sonofccn wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:
Bad example
Alright. I only picked it because it happened to be your country,IIRC, feel free to pick any European nation
Gross domestic product per capita and worldwide ranking according to the International Monetary Fund:
- Luxembourg (104'673 USD)
- Norway (83'922)
- Qatar (72,849 USD)
- Iceland (63'830 USD)
- Ireland (59'924 USD)
- Denmark (57'261 USD)
- Switzerland (58,084 USD)
- Sweden (49,655 USD)
- Finland (46,602 USD)
- Netherlands (46,261 USD)
As you can see, top ten of the nations , who are making the most GDP per capita, are - with the exception of Quatar - European nations.
And yes, the GDP alone is only helpful, if one wants to compare economies alone. But economy does not become an end in itself. What use has a high GDP? People don't work to heighten the GDP of their nation but to improve their individual
standard of living or their
quality of life.
For example: one nation has 1'000'000 denizens, another nation has 1'000'000'000 denizens. The first nation has a GDP per capita of 100'000 USD and the second nation has a GDP per capita of 100 USD. The bottom line is, that both nations have the same GDP. But guess which nation has the more advanced economy?
sonofccn wrote:
Who is like God wrote:
You are ignoring what a challenge the German reunification is. The "new" federal states didn't have any noteworthy and competitive industry. Their economy was devastated and their currency was worth nothing, while the "old" federal states had one of the most competitive industry and the hardest currency in the world. That was the situation at the German reunification. To rebuild the "new" federal states, the "old" federal states are transferring each year nearly 83'000'000'000 Euro to the "new" federal states. Show me a nation, which can do that for 18 years but can be nevertheless the world-wide leading country in exports.
The closet I can think of off the top of my head I would guess the USA circa 1865 and onward. The south was badly smashed when they "rejoined" the Union and reconstruction continued into the late (18)70's early (18)80's if I'm remembering my history. I'd admit the south no doubt wasn't quite as bad as east germany after fifty years of commie control but it wasn't in good shape either.
The difference is, that the USA was then neither a military nor economical superpower. The difference between north and south in the USA then was not nearly as big as the difference between east and west in Germany now.
sonofccn wrote:
Who is like God wrote:
But you should consider, that the USA have with a population of circa 305'000'000 nearly four times as many denizens than Germany with a population of 82'000'000. That means, that considering the number of denizens, both economies are nearly equal.
That is only if one assumes that population is the only factor. While I won't deny it plays a part but to assume it's the end all and be all is illogical. By your logic China economy isn't impressive at all because it's only four trillion bigger then you and they have a billion people in it compared to Germany's 82 million.
See above. Chinas economy is still not impressive. They have only a GDP per capita of 16,606 USD. It is still extremely inefficient. But it is growing, what is not difficult. If you are at the bottom, you can only rise. And there is potential. And it could become impressive, if it uses this potential.
sonofccn wrote:
Who is like God wrote:
Relevant is, that Germany, the looser of that war, was able to rebuild its industry and become one of the strongest economy of the world again.
That was 60 odd years ago and bear in mind America spent a mountain of loot to rebuild the shattered infastructer. . If you haven't recovered by now your not going too.
We have recoovered. You have mentioned the age of Germany (»
This is the econmony that causes Germany to have 10% unemployment(circa 2006 IIRC) stagnated growth, and a GDP a fraction of the size of a country that is younger then some of it's buildings.«). I have merely showed, that the age has nothing to do with Germany's economical succes.
sonofccn wrote:
Praeothmin wrote:
I do agree that Capitalism is the best system for mankind, because it is the best competitive system, and it encourages hard work with the promises of rewards.
Okay were on the same page here.
And we are not.
Competition is not the best for mankind. Because while competing, a natural or artificial person will always do, what is it the best for itself, regardless, if that is bad for mankind in the long run. If evolution has showed one thing, than that competition leads sooner or later to the extinction of competitors in the same ecological niche. The same applies to enterprises and economical niches. That will result in the formation of monopolies, which will not encounter competition. That's the direct consequence of laissez-faire capitalism. You can try to prevent this with antitrust agencies. But because they are only national agencies, the international acting enterprises can often bypass those.
Best example is the USA and their effort regarding the prevention or attenuation of the climate change. To not impair the US economy with Climate Change Bills, nothing is done, regardless that, in the long run, mankind will suffer in an extent, that all the economical advancement of the USA from today will become meaningless.
All have known, that oil is limited. But is was used, as if it was unlimited and nearly nobody has thought to invest in the development of alternative energies. Now oil becomes costlier and costlier and we will have an energy crisis. That could have been prevented, if enterprises would have invested in the development of alternative energies - but no, that would not have been profitable enough. Only now, when it is almost to late, real efforts are done. Imagine what would have happened, if the same efforts would have been done after the 1973 oil crisis. In the long run, that would have been better for mankind.
Economy is not the start and beginning, the alpha and omega. It is there to serve mankind and not, that mankind has to serve the economy. Not all, what is good for economy, is good for mankind. That does not mean, that economy is irrelevant. But that insight helps to handle economy and to contain it, where it is necessary.
