Germany, and much of the Euro Area laugh at the USA's growth

[Vandengaarde]

If the Europeans get to combine the EU into one economy, Canada, the U.S., and Mexico get to combine theirs.

[JarVik]

Hmn, since Canada was neglected (shocker) in the OP's articles I was curious to see how the great white north was doing, and of course see how my e-peinus by GDP proxy was doing.

Hmn... turns Canada has the US and EU beat with a 3.5% GDP growth rate between Jan and July. Take that Lithuania! http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=CAD

Of course the recession has been pretty mild in Canada http://worthwhile.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451688169e20133f2e60d88970b-pi
Particularily compared to the US reccession http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2010/08/employment-recessions-july-2010.html Geez that's nasty looking.

Of course as more informed minds than mine have pointed out Canada's growth is likely to stagnate at some point if the US doesn't claw its way out soon since they are our (Canada's) biggest trading partner....and they might buy less of our stuff at some point.

Probably shouldn't try to calculate when Canada overtakes USA and the EU as the economic power of the Western world just yet....

[Conservative Alliances]

The Economist
http://economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/08/europes_economies?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/turbocharged
BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10962017
Well, they may as well given recent figures. Except Portugal, Spain and especially Greece...

What's that America? A group of countries with large spending on universal healthcare and welfare policies are growing much faster economically post-recession than you? *dances*

That's okay. Germany won't have a working population big enough to sustain their nanny state for much longer. *dances*

[Marcurix]

Hmn, since Canada was neglected (shocker) in the OP's articles I was curious to see how the great white north was doing, and of course see how my e-peinus by GDP proxy was doing.

Hmn... turns Canada has the US and EU beat with a 3.5% GDP growth rate between Jan and July. Take that Lithuania! http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=CAD

Of course the recession has been pretty mild in Canada http://worthwhile.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451688169e20133f2e60d88970b-pi
Particularily compared to the US reccession http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2010/08/employment-recessions-july-2010.html Geez that's nasty looking.

Of course as more informed minds than mine have pointed out Canada's growth is likely to stagnate at some point if the US doesn't claw its way out soon since they are our (Canada's) biggest trading partner....and they might buy less of our stuff at some point.

Probably shouldn't try to calculate when Canada overtakes USA and the EU as the economic power of the Western world just yet....

One of Canada's greatest economic weaknesses is its lack of trade diversity. At last check Canada's second biggest trading partner (UK) made up just 2% of total trade.

[JarVik]

Hmn, since Canada was neglected (shocker) in the OP's articles I was curious to see how the great white north was doing, and of course see how my e-peinus by GDP proxy was doing.

Hmn... turns Canada has the US and EU beat with a 3.5% GDP growth rate between Jan and July. Take that Lithuania! http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=CAD

Of course the recession has been pretty mild in Canada http://worthwhile.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451688169e20133f2e60d88970b-pi
Particularily compared to the US reccession http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2010/08/employment-recessions-july-2010.html Geez that's nasty looking.

Of course as more informed minds than mine have pointed out Canada's growth is likely to stagnate at some point if the US doesn't claw its way out soon since they are our (Canada's) biggest trading partner....and they might buy less of our stuff at some point.

Probably shouldn't try to calculate when Canada overtakes USA and the EU as the economic power of the Western world just yet....

One of Canada's greatest economic weaknesses is its lack of trade diversity. At last check Canada's second biggest trading partner (UK) made up just 2% of total trade.

Hmn I would have thought Mexico might have made the top three just by virtue of geogarphy but you are right:
From wiki: Canada's Main export partners U.S. 78.9%, UK 2.8%, China 2.1% (2007). Frankly I'm surprised the Canuck enconomy is doing so well considering how dominate the US is on our trade export sheet and all.

Ahh found the mexico Connection; Main import partners U.S. 54.1%, China 9.4%, Mexico 4.2% (2007)

[Vetalia]

Hmm... I'm not too sure about this. The Chinese government have a very strong control on capital flows, and have even moved to curb dangerous tendencies well in advance (hence their targeted growth level this year is 8%, rather than the over 10% that would have otherwise occurred). It kind of helps that they do not need to pander to a GDP obsessed electorate like we have here in the West (where, as this thread suggests, the GDP figures of your country make your e-penis larger in an exponential manner). And of course, the other thing the Chinese have is an awareness of their own problems, the political will to tackle them and the bureaucratic capacity to do so.

China in some ways is even more obsessed with GDP growth than we are; the massive shifts in their population require them to sustain a very high growth rate to absorb workers and prevent unemployment from increasing. Another big problem is that Chinese economic statistics are unreliable, so we're not really sure how bad things are; ironically, unlike the Soviet Union they have an incentive to under-report growth at the local level due to the political windfalls of allowing investment to spiral out of control, even if there are long-term consequences. The amount of control they really have over their economy is increasingly limited.

The insane rates of property appreciation and increases in credit is a classic example of an asset bubble building. Whether their efforts to control the economy will succeed is uncertain.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Hmm... I'm not too sure about this. The Chinese government have a very strong control on capital flows, and have even moved to curb dangerous tendencies well in advance (hence their targeted growth level this year is 8%, rather than the over 10% that would have otherwise occurred). It kind of helps that they do not need to pander to a GDP obsessed electorate like we have here in the West (where, as this thread suggests, the GDP figures of your country make your e-penis larger in an exponential manner). And of course, the other thing the Chinese have is an awareness of their own problems, the political will to tackle them and the bureaucratic capacity to do so.

China in some ways is even more obsessed with GDP growth than we are; the massive shifts in their population require them to sustain a very high growth rate to absorb workers and prevent unemployment from increasing. Another big problem is that Chinese economic statistics are unreliable, so we're not really sure how bad things are; ironically, unlike the Soviet Union they have an incentive to under-report growth at the local level due to the political windfalls of allowing investment to spiral out of control, even if there are long-term consequences. The amount of control they really have over their economy is increasingly limited.

The insane rates of property appreciation and increases in credit is a classic example of an asset bubble building. Whether their efforts to control the economy will succeed is uncertain.

I think, in the end, the Chinese Government values it's control over the nation far more than it values the prosperity of the nation. If it comes to a point where they have the choice to either give up control or wreck the economy to maintain it, they will more than likely maintain control.

[Conservative Alliances]

Hmm... I'm not too sure about this. The Chinese government have a very strong control on capital flows, and have even moved to curb dangerous tendencies well in advance (hence their targeted growth level this year is 8%, rather than the over 10% that would have otherwise occurred). It kind of helps that they do not need to pander to a GDP obsessed electorate like we have here in the West (where, as this thread suggests, the GDP figures of your country make your e-penis larger in an exponential manner). And of course, the other thing the Chinese have is an awareness of their own problems, the political will to tackle them and the bureaucratic capacity to do so.

China in some ways is even more obsessed with GDP growth than we are; the massive shifts in their population require them to sustain a very high growth rate to absorb workers and prevent unemployment from increasing. Another big problem is that Chinese economic statistics are unreliable, so we're not really sure how bad things are; ironically, unlike the Soviet Union they have an incentive to under-report growth at the local level due to the political windfalls of allowing investment to spiral out of control, even if there are long-term consequences. The amount of control they really have over their economy is increasingly limited.

The insane rates of property appreciation and increases in credit is a classic example of an asset bubble building. Whether their efforts to control the economy will succeed is uncertain.

I think, in the end, the Chinese Government values it's control over the nation far more than it values the prosperity of the nation. If it comes to a point where they have the choice to either give up control or wreck the economy to maintain it, they will more than likely maintain control.

I also have a feeling it is a house of cards. There is a lot of illegal economic activity in China, quality control is horrible, the Chinese people are savers that rarely spend much money on goods (like they can afford them...), the economy is dependent upon the dollar and the US economy, and planned economies always fail. In the eighties, everyone believed Japan was going to take over the world. But then, they tanked in the nineties. I think China will be no different.

[Chrobalta]

Euro is weak. It makes for good exports.

[Vandengaarde]

Hmm... I'm not too sure about this. The Chinese government have a very strong control on capital flows, and have even moved to curb dangerous tendencies well in advance (hence their targeted growth level this year is 8%, rather than the over 10% that would have otherwise occurred). It kind of helps that they do not need to pander to a GDP obsessed electorate like we have here in the West (where, as this thread suggests, the GDP figures of your country make your e-penis larger in an exponential manner). And of course, the other thing the Chinese have is an awareness of their own problems, the political will to tackle them and the bureaucratic capacity to do so.

China in some ways is even more obsessed with GDP growth than we are; the massive shifts in their population require them to sustain a very high growth rate to absorb workers and prevent unemployment from increasing. Another big problem is that Chinese economic statistics are unreliable, so we're not really sure how bad things are; ironically, unlike the Soviet Union they have an incentive to under-report growth at the local level due to the political windfalls of allowing investment to spiral out of control, even if there are long-term consequences. The amount of control they really have over their economy is increasingly limited.

The insane rates of property appreciation and increases in credit is a classic example of an asset bubble building. Whether their efforts to control the economy will succeed is uncertain.

I think, in the end, the Chinese Government values it's control over the nation far more than it values the prosperity of the nation. If it comes to a point where they have the choice to either give up control or wreck the economy to maintain it, they will more than likely maintain control.

I also have a feeling it is a house of cards. There is a lot of illegal economic activity in China, quality control is horrible, the Chinese people are savers that rarely spend much money on goods (like they can afford them...), the economy is dependent upon the dollar and the US economy, and planned economies always fail. In the eighties, everyone believed Japan was going to take over the world. But then, they tanked in the nineties. I think China will be no different.

You can blame panic like that mostly on the media, because they always exaggerate. But I agree, China can't sustain its own growth, and ignores the fact that it desperately needs to treat its people better. And of course, they'll suffer from it, hopefully spawning a true republic capable of making a prosperous Asian nation that isn't weak.

[Lackadaisical2]

One quarter of growth slightly higher and you're claiming that is a better system?

Never mind that last quarter it was the other way about, never mind that these things are often revised later on, never mind that per Capita GDP is higher in the US and will be for quite awhile?

[Vandengaarde]

Both systems seem equal. All this proves is that economics is a group of preferences, and nothing else.

[Lackadaisical2]

Both systems seem equal. All this proves is that economics is a group of preferences, and nothing else.

I nearly put something like this in my post as well. What works for one nation won't necessarily work for another, although the situations of the US and more developed EU states is fairly close. I don't see a whole lot of people touting China's economic system as a fix for modernized economies...

[The Antarctic Lands]

The Economist
http://economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/08/europes_economies?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/turbocharged
BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10962017
Well, they may as well given recent figures. Except Portugal, Spain and especially Greece...

What's that America? A group of countries with large spending on universal healthcare and welfare policies are growing much faster economically post-recession than you? *dances*

That's okay. Germany won't have a working population big enough to sustain their nanny state for much longer. *dances*

They'll attract immigrants by lowering income taxes on the middle and lower classes, or they'll build machines to do the jobs for them.

[Conservative Alliances]

Hmm... I'm not too sure about this. The Chinese government have a very strong control on capital flows, and have even moved to curb dangerous tendencies well in advance (hence their targeted growth level this year is 8%, rather than the over 10% that would have otherwise occurred). It kind of helps that they do not need to pander to a GDP obsessed electorate like we have here in the West (where, as this thread suggests, the GDP figures of your country make your e-penis larger in an exponential manner). And of course, the other thing the Chinese have is an awareness of their own problems, the political will to tackle them and the bureaucratic capacity to do so.

China in some ways is even more obsessed with GDP growth than we are; the massive shifts in their population require them to sustain a very high growth rate to absorb workers and prevent unemployment from increasing. Another big problem is that Chinese economic statistics are unreliable, so we're not really sure how bad things are; ironically, unlike the Soviet Union they have an incentive to under-report growth at the local level due to the political windfalls of allowing investment to spiral out of control, even if there are long-term consequences. The amount of control they really have over their economy is increasingly limited.

The insane rates of property appreciation and increases in credit is a classic example of an asset bubble building. Whether their efforts to control the economy will succeed is uncertain.

I think, in the end, the Chinese Government values it's control over the nation far more than it values the prosperity of the nation. If it comes to a point where they have the choice to either give up control or wreck the economy to maintain it, they will more than likely maintain control.

I also have a feeling it is a house of cards. There is a lot of illegal economic activity in China, quality control is horrible, the Chinese people are savers that rarely spend much money on goods (like they can afford them...), the economy is dependent upon the dollar and the US economy, and planned economies always fail. In the eighties, everyone believed Japan was going to take over the world. But then, they tanked in the nineties. I think China will be no different.

You can blame panic like that mostly on the media, because they always exaggerate. But I agree, China can't sustain its own growth, and ignores the fact that it desperately needs to treat its people better. And of course, they'll suffer from it, hopefully spawning a true republic capable of making a prosperous Asian nation that isn't weak.

Agreed on all points...except I don't care what happens to China. I'll be dead before anything affects me too much.

[Chrobalta]

Germany is a completely different economy from America's. It is a larger exporter, has universal healthcare, lower corporate taxes, a VAT tax, is in the Eurozone, etc.

[Rolamec]

The Economist
http://economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/08/europes_economies?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/turbocharged
BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10962017
Well, they may as well given recent figures. Except Portugal, Spain and especially Greece...

What's that America? A group of countries with large spending on universal healthcare and welfare policies are growing much faster economically post-recession than you? *dances*

Feels pretty damn good, considering that you can only match our GDP if you combine all of the Eurozone. And from what I can tell the heavy welfare programs are devastating the economies of Spain, Portugal and Greece (as you said), and if they fall, guess who they are taking with them? The rest of Europe. *Flips you off*

The most extensive welfare programs are in Scandinavia and Scandinavian economies are way better than yours, and Scandinavian countries enjoy higher living standards.

What? How are they better?

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Hmm... I'm not too sure about this. The Chinese government have a very strong control on capital flows, and have even moved to curb dangerous tendencies well in advance (hence their targeted growth level this year is 8%, rather than the over 10% that would have otherwise occurred). It kind of helps that they do not need to pander to a GDP obsessed electorate like we have here in the West (where, as this thread suggests, the GDP figures of your country make your e-penis larger in an exponential manner). And of course, the other thing the Chinese have is an awareness of their own problems, the political will to tackle them and the bureaucratic capacity to do so.

China in some ways is even more obsessed with GDP growth than we are; the massive shifts in their population require them to sustain a very high growth rate to absorb workers and prevent unemployment from increasing. Another big problem is that Chinese economic statistics are unreliable, so we're not really sure how bad things are; ironically, unlike the Soviet Union they have an incentive to under-report growth at the local level due to the political windfalls of allowing investment to spiral out of control, even if there are long-term consequences. The amount of control they really have over their economy is increasingly limited.

The insane rates of property appreciation and increases in credit is a classic example of an asset bubble building. Whether their efforts to control the economy will succeed is uncertain.

I think, in the end, the Chinese Government values it's control over the nation far more than it values the prosperity of the nation. If it comes to a point where they have the choice to either give up control or wreck the economy to maintain it, they will more than likely maintain control.

I also have a feeling it is a house of cards. There is a lot of illegal economic activity in China, quality control is horrible, the Chinese people are savers that rarely spend much money on goods (like they can afford them...), the economy is dependent upon the dollar and the US economy, and planned economies always fail. In the eighties, everyone believed Japan was going to take over the world. But then, they tanked in the nineties. I think China will be no different.

To be fair, Japan is an absolutely incredible success story. In the 1940s the country was wrecked, absolutely obliterated. Through US aid and incredible planning and policy by the government, they soared up to become the second largest economy on earth. They have less than 1/10 the population of China, and yet have a larger GDP by about 100 billion.

[Vetalia]

To be fair, Japan is an absolutely incredible success story. In the 1940s the country was wrecked, absolutely obliterated. Through US aid and incredible planning and policy by the government, they soared up to become the second largest economy on earth. They have less than 1/10 the population of China, and yet have a larger GDP by about 100 billion.

Not to mention Japan's economic performance during the 1960's is still unparalleled by any country; 13% per year real, per-capita growth in GDP is simply unheard of in any other country, especially given the depth and permanence of the expansion that has made the country one of the wealthiest on Earth. Also, Japan has zero natural resources and has to rely on imports for all of its industrial production.

Japan would be even bigger if its birthrates hadn't declined so precipitously...they need a stable, demographically healthy population to keep their economy going forward.

[Sakam]

Yeah, America's not doing great, but at least our GDP can sustain our debt. We can laugh at Greece's debt, since we would love to have that debt size. Look at Britain, Cameron's doing some huge cuts to cut out the debt and deficits that consume their economy and GDP.

As many problems that the US has, we're better off than most (not all) over there

[Conservative Alliances]

Hmm... I'm not too sure about this. The Chinese government have a very strong control on capital flows, and have even moved to curb dangerous tendencies well in advance (hence their targeted growth level this year is 8%, rather than the over 10% that would have otherwise occurred). It kind of helps that they do not need to pander to a GDP obsessed electorate like we have here in the West (where, as this thread suggests, the GDP figures of your country make your e-penis larger in an exponential manner). And of course, the other thing the Chinese have is an awareness of their own problems, the political will to tackle them and the bureaucratic capacity to do so.

China in some ways is even more obsessed with GDP growth than we are; the massive shifts in their population require them to sustain a very high growth rate to absorb workers and prevent unemployment from increasing. Another big problem is that Chinese economic statistics are unreliable, so we're not really sure how bad things are; ironically, unlike the Soviet Union they have an incentive to under-report growth at the local level due to the political windfalls of allowing investment to spiral out of control, even if there are long-term consequences. The amount of control they really have over their economy is increasingly limited.

The insane rates of property appreciation and increases in credit is a classic example of an asset bubble building. Whether their efforts to control the economy will succeed is uncertain.

I think, in the end, the Chinese Government values it's control over the nation far more than it values the prosperity of the nation. If it comes to a point where they have the choice to either give up control or wreck the economy to maintain it, they will more than likely maintain control.

I also have a feeling it is a house of cards. There is a lot of illegal economic activity in China, quality control is horrible, the Chinese people are savers that rarely spend much money on goods (like they can afford them...), the economy is dependent upon the dollar and the US economy, and planned economies always fail. In the eighties, everyone believed Japan was going to take over the world. But then, they tanked in the nineties. I think China will be no different.

To be fair, Japan is an absolutely incredible success story. In the 1940s the country was wrecked, absolutely obliterated. Through US aid and incredible planning and policy by the government, they soared up to become the second largest economy on earth. They have less than 1/10 the population of China, and yet have a larger GDP by about 100 billion.

Yes, they did have an amazing economic growth. Shit, they are practically cyberpunk. But, they are not as strong as people tried to claim back in the eighties.

[Trippoli]

What's that America? A group of countries with large spending on universal healthcare and welfare policies are growing much faster economically post-recession than you? *dances*

What's that Europe? A group of supposedly 'progressive' countries experiencing massive xenophobia to the point of considering oppression of minorities?

Economic System =/= social issues

[The Scandinvans]

You're trying to dismiss the original post by saying it only appeases some "minorities". The point is the aforementioned successes, not to distract from them to say "oh well it doesn't really matter, this is just about your sense of entitlement or empowerment". No, it's because I'm sick of hearing reams of shit about how the American system is economically better, and how our welfare states are useless, and all that, while we're actually doing quite damn good right now considering; especially in direct contrast to the USA. But no, America's always better because... well, for some reason we can't measure in GDP or income inequality, or even number of people in prison or things like that. Because apparently those sorts of measurements are irrelevant! My initial point is not insubstantial, you can attempt to dismiss it all you like; but that's not an accurate assessment.

The American system is not intrinsically better, the system of a competitive free market, e.g. low taxes and few regulations, tends to experience greater economic growth then countries that have higher taxes and many regulations, the ease of starting a new business is actually one of the best way to exhibit because in Hong Kong it takes a couple of hours while in France it takes weeks (this is only for small business really the differences in larger business become much more noticeable). A free market advocate, a capitalist, accepts income inequality as understandable trade off as the greater market creates more opportunities for people to advance their 'class' then in a welfare state and it is considerable easier with fewer regulations to make money.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

To be fair, Japan is an absolutely incredible success story. In the 1940s the country was wrecked, absolutely obliterated. Through US aid and incredible planning and policy by the government, they soared up to become the second largest economy on earth. They have less than 1/10 the population of China, and yet have a larger GDP by about 100 billion.

Not to mention Japan's economic performance during the 1960's is still unparalleled by any country; 13% per year real, per-capita growth in GDP is simply unheard of in any other country, especially given the depth and permanence of the expansion that has made the country one of the wealthiest on Earth. Also, Japan has zero natural resources and has to rely on imports for all of its industrial production.

Japan would be even bigger if its birthrates hadn't declined so precipitously...they need a stable, demographically healthy population to keep their economy going forward.

That seems to be the biggest problem in the modern world today... the long-term impacts of the "baby boom" are finally making their appearance. Luckily, birth rates stabilized somewhat afterwards, and when the last of the baby boomers die off most of the problems associated with them will begin to correct themselves.

[Ellyandia]

This entire thread is inflammatory. It seems like you're trying to convince yourself that your system is better. It doesn't really matter because Europe's role in the world will continue to shrink, until they are but a footnote, because of negative birthrates in almost every european country.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 123982.ece
http://geography.about.com/od/populatio ... a/zero.htm
http://www.planetizen.com/node/34964