Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 50

Thread: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Planet Ape
    Posts
    14,786

    Default Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    So currently Europe's Model has been under allot of attacks from the outside and inside. The Euro stumbled due to deficits and international speculations, the EU lost legitimacy among its population, and social-democracy is often scrutinized for being unfordable with todays economic-growth rates.

    Often we hear how me must adopt more of the US Model in order to keep up with the pace, but the last years and especially lately I stumbled across allot of indicators that Europe is actually leading the way for how The West could maintain its economic growth while maintaining our overall high standards of living and controlling national-debt again.

    Among them this article: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/15/w...-will-win.html


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Why Europe Will Win


    Forget the conventional wisdom. European firms are faster-growing, more profitable, and better at globalization than their American rivals.

    (Page 1 of 3)
    It's become a truism that America is full of "can do" people and companies, while slow-moving Europeans are more likely to offer a "yes, but" when faced with challenge. American firms set the bar for corporate excellence, or so the story goes, coming up with the hottest new products and ideas, and then doing the best job of selling them in every corner of the planet. While the U.S.-generated financial crisis has, of course, tarnished the patina of American banks, it really hasn't dented this idea about the supremacy of the American multinational, or the American corporate model. Indeed, the worries about Europe's ability to compete on an ever-tougher global playing field have only been heightened by the fact that, post-crisis, Europe is still trailing the U.S. in economic growth, even as it tries to stem its own high-profile problems like the threat of sovereign default in Greece, sky-rocketing deficits, and a plunging euro.
    But as is so often the case, a close look at the numbers tells a different story. Contrary to the widespread cliché of American dynamism versus European economic stagnation, over the past decade Europe's top companies have beaten America's (not to mention Japan's) by an often substantial margin. Despite the rise of China and the rest, Europe has held roughly steady, at about 17 percent, its share of world exports since 2000, while America's has fallen by more than a third, from 17 to 11 percent—a crude but significant indicator of global competitiveness. Since the early 1990s, Europe has steadily expanded its share of the world's 100 biggest multinationals compiled annually by the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development, from 57 in 1991 to 61 last year, while the U.S. number has dropped from 26 to 19. Europe has moved up these and other corporate rankings with new and fast-expanding companies in such sectors as energy (Germany's E.On and France's GDF Suez), finance (Britain's HSBC and Italy's UniCredit), and telecommunications (Spain's Telefónica and Britain's Vodafone)—while America's roster of large global companies has been mostly static and declining, with new stars like Google the exception, not the rule.
    What's more, Europe's growth has been highly profitable. According to a study of the top 3,000 global companies by the German business consultancy Roland Berger, the European companies in the group grew profits at an average rate of 13 percent a year over the decade from 1998 to 2008, almost double the 7 percent rate for their U.S. rivals. Berger CEO Burkhard Schwenker says corporate Europe now has higher earning power than America Inc., with gross earnings in the Berger sample averaging 19.8 percent of 2008 revenues in Europe, versus 13 percent in the U.S. Some of these numbers must obviously be taken with a grain of salt—for example, 2009 earnings (a compilation of which Berger plans to release next month) show a significant rebound for U.S. companies versus their European rivals, who were hit later and harder by the recession.




    But amid all the uncertainty over economic prospects coming out of the crisis, these numbers offer an important starting point. At the heart of the debate is the question over "rebalancing"—whether deficit economies like the United States' will need to move away from debt-driven consumption and imports and compete harder on world markets, as Barack Obama said in his State of the Union address in January, when he promised to double America's exports over the next five years. Until now, that debate has centered on macroeconomic data—trade balances, currency-exchange pegs, and capital flows. But when you drill down to the level of actual companies, it's clear that in many sectors, European firms have out-competed American rivals across the globe, and Obama's dream of rebuilding a world-beating export sector in which American firms trump European ones could be an uphill slog, to say the least.
    It's a picture that forces us to revise some old clichés about the European economy. "The myth of a sclerotic, no-growth Europe that is somehow doomed to fail is just wrong," says Charles Roxburgh, director at McKinsey Global Institute in London. In fact, European per capita GDP has grown slightly faster than the U.S. since 2000. That metric is crucial: because of its faster population growth, the U.S. must generate 1 percentage point more growth than Europe each year just so Americans can hold on to their level of prosperity. Roxburgh attributes the European edge to a sharp rise in employment after a series of labor-market reforms in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He also says many European export-oriented companies have excelled when it comes to restructuring, increasing their competitiveness even as they face off against lower-cost rivals from China and other developing countries.
    Indeed, recent worries over a Greek government default and its implications for the euro have obscured a string of good news coming out of the continent. Fresh numbers show a stronger-than-expected recovery—which would seem to confirm Berger's and McKinsey's reappraisal of European economic performance. In March, a key index measuring European export orders hit the highest level in 10 years. Industrial production—the total output of Europe's factories—also beat expectations, rising at the fastest quarterly pace on record. An average of GDP forecasts shows 1 percent growth in 2010, roughly equal in per capita terms to America's 2 percent. There are many question marks on these data, of course, not least the rapid growth of government debt that could create new tremors in Western economies.
    The key to the European model has been globalization. European companies have moved much faster and further to seize markets beyond their borders. Foreign sales—even when considering all of Europe as a single home market—are 39 percent, versus roughly 30 percent for U.S. and Japanese companies, and only 20 percent for big companies in the BRIC countries. The latter, far from conquering the world, remain mostly focused on their domestic markets. If one looks at strictly national markets (for example, German versus non-German sales for Volkswagen), the globalization effect is even higher. Hermann Simon, a German entrepreneur and business professor who has studied the "hidden champions"—the small to midsize highly specialized manufacturing companies that dominate the German, Italian, and Scandinavian economies—says it is not unusual for these companies to have an export share of more than 80 percent.

    That means a much larger share of EU growth has piggybacked on economic dynamism in the emerging markets—the BRICs, but also Eastern Europe and the big-spending OPEC states. If these markets continue to generate an increasing share of global growth, as most economists believe, then European companies are in a much better starting position. European companies have written the book on how to grow and prosper in these markets—and not just via outsourcing, as Europe's healthy trade balance shows (the non-energy trade surplus was €15.6 billion in January). European automakers from Volkswagen to Renault and Fiat, high-speed train manufacturers like France's Alstom, not to mention countless highly specialized niche manufacturers, already dominate trade with the BRICs—and could make life hard for an America that thinks it can revive its manufacturing prowess and export its way to growth. Europe's globalization prowess isn't as much a matter of management decision as of geographic fate. While American companies traditionally concentrate on their large home market, says Simon, European ones coming from smaller markets are forced to go global at a much earlier stage in their company's development, giving them a leg up on international markets. This process really took off in the 1990s and early 2000s, as the European Union successively removed internal trade barriers to create its single market and later expanded to incorporate the newly capitalist economies in Eastern Europe. Countries were enriched and strengthened by all this, and built extensive trade ties with emerging markets in Asia, Latin America, Russia, and the Middle East. According to UNCTAD economist James Zhan, it was this rapid global-expansion phase that pushed European companies up the ranks of the world's biggest transnational companies, displacing American companies more focused on their home market. During this time, Spain's Telefónica became the biggest phone company in Latin America, Germany's Deutsche Post assembled its global logistics empire, and France's GDF Suez built up its energy business in Africa, Asia, and beyond. As they restructured by moving labor-intensive production abroad and concentrating on more sophisticated goods, European companies kept their competitive advantage. According to the global-competitiveness index compiled each year by the World Economic Forum, based in Geneva, Switzerland, 10 of the world's 15 most-competitive economies are European (including Switzerland at No. 1), and there has not been a deterioration of their position since the forum started measuring—again, contrary to the conventional wisdom of Europe as an uncompetitive, high-wage continent losing out to more dynamic economies elsewhere. Instead of being crowded out by the likes of China, the Europeans have managed so far to ride the rest of the world's ascendance by providing them with the infrastructure, factories, and high-end goods.
    What makes European corporate success all the more astounding is the disadvantages that European firms have had to overcome, especially at home. Labor regulations and the stigma of bankruptcy make it much harder to move workers from less-productive activities to more-productive ones, slowing down the structural change that brings an economy forward (though, paradoxically, that also forces companies to think more long-term, which Schwenker argues is a strategic advantage). America continues to be a more dynamic place for innovation, and has done a much better job than Europe at raising productivity—primarily by a deeper infusion of IT as well as ruthless head-count cutting (which is then usually made up for by a faster creation of jobs in more productive sectors of the economy). Yet three quarters of America's productivity advantage is in services, which only accounts for 20 percent of global trade. If Obama is right and rebalancing means growing America's manufacturing sector, then the U.S. productivity advantage will be much harder to leverage. Conversely, it means Europe has some very low-hanging fruit if it wants to create growth: open up the continent's unproductive and overregulated service sectors. Countries like Greece are now being forced by the crisis to do exactly that—which should give Europe's economy a fresh boost down the road.
    Which model is better? The jury is still out on how much of either European or U.S. growth is truly sustainable. Henning Kagermann—ex-CEO of SAP, Europe's most successful software company—wonders the extent to which European corporate success is based on restructuring and incremental technological advancements, rather than the radical innovation that can upend entire industries, and at which American companies like Apple and Google still excel. On the other hand, a lot of American growth is still fueled by debt spending, this time public instead of private. Europe has debt problems of its own, but its core economies, France and Germany, still have much healthier public finances. In any case, in a few year's time, says McKinsey's Roxburgh, the true competition won't be between Europe and America, but between Western companies and the new giants of the emerging world. In that race, slow Europe may prove to be the tortoise that wins.


    I'll add some more stuff the coming days.
    Last edited by Viking Prince; September 13, 2010 at 06:39 AM. Reason: personal comment is very off topic
    Quote Originally Posted by snuggans View Post
    we can safely say that a % of those 130 were Houthi/Iranian militants that needed to be stopped unfortunately

  2. #2

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    The thing is the world's economies are now so interconnected that if US economy struggles, so will Europe's, and the other way around as well. The information age has brought on this phenomenon, and will only increase this dependence. So really the economies of US, EU, China are all integrated with each other, de-facto.
    [ Under Patronage of Jom ]
    [ "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21 ]

  3. #3
    Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Planet Ape
    Posts
    14,786

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Thats true of course, and its a truth especially true for the last 60 odd years, but lately with China, India, Brazil and others having an increasing middle-class and gigantic infra-structure investments, we see Europe isn't as US dependent as it used to be. Today since the self-inflicted crisis the US economy and US consumer spending is sputtering along and so are the EU exports to to the US when comparing the doubling and tripling exports to the emerging economy's.

    European company's and the European politicians making deals abroad(not to be underestimated in these countries) really have been ahead in how to make more profitable and more sustainable use of these emerging markets, not only "taking away our jobs" etc, but the contrary, creating jobs, even in manufacturing.

    This counts especially for France and Germany, who where described as "old sick men of Europe" when they where not as involved in these financial escaped of this last decade and couldn't book economic-growth figures as big as the UK/US in those times. We rather clinged to our traditional Real Economy and welfare-system and today it proves to be that sustainability everybody including Obama and Cameron is talking about.

    Because company's and its employees keep producing here and pay taxes here, our deficits and SS really are allot more manageable compared to those of the UK and US, also when looking what other countries ow France and Germany contrère to national-debt, or when looking at savingsrates and reserves. Then our welfare-system is in many ways allot more cost-efficient. While in the US there is ongoing political debate to pay welfare for a few months more, their bureaucracy is overchallenged, the potential recipients are desperate, insecurity raises among the population anxious about loosing their jobs and there goes consumer confidence and with it investments. We have a simple streamlined system in that regard that might look more expensive but it really isn't, also when looking at other factors like crime prevention etc.

    I think the US needs more Europe, not the other way around, which was the tenor and among many on the European rightwing it still is. But their wrong as they are so very often.
    Last edited by Thorn777; September 13, 2010 at 01:45 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by snuggans View Post
    we can safely say that a % of those 130 were Houthi/Iranian militants that needed to be stopped unfortunately

  4. #4

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    I don't know about better at globalisation.

    43% of foreign investments in Ireland are American while only 48% are from other EU countries. I expected EU investment to be higher than 48%.
    Last edited by removeduser_4536284751384; September 13, 2010 at 01:38 PM.

  5. #5
    Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Planet Ape
    Posts
    14,786

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Quote Originally Posted by irelandeb View Post
    I don't know about better at globalisation.

    43% of foreign investments in Ireland are American while only 48% are from other EU countries. I expected EU investment to be higher than 48%.
    Look at the article and all the numbers. And also, why is VW leading the market in south America and China and not GM? Why do the Chinese buy German/Swiss made trains instead of American? Why do they buy Siemens transformers to renew their electricity-nets and not GE?

    Ireland is a special case, with lots of traditional American activity. US company's even got together and funded a No vote on the Irish Lisbon referendum. Ireland isn't really the pinnacle of globalization challenges btw.
    Last edited by Thorn777; September 13, 2010 at 01:55 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by snuggans View Post
    we can safely say that a % of those 130 were Houthi/Iranian militants that needed to be stopped unfortunately

  6. #6
    Darsh's Avatar Maréchal de l'Empire
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,888

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Today the world and tomorrow the universe, Go EU !!!

    Légion étrangère : « Honneur et Fidélité »

  7. #7

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darsh View Post
    Today the world and tomorrow the universe, Go EU !!!
    please, please please don't turn this into another transatlantic dick comparision thread

  8. #8
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,973

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    I am befuddled by this article. It seems all over the place. At one point hitting at capital account balances and then having the gall to suggest that deficit, and I'm guessing trade deficit, economies don't work... all the while saying "the key to European growth is globalization." Well... what on earth does he think we are doing with such a huge deficit??? He needs to sit down and read up on what the balance of payments are. You can't have a trade deficit or a negative current account balance without having a postive capital account balance. Meaning while the US imports alot of stuff, you end up sending out massive amount of investment into other countries to produce that stuff and sell it back home. It's the very essense of globalization.
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  9. #9
    Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Planet Ape
    Posts
    14,786

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    I am befuddled by this article. It seems all over the place. At one point hitting at capital account balances and then having the gall to suggest that deficit, and I'm guessing trade deficit, economies don't work... all the while saying "the key to European growth is globalization." Well... what on earth does he think we are doing with such a huge deficit??? He needs to sit down and read up on what the balance of payments are. You can't have a trade deficit or a negative current account balance without having a postive capital account balance. Meaning while the US imports alot of stuff, you end up sending out massive amount of investment into other countries to produce that stuff and sell it back home. It's the very essense of globalization.
    I really don't know why you are.

    a)The problem is the US is so far behind here, it needs to raise its yearly exports by 70% in order to eliminate the gap. You say its all US dollar being invested abroad, but its largely all consumption not benefiting US treasury at all, the contrary a big chunk is paid with direct debt. In fact, even the foreign assets by US holders is lower than the foreign US asset holders since 2006 already. Clear trends you don't want to widen over time...

    b)The author never suggested the US isn't in this globalization game, he says Europe handles it differently and in fact more sustainable and profitable. And yes all eyes in the US are on Germany ATM, from Wallstreet Journal journalists to the entire US econ-class, looking how we do things on both producing excesses and keeping jobs here. Its just a random article, by a random journalist who wrote this already in April this year, so is ahead of his time seeing the NYT and Wallstreet Journal came with similar articles this week.
    Quote Originally Posted by snuggans View Post
    we can safely say that a % of those 130 were Houthi/Iranian militants that needed to be stopped unfortunately

  10. #10

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Problem is its not a contest vs Europe vs USA but rather West vs East....picking the wrong "fight" here.

  11. #11
    Manco's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Curtrycke
    Posts
    15,076

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Quote Originally Posted by danzig View Post
    Problem is its not a contest vs Europe vs USA but rather West vs East....picking the wrong "fight" here.
    There's actually been a run of articles on that exact topic the last few days in several European newspapers.
    Some day I'll actually write all the reviews I keep promising...

  12. #12
    Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Planet Ape
    Posts
    14,786

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Really?
    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    It's not consumption it's FDI, it's the balance of payments. One surplus feeds the opther deficit.
    ^

    Whats the share JP? Your claim...

    Quote Originally Posted by danzig View Post
    Problem is its not a contest vs Europe vs USA but rather West vs East....picking the wrong "fight" here.
    Im looking at this from a working-class perspective. Im working-class and most people Im involved with are. I've seen allot of changes from that perspective, mostly negative over the years, but whats interesting is that these emerging markets start to have an middle-class of their own with their own demands, and its good to see there is actually a huge benefit evolving also from a western working-class perspective to sell and produce goods for these markets, instead of the entire outsourcing story.

    Now how to strengthen this is my interest.
    Quote Originally Posted by snuggans View Post
    we can safely say that a % of those 130 were Houthi/Iranian militants that needed to be stopped unfortunately

  13. #13
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,973

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Problem is its not a contest vs Europe vs USA but rather West vs East....picking the wrong "fight" here.
    It's not a contest of East versus West either. Of course you'll always have your net producers versus net consumers, and which side is better, or if it even really mattes is debateable. Ultimately the goal of everyone is higher standards of living, greater efficiency. And the logic that that notion somehow penalizes someone else is false. It's stupid, it's crazy and it's wrong. We really can all get rich together. <-- that last part wasn't directed at you danzig, I'm speaking against that idea in general.
    Last edited by JP226; September 14, 2010 at 12:55 PM.
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    It's not a contest of East versus West either. Of course you'll always have your net producers versus net consumers, and which side is better, or if it even really mattes is debateable. Ultimately the goal of everyone is higher standards of living, greater efficiency. And the logic that that notion somehow penalizes someone else is false. It's stupid, it's crazy and it's wrong. We really can all get rich together. <-- that last part wasn't directed at you danzig, I'm speaking against that idea in general.
    you were the last person I expected this from, +rep

  15. #15
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,973

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    The problem is the US is so far behind here, it needs to raise its yearly exports by 70% in order to eliminate the gap. You say its all US dollar being invested abroad, but its largely all consumption not benefiting US treasury at all, the contrary a big chunk is paid with direct debt. In fact, even the foreign assets by US holders is lower than the foreign US asset holders since 2006 already. Clear trends you don't want to widen over time...
    It's not consumption it's FDI, it's the balance of payments. One surplus feeds the opther deficit.

    The author never suggested the US isn't in this globalization game, he says Europe handles it differently and in fact more sustainable and profitable. And yes all eyes in the US are on Germany ATM, from Wallstreet Journal journalists to the entire US econ-class, looking how we do things on both producing excesses and keeping jobs here. Its just a random article, by a random journalist who wrote this already in April this year, so is ahead of his time seeing the NYT and Wallstreet Journal came with similar articles this week.
    Eyes are on you incase Greece defaults. Either way, it's completely and utterly contradictory the very things he applauds is what got the US in what he assumes is a bad postion gloablly.
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  16. #16
    Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Planet Ape
    Posts
    14,786

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    It's not consumption it's FDI, it's the balance of payments. One surplus feeds the opther deficit.
    So your claiming all of US trade-deficit is FDI?

    Sorry:
    Eyes are on you incase Greece defaults. Either way, it's completely and utterly contradictory the very things he applauds is what got the US in what he assumes is a bad postion gloablly.
    Im not dickwaving, Im interested in what works best in this new world, and Greece defaulting or not isn't in anyway speaking against the many aspects brought up.

    And again, I suggest to take the blindfolds of and read the article without them. He never said the US is in a bad position globally, he said European company's are getting ahead steadely and are in fact ahead of US company's in several ways, and then clearly places some nuances and points out the American strengths in innovation etc, so don't act butthurt and just acknowledge facts for what they are. And then he also says the European global set-up is better for the domestic situation concerning employment and debt a.o and says old truisims are not necesserely true anymore. In case you still dont bother reading...

    Where not the "3rd World" nor "Old Europe" JP. Underestimation is a form of self destructive arrogance, and you might better learn something from your transatlantic partners facing similar challenges but getting different results, instead of belittling them in a late 90's early 2k sense.
    Last edited by Thorn777; September 14, 2010 at 04:59 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by snuggans View Post
    we can safely say that a % of those 130 were Houthi/Iranian militants that needed to be stopped unfortunately

  17. #17
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,973

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    So your claiming all of US trade-deficit is FDI?
    How on earth did you read that?
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  18. #18
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,973

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Really?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JP226
    It's not consumption it's FDI, it's the balance of payments. One surplus feeds the opther deficit.

    ^

    Whats the share JP? Your claim...
    Honest question, what does that actually say to you? I'm speaking on capital accounts, it's these kinds of things that are too boring for journalists to consider or maybe understand and they completely disregard them. Then the supposedly vigilant citizens jump on these arguments with literally half the picture and run around screaming "AHHH HA!"
    Last edited by JP226; September 14, 2010 at 05:56 PM.
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  19. #19
    Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Planet Ape
    Posts
    14,786

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    Honest question, what does that actually say to you? I'm speaking on capital accounts, it's these kinds of things that are too boring for journalists to consider or maybe understand and they completely disregard them. Then the supposedly vigilant citizens jump on these arguments with literally half the picture and run around screaming "AHHH HA!"
    Its true you should look nuanced at these trade-deficits, and the author does so, if you want to believe it or not. Now I find it funny you throw around untrue accusations, while I remember you yourself often use unnuanced rhetoric when you want to make your case, take the argument you made about French/German national-debt in another thread for instance, where you forget about the other aspects like the debt owed in reverse, savings-rates and reserves. Absurd...

    Further you act like there is more FDI than everything else while the numbers are not that impressing but more below moderate seeing European and emerging markets FDI numbers. The structural deficits on both US national-debt and trade-deficit are very real problems, on both domestic job creation and wage-pressure, as well as it becomes a pivotal problem if it isn't already. It isn't sustainable in this shape and form. You can ride the edge for a while and look good doing it but at some point you need to get out of the water or at least stay close to the shores, which becomes increasingly difficult ignoring the problem like this, also with an eye on other factors like likely skyrocketing future SS costs.
    Last edited by Thorn777; September 15, 2010 at 05:57 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by snuggans View Post
    we can safely say that a % of those 130 were Houthi/Iranian militants that needed to be stopped unfortunately

  20. #20
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,973

    Default Re: Europe vs USA, round 135: sustainble economic gowth and future eco/socio thinking beyond next week.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorn777 View Post
    Further you act like there is more FDI than everything else while the numbers are not that impressing but more below moderate seeing European and emerging markets FDI numbers. The structural deficits on both US national-debt and trade-deficit are very real problems, on both domestic job creation and wage-pressure, as well as it becomes a pivotal problem if it isn't already. It isn't sustainable in this shape and form. You can ride the edge for a while and look good doing it but at some point you need to get out of the water or at least stay close to the shores, which becomes increasingly difficult ignoring the problem like this, also with an eye on other factors like likely skyrocketing future SS costs.
    Ok, I don't think this addresses a single point I've brought up. Since you are firing so blindly, I'm going have to revert to explaining what current accounts, capital accounts and FDI actually are. Wikipedia isn't the greatest at explaining these kinds of things in English.

    Let's start out with the current account. The current account is what's popularly talked about by the guys in the media and the amateur's. It's the trade deficit. It's net exports and unfortunately it's a primary component of GDP using the expenditure method. If the US imports more than it exports, it's a negative hit on GDP, or a trade deficit. And if it exports more than it imports it's a trade surplus.

    The capital account is a little more tricky. It's the flow of investment into and out of an economy. The largest component is Foreign Direct Investment (or FDI). If you are a developing economy, you tend to want more FDI and if you are developed you tend to want to export more FDI. Invest in emerging markets and the likes. FDI itself is broken down in to horizontal and vertical integration. Horizontal integration would be like Ford opening a full blown automobile plant in Germany pumping out cars to sell in Germany. Vertical integration would be like IBM opening up a call center in India to service issues in the US. Or maybe ford, and I don't know if they actually do this, but Ford opening up a factory in china to build engines and ship those engines to other markets to produce cars. One is a part of the production process the other is the production process.

    The other components of the capital account are things like reserves, portfolios, and those can't be classified in the latter two, "other" category.

    Then we have the balance of payments, on one side of the scales you have the current account and on the other you have the capital account. They feed each other. As more investment flows into a country, the capital (economic capital) expands thus production expands producing more crap that can be shipped out. And like wise, the more FDI sent abroad than flowing back home the production process contracts locally and becomes global. Or, globalization.

    Is a trade deficit bad in that light? Absolutely not. On one hand it signals capital outflows. Capital outflows in terms of trade and why free trade is a great thing is essential to future economic development. It means the world is becoming linked. Things like better phone lines, satellites and cargo containers have ripped down barriers allowing us to open new markets and lower costs of production making everyone's life better. Ultimately, as David Ricardo stumbled on this back in the 1800's with his whole specie flow understanding, things level out. Where a trade deficit gets the bad rap is that we are buying from abroad instead of locally and we don't have any jobs. The investment that flows into the US is highly technical and the investment that flows out is blue collared low skill. Thus the labor market becomes larger with respect to the actual demand for that labor. All the while pushing down the wage for those workers but making people like myself wealthier in the process.

    And of course the argument against that is capital controls or regulation. The whole fair trade nonsense. But what many fail to realize is that before jobs were going overseas in the US, they were going to the south, and mid west. The North went through this same exact process and now maintains the highest standard of living in the US. NYC produces more than a trillion in GDP by itself. Almost 3 times London. The closest German city is Berlin, making a whopping 95 billion. Those are white collar jobs replacing blue collar. 157,000 gdp per capita is what happens when that process is allowed to take place. Rednecks and euro trash disappear.

    And in terms of a fiscal deficit, it is what it is. Government bonds simply means taxes tomorrow. And when the economy is doing well, and it's easier to pay the interest because of expanded revenues through economic growth, I'm all for it. Then in times like now where it's going to be harder to pay it off, I'm not such a big fan of spending in general. Financing G in and of itself is what it is. And to a very large extent is irrelevant seeing as you have to pay the money either way. Raising taxes? So what? The government's books are clean... I still had to pay the cash and now I've given up the opportunity to buy something else.

    So now we come full circle to this article arguing against the deficit economies. Or rather that there is a better way. well, I've got news for the journalist, Europe is doing the exact same damn thing that led to US trade deficits and their fiscal deficits are just as if not more embarrassing and will continue to get that way as Europeans quit breeding and get older. It's not rocket science that if you invest in the "BRIC" you are going to import more from the "BRIC."

    What kills me about economics or the arguing that there is two ways to do something, no there isn't. You regulate you aren't going to magically make more money, you are going to make less. You clamp down on trade, you aren't going to magically lower costs. You introduce a welfare net or increase government expenditures, you are going to take a hit in output. Now some people may like the trade off, everyone has to find their optimal equilibriums between cash and happiness. But don't tell me you can have your cake and eat it too. The world doesn't work that way.
    Last edited by JP226; September 15, 2010 at 12:07 PM.
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •