Re: Democrats destroying America ...

In article <suOdnalxW6vPhrbbnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bill Todd <billtodd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
George Cook wrote:
In article <KsOdnY9oQacn5LTbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bill Todd <billtodd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

I just wish I had more time, but I don't. I haven't even read thru most
of Bill's posts on this subject, but have glanced at them enough to spot
items worthy of attention. I may not find any more time after this note
to respond (at least today). I actually do have stuff to do other than
take part in a useless Usenet debate which I wouldn't be surprised if no
one was following. I'm only following it enough to debate a point here
and there.

2001-2007 GDP change using constant prices
Australia 20.3%
Canada 17.2%
China 77.6%
France 9.9%
Germany 6.5%
Hong Kong 38.2% (Apparently had a period of deflation)
India 55.8%
Italy 5.5%
Japan 11.3% (Deflation also)
Russia 45.4% (Inflation must be pretty high)
UK 16.5%
US 17.9%

Based on the IMF data, these are the most relevant 2001 to 2007 GDP
growth figures for comparison purposes. They are sometimes called
"real" GDP growth rates.

Now for the part you seem to be getting stuck on. The USD was not
used in any of these calculations (excepting the US of course). Note
that the relative values have changed enormously from my previous
"current price" calculations (see below) because each nation's inflation
is now factored out. Exchange rates are not a factor at all.

2001-2007 GDP change using current prices
Australia 49%
Canada 35%
China 115%
France 23%
Germany 12%
Hong Kong 21%
India 101%
Italy 23%
Japan 4%
Russia 238%
UK 36%
US 36%

In any case, I believe both sets of figures speak for themselves as to
the health of the US econony.

Hmmm - so either way you look at it we're *way* behind China, India, and
Russia (three sufficiently-sizable economies that this might be some
cause for concern), plus maybe Hong Kong, but at least holding our own
pretty well elsewhere in your list. OTOH (since you refer to Wikipedia
below, I guess it's OK to do so here), we don't quite make it out of the
bottom third of countries in the world for our 2006 real GDP growth
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28real%29_growth_rate),
so we probably shouldn't be putting on too many airs.

I never actually thought you would fall into the trap I set here (I
would have given good odds you wouldn't), but yet again I am proved
stunningly wrong. I intentionally included India (along with China
and Russia which I had to include because I mentioned them earlier)
just as bait and intentionally did not comment on their large
percentages. The IMF says they are all three developing countries and
by most definitions they are. It is stunningly (boob level) foolish
to believe that the GDP growth rates in developing (and third world)
countries indicate anything about the health of GDP growth rates in
developed countries, yet I believe it is very clear that that is what
you mean when you say "we're *way* behind China, India, and Russia".
Note carefully the "*way*".

You make your meaning of "*way*" even clearer when you then mention
the Wikipedia list as if it proves something regarding our GDP. It
is to be fully expected that most all of the major developed countries
would be well within the bottom part of the list. It would be suicidal
for most developed countries (including the US) to even attempt the
long term rapid growth which undeveloped countries can easily maintain.

Now I'm waiting for a good laugh to see how boob (oops Bill) spins
this. I suspect it will be too good to skip reading it.

Yes, it is likely that the two countries with the largest populations
will eventually have GDPs greater than the US GDP, but that is not
necessarily a bad thing for the US. It would likely turn out badly for
the US and for the world as a whole if these three countries had long
term low GDP growth. The result would likely be major civil unrest
in three countries having nuclear materials (laying all around in the
case of Russia). The one major downside of their developing is that we
will have to live with the resulting global warming. Unfortunately,
it probably doesn't matter what the US does in regard to our CO2 output
because these three countries are going to produce so much, that any
changes we make won't matter much (not that we shouldn't try).


George Cook
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Democrats destroying America ...
    ... Russia, plus maybe Hong Kong, but at least holding our own pretty well elsewhere in your list. ... OTOH, we don't quite make it out of the bottom third of countries in the world for our 2006 real GDP growth, so we probably shouldn't be putting on too many airs. ... The IMF says they are all three developing countries and ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Democrats destroying America ...
    ... Still spinning, spinning, spinning as he twists oh so slowly in the wind. ... bottom third of countries in the world for our 2006 real GDP growth ... The IMF says they are all three developing countries and ... to believe that the GDP growth rates in developing ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Democrats destroying America ...
    ... The IMF says UK GDP growth is projected ... I also checked the IMF for France which puts its GDP growth for 2007 at ... Hong Kong 21% (must be those damn socialists) ... Most of the developed countries had at least ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Putka is really frothing.
    ... the dollar-denominated foreign reserves held by foreign countries to ... I don't think that you can understand what is going on in Russia without ... desperately wants to be a major power again. ... Whether Ukraine is central or eastern Europe remains to be seen. ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Re: Putka is really frothing.
    ... the dollar-denominated foreign reserves held by foreign countries to ... I don't think that you can understand what is going on in Russia without ... desperately wants to be a major power again. ... Whether Ukraine is central or eastern Europe remains to be seen. ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)