51–60 of 1001 posts
Simple answer. The US don’t fear high debts like for instance Germany does.
Make no mistake, the US is a fantastic business. It makes a lot of money, and some people get fantastically rich while others toil for life and hover at the poverty line. With a vastly higher percentage of its citizens in jail than any other developed country, much higher crime and violence than developed countries and many other very bad indicators it is, however, not a good country. It does not provide for or look…
There's 365 million Americans vs. Europeans countries none have more then about 85 million.
This has been the case for decades now. The US economy is much more dynamic than Europe's and the US government is actually more willing to intervene (and can afford it because of US dollar). In Europe it is austerity and general less support for economy-boosting policies.
So the US economy is built on debt
Edit:
Average government debt-to-GDP ratio in the EU was around 60% from 2000 to 2008. It is 88% now and worse in many major countries. No lie here...
This has been the case for decades now. The US economy is much more dynamic than Europe's and the US government is actually more willing to intervene (and can afford it because of US dollar). In Europe it is austerity and general less support for economy-boosting policies.
So the US economy is built on debt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU is number one in quality of life and that’s all that matters to me. If we work just hard enough to maintain and maybe even improve it, other countries can do their pissing contest.
Quality of life costs money, and if we're not competitive, sooner or later that money will run out.
This is not some pearl clutching moralistic argument, but a practical observation based on:
- Transfer of ownership is not necessarily possible. You can't buy a technologically sensitive company because of regulations. Even if you can buy a foreign firm, transferring the talent, operational base etc. might not be possible. A CEO can't sell off his share of stocks even if they're worth billions because the loss of investor confidence.
- Physical limitations on quantities of goods. There is a finite supply of real estate. If everybody in the world wanted a new car suddenly (and had money for it), car prices would go through the roof, and only a small fraction would actually get it.
Imo capitalism is not flawed in the way that it is incapable of handling these situations, but it is very flawed in that money is an increasingly poor proxy for the abstract concept of value.
This flawed nature of capitalism has been long since endemic (and dare I say integral) to the system, much more value has existed on paper than in reality (see banks), but I think there might be a breaking point at which the system might collapse and hyperinflation would set in.
That's an excellent summary of the economic state of the world. This excerpt is depressing... The challenge for other advanced economies is not just replicating America’s dynamism. It is to do so while retaining their cherished social safeguards. For all its economic power, the US has the largest income inequality in the G7, coupled with the lowest life expectancy and the highest housing costs, according to the OECD.…
> endure unstable employment conditions It's also correspondingly easier to get another job. In Europe, making it hard to fire people means it becomes equivalently harder to get a job in the first place.
The US is a great place to make a lot of money if you're lucky and successful, but a terrible place to retire.
Terrible place to be poor more like. Being poor is not enviable in any country, but you're better supported in some countries compared to others. Obviously this comes at a cost for the economy as a whole. At some point you need to think about what kind of society you want to live in.
It's really expensive to support homeless population since they use up critical important resources such as emergency care, compared to just giving them a home. They may recover faster and become a productive member of society again.
For sure, it costs real dollars in a national budget, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing for the economy.
I'm never able to get to the "so what?" with these. Productivity growth sounds nice, but then it mentions that there's more inequality, higher cost of living, and more workers struggle in the US than other developed countries. How do I reconcile this? They make a point that eventually the other countries' economies would shrink and won't be able to afford those benefits, but also the US doesn't have those benefits ev…
> How do I reconcile this? I'm curious why you care that some people have more money than you do? If you want mo' moolah: 1. upgrade your job skills 2. minimize spending (like get a roommate, eschew restaurant food, buy a used car) 3. invest the money you save If you really want to make big money: 1. start your own business
What I'm asking is more, what conclusion should I take from the article?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU is number one in quality of life and that’s all that matters to me. If we work just hard enough to maintain and maybe even improve it, other countries can do their pissing contest.
Life in the EU is amazing for me, and probably for you too, as well as many others enjoying it here. However, we can't overlook the struggles of those who are turning to radical populist parties.
Make no mistake, the US is a fantastic business. It makes a lot of money, and some people get fantastically rich while others toil for life and hover at the poverty line. With a vastly higher percentage of its citizens in jail than any other developed country, much higher crime and violence than developed countries and many other very bad indicators it is, however, not a good country. It does not provide for or look…
> It does not provide for or look after its citizens in the ways other developed countries do It's worth asking why. > NATO nations have cut back on troops and military hardware since the Cold War. But Europe has cut far deeper than the US. Defense budgets have become a pot that could be raided to fund more pressing priorities, such as treating and caring for aging populations. As a result, much of Europe’s military…
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/article/307805...
(This only covers the running costs; even an unfair assumption that the US would need less F-35s and troops if they weren't deployed in Europe, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the $916 billion yearly budget).