Guess who's having an Economic Boom!

[binö]

You're confusing the sheeple view with the national movement. They were mobilized by high gas prices in the 70's and 80's to become energy independent. The US is behind Brazil.....

i'm just going by what i saw with my own eyes
lotsa etremely poor and pissy peeps

 

[javaguru]

i'm just going by what i saw with my own eyes
lotsa etremely poor and pissy peeps

Plenty of those in the US....but they get subsidized by the government.

 

[javaguru]

Plenty of those in the US....but they get subsidized by the government.

183,886,761 Brazilians.....

281,421,906 Americans as of last census......and we have a massive GDP over Brazil.

 

[chris302001]

183,886,761 Brazilians.....

281,421,906 Americans as of last census......and we have a massive GDP over Brazil.

I didnt realize they had so many people! wow!

 

[Razorguns]

You don't measure a country by how many poor they have. China has a few HUNDRED MILLION poor. Same with India.

You measure it by much wealth it has. Saudi Arabia sure has a lot of wealth - and why we say how high when they yell jump. In contrast, we have a lot of debt. Simple math.

r

 

[mrplunkey]

The rest of the world is catching. Items like wages are going to find a global equilibrium. Considering our wages are high, and theirs is low, their wages will go up, and ours will go down. The same holds true for everything else, like our standard of living.

There is a solution to this mess. Invade them. It has worked for 1000's of years. Unfortunately leaders who do that now are condemned.

Get used to watching your salary getting smaller and smaller and prices of goods to increase. The world is changing. Adapt or perish.

+1

We are experiencing a re-leveling of global wealth right now. There is a rising global middle class in countries with large economic growth rates (i.e. 7%-12%). The only way we can combat it is to grow ourselves. But instead of focusing on how we get 10% US domestic economic growth, we focus on taxing the producers more in the name of helping the downtrodden.

The re-leveling will happen slowly... over the next 20-40 years. People will increasingly have problems getting their kids educated. They'll live in smaller houses than their parents. They'll only own one car, or their second car will be shitter. And they'll have less secure jobs with lower pay and benefits relative to the rest of the world.

Write this down: 10% GDP growth. That's what it will take, but we'll be too busy arguing over who gets what handout next to ever address that issue.

 

[AEKDB]

I am confused. What is the argument? Yes, for a long time the US was the only significant free market economy with a sufficient workforce and an ample supply of natural resources. The US workers' efficiency level has increased to the point that it is cheaper to have inefficient (and less expensive) labor produce goods for us. Other countries have lessened government control of markets and expanded the amount of available labor and resources worldwide. This is a good thing for everyone especially the US and is not a new idea:
Adam Smith

Some here have argued the zero sum game in economics (i.e. if one economy gains the other must, as a result, loose). In reality this is almost never the case:
zero-sum and Pareto efficient

The only negative impact on the economy is Government regulation. All government regulations are taxes, not just monetary. An artificially imposed limit on supply (oil) is also a tax: Economic taxes

 

[roadwarrior]

have any of you even been to brazil before?
it will be a long time before they are even close to our standard of living

I have been to Rio Di Janiero and Sao Paulo a few times on business. What you say is correct re: standard of living for the general populace but the goverment and business is agressive about growing Brazil and stepping them up to be a global player.

S

 

[roadwarrior]

I am confused. What is the argument? Yes, for a long time the US was the only significant free market economy with a sufficient workforce and an ample supply of natural resources. The US workers' efficiency level has increased to the point that it is cheaper to have inefficient (and less expensive) labor produce goods for us. Other countries have lessened government control of markets and expanded the amount of available labor and resources worldwide. This is a good thing for everyone especially the US and is not a new idea:
Adam Smith

Some here have argued the zero sum game in economics (i.e. if one economy gains the other must, as a result, loose). In reality this is almost never the case:
zero-sum and Pareto efficient

The only negative impact on the economy is Government regulation. All government regulations are taxes, not just monetary. An artificially imposed limit on supply (oil) is also a tax: Economic taxes

As long as the US has access to those markets on both buy side and sell side. AND we are able to continue to innovate new goods and services that we can lead the world in producing so that we gow our economy. This will require goverment both incenting this innovation and staying out of the way of business as it develops these markets. Goverment regualtion and taxes can have a significant negative impact on the US's postion as a global super power both militarily and economically in the the next 20-25 years.

 

[mrplunkey]

As long as the US has access to those markets on both buy side and sell side. AND we are able to continue to innovate new goods and services that we can lead the world in producing so that we gow our economy. This will require goverment both incenting this innovation and staying out of the way of business as it develops these markets. Goverment regualtion and taxes can have a significant negative impact on the US's postion as a global super power both militarily and economically in the the next 20-25 years.

+1

Free trade works great, as long as we're viable as a manufacturer. But when you over-regulate, over-tax and have an out-of-control tort system, you lose-out in the global economy.