 20-47 data as belonging to a different era.** Interesting information. My first question is whether or not you are making an assumption that the D and R administrations make direct real-time effects to the economy while in power. My opinion is that there will be a lag, similar to the lag understood in the effect of adjusting the prime interest rate to the rate of growth. Perhap you could overlay interest rates over the same intervals to see if a pattern develops. Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Dan said: One of the truisms that has been accepted by me, and others, is that the US ecconomy has been growing faster than Europe's, and that this reflects the advantages of less governmental control of the ecconomy. I decided to try to find the numbers on this. I've just started reading Will Hutton's _The World We're In_ (published in the US, where his earlier book on Britain, _The State We're In_ isn't so well known, as _The Declaration of Interdependence_) and he's chock full of criticisms of the US economy compared with the European one. One interesting thing he says is that the growth of productivity per hour worked in Europe has so outstripped that in the US that it's higher in France, the Netherlands, Belgium and the former West Germany than in America and only marginally lower in Ireland, Austria and Denmark. This is apparently masked in the more well known figures by the facts that Americans are working longer hours than Europeans and that more American women work. If you could find any figures on that, I'd be interested. (I'd look myself but I'm very busy at the moment.) Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:37 PM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth Dan said: One of the truisms that has been accepted by me, and others, is that the US ecconomy has been growing faster than Europe's, and that this reflects the advantages of less governmental control of the ecconomy. I decided to try to find the numbers on this. I've just started reading Will Hutton's _The World We're In_ (published in the US, where his earlier book on Britain, _The State We're In_ isn't so well known, as _The Declaration of Interdependence_) and he's chock full of criticisms of the US economy compared with the European one. One interesting thing he says is that the growth of productivity per hour worked in Europe has so outstripped that in the US that it's higher in France, the Netherlands, Belgium and the former West Germany than in America and only marginally lower in Ireland, Austria and Denmark. This is apparently masked in the more well known figures by the facts that Americans are working longer hours than Europeans and that more American women work. If you could find any figures on that, I'd be interested. (I'd look myself but I'm very busy at the moment.) At http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/000949.html we find recent quotes from the IMF showing that the US now leads Europe in productivity per hour as well as productivity per capita. Considering the fact that the US has a large undereducated immigrant population in the labor force, and Europe has much higher unemployment rates this is fairly remarkable. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
- Original Message - From: Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:36 PM Subject: RE: Comparision of ecconomic growth Now, this is not a certainty; all curves are not regular and extremely well behaved. Thus, it would make sense to look at the local slope; which I proposed to do by comparing the ecconomic performance under Democratic and Republican administrations. I'd be more than willing to consider data after, say 1948, accepting the 20-47 data as belonging to a different era.** Interesting information. My first question is whether or not you are making an assumption that the D and R administrations make direct real-time effects to the economy while in power. My opinion is that there will be a lag, similar to the lag understood in the effect of adjusting the prime interest rate to the rate of growth. IIRC, Erik did a two year lag study, and found similar results. Obviously, if you lag enough, the effect has to go away. :-) One interesting facit of ecconmic growth is that, while Federal taxes as a % of GDP has remained constant, the source of the tax revenue has shifted to lower income taxpayers and away from businesses. This has been matched with slower growth, and a tremendous disparity in the growth of the income quintiles. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 09:30 pm, Dan Minette wrote: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/000949.html we find recent quotes from the IMF showing that the US now leads Europe in productivity per hour as well as productivity per capita. Considering the fact that the US has a large undereducated immigrant population in the labor force, and Europe has much higher unemployment rates this is fairly remarkable. output per hour in France, Germany, and Italy is similar to, or exceeds, the U.S. level. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On 26 Jun 2003 at 13:07, Dan Minette wrote: **One might argue for including 45-47. However, if one doesn't include the great wartime improvement in GDP between 41 45, I don't think one should include the relatively small letdown right after the war. That's certainly a factor for Europe - Britain effectively spent itself into oblivion during WW2, and a lot of Europe got hammered - and a lot of the rest was promptly dumped into community regiemes. However, I'm going to suggest that the data you have isn't entirely accurate. Europe as a whole is about to expand, and the countries which it is expanding TO...some were community and still have rapidly growing markets. The dropping of trade barriers alone would do a lot to the European growth, and the Euro is a further factor. I wouldn't be complacent as an American. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
- Original Message - From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:36 PM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth On 26 Jun 2003 at 13:07, Dan Minette wrote: **One might argue for including 45-47. However, if one doesn't include the great wartime improvement in GDP between 41 45, I don't think one should include the relatively small letdown right after the war. That's certainly a factor for Europe - Britain effectively spent itself into oblivion during WW2, and a lot of Europe got hammered - and a lot of the rest was promptly dumped into community regiemes. However, I'm going to suggest that the data you have isn't entirely accurate. Europe as a whole is about to expand, and the countries which it is expanding TO...some were community and still have rapidly growing markets. Well, the EU is going to expand, Europe is not about to take over Asia. :-) But seriously, unless Turkey is admitted, the countries that it is expanding to have the same or worse demographic problems as Western Europe. The dropping of trade barriers alone would do a lot to the European growth, and the Euro is a further factor. But, the most important factor hindering European growth is not going to be adressed. It is the inherent inflexibility of the European ecconomic system. I wouldn't be complacent as an American. Well, complacency is never good, but the challenge to the US will not be from Europe in 30 years. How will an old society that is shrinking be able to challenge for supremacy? Europe is in the process of fading away. The only way I can see this being stopped is: 1) Women start having kids out of as sense of loyalty to Europe. 2) Europe decides it wants to be multi-ethnic. I don't think either will happen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
I wouldn't be complacent as an American. Andy Dawn Falcon But that's our motto: Fat, dumb, and lazy! KevinT. - VRWC and proud of it ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/000949.html we find recent quotes from the IMF showing that the US now leads Europe in productivity per hour as well as productivity per capita. Considering the fact that the US has a large undereducated immigrant population in the labor force, and Europe has much higher unemployment rates this is fairly remarkable. Dan M. I believe that historically it has almost always been the case, however. For most of its history wages in the US have been substantially higher than those in the rest of the world - something you could only sustain with significantly higher productivity. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Kevin Tarr wrote: I wouldn't be complacent as an American. Andy Dawn Falcon But that's our motto: Fat, dumb, and lazy! KevinT. - VRWC and proud of it Hey, I'm only going to admit 2 of the 3 right now, and the reason for the first explains the other. :) Julia spent almost 3 hours on the couch, 1 of them unconscious ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But that's our motto: Fat, dumb, and lazy! KevinT. - VRWC and proud of it Yeah, but out real motto should be: We have healthy demographics, while Europe (with the exception of Britain) is about to go down the toilet because of the age of its population. Having just spent the last week or so furiously studying worldwide demographics, the situation for Europe is, to put it mildly, catastrophic. I believe that it is impossible for anything to be done about it, in fact. Take a look at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Global Aging project. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:59 PM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/000949.html we find recent quotes from the IMF showing that the US now leads Europe in productivity per hour as well as productivity per capita. Considering the fact that the US has a large undereducated immigrant population in the labor force, and Europe has much higher unemployment rates this is fairly remarkable. Dan M. I believe that historically it has almost always been the case, however. For most of its history wages in the US have been substantially higher than those in the rest of the world - something you could only sustain with significantly higher productivity. Right, but the median real wage started going down around 1980. The increase in income for all but the top 20% of households was due to the additional hours work outstripping the drop in wagers. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
The best data on world markets is from _Triumph of the Optimists_. I'll post some more on that in another message. A more comprehensive (1000 years of data!!!), albeit lower quality, set of data is available in Angus Maddison's _The World Economy: A Millenial Perspective_. Brad DeLong keeps a copy of the entire PDF on his website. The full article is linked to at the bottom of this page (it is a PDF file but does not have a .pdf extension so you may need to right click on the link and choose Save As and then open it with Adobe Acrobat Reader): http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/articles_of_the_month/maddison-millennial.html http://tinyurl.com/fdly Dan, you may find page 133 particularly interesting, which compares US GDP per capita 1950-2000 versus Japan, former USSR, Germany, France, Italy, and UK. Here's the abstract: Angus Maddison, The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective Abstract Over the past millennium, world population rose 22-fold. Per capita income increased 13-fold, world GDP nearly 300-fold. This contrasts sharply with the preceding millennium, when world population grew by only a sixth, and there was no advance in per capita income. From the year 1000 to 1820 the advance in per capita income was a slow crawl -- the world average rose about 50 per cent. Most of the growth went to accommodate a fourfold increase in population. Since 1820, world development has been much more dynamic. Per capita income rose more than eightfold, population more than fivefold. Per capita income growth is not the only indicator of welfare. Over the long run, there has been a dramatic increase in life expectation. In the year 1000, the average infant could expect to live about 24 years. A third would die in the first year of life, hunger and epidemic disease would ravage the survivors. There was an almost imperceptible rise up to 1820, mainly in Western Europe. Most of the improvement has occurred since then. Now the average infant can expect to survive 66 years. The growth process was uneven in space as well as time. The rise in life expectation and income has been most rapid in Western Europe, North America, Australasia and Japan. By 1820, this group had forged ahead to an income level twice that in the rest of the world. By 1998, the gap was 7:1. Between the United States (the present world leader)and Africa (the poorest region)the gap is now 20:1. This gap is still widening. Divergence is dominant but not inexorable. In the past half century, resurgent Asian countries have demonstrated that an important degree of catch-up is feasible. Nevertheless world economic growth has slowed substantially since 1973, and the Asian advance has been offset by stagnation or retrogression elsewhere. The purpose of this book is to quantify these long term changes in world income and population in a comprehensive way;identify the forces which explain the success of the rich countries; explore the obstacles which hindered advance in regions which lagged behind;scrutinise the interaction between the rich countries and the rest to assess the degree to which their backwardness may have been due to Western policy. There is nothing new about long-term surveys of economic performance. Adam Smith had a very broad perspective in his pioneering work in 1776. Others have had an equally ambitious vision. There has been spectacular progress in recent years in historical demography. What is new in this study is systematic quantification of comparative economic performance. In the past, quantitative research in economic history has been heavily concentrated on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when growth was fastest. To go back earlier involves use of weaker evidence, greater reliance on clues and conjecture. Nevertheless it is a meaningful, useful and necessary exercise because differences in the pace and pattern of change in major parts of the world economy have deep roots in the past. Quantification clarifies issues which qualitative analysis leaves fuzzy. It is more readily contestable and likely to be contested. It sharpens scholarly discussion, sparks off rival hypotheses, and contributes to the dynamics of the research process. It can only do this if the quantitative evidence and the nature of proxy procedures is described transparently so that the dissenting reader can augment or reject parts of the evidence or introduce alternative hypotheses. The analysis of Chapters 1, 2 and 3 is underpinned by six appendices
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 6:04 PM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth Having just spent the last week or so furiously studying worldwide demographics, the situation for Europe is, to put it mildly, catastrophic. I believe that it is impossible for anything to be done about it, in fact. Take a look at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Global Aging project. http://www.csis.org/gai/pubs_subject.htm Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 11:57 pm, Dan Minette wrote: Well, complacency is never good, but the challenge to the US will not be from Europe in 30 years. How will an old society that is shrinking be able to challenge for supremacy? Europe is in the process of fading away. The only way I can see this being stopped is: 1) Women start having kids out of as sense of loyalty to Europe. 2) Europe decides it wants to be multi-ethnic. I don't think either will happen. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1657826.stm Britain's population is set to rise by more than 5 million over the next 25 years - boosted by a growing number of immigrants, according to the latest survey. Figures produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) predict the net number of immigrants coming into the country by 2025 will be around 135,000 a year. These numbers will provide a boost to the overall UK population - last year an estimated 59.8 million - which is expected to grow to nearly 65 million by 2025. Britain's population will continue to age over the next 25 years, with the average age expected to rise from last year's 38.8 up to 42.6. The workforce will be able to draw on more people of working age in the future, with numbers expected to rise by 6% to 39 million by 2011. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who study history are doomed to repeat it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, complacency is never good, but the challenge to the US will not be from Europe in 30 years. How will an old society that is shrinking be able to challenge for supremacy? Europe is in the process of fading away. The only way I can see this being stopped is: 1) Women start having kids out of as sense of loyalty to Europe. 2) Europe decides it wants to be multi-ethnic. I don't think either will happen. It doesn't matter even if they would. Well, the first might well help, but by the time the bulge in new workers hit the economy it might well be too late. There is, at any rate, considerable evidence that birth rates are extremely resistant to government efforts to push them upwards. The second, rather to my shock, also will not help. That's one of the big things I learned from the last couple of weeks. The number of immigrants Europe would have to accept to keep its age profile stable is so high that by 2050 a large majority of its population would be immigrant. I don't even think the US could, would, or should accept that level of immigration. I _certainly_ don't think that Europe is capable of it. For that matter, it's possible that there _won't be_ that many people out there willing to immigrate. The tax burdens necessary to pan Europe's pension costs will certainly decrease the number of people willing to immigrate, and birth rates are dropping in most of the Third World as well. China's population, amazingly enough, is aging almost as fast as Europe's. By 2050 the US and India will have approximately the same median age (the late 30s, I believe) while China will be (I think) in the late 40s - early 50s (the data on China isn't as good) and Europe will be in the late 50s. In Italy the ratio of people working to people retired will be below 1. Herbert Stein famously said that an unsustainable trend will not be sustained. I don't quite see how this particular trend is going to end, though. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 6:32 PM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 11:57 pm, Dan Minette wrote: Well, complacency is never good, but the challenge to the US will not be from Europe in 30 years. How will an old society that is shrinking be able to challenge for supremacy? Europe is in the process of fading away. The only way I can see this being stopped is: 1) Women start having kids out of as sense of loyalty to Europe. 2) Europe decides it wants to be multi-ethnic. I don't think either will happen. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1657826.stm Britain's population is set to rise by more than 5 million over the next 25 years - boosted by a growing number of immigrants, according to the latest survey. That's interesting. At http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/populframe.html they project a 1 million increase over that time. Figures produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) predict the net number of immigrants coming into the country by 2025 will be around 135,000 a year. It would be interesting to see if that will actually be allowed. I know in the CIA factbook, that the ethnic makup of the UK is listed as English 81.5%, Scottish 9.6%, Irish 2.4%, Welsh 1.9%, Ulster 1.8%, West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other 2.8% So, over 20 years, this immigration rate would more than double the percentage of foreign born people. These numbers will provide a boost to the overall UK population - last year an estimated 59.8 million - which is expected to grow to nearly 65 million by 2025. Roughly an 8% increase. The US increase from 2000 to 2025 is projected to be about 36 million, or about a 14% increase. And, one has to remember, GB has a significantly higher birth rate than Germany or Italy. Indeed, Gautam's website's numbers indicates that Britian is the shining star of Europe in being able to handle an aging population. Britain's population will continue to age over the next 25 years, with the average age expected to rise from last year's 38.8 up to 42.6. The workforce will be able to draw on more people of working age in the future, with numbers expected to rise by 6% to 39 million by 2011. Right, but that includes an increase in the pension age. They kinda cheated to get the increase :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
At 06:16 PM 6/26/03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Right, but the median real wage started going down around 1980. The increase in income for all but the top 20% of households was due to the additional hours work outstripping the drop in wagers. Wanna bet? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On 26 Jun 2003 at 17:57, Dan Minette wrote: But seriously, unless Turkey is admitted, the countries that it is expanding to have the same or worse demographic problems as Western Europe. Not really - and their less developed economic structures are markets which America will find it a lot harder to compete in. The dropping of trade barriers alone would do a lot to the European growth, and the Euro is a further factor. But, the most important factor hindering European growth is not going to be adressed. It is the inherent inflexibility of the European ecconomic system. huh? I'd argue that it's more *stable*. I wouldn't be complacent as an American. Well, complacency is never good, but the challenge to the US will not be from Europe in 30 years. How will an old society that is shrinking be able to challenge for supremacy? Europe is in the process of fading away. The only way I can see this being stopped is: 1) Women start having kids out of as sense of loyalty to Europe. 2) Europe decides it wants to be multi-ethnic. I don't think either will happen. 2 is happening anyway. Especially in Britian, admitedly, but all across Europe. Immigration is spiralling. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On 26 Jun 2003 at 16:04, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But that's our motto: Fat, dumb, and lazy! KevinT. - VRWC and proud of it Yeah, but out real motto should be: We have healthy demographics, while Europe (with the exception of Britain) is about to go down the toilet because of the age of its population. Having just spent the last week or so furiously studying worldwide demographics, the situation for Europe is, to put it mildly, catastrophic. I believe that it is impossible for anything to be done about it, in fact. Take a look at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Global Aging project. Which is why we need the expansion so badly. It'll bring in countries and encourage the migration of workers and their families between European nations. Also, a lot of nations such as Germany have deacent plans in place to deal with an aging demographic. Don't quote me on this, but I believe Britian's current immigration rate is going to hold the working population steady. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:03 PM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth At 06:16 PM 6/26/03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Right, but the median real wage started going down around 1980. The increase in income for all but the top 20% of households was due to the additional hours work outstripping the drop in wagers. Wanna bet? I did it off the top of my head, so I didn't get the years just right. We have from the Bureau of Labor Statistics the following table for the mean wage: 1947 $4.88 19484.90 19495.14 19505.34 19515.39 19525.51 19535.79 19545.91 19556.15 19566.38 19576.47 19586.50 19596.69 19606.79 19616.88 19627.07 19637.17 19647.33 19657.52 19667.62 19677.72 19687.89 19697.98 19708.03 19718.21 19728.53 19738.55 19748.28 19758.12 19768.24 19778.36 19788.40 19798.17 19807.78 19817.69 19827.68 19837.79 19847.80 19857.77 19867.81 19877.73 19887.69 19897.64 19907.52 19917.45 19927.41 19937.39 19947.40 19957.40 It could very well be true that the numbers changed during the big boom from 96-00. But, the real mean wage is down from the '70s to the '90s. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
- Original Message - From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 6:49 PM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth On 26 Jun 2003 at 17:57, Dan Minette wrote: But seriously, unless Turkey is admitted, the countries that it is expanding to have the same or worse demographic problems as Western Europe. Not really - and their less developed economic structures are markets which America will find it a lot harder to compete in. Just which East European countrys are you thinking of? Most are aging as fast or faster than Western Europe. But, the most important factor hindering European growth is not going to be adressed. It is the inherent inflexibility of the European ecconomic system. huh? I'd argue that it's more *stable*. I'll give an example. A customer of mine is Swiss. He is amazed at how one can just start a company without the permission of the right people in the US. He was amazed that I was able to strike out on my own as a consultant. He said he could not just start a business when he was young; it just wouldn't be allowed. Another example is the fact that half of the EU budget goes to subsidize inefficient farms. I wouldn't be complacent as an American. Well, complacency is never good, but the challenge to the US will not be from Europe in 30 years. How will an old society that is shrinking be able to challenge for supremacy? Europe is in the process of fading away. The only way I can see this being stopped is: 1) Women start having kids out of as sense of loyalty to Europe. 2) Europe decides it wants to be multi-ethnic. I don't think either will happen. 2 is happening anyway. Especially in Britian, admitedly, but all across Europe. Immigration is spiralling. You and I have a different understanding of spiralling, then. The non-European ethnic makeup of GB is 2.8%. They are optimistically projecting enough immigration to make this about 6% or so in 20 years. And its the shining star. California already has white non-Hispanics as the biggest minority, not the majority. Texas will follow in about 2 years. Yes, one can see a significant minority of non-Europeans in London. That's because that is a haven for non-whites in GB. Contrast that with my neck of the woods where neither of the two mayoral candidates were European. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Dan Minette wrote: Another example is the fact that half of the EU budget goes to subsidize inefficient farms. Really? How big is that budget? Where does the rest of it go? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth Dan Minette wrote: Another example is the fact that half of the EU budget goes to subsidize inefficient farms. Really? How big is that budget? Where does the rest of it go? At http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/pubfin/index_en.htm We get the following figures: B1: EAGGF Guarantee Section (this is the main agriculture payment.) 45.2% B2: Structural operations, structural and cohesion funds: financial mechanism, other agricultural and regional operations, transport and fisheries 34.5% B3: Training, youth, culture, audio-visual media, information, social dimension and employment 0.9% B4: Energy, Euratom nuclear safeguards and environment 0.3% B5: Consumer protection, internal market, industry and trans-European networks1.2% B6: Research and technological development 4.1% B7: External action 8.4% B8: Common foreign and security policy~0.0% B0: Guarantees and reserves 0.2% DA: Administrative expenditure (of all the institutions) 5.2% Total 98.6 billion Euros ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
