[besson3c]

I found this op-ed interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/op...gman.html?_r=1

I find it interesting because it takes a very big picture sort of view of our economy over the last decade, and how really nothing has grown. The Dow is about the same as it was 10 years ago, there are zero gains for homeowners, in job growth, and stocks as well. That is sort of the thesis of the article, but it got me thinking even beyond this... Please don't obsess and pick apart the article, again, this is just what prompted my thinking on the following:

I know that the inevitable response to this is about how Bush screwed up, how Obama is screwing up, or even Clinton for the dot com bubble, but I've been thinking, the overall level of screw up is so broad and encompassing in scope that it really can't be attributed to any one thing or person. You have the fact that we haven't learned from the mistakes of the past in building economies out of bubbles, you have the same corporate accounting practices, thousands of bankers, investors, and economists all going in the same direction, politicians who are unable to make a difference, thousands of Americans racking up debt, and several of the other things Krugman lists... There are just so many pieces to this economic puzzle ranging from all of the people involved, consumers, policy makers, and on and on that even if we all agreed on everything it would take years to reform and fix up. Maybe at this point anything we do is too little, too late? Maybe these forces are just too big and too large for anyone to control, sort of like creating a monster?

I'm not suggesting that we just throw in the towel and watch the train wreck, but maybe at this point it is logical to conclude that America's days of growth are behind us? I keep on coming back to the idea that all empires have to die, it has always been this way in the past.

Thoughts? Please, do not bitch about politician X or Y or Z, any particular policy being debated, we've done that before. Think big, big, big picture here please...

[turtle777]

What's the number one thing that causes our economy to suffer, no matter what party is at the helm ?

Bigger and bigger government, excess spending, political meddling in the private economy, dumbfu*king stupid regulation, cronyism etc.

And, above all: blatant disregard of the Constitution and the boundaries it set for the Federal government.

You are right, it doesn't mater if Bush or Obama, they are both guilty of the same thing.

Face it, America, the way you have allowed corrupt politicians to go to bed with corrupt big money (mostly banks) has ruined the American economy and the American dream.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

at this point it is logical to conclude that America's days of growth are behind us

You're right. Bail. Go to China, the next rising star. Or India. Every day you stay is a day wasted. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[turtle777]

The video shows in in simple words how the American economy has failed.

Part of it is the reasons I mentioned above. What I haven't mentioned yet is that Americans got fat and lazy and tried to borough their way to more prosperity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vweLB...eature=related

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What's the number one thing that causes our economy to suffer, no matter what party is at the helm ?

Bigger and bigger government, excess spending, political meddling in the private economy, dumbfu*king stupid regulation, cronyism etc.

And, above all: blatant disregard of the Constitution and the boundaries it set for the Federal government.

You are right, it doesn't mater if Bush or Obama, they are both guilty of the same thing.

Face it, America, the way you have allowed corrupt politicians to go to bed with corrupt big money (mostly banks) has ruined the American economy and the American dream.

-t

I think it's much more than this... It is our obsession with chasing economic bubbles, and with not learning from past economic mistakes that lead to a lack of stability and these sorts of collapses. Our debt is so ugly now because our economic growth has been so halted over the last 10 years, in large part because a part of our economy has been based on these sort of high risk games and schemes that investors concoct, such as the whole subprime mortgage thing.

If our economy was growing like gangbusters we would have a much easier time affording the things that are currently adding to our debt.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think it's much more than this... It is our obsession with chasing economic bubbles, and with not learning from past economic mistakes that lead to a lack of stability and these sorts of collapses. Our debt is so ugly now because our economic growth has been so halted over the last 10 years, in large part because a part of our economy has been based on these sort of high risk games and schemes that investors concoct, such as the whole subprime mortgage thing.

Well, yeah, but guess who made this possible ?

* The Fed with cheap money (low interest rates)
* The Treasury with "Too Big Too Fail" pronouncements
* GSEs (Fannie, Freddie)
* The Government with wrong policies and regulations

All those excesses are first and foremost results of an unbalances economy.
Unbalanced economies develop when there is interference and single sided incentives.

-t

[ebuddy]

Obama = Fail!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

In addition to Uncle's hit and run, it seems this pessimism is founded on an obsolete idea of how economies and super-powers worked in the past IMO besson. The reason we keep going back to China for handouts for example is because their economy is entrenched in shared US prosperity. Now, does this mean the US is too big to fail? Certainly not, but woe be the day for the entire globe when it does.

The only thing we can do to stave off the inevitable is to stop embracing the failed ideologies of antiquity and return to the unique principles that created the most prosperous nation on the globe in less than 250 years existence. (turtle gave this point more merit IMO) Granted, this is a lofty goal because it is always more tempting to ease symptoms of a problem for the "quick fix" rather than addressing root causes, but I think we can do it under the proper conditions. The incredible growth of government and its related entitlements for example have only decreased self-determination resulting in increased rates of poverty, wealth disparity, and unemployment. We're continuing down the same failed path at an accelerated rate these past several years, but I think there will be a substantial change in the political climate in this country.

When we succumb to the notion that our best days are behind us, they surely will be.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think it's much more than this... It is our obsession with chasing economic bubbles, and with not learning from past economic mistakes that lead to a lack of stability and these sorts of collapses. Our debt is so ugly now because our economic growth has been so halted over the last 10 years, in large part because a part of our economy has been based on these sort of high risk games and schemes that investors concoct, such as the whole subprime mortgage thing.

If our economy was growing like gangbusters we would have a much easier time affording the things that are currently adding to our debt.

Chasing market opportunities is as old as time. Losing your ass is the great equalizer. Transparency in finance and government makes for an educated consumer. Example: Tiger Woods was seemingly a great investment: His duplicity was known and not reported. Ergo, his collapse cost investors $12Bn. Buyer beware!

It has been recognized for decades American manufacturing was moving offshore. What could we have done to keep the manufacturing base here? Raise the wages of employees? Increase benefits? Or take a sober look at the bubble created after World War 11. Easy money and profits created a distortion field. Boom and bust, as old as time.

The housing market fueled consumer demand. Recognizing this, easy lending practices, endorsed and promoted by the Federal government, complicit with Wall street, guaranteed the housing bubble and eventual banking collapse. And here is where the ox is gored. Everyone new the game. The consumer, the bankers who bundled worthless mortgages, the Fed with a tax cheat still in charge and Congress of course with a trillion dollar bailout of taxpayers money.

One could say this regulation or that regulation would have helped but what of the moral outrage? How can a tax cheat run treasury? Where was and is the media, our traditional watchdog and investigative eye and ear? Where is the personal responsibility? The media and the US citizen was/is complicit in protecting the cheat, political elite and the scam artist because they have been corrupted.

Now we may get a moral spine and throw the rascals out in November but I doubt it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And, above all: blatant disregard of the Constitution and the boundaries it set for the Federal government.

Ridiculous. Plenty of countries disregard the U.S. Constitution and experience economic growth.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

but I've been thinking, the overall level of screw up is so broad and encompassing in scope that it really can't be attributed to any one thing or person.

You need to think a little harder then.

Let me provide clue:

Woodrow Wilson.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Woodrow Wilson.

The most galling part is that we could have had Teddy Roosevelt instead.

[Orion27]

And the proof is here of the failed liberal experiment: Schwarzenegger to seek federal help for California budget -- latimes.com

Schwazrneggar the Health Care Nazi: No Public Option for you.

From the Article:

...One new source of revenue in the budget: Schwarzenegger will revive a plan to allow offshore oil drilling from an existing platform off the Santa Barbara coast. The proposal was so controversial during last summer's budget debate that after the Assembly voted down the plan, members expunged the vote, erasing it from the public record...

There is nothing like the public record to preserve an historical perspective. Just who are these people? Speaks
to the transparency I spoke of earlier.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Ridiculous. Plenty of countries disregard the U.S. Constitution and experience economic growth.

What's the number one thing that causes our economy to suffer...

Reading comprehension: a lost art.

By the way, Peter Schiff is brilliant. He's been sounding the alarm on this mess for years and calling out the worst culprits. Would it really be so hard to find 500+ people as bright as him, possessing common sense, and with the real interests of the country in mind, not just corrupt personal agendas, to occupy congress, with a few more in the white house? I realize most people with that level of intelligence have better things to do that go into politics, but really, we can't just find a few hundred out of 300 million+ people? Sad.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Reading comprehension: a lost art.

Speak for yourself. Is there something fundamentally different about the U.S. economy that gives the boundaries set for the government more influence over resulting economic performance than in other countries? Where is your comparative data for democratic socialist countries in, say, Europe (relatively low economic performance and high government intrusion), or authoritarian capitalist countries like, say, China (relatively high economic performance and high government intrusion)? I wasn't disputing that the U.S. Constitution has particular relevance to the United States. I was disputing that the particular "boundaries" cited (in the Constitution in the United States; in other documents in other countries) are relevant for economic performance in general.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Speak for yourself. Is there something fundamentally different about the U.S. economy that gives the boundaries set for the government more influence over resulting economic performance than in other countries? Where is your comparative data for democratic socialist countries in, say, Europe (relatively low economic performance and high government intrusion), or authoritarian capitalist countries like, say, China (relatively high economic performance and high government intrusion)? I wasn't disputing that the U.S. Constitution has particular relevance to the United States. I was disputing that the particular "boundaries" cited (in the Constitution in the United States; in other documents in other countries) are relevant for economic performance in general.

Europe does not pay proportionately for its continental security. That falls to the USA. Second, independent of democracy, Chinese economic expansion is unburdened by western liberal constraints. We can debate a level playing field.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Europe does not pay proportionately for its continental security. That falls to the USA.

What does this have to do with what I and turtle were referring to?

Second, independent of democracy, Chinese economic expansion is unburdened by western liberal constraints. We can debate a level playing field.

I'm not sure what your point is. While China does not have the same level of, say, environmental regulation limiting commercial enterprises, there are significantly higher administrative intrusions by the government in Chinese enterprises than is the case in the United States. So, not burdened by "western liberal constraints," but still not unburdened.

My point stands: if the metric here is economic performance (which I would define by GDP growth), then all of these factors offer far less explanatory power than other issues, like demographics (over the long term) and exposure to the liquidity crisis (in the near term).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Europe does not pay proportionately for its continental security.

I have no idea what this means.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm not sure what your point is. While China does not have the same level of, say, environmental regulation limiting commercial enterprises, there are significantly higher administrative intrusions by the government in Chinese enterprises than is the case in the United States. So, not burdened by "western liberal constraints," but still not unburdened.

He means they can use freakin' slave labor.

[Doofy]

China will burn itself out. People are realising that "made in China" = "this is crap".

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

China will burn itself out. People are realising that "made in China" = "this is crap".

Except for Chinese food.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Except for Chinese food.

The Chinese food I eat is made in the USA.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Ridiculous. Plenty of countries disregard the U.S. Constitution and experience economic growth.

OMG, worst logical reasoning evar.

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Speak for yourself.

Also I forgot to mention "being able to follow logic". If the question was, "why did the house burn down?" and the answer, "And above all: the owner was smoking in bed"

Your 'argument' is to say "Nonsense. Lots of people smoke in bed and don't burn their houses down."

Of course, that has absolutely ZIP, NADA, DIDDLY, DICK-SQUAT to do with the answer to the above question- pretty much like your speil which has absolutely DIDDLY to do with an answer to a question about THE US ECONOMY, not any other economy you want to drag into this just to have something to argue about.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Also I forgot to mention "being able to follow logic". If the question was, "why did the house burn down?" and the answer, "And above all: the owner was smoking in bed"

Your 'argument' is to say "Nonsense. Lots of people smoke in bed and don't burn their houses down."

Of course, that has absolutely ZIP, NADA, DIDDLY, DICK-SQUAT to do with the answer to the above question- pretty much like your speil which has absolutely DIDDLY to do with an answer to a question about THE US ECONOMY, not any other economy you want to drag into this just to have something to argue about.

You're kind of rude, aren't you? You're the one who jumped into this, so I don't think you ought to be charging me with posting just to have something to argue about. Turtle's post seemed to be saying that the U.S. is in economic trouble because we've let the government interfere too much in the economy. I merely pointed out that, over the same period, countries that have greater government involvement in the economy have done relatively poorly or relatively well, so the government intrusion factor seems to carry less weight. To your analogy, I'm sure someone could run a study to assess the correlation of smoking in bed with burning your house down. One could run a similar study assessing the correlation of government regulations and economic stability during the recent crisis. However, turtle was writing anecdotally (U.S. = one data point), so I felt free to respond in kind.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

OMG, worst logical reasoning evar.

-t

I was phrasing it deliberately to provoke a reaction, of course. But the line of inquiry is sound, as I explained above. If you are blaming a particular feature of the U.S. political economy for poor national economic performance, it's valid to compare it with the political economy in other countries to see if you get a consistent result. It seems to me, as I explained above, that economic performance varies wildly independent of the factor you cited.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Turtle's post seemed to be saying that the U.S. is in economic trouble because we've let the government interfere too much in the economy. I merely pointed out that, over the same period, countries that have greater government involvement in the economy have done relatively poorly or relatively well[

Which means absolutely nothing, and has nothing to do with what Turtle said referring to a specific economy, not any other. Sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp.

To your analogy, I'm sure someone could run a study to assess the correlation of smoking in bed with burning your house down.

Logic really isn't all that difficult. When talking a specific thing, and a specific answer, then all the studies in the world don't mean jack diddly regarding the cause of the specific thing being discussed. Is this really so difficult for you?

A drunk driver crashes his car. One doesn't need a study of drinking and driving to draw a conclusion about that SPECIFIC EVENT, nor to throw up a smokescreen of absolute nonsense about the condition of every other driver in the freakin' world (I mean, could it get more off subject?) unless they're just being purposefully dense like you're being.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Which means absolutely nothing, and has nothing to do with what Turtle said referring to a specific economy, not any other. Sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp.


Logic really isn't all that difficult. When talking a specific event, and a specific answer, then all the studies in the world don't change jack diddly to regarding the specific event. Is this really so difficult for you? A drunk driver crashes his car. One doesn't need a study of drinking and driving to draw a conclusion about that SPECIFIC EVENT, nor to throw up a smokescreen of absolute nonsense about the condition of every other driver in the freakin' world (I mean, could it get more off subject?) unless they're just being purposefully dense like you're being.

I think you're not quite grasping what I'm driving at. Turtle wasn't talking about a "specific event, and a specific answer." He referenced a general feature of the U.S. political economy. A more specific question would have been "Did regulation X cause negative economic effect Y," which would be a better analogy to your drunk driver crashes his car or man smoking in bed burns his house down situation. It would be more difficult to compare a specific regulation across countries, so your criticism in that case would be valid. When talking about a general feature that would probably be measured as an index, such as relative economic freedom, it's a perfectly common reaction to want to compare it across countries to explore the predictive power of that particular variable, as I did in my admittedly crude thought experiment. The point is to make sure there isn't some other variable that's more relevant, which could be impossible to tell just from looking at the U.S. These kinds of things are assessed in the social sciences all the time.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Europe does not pay proportionately for its continental security. That falls to the USA.

I love this lie. Americans waste ludicrous amounts of money on their military, then claim it is compensating for smaller European military budgets.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think you're not quite grasping what I'm driving at. Turtle wasn't talking about a "specific event, and a specific answer."

Can you read?

His very first line is a QUESTION about a SPECIFIC thing.

"What's the number one thing that causes our economy to suffer, no matter what party is at the helm ?"

Not "economies", he's talking about the US economy. He was very specific. He then goes on to list his answers. Again, very specific.

What about this is so hard for you to grasp?

If you disagree, then come up with an actual reason, not a bunch of nonsense speculation about every other economy in the world which doesn't have a damned thing to do with what he said, nor of course a damned thing to do with the performance of the US economy. Again, this isn't difficult, no matter how much you want to make it difficult.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I was phrasing it deliberately to provoke a reaction, of course. But the line of inquiry is sound, as I explained above. If you are blaming a particular feature of the U.S. political economy for poor national economic performance, it's valid to compare it with the political economy in other countries to see if you get a consistent result. It seems to me, as I explained above, that economic performance varies wildly independent of the factor you cited.

No, it's not, Your line of reasoning does not make sense.

E.g., The Constitution guarantees ownership of personal property and the legitimacy of private party contracts.

Both of these have been massively eroded over the last years. This has a DIRECT negative influence on our economy, because people and businesses start investing more and more overseas where the rule of law and personal property is not being eroded as much.

Therefore, the worsening of certain key conditions (in this case as described with the Constitution and loss thereof) has a direct effect.

I don't even know why the fark you would bring up other countries. They have similar laws, but not called Constitution. Comparing those is completely non-sensical in the scope of my comment.

-t

[Doofy]

The other question, of course, is why do economies need growth? I'll take stability over growth any day of the week.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Can you read?

We're arguing past each other now. I think I've explained my point clearly. I'm sorry I wasn't able to make you understand. You insist that turtle's original points were "specific" when in fact they were not (economic freedom in the general sense is something you can correlate to particular developments, but isn't something you can attribute cause and effect to). He has further clarified. Disagreement resolved. Hope you enjoyed it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, it's not, Your line of reasoning does not make sense.

Well see now you've clarified your remark with more clearly defined variables. My mission has been accomplished.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The other question, of course, is why do economies need growth? I'll take stability over growth any day of the week.

Assuming your population is growing, the economy will need to grow in order to be stable (ie without acute shortages) over the long term.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by placebo1969 

The Chinese food I eat is made in the USA.

I believe you're mistaken. In today's day and age and air mail, most American Chinese food is made in China and shipped to the US.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Well see now you've clarified your remark with more clearly defined variables. My mission has been accomplished.

Troll much ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The other question, of course, is why do economies need growth? I'll take stability over growth any day of the week.

Me too, but clearly many people are happy to continue to find inventive new ways to make butt loads of money that lead to this instability.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Troll much ?

-t

Do you ever have intellectual conversations outside of MacNN? The kind that don't lead to name-calling and rants by Crash in capital letters? I wouldn't consider this trolling in the real world. Rather, it's elucidating a line of argument for mutual clarification. If I had been trolling I wouldn't have been interested in your response.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Troll much ?

-t

Turtle, you have absolutely ZERO, nill, nada, ZILTCH idea what trolling is. Your and Crash's rude responses to SpaceMonkey were WAY more trolly than anything SpaceMonkey has said.

The fact is, you both have little restraint to act civilly. That is your shortcoming, SpaceMonkey was exceedingly patient and polite.

I'm glad to see that this thread has gone down the shitter once again thanks to this sort of rudeness. If you don't understand somebody, fine. If you don't agree with them, fine. There is absolutely NO need to get into the "can you read?" bullshit. When has this ever done anything but bring a thread down several notches?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Assuming your population is growing, the economy will need to grow in order to be stable (ie without acute shortages) over the long term.

The vast majority of western countries' birth rates aren't even at replacement level, which is why TPTB keep up the open door immigration policies.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

blablabla

Shuddup. This is not your concern.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Do you ever have intellectual conversations outside of MacNN? The kind that don't lead to name-calling and rants by Crash in capital letters? I wouldn't consider this trolling in the real world. Rather, it's elucidating a line of argument for mutual clarification. If I had been trolling I wouldn't have been interested in your response.

I tried to have a legitimate conversation, and explained in length why I think your assertion was wrong. What did I get in response ?

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

My mission has been accomplished.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but to me, this sounded like "Doesn't matter what you said, my mission is accomplished by making the original remarks, and then not engaging in the debate."

If I misunderstood what you meant, then I'm sorry.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I love this lie. Americans waste ludicrous amounts of money on their military, then claim it is compensating for smaller European military budgets.

What lie? The fact that European armed forces are a joke?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I love this lie. Americans waste ludicrous amounts of money on their military, then claim it is compensating for smaller European military budgets.

I would also say that Canada pays disproportionately less than their fair share of national defense. And their health care system still sucks.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Assuming your population is growing, the economy will need to grow in order to be stable (ie without acute shortages) over the long term.

This of course is very true. While you had mentioned China for example enjoying economic growth in spite of government interference and/or no Constitutional limitations to power, I wanted to clarify what China has done to enjoy this burgeoning economy.

Reform

• Economic reforms in the 80's led to participation in the world market and foreign trade.
• Massive rise in private sector corporations and related investment.
• Elimination of people's communes
• Legalization of private ownership in the agricultural sector
• Legalization of private ownership across multiple economic sectors allowing privately owned interests to compete directly against the State
• Reduction in Central government mandatory planning based on the assumption that market forces can more efficiently allocate resources.
• Elimination of government subsidies that hid expenditures
• Deregulation leading to a massive transformation toward individual empowerment and entrepreneurship.

This is just to name a few of the sweeping economic reforms China has initiated to keep up with growth. So... while it can be said that China grows its economy in spite of no government document outlining the limitations to power, limiting the power of government through deregulation and a liberalization of their economy granting more power to the individual, less to the State are the dominant reasons for their explosive growth in the last 10+ years.

In short, China realized that its government constraints were the problem. They are increasingly embracing a system much closer to our free market based, capitalist, Constitutional principles of limited government now than it had historically and is realizing massive gains. They have challenges to be sure, but these are global challenges.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This of course is very true. While you had mentioned China for example enjoying economic growth in spite of government interference and/or no Constitutional limitations to power, I wanted to clarify what China has done to enjoy this burgeoning economy.

Reform

• Economic reforms in the 80's led to participation in the world market and foreign trade.
• Massive rise in private sector corporations and related investment.
• Elimination of people's communes
• Legalization of private ownership in the agricultural sector
• Legalization of private ownership across multiple economic sectors allowing privately owned interests to compete directly against the State
• Reduction in Central government mandatory planning based on the assumption that market forces can more efficiently allocate resources.
• Elimination of government subsidies that hid expenditures
• Deregulation leading to a massive transformation toward individual empowerment and entrepreneurship.

This is just to name a few of the sweeping economic reforms China has initiated to keep up with growth. So... while it can be said that China grows its economy in spite of no government document outlining the limitations to power, limiting the power of government through deregulation and a liberalization of their economy granting more power to the individual, less to the State are the dominant reasons for their explosive growth in the last 10+ years.

In short, China realized that its government constraints were the problem. They are increasingly embracing a system much closer to our free market based, capitalist, Constitutional principles of limited government now than it had historically and is realizing massive gains. They have challenges to be sure, but these are global challenges.

And al things are relative: China has thus far not dealt with the concept of the Welfare state which it must if it is to avoid social unrest, which is a problem now but looms larger in future. Example: Germany has about the same export ratio as China but supports a welfare state which eats up one third of it's gross domestic product which results in an average growth rate of 1.5 percent over the last decade. Lesson: China's growth will not be linear.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

And al things are relative: China has thus far not dealt with the concept of the Welfare state which it must if it is to avoid social unrest, which is a problem now but looms larger in future. Example: Germany has about the same export ratio as China but supports a welfare state which eats up one third of it's gross domestic product which results in an average growth rate of 1.5 percent over the last decade. Lesson: China's growth will not be linear.

True. If there's one thing we know as Americans, it's why a bubble is called a bubble. To your point, we have to allow failure.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I would also say that Canada pays disproportionately less than their fair share of national defense. And their health care system still sucks.

See Turtle, just for your edification, *this* is trolling.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You insist that turtle's original points were "specific" when in fact they were not

With further proves my point about your reading comprehension being pathetic, because he could hardly get more specific, and of course, you actually know this.

You went for the snarky one-liner 'gotcha' style nonsense, rather than an actual debate, got called on it, and then feigned outrage. We've seen it all before. It gets old.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

See Turtle, just for your edification, *this* is trolling.

No. Exposing a misconception is not trolling, and yes quoting anything from from the glass half empty
Krugman is!