19 May 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWell if you don't see the greater wealth enjoyed by the majority of the population in these countries, you could focus on the great wealth enjoyed by the wealthiest. It still won't change the overall better economic conditions injoyed by the huge majority of the population.
Does the correlation take into account the 10% elite who own 90%
of the wealth? If so, how would it look with these people taken out?
Of course, equally poor countries like Cuba and North Korea have a different ideology that you may prefer. Oh wait, I forget, the only countries that might not make socialism look bad are the small cluster of Scandinavian countries that are largely market-and-trade based and are continuing to back away from too much socialism and state control with ongoing economic reforms.
19 May 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusIdeology is not the only factor with Cuba. There has been the 50 year U.S. embargo too, plus distortions caused by U.S. sanctions against other countries that didn't conform to U.S. ideology with regard to Cuba. So Cuba makes a bad example.
Well if you don't see the greater wealth enjoyed by the majority of the population in these countries, you could focus on the great wealth enjoyed by the wealthiest. It still won't change the overall better economic conditions injoyed by the huge majority of the population.
Of course, equally poor countries like Cuba and North Korea have a different ...[text shortened]... ntinuing to back away from too much socialism and state control with ongoing economic reforms.
19 May 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusActually it makes a huge difference.
Well if you don't see the greater wealth enjoyed by the majority of the population in these countries, you could focus on the great wealth enjoyed by the wealthiest. It still won't change the overall better economic conditions injoyed by the huge majority of the population.
Of course, equally poor countries like Cuba and North Korea have a different ...[text shortened]... ntinuing to back away from too much socialism and state control with ongoing economic reforms.
If 90% of the wealth is sat in banks and not being spent whilst the
remaining 10% is distributed to the masses, you get a much lower
average living condition. Such as we see in current day America.
I don't see how that's anything to be proud of.
19 May 09
Growth rate of real GDP per capita is represented as a sum of two components – a monotonically decreasing economic trend and fluctuations related to a specific age population change. The economic trend is modeled by an inverse function of real GDP per capita with a numerator potentially constant for the largest developed economies. Statistical analysis of 19 selected OECD countries for the period between 1950 and 2004 shows a very weak linear trend in the annual GDP per capita increment for the largest economies: the USA, Japan, France, Italy, and Spain. The UK, Australia, and Canada show a larger positive linear trend. The fluctuations around the trend values are characterized by a quasi-normal distribution with potentially Levy distribution for far tails. Developing countries demonstrate the increment values far below the mean increment for the most developed economies. This indicates an underperformance in spite of large relative growth rates.
http://inflationusa.blogspot.com/2007/10/real-gdp-per-capita-in-developed.html
19 May 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusLet me get this straight, you want to exclude emerging countries and then claim that income per capita follows economic freedom?
It's best that you do, since you avoided the correlation I pointed out by making a meaningless list of predominantly emerging countries from area like africa and south asia. What size governments did you expect them to have? That is not the same as economic freedom or capitalism.
I challenge you, let's look where they fall on the index of economic freedom, shall we?
Let's do another exercise. Invert the list and start with those with the largest government size. The top 10 for which there is data are:
1. Guyana
2. Zimbabwe
3. Sweden
4. Eritrea
5. France
6. Hungary
7. Denmark
8. São Tomé and Príncipe
9. Italy
10. Austria
6 out of 10 are rich countries. What's the excuse now?
PS: Hey, look, if I exclude emerging countries, ALL of the remaining are rich! Surprise! 😵
19 May 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI agree that if all other things were equal, including the resulting economic size, then the 90% unequal distribution would affect living conditions for the worse in general (again, ceteris paribus).
Actually it makes a huge difference.
If 90% of the wealth is sat in banks and not being spent whilst the
remaining 10% is distributed to the masses, you get a much lower
average living condition. Such as we see in current day America.
I don't see how that's anything to be proud of.
However, if as I am claiming the greater economic freedom results in greater economic growth as consistent with the correlations posted to start this thread, then you have a vastly different story. Not to mention if most of these countries do not actually have 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth. If you dig into the specific and the typical middle-class and even lower-middle class lifestyle, you have a vastly more favorable picture of free economies that base their principles on basic capitalist lessons.
19 May 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI'm curious, what do you think that means?
Growth rate of real GDP per capita is represented as a sum of two components – a monotonically decreasing economic trend and fluctuations related to a specific age population change. The economic trend is modeled by an inverse function of real GDP per capita with a numerator potentially constant for the largest developed economies. Statistical analysis of 1 ...[text shortened]... ve growth rates.
http://inflationusa.blogspot.com/2007/10/real-gdp-per-capita-in-developed.html
19 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaAgain, a ridiculous attempt to avoid the clear correlation presented about the top riches and freest economies, which are richer than the nations you posted in your own attempted rebuttal.
Let me get this straight, you want to exclude emerging countries and then claim that income per capita follows economic freedom?
Let's do another exercise. Invert the list and start with those with the largest government size. The top 10 for which there is data are:
1. Guyana
2. Zimbabwe
[b]3. Sweden
4. Eritrea
5. France
6. Hungary[/ ...[text shortened]...
PS: Hey, look, if I exclude emerging countries, ALL of the remaining are rich! Surprise! 😵
Did you look at the list of freest economies and of the richest economies so you can at least make a better rebuttal.
19 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaAre you pursposefully or ignorantly representing the falsehood that the nations you posted were listed as the freest economies (which they're not). You decided to strangely take a selection of small government from emerging economies which are NOT free economies.
Let me get this straight, you want to exclude emerging countries and then claim that income per capita follows economic freedom?
Let's do another exercise. Invert the list and start with those with the largest government size. The top 10 for which there is data are:
1. Guyana
2. Zimbabwe
[b]3. Sweden
4. Eritrea
5. France
6. Hungary[/ ...[text shortened]...
PS: Hey, look, if I exclude emerging countries, ALL of the remaining are rich! Surprise! 😵
Why? Run out of critiques of the actual list of free economies and decided to create a straw man argument? Surely you can do better than that...
19 May 09
3 edits
Originally posted by eljefejesusI'm just showing that some of the items in that index are meaningless and the only reason government size is there is because of the political views of its makers. My beef there is specifically government size.
Again, a ridiculous attempt to avoid the clear correlation presented about the top riches and freest economies, which are richer than the nations you posted in your own attempted rebuttal.
Did you look at the list of freest economies and of the richest economies so you can at least make a better rebuttal.
Let me give you an example. I make an index of 9 different indicators and add a meaningless one. Someone like you, would argue that the index correlation with the objective also tells us something about the meaningless one.
Government Size is not doing much in that index.
Edit - At worst, it shows that the simplistic view of economy friendly environments requiring small governments is completely wrong.
Edit 2 - And by the way, try reading. The last post was about the lowest scores on government size. You still think I'm talking about small government?
19 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaYou are then implying that you agree with other factors as legitimate. Despite what your political views are, why don't you do what Seitse did and find an index that favor your political views and compare to this index. I believe this index, including its inclusion of government, is legitimate.
I'm just showing that some of the items in that index are meaningless and the only reason government size is there is because of the political views of its makers. My beef there is specifically government size.
Let me give you an example. I make an index of 9 different indicators and add a meaningless one. Someone like you, would argue that the index cor ...[text shortened]... mplistic view of economy friendly environments requiring small governments is completely wrong.
Government size is intuitively a correlate to growth in many cases and I would venture that your examples of emerging economies may even benefit from learning that their road to wealth is not to depend on increasing their government size.
That lesson had to be learned in Cuba and is now in the early stages of being learned in Venezuela as Chavez continues to appropriate more of the wealthy private sector to the consuming public sector. What do you think will be the results in 50 years?
Government size counts.
19 May 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusTalk about missing the point.
You are then implying that you agree with other factors as legitimate. Despite what your political views are, why don't you do what Seitse did and find an index that favor your political views and compare to this index. I believe this index, including its inclusion of government, is legitimate.
Government size is intuitively a correlate to growth ...[text shortened]... public sector. What do you think will be the results in 50 years?
Government size counts.
Yes, some of those are legitimate. Did I ever say otherwise? Government size isn't.
You provided two examples of big government and poor economic record. In my first post I provided even more examples of small government and poor economic record and some small gov,good economic record. I then provided examples of large government and good and bad economic record.
All this supports my claim that government size is poorly correlated with growth. Now, you may try to keep shrieking about Cuba and North Korea, but my claim was never that big government is better.
Like your girlfriend tells you, it's not the size that counts.
19 May 09
Originally posted by FMFI agree that Cuba has faced an embargo, and I am glad that you agree that trade is good for a country's economic well being. Nicaragua also faced an economic embargo during their communist regime. However, they no longer do and yet they continue to face a lot of effects from their days of Communism such as massive underemployment and poverty.
Ideology is not the only factor with Cuba. There has been the 50 year U.S. embargo too, plus distortions caused by U.S. sanctions against other countries that didn't conform to U.S. ideology with regard to Cuba. So Cuba makes a bad example.
What then affected centralized economies further from the US such as the USSR, China, and Angola that made them ditch their centralized economic models? What is happening in North Korea. Why are even the Scandinavian countries not as rich as the riches capitalist countries and backing away from socialist tendencies themselves? Could it be that by trial and error we are seeing which economic system does the most long-term good to an economy?
19 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI'd rather not know you fantisize about such things, but thanks for sharing.
Talk about missing the point.
Yes, some of those are legitimate. Did I ever say otherwise? Government size isn't.
You provided two examples of big government and poor economic record. In my first post I provided even more examples of small government and poor economic record and some small gov,good economic record. I then provided examples of large gov ...[text shortened]... at big government is better.
Like your girlfriend tells you, it's not the size that counts.
As far as the actual debate,
why do you now say that your "claim was never that big government is better." How is that consistent with your critique of the index? Wasn't that a central part of your critique of the index? That small government somehow does not crow out investment, that politicians don't misallocate resources to win elections, that taxing individuals who pursue their self interest and having a centralized decision-making process on where to allocate those resources does not work against incentive structures, create layers of bureaucracy, reward inefficiency, etc...
By the way, shrieking to your ears may be more of your own internal conflicts than any actual shrieking typing. Ever hear of cognitive dissonance?