Re: If trade has been so bad for people, Then why such growth since 1993?
quote: [NoNukes] Some possible ways that this presentation might fall short of making your case:
Average income does not actually tell us how the bulk of folks are doing. How about some other measures of central tendency such as the median, or a number for what the middle class income averages. We know that globalization has produces increases in wealth. What is questioned is who and how many folks have benefited.
Your inflation numbers as cited don't provide us with any meaningful way to compare current income to 1990s income, because you only provide current inflation while comparing todays income to income from over twenty years prior.
This is median income levels. Not average. And the incomes have increased about twice the inflation level. From 1980 to 1993, there was no income increase when adjusted for inflation.
Back to post 1993.
Free trade and large immigration increases (including all the 11-12 million "illegals" during this time because 1986-1987 was the slate wiping amnesty for the then 3 million "illegals")helped IMO, but facts show that it sure didn't hurt.
There are internal factors that need addressed for sure.
But don't claim that free trade and immigration hurt us.
South Korea had an income of $1000 per person in 1980. By 2014 it was over $27,400. China went from around $1000 per year income to over $7,400 by 2014 and now over $8000 per year.
They purchase our ever mounting debt and keep interest rates (much) lower, which enables more government spending which helps the economy. Interest rates were 21% in 1980 and 16% a few years later. Now they are around 2%.
But, back to internal factors in nations with grumpy populations.
Take England. Here is an issue that needs addressing.
quote: [Lamark New Age] "The immigrants have the highest incomes. Look at the average Indian American income." [NoNukes] I have no idea what this is supposed to prove.
It proves that open borders (not that we have anything near it, as Indians have to wait forever to get here if they do it the "legal" way and it hurts our growth badly) sure are superior to places with choking borders. Look at the legacy of the division of Germany. West Germans still make over 50% more than East Germans. Look at Mississippi and Alabama and how they are still suffering from their legacy of internal borders.
The 19.2 million (as of May 2013, but surely over 20 million now) Asian Americans make over $70,000 per year (more like $80,000 now) compared to $51,000 for the average American (in May 2013).
Indian Americans (all 3.6 million) crossed $100,000 per year. A milestone.
Europe has put up borders this year between the 28 EU states, and it has retarded growth with long, choking, border crossings.
The world put up unprecedented borders (like the crushing ones imposed on the Middle East after the 1921 Paris conference) this past century, and it was matched by anti-free trade and anti-immigration policies starting around the same time. Immigration was halted from 1924-1965 in the USA.
We got a depression.
I suppose we might see something like this again. The British could present us with a dramatic example. But we are retarding growth regardless of a dramatic example for all to see or not.
The average world income in U.S. dollars was about $3000 per person in 1993. It is now at about $12,000. China has a GDP that is 20 times higher than 25 years ago. China is spending about $200 billion per year on research, and we have the world growth to thank for it. China set a 5 year goal of increasing research from 1.8% of its economy from 2012 up to 2.2% by 2017. We were able to double the NIH yearly funding (from the governments end, donations are the larger part of the total yearly budget) from about $15 billion up to $30 billion from 1996 to 2003. The 7 year plan (passed by a penny pinching congress in 1996) was very long over due, and the budget has been flat since 2003 (thank you retarded congressmen), but whatever (still)inadequate increases we got 2 decades ago were still a big help for us all (since we all get cancer, bacterial infection, heart disease, brain disease, etc.) and the direct result of growth. Growth that came in a world that was starting to trade with itself. The trade deal with Mexico (and Canada) was the first ever between a "first-world" and developing nation.
These issues are all connected.
We are all connected.
India saw it life expectancy rise from 46 years in 1976 up to 76 in 2007. They benefited from our advances and we benefit from their doctors and engineers. (we benefit from Indian immigrants period, regardless of whether they come here skilled or poor)
The economics are the same when we look at immigration and free trade and compare it to the EU situation.
First, look at the growth of South Korea. In 1980, the average per person income was $1,700 per year. Now it is about $28,000 per year. With double the population, we have a GDP that is about 30 times larger. China has a GDP that is like 50 times larger than 1980. It is tru that US dollar inflation has been like 200% (mostly during the 1980s) since 1980.
Right now, the 44 million people in South Korea make on average $28,000 per year. The 24 million in North Korea make just a few hundred a year. The 130 million in Japan make around $34,000 (I'm going by memory on the Japan numbers, but they can be checked).
There isn't any evidence that unification does anything but help immensely. In the United States, we expanded states into the union since World War 2 and nothing bad came of it. We technologically advanced during the 1950s (the large military budget led to the laser being invented and 1/3 of all economic growth since came from it) and our Martial Plan reaped worldwide economic benefits which combined with the fruits of scientific discoveries for an economic explosion.
It helped enormously that regulation on business and industry was super weak, though down-the-road health and environmental consequences (like rivers catching on fire in the 1970s) made the short term benefits seem like quite a trade-off. Regulation has made things much tougher.
Many difficult things are necessary but have made jobs harder to create (like regulations).
Just don't blame free trade, immigration, and unification. The source of our post 1990 growth has been blamed for problems coming from other factors.
Earlier, I said that the $57,000 per year national average was median.
My mistake was that the $57,000 (in 2016) was household median, not an individual.
The median U.S. household income was $51,000,in May 2013, while Asians were at about $73,000 and the 3.6 million (in May 2013) Indian American household median was over $100,000.
GDP represents wealth created and the growth has been impressive. I am saying that we shouldn't destroy the things that create wealth (immigration, trade, unification). The biggest problem is that Americans are super ignorant about what has created such robust growth since 1990.
Lets identify the problems - correctly.
Was unification bad for West Germans?
Was the civil war (and further American expansion) bad for growth?
Is unification bad for South Koreans income?
Is the 25% larger growth for the U.K. , than would have been the case if the E.U. (precursor) wasn't joined in the 70s, bad?
The 25% larger growth for Denmark, had not the Danish nation joined the E.U. in the 70s, bad?
The 50% larger growth for Ireland. Good? Bad?
The tip of the iceberg is the proven benefits we have gotten for the (so far only) small amount of immigration, free trade, and unification we have won through hard fought progressive policy making over the past decades.
Poverty went down from 66% to 24% since around 1995.
India went down from 66% (or 80% as I forget exactly) in the late 1990s to around 25% to 30% today. The average income was something like $1600 for 2015 and all signs point toward strong growth in 2016 (and beyond). The average was about $300 in 1997. Credible estimates say that the average would need to be $6000 per person on average for poverty to end.
China has seen poverty go so low that it is in the high single digits at most.
You think South Koreans haven't seen benefits?
Lets get real. The world has enough wealth that the average income per person is now $12,000 per year and that is with all sorts of ruinous borders and bottlenecks slowing growth and prolonging pain. End all borders today and see average incomes double in a few years. We could have a worldwide constitutional right to quality healthcare implemented with the wealth that exists right now, never mind what wealth would be at without all the horrible torturous borders.
The last paragraph could not be true if it was anytime in the last century, even the 1990s. Granted, we could theoretically end borders at any time, and see explosive growth AT ANY TIME this century or last.
2016 is the most wealthy the world has ever been.
And it's because of progressive implementations like the European Union.
Why go backward?
Lives and human progress - on all fronts - are at stake.
quote: [PaukK] You do realise that GDP is NOT personal income
I found out that India is getting awfully close to having an average income of $6000 per person when it comes to purchasing power (not the same as the $6000 U.S. in actual currency which was the poverty ending benchmark I mentioned earlier), which is impressive because it was only $1600 when that underground nuclear test was conducted in the late 1990s.
quote: With a population of over one billion, it’s no surprise that India is a power player in the world’s top economies. In terms of purchasing power parity, India ranks in at third place with a GDP of 7.28 trillion. However, the large population of the country drags its GDP per capita down to $5,778.
I suppose India is passing $6000 PPP for 2016 as we speak here in June.
But it is only about $1500 to $1600 in U.S. dollars for 2015.
India is perhaps the most important nation in the world. About 18% of the world's population (and it would be over 20% had the British not chopped it up in the first half of the last century) and it is a nation that once had 25% to 33% of the worlds wealth until the British arrived in 1750 and brought it down to 2% by 1947. It fell below 1.5% by the late 1990s.
Now the real U.S. dollar GNP of India is over 2.5% of the worlds wealth. Just under $2 trillion in U.S. dollar value (the $7 trillion is using purchasing power adjustments and is a bad way to measure wealth though on an individual level it is very useful for purchasing power indicators).
India wouldn't have this kind of growth if it was chopped up like Africa or the Middle East. It is chopped up but nothing like those places. The British are mostly to blame.
Nice if the older Brits would own up to the continued mess of the world they caused. Shouldn't be a shock that the over 65 crowd in the U.K. are 75% opposed to staying while those under 65 strongly favor staying, especially those under 50.
She claims to be the "defender of the [Christian] faith" so the New Testament would demand staying in as nationalism is very much opposed by James and Paul (and James' views would suggest that Jesus was anti-nationalist too though the actual quoted comments of Jesus would require interpretation to determine if he actually felt Canaanites were lower peoples or if he was just using colorful speech to make a larger point toward moving away from nationalism).
The head of the Anglican church had the audacity to claim that there is no position the Bible takes on the issue. I would classify that as a lie. The Old Testament is nationalistic and the New testament is anti-nationalist (starting with Acts and then after).
Remember the main issue driving "Leave" or Brexit.
It is mostly native British people thinking that poorer immigrants are making them poorer. Such as the Polish immigrants.
But academic studies show that the solidly "rich" South Korean nation of 44 million people would actually see a rise in incomes (especially by 2050 if unification happened soon) if the ultra-poor North Korean population of 24 million unified with the south.
North Korea is about the most poor nation in the world if you convert their incomes to U.S. currency.
Similarly, the Brits will gain (IMO) from the Polish gains in income (which Brits feel is on their backs), which are happening rapidly. The Brits have already gained from the EU, really.
This is a case of not understanding the massive payback that comes when you help to develop the underdeveloped nations. More massive than people imagine, and not enough "native" people (Brits, Americans, or otherwise) seem to see development (especially when it comes from immigrants traveling to a natives country to make a higher income - which gets sent back to the immigrants home in part) as a priority that is fundamental to their own (eventual if not immediate) growth.
Re: Remember the main issue driving "Leave" or Brexit.
quote: The fundamental issue for those that are voting to leave is that they feel that the UK is a small overpopulated island that can't accept immigration at the rate it's happening. It's schools, hospitals, housing, roads and infrastructure can't support it.
To be honest, existing towns do have a hard time adjusting to large population increases. I think towns need to be built from scratch - in what are presently essentially population-free areas - but only China seems to have the political will to make this sort of thing a reality. Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, said that it would be more efficient to tear down every structure in Manhattan AT THE SAME TIME instead of demolishing one building at a time and rebuilding in just one spot. We need building that are much much deeper, longer, taller. I have heard that Chinese planners have proposed 1 square mile buildings that could hold 1 million people. The design would make for efficient travel and transportation infrastructure as well. China already built a duplicate of Manhattan from scratch. They had an empty island that was shaped like the New York stretch that is Manhattan. The U.K. can handle large population increases, but it takes good central planning. Perhaps that is unlikely since "devolution" has caught on, so a "race to the bottom" might be on in the U.K. as is so fashionable in the U.S.A. I hope the same sort of myopia prevalent in this country doesn't infect the British as they need to tackle many fronts like we all do.
quote: Inside that is a dislike of how the UK is no longer, they say, British.
Immigrants don't have voting powers anywhere near the native population. In the U.S.A, it is grumpy old farts that do the vast majority of the voting. Aside from a few brave, bright, productive souls like Bill Gates one will be hard pressed to find anyone with the thoughtfulness to speak uncomfortable truths about the benefits of immigration, trade, and especially unification. Unification and its benefits is a taboo subject. You only hear the downsides, and the sad thing is that it isn't just from the demagogues. I almost think we need a temporary constitutional amendment that requires a (say) 20 year temporary constitutional requirement for the media to be fair and cover the issues from an anti-nationalist perspective for once. Have a "fairness doctrine" that requires the benefits of ending borders to be presented and at least put on the map as an issue. It is a huge problem in the U.S.A. anyway.
quote: They're quite happy to play off unverifyable, esoteric and indirect long-term economic benefits against those more obvious and direct disbenefits that they actually see and feel right now.
There are academic studies that show what will happen IF YOU DO SOMETHING, but there are also real world examples of what has happened already.
Look at Germany for example.
Would Germany have been better off had it never had the split?
What about Korea?
Was the split helpful or hurtful to world economic growth?
The sanctions on Iran, that Obama put on, have caused the nation to have a per capita GDP that is only $5,500 per year instead of $6,500, based on all credible studies.
We can tell what helps and what hurts. And we can't be so stupid as to think that a poorer world helps the richest nations. Let's not be ridiculous.
quote: Tomorrow we vote for something that can't be undone in a generation if ever. It's a big, big thing that will directly affect the lives of my children and theirs.
Time for predictions. What will happen on Friday morning if we vote out?
I predict a sterling and stock market crash.
The older farts pass away in large numbers every day and the younger ones aren't so myopic and destructive. The young folks in every E.U country (France, Greece, and yes the U.K.) are like 80 to 20 in favor of the relatively anti-nationalistic European Union.
Only the old fools want out.
If the awful happens (the "leave" side wins), then we can rest assured that it will be by a razor thing margin. Make the case that it was an older rotting generation that made this disastrous decision. Just keep hitting the point that this catastrophe can and will be overturned as the nationalists shrink in numbers each and every passing day, while a brighter young generation replaces it with anti-nationalistic thought and feelings.
Lets assume that the Brexit side wins. Just for now.
Demand that a new vote be held each and every year. Just because ignorance won the day - and by a razor thin margin - doesn't mean that this cheap victory should shackle the younger ones who want a better world. The world belongs to the younger generations.
Overturn this disastrous vote that was simply a temporary bump brought about by ignorance that was momentarily filled by loud demagoguery.
Otherwise the world will be in a much reduced state of growth, prosperity, peace, freedom, hope, etc.
Then again, lets assume that the vote is to stay. Be grateful that economic growth, as opposed to depression, can continue.
I have been looking at 1993 because a lot happened during that time and after that was unprecedented (in trade especially, but also to a fair extent in immigration) in the past 100 years (from around World War 1 to 2016). We stopped our enormous immigration here in the USA in 1924. We put up trade barriers. We chopped up the world into hundreds of pieces/nations. We went broke as a result.
But lets look at Japan, in 1993, as it is an interesting example of a nation that has BOTH sort of stopped having children (relative to all known examples in the past and also relative to the rest of the world at present) and ALSO been quite against bringing in immigrants. It was an advanced country that was #2 in the world as far as economic size and it also had a growing per capita income that far exceeded the USA.
In 1993 the average Japanese per person income was $35,389. The average age of a Japanese person was about 30. Now it is over 45 (I think). It has aged. And the country has avoided allowing in many immigrants.
The per person income, in Japan, should be much larger, than 1993, according to the U.K. Independent party and the Neo Nazi parties of Europe (and elsewhere).
In 2015, it seems to have been just $32,485, if this below linked site is correct.
And studies show that South Korea will have a higher per person income than Japan not too long after taking in 24 million of the poorest people in the world (coming from a unification with North Korea).
I can't really blame the media for ignoring these real world examples, because the U.K. media is much better than the U.S. media at covering issues from all sides. I can't blame the U.K. media that is. The American media sucks.
Younger British voters better get motivated to defend these hard won gains in prosperity because the old fools are highly motivated to vote to throw away the progress (at a bare minimum future growth will be retarded severely).
Pay attention to the exit polls, because the younger Brits are fundamentally pro-E.U. because they know it is one of the greatest forces for growth the world has ever seen. Real growth that isn't a mirage based on fluke circumstances and temporary economic climates. The E.U. is fundamentally pro growth when compared all the alternatives the British are considering. And the Brexit is the most awful option around. Though an even more awful option would be to stay in the E.U. with an amendment to change the E.U. constitution to annul the right to free travel across borders. That option has been watered down, but concessions have been made. Hopefully the concessions will expire and rot eventually. We, earthlings, need to return to the pre 2015/2016 concessions.
But voting against the "Leave" option is a monumentally important step top take TODAY. (or tomorrow as it is June 22 here in Omaha, Nebraska)
This is a vote for all mankind. The astronauts, when landing on the moon, mentioned that the man-made borders weren't visible from space.
Everybody's future is at stake.
There is a right vote and there is a wrong vote. There is an economically correct vote and an economically incorrect vote. There is a moral vote and an immoral option.
It is immoral to vote for Brexit. (or to not vote at all)
There are rights and there are wrongs in this world we all share.
Re: Watch a 20% shrinkage in the British economy if "leave" wins.
George Soros is an expert on currency (he is famous for making $1 billion in just a day for speculation on the British pound in 1992)
Here what he has to say.
quote: June 20, 2016 — 6:09 PM CDT
Updated on June 21, 2016 — 4:53 AM CDT The pound held its biggest two-day advance against the dollar in more than seven years as investors bet that momentum in the countdown to Thursday’s referendum was swinging in favor of “Remain.” Soros, who made $1 billion betting on a devaluation of the pound in 1992, warned that the possibility of the U.K. leaving the EU is still a real risk that could cut the currency’s value by a fifth.
“I want people to know what the consequences of leaving the EU would be before they cast their votes, rather than after,” Soros wrote in the Guardian newspaper. “It is reasonable to assume, given the expectations implied by the market pricing at present, that after a Brexit vote the pound would fall by at least 15 percent and possibly more than 20 percent.”
quote: Brexit: U.K. Votes in EU Referendum—Live Coverage
Last Updated Jun 23, 2016 at 2:24 pm ET
Live coverage and analysis on the U.K.'s referendum on membership of the European Union.
Top Issues by UK Local Authority
Google Trends has created a map that visualizes which EU referendum-related topics Britons have searched for in recent weeks.
Breaking down the U.K.'s top Google searches by region gives an interesting indication of what matters most to voters: immigration.
When that theme was taken up by the "Leave" campaign in recent weeks, it delivered a fillip in the polls. By contrast, trade and the economy, both central issues to the "Remain" argument, seemed to have less traction, according to google.
Not in 2016, when a bunch of grumpy old farts throw a fit because their fantasies of a pure Anglo-Saxon world are dashed by immigration. Immigration. The horrors.
Lets see the results.
Japan has seen a flat population since 1993, and actual drops in population since 2007. They now have such robust growth that their debt is at nearly 250% of GDP. It was under 100% 25 years ago. The only thing saving Japan from default is that their population seems to see it as a patriotic responsibility to buy debt, which keeps interest rates very low. Amazing, yes. But even more amazing is that the debt still is unreal and growing (it is almost interest free debt, yet deficits are still super high. I think it is called a "core deficit" when the deficit isn't interest rate driven) . No default though , yet. But over 240% of GDP debt. Loyal population not good enough it seems. Now they have a big quantitative easing scheme going, to keep rates low.
See what happens when you want a pure homogenous population?
Back to the U.K. and their June 23 national temper tantrum among the old fools (that all will nevertheless have to suffer from)
I understand the pound has dropped 10% already.
The debt just got a lot harder to pay.
Time to raise interest rates to attract suckers I mean investors.
Even harder to pay debt now.
What happens when the GDP shrinks?
Debt to GDP ratio going the way of Japan?
But Japan has rich, loyal, natives who purchase debt at super-low rates.
Will the U.K. have such loyalty from the same aging old fools that made the world a much poorer place by splitting it into hundred of pieces (nation-states) this past century? Something of a temper tantrum once the British couldn't lie, cheat, steal the entire world's wealth for themselves. Just shatter what they can't steal and leave a mess that will hurt the world for centuries.
The average U.K. income was about $18,000 per year in 1993 and much of that low amount came from the benefits of the E.U. and immigration. The old fools failed to stop the progress to that day, and until yesterday, failed to stop the enormous progress since then.
They will hold the nation up?
We could see a chain reaction of slow growth and high deficits followed by raised interest rates and/or inflation, then defaults. Not just in the U.K. but in the entire world.