Oh, I was not making any point about the ACA improving the economy just pointing out that the US has company in a slow rebound from the Financial Crisis.

freeman3 wrote:Oh, I was not making any point about the ACA improving the economy just pointing out that the US has company in a slow rebound from the Financial Crisis.

But, there is no country like the US. Our economy is more complex and historically more explosive than any other. That we are not growing as fast as we should be cannot be explained by comparing us to other countries that have vastly different situations.

fate

But, measuring against other countries is not a standard measuring rod.

Its fascinating how you can hold two diametriically oppossed thoughts in one sentence.

Fate

But, there is no country like the US. Our economy is more complex and historically more explosive than any other

.
The use of a comparison ...
Which implies that you have some kind of data you could produce to support how the US is "historically explosive" and "more complex".
Or at least explain what you mean by "more complex" since all the G8 countries (for comparison sake) have the same structural components to their economies... Just scaled down and in different ratios...
..

Fate

That we are not growing as fast as we should be cannot be explained by comparing us to other countries that have vastly different situations

Then you claim the use of comparisons between national entities as invalid.

I guess this is a prime example of faith based reasoning...
Simply asserting something you've learnt as a truism is all you need to support your claim and you expect others to agree...

freeman3 wrote:It will be easier for me to drive to wherever you guys are in the OC (rather than you guys drive around when you want to rest, though the Main Street in Seal Beach is nice if you want to meet there) So just email me when you're in town if you have time in your schedule and we can meet around where your hotel is.

Ok. Not sure if I have your email. If you have mine, ping me. Cheers.

rickyp wrote:fate

But, measuring against other countries is not a standard measuring rod.

Its fascinating how you can hold two diametriically oppossed thoughts in one sentence.

Fate

But, there is no country like the US. Our economy is more complex and historically more explosive than any other

.
The use of a comparison ...
Which implies that you have some kind of data you could produce to support how the US is "historically explosive" and "more complex".
Or at least explain what you mean by "more complex" since all the G8 countries (for comparison sake) have the same structural components to their economies... Just scaled down and in different ratios...
..

Fate

That we are not growing as fast as we should be cannot be explained by comparing us to other countries that have vastly different situations

Then you claim the use of comparisons between national entities as invalid.

You're a real bit of work. I know, I know. It's not your fault--you're a publicly-educated Canadian. On behalf of the rest of the world, we apologize.

I'm willing to guess, just off the top of my head, that no country in the post-Civil War era matches the economic growth of the US. Um, I could explain what I mean by "more complex," but it would take more time than I currently have.

I don't hold to two competing ideas. You just failed to grasp what I was saying. As I'm quite busy, I don't have time to help you. But, it should be obvious that saying we are recovering better than country x says little or nothing about whether our recovery is as strong as it should be or could be.

I guess this is a prime example of faith based reasoning...
Simply asserting something you've learnt as a truism is all you need to support your claim and you expect others to agree...

No, your post is a prime example of flailing. Then again, as you have been inducted into the Hall of Flail, this is hardly surprising.

Oh, so you're guessing.

Let me be more specific Fate.
If this comparison is valid.
fate

I'm willing to guess, just off the top of my head, that no country in the post-Civil War era matches the economic growth of the US

Then why is a comparison of recovery rates of countries NOT valid?
Fate

But, it should be obvious that saying we are recovering better than country x says little or nothing about whether our recovery is as strong as it should be or could be

They are both anchored in a comparison of economic activity (GDP)....
without that comparison of GDP activity your first assertion is worthless. Just a guess without supporting facts.

Your second assertion, that somehow the economic recovery of the US, though it is better than other G8 countries, fails because it isn't as good as it could be.... is interesting.
But, you can't make your first assertion and dismiss the fact that the recovery has been the best of the G8 nations when it uses the same comparison of GDP performance that your first assertion depends upon.

Economic theory accepts that the greatest driver of relative economic performance (GDP) is productivity. The US has had periods in the last 150 years when its productivity gains were greater than most other nations. However in the last 50 years, nations like Japan and South Korea have greatly out performed the US for long periods...
It should be noted that its accepted theory now that income inequality is a condition that degrades economic growth. Those countries with greater GINI co-efficients tend to see GDP growth slowed over time.
Its the income disparity in the US, which is greater than other G8 nations, that may actually be slowing GDP growth . That is a condition that has developed since the early 1980s in the US Fate. Obama has done little to make effective change in this matter. But then he wasn't responsible for the policies that increased income disparity so much since the 1980s...
So although you might be right that the US recovery should be greater than it is .... the reasons for it not being as robust aren't what you think.
The evidence for this ( you seem I'm not guessing, I'm offering evidence.) is that the western Countries with the lowest GINI coefficients were actually least affected by the crash in 08. (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Canada...) the reason is that the social safety nets lessened the effects of sudden unemployment for the unfortunate. Their spending slowed but didn't fall precipitously as it did for affected people in countries without generous safety nets..
In other words, where the US reaction to the crash came many months after the affects of the crash and was quite lean for the affected populace - these nations automatically helped those affected and because of the speed of the benefits their economies weren't hurt so badly.

The social fabric of a nation is frayed by the lurching boom bust cycle of unbridled capitalism. Its more effective and beneficial to society to try and even things out . The effects of the 08 crash and how economies reacted demonstrates this ....so long as we look at the whole picture and not just the recovery.

Ricky:

The evidence for this ( you seem I'm not guessing, I'm offering evidence.) is that the western Countries with the lowest GINI coefficients were actually least affected by the crash in 08. (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Canada...) the reason is that the social safety nets lessened the effects of sudden unemployment for the unfortunate. Their spending slowed but didn't fall precipitously as it did for affected people in countries without generous safety nets..

You aren't really offering "evidence". You are backing up your assertion with more detail (and more assertion). But that's different than evidence. (You do understand that, right?)

In any case, I think you are just describing the flip side of the coin and in a way supporting my position that in this particular case the EU is not a good comparison for the U.S. (Canada and Australia may be good comparisons given their growing populations.) Countries with smaller safety nets may crash harder, but by the same token, when the recession ends they should grow faster. That's something that the U.S. is not doing this time around. The fact that Europe isn't either isn't that informative on the effectiveness of Obama's economic policies.

Well, let's look at the evidence that would support the seemingly reasonable theory that countries with low GINI would have a softer landing but would have more difficulty recovering than those with large GINI...

Denmark (GINI 24.0) (GDP 2008-2012)-.8, -5.7, 1.6, 1.1, -0.4
Norway (25.8) .1, -1.6, .5, 1.2, 3.1
Sweden. (25.0) -.6. -5.1, 6.6, 2.9, 1.0
Russia. (40.1) 5.2. -7.8 4.5, 4.3, 3.4
United Kingdom (34.0) -0.3, -5.2, 1.7, 1.1, .1
France (32.7) -0.1 -3.0, 1.7, 2.0, 0.0
China. (52.1) 9.6 ,9.2.,10.4, 9.3, 7.8
U.S. (45) -.8. -2.8, 2.5, 1.8, 2.8

Sweden crashed hard but came back strong but then sputtered...
U.S did not crash that hard and came back soon but weak
Norway had a soft landing, came back soon and weak but then got stronger
Denmark crashed hard, came back weak and then had second recession

I don't see much of a trend here (but Sweden and Denmark did seem to have a worse crash than most in spite of their safety nets)except that most of the world seems to be still feeling the effects of 2008 and our economy has actually bounced back better han most. And, of course, the Financial Crisis originated here...

freeman3 wrote:I don't see much of a trend here (but Sweden and Denmark did seem to have a worse crash than most in spite of their safety nets)except that most of the world seems to be still feeling the effects of 2008 and our economy has actually bounced back better han most. And, of course, the Financial Crisis originated here...

I really don't get this US exceptionalism argument as if that means it 'should' recover more quickly than it is. Yes, historically the USA has had high growth rates, and has a large economy. But at the same time, the post-war period saw Western Europe close the productivity gap with the USA, and it's hard to understand how someone could describe the German or Swedish economies (for example) as not being 'robust'.

Yes, the USA is distinct and has historical 'difference' with much of the rest of the world. But the 2007-8 credit crisis and economic crash was also 'Exceptional'.

It's all very well refusing to compare the US to other countries, but we should remember that "the past is a foreign country" (pace LP Hartley)

ray

You aren't really offering "evidence". You are backing up your assertion with more detail (and more assertion). But that's different than evidence. (You do understand that, right?

Yes. Sorry ...
I had this great link with data and posted when my next appointment showed up but didn't notice the link didn't paste.
I'll find it

danivon wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I don't see much of a trend here (but Sweden and Denmark did seem to have a worse crash than most in spite of their safety nets)except that most of the world seems to be still feeling the effects of 2008 and our economy has actually bounced back better han most. And, of course, the Financial Crisis originated here...

I really don't get this US exceptionalism argument as if that means it 'should' recover more quickly than it is. Yes, historically the USA has had high growth rates, and has a large economy. ...

I'm not making the exceptionalism argument. (Dr. Fate can respond for himself.) I'm just saying that we should not compare U.S. GDP growth rates with European growth rates to determine whether the ACA is working, which is the starting point of this discussion.

But at the same time, the post-war period saw Western Europe close the productivity gap with the USA ....

GDP is very different than productivity. In a nutshell that is my argument. The U.S. has an increasing population and therefore should and generally will have higher GDP growth than western Europe.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm just saying that we should not compare U.S. GDP growth rates with European growth rates to determine whether the ACA is working, which is the starting point of this discussion.

Well no, we shouldn't but that's not actually the starting point.

The starting point was observing that much of the recent US growth had been attributed to the healthcare sector, suggesting that the ACA was related.

This was responded to with the accusation that US growth was low (and that it is all Obama's fault).

That was what I was picking up on when bringing in international comparisons.

I agree that it is somewhat tendentiously related to the question of whether the ACA is overall better for the economy or not.

But at the same time, the post-war period saw Western Europe close the productivity gap with the USA ....

GDP is very different than productivity. In a nutshell that is my argument. The U.S. has an increasing population and therefore should and generally will have higher GDP growth than western Europe.

Which means GDP per capita is perhaps a better measure than pure GDP.

My point was that productivity does help contribute towards a more healthy economy, of which GDP is just a measure of the overall picture.

rickyp wrote:Oh, so you're guessing.

No, no, I'm not. I did not have time to respond. I don't know why that is difficult for you to grasp.

Oh yeah, I forgot: you're a fool.

Note well: before someone tries to defend you or says, "Gee, Dr. Fate, oughtn't you refrain from ad hominem attacks?" would you/that person take note of your first sentence?

There was no reason to suppose I'm guessing. You inserted your opinion where none was needed. You could have disproved my assertions by doing the tedious task of research. But, if I'd really wanted to prove my assertions, I would have done that. I didn't because anyone is free to believe what they want and it was not my focal point.

Let me be more specific Fate.
If this comparison is valid.
fate

I'm willing to guess, just off the top of my head, that no country in the post-Civil War era matches the economic growth of the US

Then why is a comparison of recovery rates of countries NOT valid?

Because I believe the US is an exceptional nation and should recover more briskly BY FAR than any other nation, barring some unusual circumstance. In this case, there is one: the worst President in our history.

Fate

But, it should be obvious that saying we are recovering better than country x says little or nothing about whether our recovery is as strong as it should be or could be

They are both anchored in a comparison of economic activity (GDP)....
without that comparison of GDP activity your first assertion is worthless. Just a guess without supporting facts.

How do I prove a hypothetical assertion without massive research? Answer: I can't. We have no way of knowing how strong the recovery could have been because we've had a government bound and determined to throttle the economy. That is easy to prove. Where are the jobs? The young in the labor pool are . . . leaving the labor pool in numbers not seen for 30+ years:

The labor force participation rate in 2013 for Americans in their twenties hit the lowest level recorded since 1981, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics started releasing employment data on people in the full age bracket of 20 through 29. - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali ... hSwXe.dpuf

Meanwhile, what's Obama been focused on? Obamacare, regulation, and gutting the military.

How many times have we heard that "NOW he's going to pivot to jobs?"

That was ALWAYS job #1, but he's treated the economy as an afterthought. He's been focused on getting more net in the safety net, which hardly boosts the economy.

Your second assertion, that somehow the economic recovery of the US, though it is better than other G8 countries, fails because it isn't as good as it could be.... is interesting.
But, you can't make your first assertion and dismiss the fact that the recovery has been the best of the G8 nations when it uses the same comparison of GDP performance that your first assertion depends upon.

Actually, I can. I'm simply saying there has never been a country that's gone from "zero to hero" like the US. There are many reasons for it: natural resources, the land to expand, the influx of immigrants eager to make good, Reconstruction, expansionism--there are many reasons. But, by the end of WW2, no country could match the manufacturing power of the US. It wasn't even close.

Economic theory accepts that the greatest driver of relative economic performance (GDP) is productivity. The US has had periods in the last 150 years when its productivity gains were greater than most other nations. However in the last 50 years, nations like Japan and South Korea have greatly out performed the US for long periods...

True, and I indicated I meant the long haul, which is why short-term comparisons are rather meaningless.

So although you might be right that the US recovery should be greater than it is .... the reasons for it not being as robust aren't what you think.

Oh brother. You are welcome to your Marxian world view. I reject it. And, I would note the more THIS President has tried to push this issue, the worse the gap has become. However, I don't believe the problems with our economy have anything to do with this.

If your theory were correct, the best recoveries would have been in the most Marxist states. I'm dubious this was the case.

I'm reading the Up Side of Down--Why Failing Well is the Key to Success, by Megan McArdle. It is a great read. She says:

"We (US) are the most generous nation on earth to the failed entrepreneur, who will find it fairly easy to get a new job from a boss who admires his hustle, and be offered extremely generous bankruptcy protection from any debts he has left over. . . It's why we're the richest big country in the world, and the biggest rich country in the world, and why our underclass is among the world's most pronounced."

Our system rewards effort and punishes lack of effort. That's why liberals hate it: because they see "luck" as being more important to success than "work." That's why I'm not a liberal.

Doctor Fate wrote:"We (US) are the most generous nation on earth to the failed entrepreneur, who will find it fairly easy to get a new job from a boss who admires his hustle, and be offered extremely generous bankruptcy protection from any debts he has left over. . . It's why we're the richest big country in the world, and the biggest rich country in the world, and why our underclass is among the world's most pronounced."

This rewarding of failure may explain why I've spent much of the last week having to deal with idiotic mistakes made by senior American managers during a sensitive period (announcing details of job losses). Had we (the union) and HR not managed the situation, there could have been industrial action. But who will get the 'reward' when the programme is completed and savings achieved from reduced jobs in the UK (offshored to 'low cost locations'? Those same senior managers.

Also, I think the last clause may have passed you by as being a bit of a criticism of the system, though.

Our system rewards effort and punishes lack of effort. That's why liberals hate it: because they see "luck" as being more important to success than "work." That's why I'm not a liberal.

Luck and work are both important. I don't see luck as 'more' important than work, but I think people who think they succeed are subjectively biased if they believe it was all down to their hard work, and that luck didn't have a part to play in it.

But your view is actually very like that of Marx, Lenin and Stalin, as a principle of socialism

1936 USSR constitution wrote:From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.

danivon wrote:Also, I think the last clause may have passed you by as being a bit of a criticism of the system, though.

Nope. I accept honest criticism of the country. However, you'd have to read the rest of the book She divides our worldviews into hunters and farmers. Hunters take more risks, understand there will be lean times, and are therefore more likely to share the risk. Farmers (in the metaphor) are more steady, share less because there is less risk. The work ethic is this: in the US we tend to think that hard work results, eventually, in success. Other systems and worldviews see success as the residue, largely, of luck. In those societies, success is more heavily taxed to help those with "bad luck."

Luck and work are both important. I don't see luck as 'more' important than work, but I think people who think they succeed are subjectively biased if they believe it was all down to their hard work, and that luck didn't have a part to play in it.

To me, this is funny. I've had plenty of bad luck. I started in modest circumstances and now am reasonably successful. I can't think of much "good luck" along the way. My story is not exceptional. I could have done better--by acting more responsibly when I was younger. However, if any of you knew my personal story, you would not say I've been "lucky." That's why I object to anyone who wants to argue that poverty is inherited. That's bunk. You can start on the bottom, but nothing in our system forces you to remain there.

But your view is actually very like that of Marx, Lenin and Stalin, as a principle of socialism

Funny.

1936 USSR constitution wrote:From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.

Except they meant to give it all to the State and permit the State to determine how the "collective" fruit should be distributed. I want far less to go to the State and the State to do less to "help" those who can help themselves.