Support NeoGAF

[Dai Kaiju]

WWII and all aside, I think our military spending has a lot to do with it. The current presidential administration is very naive if it thinks diverting that money towards health care is going to be good for this country. It's like if the UFC champion was a striker and then decided in his next bout he'd fight as a grappler instead. He'd get creamed.

Spoiler

Also, I don't care if that's the worst analogy you've ever heard, so HAH!

 

[Gallbaro]

Yep. The post-war boom in the United States correlates strongly with the growth in unionism during the same period. Strong labor protections lead to a durable middle class which leads to shared prosperity.

Shared Prosperity and Economic Prosperity are two very different things.
A very large middle class does not lead to the most efficient forms of growth.

Spoiler

not saying I like this fact, it really sucks.

And I will argue that on the macro scale, that the unionization and growth of the 50s was essentially a generational theft of true economic growth, a violation of steady returns. Hence why we have stagnated for the past few decades.

 

[grumble]

The US is an economic superpower because it has a shitload of people sitting on resource-rich land, and has been relatively undamaged in recent history (world wars, etc). Hence it has more resources than any other country. There are other factors, like the USD being the world's reserve currency, etc, but generally it's just geography and population. On an individual level, americans aren't 'so much more successful than other countries'.

That doesn't mean things will stay that way. The US is in a death spiral right now where it is giving away wealth-generating resources (training, infrastructure, manufacturing centers) and receiving nothing in return (televisions, toys, disposable consumer goods which do not generate wealth). The US is going broke in a consumer orgy of trade deficits. In thirty years the US will still be a big deal (population and geography), but if you think that you'll be as 'successful' as you have been in the past you'll get a reality check.

This sucks for my country too, as we make a lot of money selling things and making things for americans to use. Resources, manufacturing, etc. We're linked to the US economy, and since it's fucked for the foreseeable future, my country will follow.

I think that the US media does a disservice to americans by encouraging a somewhat warped view of the world.

 

[Peru]

It doesn't actually top any lists on living standards.

 

[Thomper]

This thread strongly reminds me of the Colbert/Hannity-thing from a few years back -

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...74546/june-19-2008/sean-hannity-loves-america

 

[grumble]

WWII and all aside, I think our military spending has a lot to do with it. The current presidential administration is very naive if it thinks diverting that money towards health care is going to be good for this country. It's like if the UFC champion was a striker and then decided in his next bout he'd fight as a grappler instead. He'd get creamed.

Spoiler

Also, I don't care if that's the worst analogy you've ever heard, so HAH!

Healthcare reform will be good for the US, because it might help americans get heathcare costs under control. 17% of US GDP is spent on healthcare, 53% more per capita than the next most wasteful country (Switzerland), but the US healthcare system is 37th in the world as of 2000 WHO rankings (to put it in context, that's after croatia and dominica and before slovenia). Healthcare could actually be better on average and cost way, way less. That allows more of that money to be used to fund domestic production and wealth-generating capacity and slow down the decline of the american economy.

 

[Dude Abides]

Shared Prosperity and Economic Prosperity are two very different things.
A very large middle class does not lead to the most efficient forms of growth.

Spoiler

not saying I like this fact, it really sucks.

And I will argue that on the macro scale, that the unionization and growth of the 50s was essentially a generational theft of true economic growth, I violation of steady returns. Hence why we have stagnated for the past few decades.

What do you mean by "most efficient forms of growth?" GDP growth has not stagnated in the past few decades, real wages have, due (in part) to weakened labor protections. We went from a picket fence economy to one where vast amounts of wealth are concentrated at the top while middle and lower class wages stay constant. But people want to continue to consume as if their wages were increasing, so they borrow. And people with all that wealth want to invest it somewhere, so the market supplies ever more exotic and risky financial instruments. And here we are.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Huh? I was pointing out that comparing countries smaller than New York City to a super power probably isn't the best economic analysis.

Yes it it. Infact, GDP was developed precisely to compare countries economies with each other. It has its drawbacks and it's not perfect but it's the best way. GDP per capita correlates with a better standard of living which I think is important if your going to claim to be a successful country.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Now, you fancy Americans do votes with absolute numbers instead of electors and you are good.

 

[zoukka]

I personally think it's silly, but it's a common meme among every group of people I've met to say something like "only stupid yankees would do it" and so on.

I'm pretty sure Michael Moore has dented the image of USA more than any one man ever. Or George Bush.

 

[Gallbaro]

What do you mean by "most efficient forms of growth?" GDP growth has not stagnated in the past few decades, real wages have, due (in part) to weakened labor protections. We went from a picket fence economy to one where vast amounts of wealth are concentrated at the top while middle and lower class wages stay constant. But people want to continue to consume as if their wages were increasing, so they borrow. And people with all that wealth want to invest it somewhere, so the market supplies ever more exotic and risky financial instruments. And here we are.

That is a hell of a connection if I have ever seen one.

I was referring to the absolute rape of our current account by labor. Which heavily outpaced the technological GDP growth we are able to sustain. If labor rights had not drastically increased due to prior generations we would be in a much more economically healthy nation.

And the financial instruments you speak of where a complete supply side, not demand side innovation, based upon capital flows due to balance of trade, which I can easily link to being a result of increased labor rights.

 

[fhj]

I think the origin of the people in the US is an important part of the equation. Immigrants such as religious people chased off because of their beliefs, fortuneseekers and people that either had to or were not afraid to take chances created a genetic and social heritage that has been very beneficial.

But seriously the whole "Amuuurhca f**k yeah" attitude is just ignorant towards what is going on elsewhere in the world.

I can not remember seeing any form of statistics where USA scores highest except as a military power. But please do enlighten me.

 

[Dennis]

:lol This has to be trolling.

No, OP is just really insecure about being an american for some strange reason - we see this in other threads where OP posts. Peculiar.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

US had a "good" start:

-Free labor for long ass time
-basically got Free land(poor natives)
-*Free land full of natural resources
-No big cross-border threat for years since 1776, while Euros could'nt run out of excuses to fight each other.

and a good finish:
- Rise of USSR & Communism, WW1, WW2, Arab-Israel war, Chinese Revo, ect ...held everybody back except for the US of A.

 

[Dragon]

Yes it it. Infact, GDP was developed precisely to compare countries economies with each other. It has its drawbacks and it's not perfect but it's the best way. GDP per capita correlates with a better standard of living which I think is important if your going to claim to be a successful country.

Who's claiming anything? No one even defined what 'successful' means in terms of the OP. So all of you stop talking out of your butts.

 

[Dude Abides]

I was referring to the absolute rape of our current account by labor.

What does this mean? Please be more specific. What is "our current account" and how did labor "absolute[ly] rape it"?

And the financial instruments you speak of where a complete supply side, not demand side innovation, based upon capital flows due to balance of trade, which I can easily link to being a result of increased labor rights.

What is this supposed to mean? It sounds like you are confusing jargon with argument. How did increased labor rights lead to the collateralized debt obligation or the credit default swap?

 

[Scipius]

Huh? I was pointing out that comparing countries smaller than New York City to a super power probably isn't the best economic analysis. The number I chose, 17 million, was obviously meant to cross every one of those off the list.

In no way was I attempting to imply the numerator of said fraction wasn't also important, I was pointing out that comparing any country with less than 6% of the population of the US is fucking silly.

No, it's not if your definition of "success" is to compare countries based on economic or social factors that affect individual lives. You seem to define success as the extent of influence a country has on others (power projection), but that's only one of many definitions.

You want to compare GDP and standard of living? Fine. Show me the UK, Germany, France, Russia, China, and India (and the US). Other comparisons are silly and unsound; no country under 6% of the US population, much less 20-30 million people, could possibly understand the vast resources, institutions, market controls, and the importance of relative global peace in maintaining their citizen's wealth.

Typical major power arrogance. Smaller countries understand the global balance of power far better than you assume; they have to. They are wealthy not because they have a sugar daddy, but because they understand what role will be most successful for them. If the sugar daddy were to disappear, most of them would continue to be wealthy (in the long run) by merely changing roles.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Who's claiming anything? No one even defined what 'successful' means in terms of the OP. So all of you stop talking out of your butts.

GDP per capita correlates with a better standard of living which I think is important if you're going to claim to be a successful country.

And I've stated in two posts what I deem a successful country. I think a country's success relates to how high a standard of living its citizens have.

 

[Earthstrike]

Can any of you scholars think of any reasons why Northern European countries have such excellent economies and high standards of living? Naturally good success? Oil in the North Atlantic? Do they consume their own products or do others? Any thoughts about the strength of an empire slowing and isolating the creep of communism, maintaining a robust worldwide economy, and helping to keep peace to keep the markets moving freely? Anybody?

Well I'm not a scholar, but I think their education system plays a large part. Consider these premises.
1. Educated people are more likely to be more productive.
2. A country with an educated populace will likely enjoy a greater GDP.
3. Countries that make education cheaper will have a more people becoming educated, given laws of economics.
4. A lot of these high ranking norweigan countries heavily subsidize tertiary education.



And when you say a comparison is silly because these other countries are trying to achieve different things, I don't really think that's a good reason to brush aside countries with lower populations.
Noone forced america to be the world's leading military power. Noone's forcing America to continue to spend billions on its military. Every dollar the USA spends on a tank or missile, is a dollar it can't spend on educating a child, or funding a research project, or building some infrastructure. To say you can't compare the two because they have these vastly different goals is silly. America decided it's goal would be to oust Saddam Hussein. The rest of the world decided it wouldn't be theirs.

For all intents and purposes we may as well say that there's no way to claim that America GDP being higher than India's or china's has any value since america's population is a mere 20-25% of these nations.

 

[Mr. Miyato]

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

Knock yourselves out. I think this argument could very well be a very long one with all the statistical indicators available from this site

 

[ksan]

Naa, the US sucks, but which country doesn't?
I live in Sweden and it sucks a lot, but all other countries are way shittier. :lol

Spoiler

The other Nordic countries and a few others are about as shitty as Sweden

 

[reggieandTFE]

Economically, strong property rights, lesser labor rights and a greater gap in income than our competitors.

I'd argue that this is what has limited America's "greatness". Our economy is great at getting CEOs rich while forcing the majority of the population to work harder and harder for less and less.

 

[RevoDS]

Yes it it. Infact, GDP was developed precisely to compare countries economies with each other. It has its drawbacks and it's not perfect but it's the best way. GDP per capita correlates with a better standard of living which I think is important if your going to claim to be a successful country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

 

[Cereal KiIIer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

1 	▬ 	 Norway 	0.971 
2 	▬ 	 Australia 	0.970 
3 	▬ 	 Iceland 	0.969 
4 	▬ 	 Canada 	0.966 
5 	▬ 	 Ireland 	0.965 
6 	▲ (1) 	 Netherlands 	0.964 
7 	▼ (1) 	 Sweden 	0.963 	
8 	▲ (3) 	 France 	0.961 	
9 	▬ 	 Switzerland 	0.960 	
10 	▬ 	 Japan       	0.960 
11 	▼ (3) 	 Luxembourg 	0.960 
12 	▲ (1) 	 Finland 	0.959 	
13 	▼ (1) 	 United States 	0.956

Does not really change the USA position.

 

[WingM@n]

The dollar is the main reason.
After WW2 the dollar became the worlds reserve currency.
That gave the US tremendous power.

However that is about to change the next 10 years, as many countries will abandon the dollar. The demise of the dollar will cause a steep decline of the standard of living in the US, and eventually a 'bankrupt' government/country (technically it already is).

 

[Wickerbasket]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

I stand corrected. Pip pip to you my good man.

 

[theignoramus]

U.S. is a superpower, the only one on the planet. Economically, the E.U. is probably on the same level as that of the U.S., but American military spending is more than the rest of the world combined.
2008 military spending:

 

[crazy monkey]

U.S. is a superpower, the only one on the planet. Economically, the E.U. is probably on the same level as that of the U.S., but American military spending is more than the rest of the world combined.
2008 military spending:

can't they use different color instead of different shade of one colour.

 

[Frankfurter]

Huh? I was pointing out that comparing countries smaller than New York City to a super power probably isn't the best economic analysis. The number I chose, 17 million, was obviously meant to cross every one of those off the list.

In no way was I attempting to imply the numerator of said fraction wasn't also important, I was pointing out that comparing any country with less than 6% of the population of the US is fucking silly.

You want to compare GDP and standard of living? Fine. Show me the UK, Germany, France, Russia, China, and India (and the US). Other comparisons are silly and unsound; no country under 6% of the US population, much less 20-30 million people, could possibly understand the vast resources, institutions, market controls, and the importance of relative global peace in maintaining their citizen's wealth.

Might as well be comparing your local grocery market with the global power and reach of Walmart. Same idea and purpose, vastly different goals and benefits.

To be honest I don't get why it shouldn't be fine to compare GDP per capita of countries with very different population sizes (that's the whole damn reason why GDP per capita exists to begin with), but yeah for example comparing France, Germany and the US, France and Germany are pretty much the same in terms of GDP per capita, while the US is like ~20% ahead of both (PPP).
Doing a bit more math and also adding in that people in France and Germany work much less on average all three are pretty much tied in terms of 'GDP per hour per worker' so to speak ^^

 

[theignoramus]

The top 10 military spenders, 2008


Rank
Country Spending
($ b.) World
share (%)
1 USA 607billion 41.5%
2 China [84.9] [5.8]
3 France 65.7 4.5
4 UK 65.3 4.5
5 Russia [58.6] [4.0]
6 Germany 46.8 3.2
7 Japan 46.3 3.2
8 Italy 40.6 2.8
9 Saudi Arabia 38.2 2.6
10 India 30 2.1
World total 1464

 

[Pandaman]

Too true. However, GDP is a decent measure of production, but "GDP per capita" is an attempt to find how productive each person is, and is kinda silly comparing fucking Luxembourg and the Netherlands to the world's only super power.

Nobodies comparing Luxembourg to China.

 

[theignoramus]

http://www.cdi.org/Issues/milspend.html

An excerpt from Killing Hope, from author and journalist William Blum, outspoken critic of U.S. foreign policy. A Killing Hope has been praised by Noam Chomsky as "far and away the best book on the topic" and former CIA officer John Stockwell called it "the single most useful summary of CIA history"


A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present

The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."
This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

 

[Cubsfan23]

We attract top talent from other nations, supplementing the homegrown talent already here

 

[scorcho]

Successful in some respects (stable governance, GDP, private sector innovation, infrastructure) not so much in others (glacial/stagnant government, weak social safety net, debtor nation/people)

 

[Raist]

Is... is it a joke thread?

 

[Brera]

So . . . are you saying communism is a good thing then? :lol

This comment is the reason why this thread is so misguided.

The US is a great country to live in from what people say, but there are awesome places everywhere else that don't get caught up in war and exploiting other nations.

 

[defel]

Natural resources.
Highly educated and abundant population.
Not damaged by wars, large scale political unrest or revolution.
A culture that encourages entrepreneurship, wealth and outperformance.
US governments have tended to favour the private sector more than many other countries.
Bleeding over into popular culture, music, film, television etc only leverages the USA's place within the world.

Its called capitalism, and in a few decades I bet we'll see many similarities between present day USA and China.

Besides, theres too much focus here on money, GDP, military spending etc. There are plenty of other factors which make a country great: life expectancy, access to healthcare, quality of healthcare, general standard of living.

 

[TacticalFox88]

The Pacific Ocean is pretty much the main reason the USSR didn't invade the US. Think about it for a second.

Natural resources.
Highly educated and abundant population.
Not damaged by wars, large scale political unrest or revolution.
A culture that encourages entrepreneurship, wealth and outperformance.
US governments have tended to favour the private sector more than many other countries.
Bleeding over into popular culture, music, film, television etc only leverages the USA's place within the world.

Its called capitalism, and in a few decades I bet we'll see many similarities between present day USA and China.

Besides, theres too much focus here on money, GDP, military spending etc. There are plenty of other factors which make a country great: life expectancy, access to healthcare, quality of healthcare, general standard of living.

The things I bolded literally made me say "WTF" out loud.

 

[soco]

yeah that all depends upon how you define successful.

from what i remember reading, if you go by quality of life, it often doesn't rank on top.

i would guess that many of this came about from developments in the 19th and early 20th centuries. the US had massive amounts of raw resources which lead some individuals to get rich really quickly, and then tackle other problems. assembly line production facilities were really a huge boom. then telecommunications were another big step.

i think a lot of it came from the early granduer of the new ideas of freedom and infinite wealth drove many people to think creatively in that time, and there were many great ideas that did come to fruition.

if you look back through history, people often migrate to countries where they find lots of personal freedoms and resources devoted to spending in those. you can find this throughout europe as different kingdoms come to power. there tend to be areas where incredibly smart people all migrate to the locations and there's a technological boom. these tend to last varying amounts, but is probably at least somewhat responsible for this in the US.

add in things like the world wars and the devastation that occured in europe, and that probably helped massively.

 

[theignoramus]

The poster didnt ask "why is the U.S. successful" he asked "why is the U.S. so much more successful than other countries."

 

[Broken Arrow]

Also I think the U.S. has had really great leaders, like him:

It really makes me sad that, being from Mexico, my country has not even come near as to call it successful given the fact that we:
- share the border with the biggest market in the world
- have a huge territory with tons and tons of natural resources
- have a great cultural heritage and are geographically fortunate.

... among thousands of other great things.

It has been mostly because of the shitty leaders and political system we've had in the last 100 years... You americans have been really, really lucky with some of the political leaders that you've had.

 

[rpmurphy]

It attracts the attention of scientists and engineers from around the world. The US sort of acts like a hub for a ton of things technological. That much I do not think is going to change for a long time. China is still a long ways away due to its closed sociopolitical climate.

 

[speculawyer]

Let's see that with countries of a population greater than...17 million, ok?

Luxembourg: 0.5 M
Norway: 4 M
Qatar: 1.2 M
Switzerland: 7.6 M
Denmark: 5.5 M
Ireland: 4.5 M
UAE: 4.4 M
Iceland: 0.3 M
Netherlands: 16.4 M
Sweden: 9.2 M
Finland: 5.3 M
Austria: 8.3 M
United States: 300 M

For perspective, New York City's metropolitan population is 18 Million people, bigger than every country on that list except for one. If you're wondering why this is important, a decent education (maybe in your country of choice?) would teach you that when you take a fraction and make the number on bottom bigger, the result gets smaller! Weird stuff, I know.

I really don't see your point . . . you do know what "per capita" means, right?

 

[Crumpet Trumpet]

Dear Americans, if you ever wonder why other nations view you as arrogant, read this OP

Dear World,
don't stereotype, playa.

<3 an american
XoXoXo

 

[speculawyer]

Despite all the problems the US currently faces, I don't think this is the case.
Not only do we still live in a unipolar world (at least for now), but it could be argued that not only is the US the world's sole superpower, it may still be a hyperpower.

Well, 'superpower' generally only refers to military power. And yes, the USA is unmatched in military power.

So what? Who cares? All that means is we spend more money than everyone else (combined!) on military matters. What does that get us? A big tax on our population. Massive deficits . . . . and we still can't even conclusively win wars in third world nations.

 

[Yamauchi]

American power is in decline. After WW2, American GDP was more than half of the world's nominal GDP and about 30% of the world's PPP GDP. Today the US economy represents 23% of the world's nominal GDP and about 20% of the world's PPP GDP. Most economists now expect that the long-term economic growth of the US will be much more subdued than even the last 20 years, probably growing at an annual rate of 1-2%. By most quality of life standards, the US is not at all the most successful. In terms of life expectancy, we're ranked 49th. We have a massive rate of obesity. 45 countries have a lower infant mortality rate. Our per capita education expenditures are relatively speaking very low, while our healthcare spending is the highest in the world. Our 2009 HDI score is the 13th highest, a decrease of one spot from the last report. Unemployment is now as high or higher than in Western European countries, which American conservatives used to regularly lambast for their socialist economics. And as people have already mentioned, the US consumes much but produces very little. So enjoy your bragging session while you can.

 

[callous]

but we are far and away the best country in the world(in most categories) and I want to know WHY.

:lol You don't get abroad much, am I right?

 

[speculawyer]

Looking at the GDP list where are the tens of millions of dollars from Luxembourg and Norway to help the people of Haiti? Norwegians are so prosperous they could easily top the American donations made to the Haiti telethon.

Norway actually does give a much larger amount of money in foreign aid per capita than the USA.

So, you are wrong.

 

[speculawyer]

Those countries are niche economies. They have a very finite capacity or population growth and have high GDPPC because they are able to race to the bottom in select industries for international trade and they certainly lack diversification.

Leech may sound negative, but in this aspect it is a very appropriate metaphor for those nations..

Wow . . . look at Mr. sour grapes. Nice rationalizations to defend your ideology.

 

[oracrest]

I just want to throw out a few American inventions/developments from over the years. The thread made me want to do some research on it.

refrigeration
bifocals
jeans
Skyscraper
radio
assembly line production
air conditioning
comic book!
airplane
digital computer
deodorant
corn dog
transistor
VIDEO GAME!!!!
laser
compact disc
personal computer
Internet
GPS
Halo

source