The man who predicted the meltdown and discredited economic conservativism/Reaganism

[First]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: rchiu

You and all the armchair economist can criticize the current system and point to the crisis after the fact like you guys are genious. But show me a developed country with socialist/government controled agenda with better social/economic result over the past 20~30 years than the US and we can have a conversation.

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'socialist/government controlled agenda', but if you consider European countries to be that there are several who have had better GDP growth over the last 30 years than the US.

Care to give specific examples?

Here is GDP (1980 by country) vs GDP (2006 by country)

US is pulling away from the rest of the world by pretty good margin, especially comparing to the developed countries in Europe like France, Germany and Italy, all of which got a good deal more government interventionalist policies compared to the US.

GDP growth =/ total GDP. China, Britain, Canada, and Japan have all grown as fast or faster than the U.S. over the past 30 years, in terms of GDP growth, while China has tripled the speed at which it has grown compared to the U.S. All of them far more interventionist than the U.S. It was only a matter of time before they caught up, of course they're still not even close individually, but they've made slightly more progress.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: rchiu

You and all the armchair economist can criticize the current system and point to the crisis after the fact like you guys are genious. But show me a developed country with socialist/government controled agenda with better social/economic result over the past 20~30 years than the US and we can have a conversation.

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'socialist/government controlled agenda', but if you consider European countries to be that there are several who have had better GDP growth over the last 30 years than the US.

Care to give specific examples?

Here is GDP (1980 by country) vs GDP (2006 by country)

US is pulling away from the rest of the world by pretty good margin, especially comparing to the developed countries in Europe like France, Germany and Italy, all of which got a good deal more government interventionalist policies compared to the US.

GDP growth =/ total GDP. China, Britain, Canada, and Japan have all grown as fast or faster than the U.S. over the past 30 years, in terms of GDP growth, while China has tripled the speed at which it has grown compared to the U.S. All of them far more interventionist than the U.S. It was only a matter of time before they caught up, of course they're still not even close individually, but they've made slightly more progress.

Nope, the only country with significant faster GDP growth than the US is China and that's because they are an emerging economy going through rapid development. The rest didn't show significant faster growth (maybe faster but not by much) and given they are growing from a smaller base, faster growth is easier to achieve.

And considering the living standard and social structure of China, my argument still stands. Show me a country with better economic result and social/living standard than the US with more interventionalist policy.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: rchiu

You and all the armchair economist can criticize the current system and point to the crisis after the fact like you guys are genious. But show me a developed country with socialist/government controled agenda with better social/economic result over the past 20~30 years than the US and we can have a conversation.

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'socialist/government controlled agenda', but if you consider European countries to be that there are several who have had better GDP growth over the last 30 years than the US.

Care to give specific examples?

Here is GDP (1980 by country) vs GDP (2006 by country)

US is pulling away from the rest of the world by pretty good margin, especially comparing to the developed countries in Europe like France, Germany and Italy, all of which got a good deal more government interventionalist policies compared to the US.

GDP growth =/ total GDP. China, Britain, Canada, and Japan have all grown as fast or faster than the U.S. over the past 30 years, in terms of GDP growth, while China has tripled the speed at which it has grown compared to the U.S. All of them far more interventionist than the U.S. It was only a matter of time before they caught up, of course they're still not even close individually, but they've made slightly more progress.

Nope, the only country with significant faster GDP growth than the US is China and that's because they are an emerging economy going through rapid development. The rest didn't show significant faster growth (maybe faster but not by much) and given they are growing from a smaller base, faster growth is easier to achieve.

And considering the living standard and social structure of China, my argument still stands. Show me a country with better economic result and social/living standard than the US with more interventionalist policy.

Social/Living Standards? Pick practically any other First World Nation.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Social/Living Standards? Pick practically any other First World Nation.

Heh, I would live in France cause its food and women, Germany cause its car and autobahn, Italy cause it's fasion and culture. But as far as economic development, job opportunities and overall personal freedom, US is still where it's at.

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: sandorski

Social/Living Standards? Pick practically any other First World Nation.

But as far as economic development, job opportunities and overall personal freedom, US is still where it's at.

The last one is debatable.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Nope, the only country with significant faster GDP growth than the US is China and that's because they are an emerging economy going through rapid development. The rest didn't show significant faster growth (maybe faster but not by much) and given they are growing from a smaller base, faster growth is easier to achieve.

You're making up arguments, no one here said the U.S. was significantly outpaced in terms of GDP growth by European countries. They (eskimospy) said the U.S. was outpaced during the last 30 years. And he is statistically 100% accurate. It's not much, sure, but it exists. Pretty close to a statistical tie.

And considering the living standard and social structure of China, my argument still stands. Show me a country with better economic result and social/living standard than the US with more interventionalist policy.

No one has a better living standard than the U.S., but that was never the argument. Your case for non-intervention is flawed on its face.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: rchiu

Nope, the only country with significant faster GDP growth than the US is China and that's because they are an emerging economy going through rapid development. The rest didn't show significant faster growth (maybe faster but not by much) and given they are growing from a smaller base, faster growth is easier to achieve.

You're making up arguments, no one here said the U.S. was significantly outpaced in terms of GDP growth by European countries. They (eskimospy) said the U.S. was outpaced during the last 30 years. And he is statistically 100% accurate. It's not much, sure, but it exists. Pretty close to a statistical tie.

And considering the living standard and social structure of China, my argument still stands. Show me a country with better economic result and social/living standard than the US with more interventionalist policy.

No one has a better living standard than the U.S., but that was never the argument. Your case for non-intervention is flawed on its face.

Really don't get your point. The argument was a rebuttal to the op and his admiration of
Anya Stiglitz, who I quote "best known for his unrelenting assault on an idea that has dominated the global landscape since Ronald Reagan: that markets work well on their own and governments should stay out of the way."

The idea is to demonstrate a real world example where a government don't stay out of the way and created better economic growth and social/living standard.

If what you say is true, no one has better living standard than the US, then why do we need an alternative economic policy that have not produced better result than what we already have?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: rchiu

Nope, the only country with significant faster GDP growth than the US is China and that's because they are an emerging economy going through rapid development. The rest didn't show significant faster growth (maybe faster but not by much) and given they are growing from a smaller base, faster growth is easier to achieve.

You're making up arguments, no one here said the U.S. was significantly outpaced in terms of GDP growth by European countries. They (eskimospy) said the U.S. was outpaced during the last 30 years. And he is statistically 100% accurate. It's not much, sure, but it exists. Pretty close to a statistical tie.

And considering the living standard and social structure of China, my argument still stands. Show me a country with better economic result and social/living standard than the US with more interventionalist policy.

No one has a better living standard than the U.S., but that was never the argument. Your case for non-intervention is flawed on its face.

Really don't get your point. The argument was a rebuttal to the op and his admiration of
Anya Stiglitz, who I quote "best known for his unrelenting assault on an idea that has dominated the global landscape since Ronald Reagan: that markets work well on their own and governments should stay out of the way."

The idea is to demonstrate a real world example where a government don't stay out of the way and created better economic growth and social/living standard.

If what you say is true, no one has better living standard than the US, then why do we need an alternative economic policy that have not produced better result than what we already have?

The U.S. has had a leg up on Europe and most of the industrialized world since coming out on top after WWII, which is far and away a big reason we have a higher standard of living. Our higher standard of living was most certainly the case well before 1980 (say, 1970 or 1960). But coming out on top during WWII doesn't prove unbridled capitalism works or disprove that some form of interventionist, semi-socialistic governments aren't just as effective.

And the point, from the very beginning, has been that if you use the last 30 years since 1980, where countries with far more interventionist policies have seen growth on par and/or better than the U.S. (far better in China's case), it suggests that our system of government may benefit from more interventionist policies, which is a broad generalization but one that holds true, certainly, for financial markets knowing what we know from 2008 (though frankly, the last 100 years bears this out almost as substantially, that unregulated free markets are just as much a bane on consumers as highly centralized socialism). Your contention that other nations didn't grow as much as the U.S. over the last 30 years was false, and then you started talking about standards of living, which is a separate issue entirely since that argument is built upon the many decades the U.S. existed before 1980.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison
I will take imperfect markets over centralized planning any day.

At least you admit imperfect markets exist.

Now you'll just have to learn that there's a difference between soviet styled central planning and mixed economies. It's all baby steps for you conservatives.

*pats charrison on head and gives him gold star*

:laugh:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: rchiu

Nope, the only country with significant faster GDP growth than the US is China and that's because they are an emerging economy going through rapid development. The rest didn't show significant faster growth (maybe faster but not by much) and given they are growing from a smaller base, faster growth is easier to achieve.

You're making up arguments, no one here said the U.S. was significantly outpaced in terms of GDP growth by European countries. They (eskimospy) said the U.S. was outpaced during the last 30 years. And he is statistically 100% accurate. It's not much, sure, but it exists. Pretty close to a statistical tie.

And considering the living standard and social structure of China, my argument still stands. Show me a country with better economic result and social/living standard than the US with more interventionalist policy.

No one has a better living standard than the U.S., but that was never the argument. Your case for non-intervention is flawed on its face.

Really don't get your point. The argument was a rebuttal to the op and his admiration of
Anya Stiglitz, who I quote "best known for his unrelenting assault on an idea that has dominated the global landscape since Ronald Reagan: that markets work well on their own and governments should stay out of the way."

The idea is to demonstrate a real world example where a government don't stay out of the way and created better economic growth and social/living standard.

If what you say is true, no one has better living standard than the US, then why do we need an alternative economic policy that have not produced better result than what we already have?

You're completely ignorant of the US's and world economic history.

The only 2 developed nations in the world that can claim they got to where they were through free markets is switzerland and the netherlands.

Countries like US, Britain, Japan, South Korea, etc. etc. all practiced protectionism to get to where they are. At one point, the US had tariffs as high as 40%

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5-ojv5-b3U

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Sama...&qid=1253128138&sr=8-1

For example, if Japan had not persisted in protecting companies like toyota and had actually listened to rightwing economists who encouraged them to adhere to the principle of 'comparative advantage', they would not be exporting cars and would be exporting silk today. Reading about the number of failures toyota had and the government's willingness to ignore the critics and continue to prop them up is truly amazing.

This is the exact reason why China has such high growth rates

 

[Dari]

Here is his think-tank at Columbia:
http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/ipd/

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison
I will take imperfect markets over centralized planning any day.

At least you admit imperfect markets exist.

Now you'll just have to learn that there's a difference between soviet styled central planning and mixed economies. It's all baby steps for you conservatives.

*pats charrison on head and gives him gold star*

Mixed economies have 'imperfect markets' by definition.

What's your point except to be a partisan tool? Maybe you'll just have to learn there's a difference between central planning and regulation...

Where did i say that mixed economies are perfect markets? The purpose of mixed economies is to maximize Pareto efficient outcomes to the fullest.

 

[Darthvoy]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.newsweek.com/id/207390?from=rss

One of the few economists actually worth a damn. His more notable works on information asymmetry and screening are what makes him famous. The latter topics is one of the reasons why free market health care will NEVER work (not discussed in the article, but entirely relevant to the healthcare debate)

I also agree with his criticism on the bank bailout on a moral level. While the bailout did save the credit market, it was a get out of jail free card for wall street. I think a temporary nationalization would have been better.

It's no surprise that stiglitz is one of the most highly ranked/most cited economists in the world:

http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.all.html

If conservatives would get the hell out of the 19th/20th century and actually learned something other than outdated neo-classical economics, this country would unfuck itself quite fast.

.....blah blah

Predicting a "meltdown" is like predicting someone is gonna die. Yeah we all know "meltdown" or economic crisis is gonna happen sometime, the prediction is totally useless if you can't tell when that's gonna happen.

Yeah sure government control is gonna solve all the problems in the world. Russia and China with Stalin and Mao had plenty of gov. control, but the people died in Russia and China during their time is comparable to WW2.

You and all the armchair economist can criticize the current system and point to the crisis after the fact like you guys are genious. But show me a developed country with socialist/government controled agenda with better social/economic result over the past 20~30 years than the US and we can have a conversation.[/quote]

You obviously didn't read the article. Stiglitz said he was worried about mortgages being packaged into securities because they could lead to a lessening of credit standards and verifications before wall street even began to do that. He predicted the outcome of certain actions before their implementations. Who cares if he didn't predict when it was going to happen.

I happen to agree with Stiglitz in that there must be a delicate balance between government intervention and a free market. Neither of the two extremes serves the purpose well.