Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your subjective definition of fair?
Whoever wants to redistribute wealth would have to decide that.
[deleted]
Do not mistake a resilient global economy for populist success
161–170 of 297 posts
Re: Do not mistake a resilient global economy for populist success
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s not perfect but probably the best we have. People forgot or simply don’t realize how much worse life was just a couple of decades ago (in terms of nutrition, access to knowledge, clean water, material wealth).
It's utter trash, it was good when we had industry focused economies instead of service focused ones. Everybody mocked Russia for having the same gdp as Spain. As it turns out your economy is much stronger when it's focused on heavy industries, steel, mining, oil, &c. Than when it is focused on tourism and other services One produces value, the other generates money, when shits hit the fan you need energy, the drunk…
Depends if you look at Spain in isolation.
On its own? Sure. (Although to be fair to Spain, they've invested heavily in solar and high-value agriculture in recent years).
But seen as part of a system with Germany and perhaps the UK (no longer part of the EU, but was better for both when they were), it's a valuable part of quality-of-life in the overall economic bloc.
Where would you rather live? Spain, easy.
Who would win in a war? Russia, easy.
Some will read this as an argument against the Spanish lifestyle. On balance I prefer to read it as an argument against war.
Re: Do not mistake a resilient global economy for populist success
#163Re: Do not mistake a resilient global economy for populist success
#164Do not mistake economic indicators such as GDP or "growth" for meaningful measures of economic health.
I think it’s not perfect but probably the best we have. People forgot or simply don’t realize how much worse life was just a couple of decades ago (in terms of nutrition, access to knowledge, clean water, material wealth).
People forgot or simply don't realize how much better life was just 3-4 decades ago (in terms of nutrition, access to knowledge, clean water, material wealth, housing costs, tuition costs, healthcare costs, jobs).
In advanced western countries that is. If you compare Nigeria from 2000 to Nigeria today, sure, maybe...
Re: Do not mistake a resilient global economy for populist success
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s not perfect but probably the best we have. People forgot or simply don’t realize how much worse life was just a couple of decades ago (in terms of nutrition, access to knowledge, clean water, material wealth).
All of those except for access to knowledge were better in the U.S. 20-30 years ago even though GDP per capita "grew" even in real terms.
If you take access to knowledge to mean post-secondary tuition, it was also much better 30 years ago
Re: Do not mistake a resilient global economy for populist success
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the best that has been used by a society that didn't later collapse though.
That's hardly a relevant response considering no society have used any of the ones I am speaking about in the way that you mean. The OECD, UN, IMF and others use many of them as secondary metrics though.
I just find the "what have the romans ever done for us?" argument to be scary. It leads very quickly and easily to struggle sessions and the terror.
I'm all for trying things for sure, but it has to be done in very small scale and over significant time scales.
Re: Do not mistake a resilient global economy for populist success
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
>People wonder where all the money is going and there's no particularly good answer. The answer is welfare. That is the original sin of all of this, and the one people refuse to acknowledge. You need to let people fail.
In the UK at least the biggest portion of welfare goes to the state pension. It’s hard to deal with that when people have been paying into the system for their whole working lives on the promise that they will be looked after in old age. It’s hard to see how you can fix this whilst pensioners continue to vote whilst young people don’t.
>It’s hard to deal with that when people have been paying into the system for their whole working lives on the promise that they will be looked after in old age.
They weren't paying "into the system". They were being taxed.
Treat it for what it was, and stop feeding the pyramid scheme.
Re: Do not mistake a resilient global economy for populist success
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a good question. So, 2008 was a major problem and financial institutions brought that on themselves. But that's - fortunately, even though there were significant knock on effects - limited to one very important slice of the market, not unlike say when Enron went bust or when the .com bust happened. The rest of the free market is what pulled us out of those things. Free markets are on balance a good thing, assu…
So you are arguing for a regulated market, not a free one. Heavy anti-trust legislation and enforcement is needed for a healthy economy. This might lower the year-over-year stock raise but at least keeps the negative excesses somewhat in check (monopolization, power concentration, rent-seeking).
All markets are to some degree regulated.
Saying that these are then not free markets is a fairly hardcore libertarian viewpoint, which tries to make it a 'black and white' issue, whereas in reality things are often more nuanced.
Re: Do not mistake a resilient global economy for populist success
#169Re: Do not mistake a resilient global economy for populist success
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
That logic is flawed. The end value and ROI for S&P500 is the same regardless of the currency used to display it. It's the same as complaining that the temperature increased more in Fahrenheit than in Celsius. EDIT: The total value is the same regardless of the fluctuations of currencies used to represent the value. Those are two independent issues. Currencies fluctuate even if you keep them in checking accounts with…
The logic isn't flawed. If you are a European investor, then you care about the returns in your currency, and the fact is your pile of money only grew by 4%. Inversely, as a US investor, if you invested 100€ in the eurostoxx 50, your pile of money would have grown to about $140 (20% index growth, 15% dollar debasement). It absolutely makes a difference, that's $20 more in your pocket compared to the index. Your compa…
It is flawed because it's conflating two different independent variables. It's also looking for a specific weak point where there is none, more as if it is trying to state a narrative.
If you want to talk about EURUSD then just state it.