Please Paul, in a paragraph of 4 or 5 sentences, WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM?
On Sep 7, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote:
> The further below is yet more fact-denial in the name of economic conservatism. > > It's a fact that Norway is vastly more prosperous than the US (again, > nominal per-capita GDP twice as large as that of the US), and its a > fact that all four major Scandinavian countries and a few other > countries of Europe like Switzerland and Netherlands also have had > larger nominal per-capita GDPs than the US for almost every year of > the last few decades. > > That countries have such higher percentages of GDP coming from > government than the US also having greater prosperity than the US > causes severe cognitive dissonance in the conservative mind - that's > quite understandable. > > Quite understandable since another conservative myth is that > government is necessarily a drag on an economy - this conservative > myth is that the greater percentage it is of GDP, the less growth and > prosperity for the economy as a whole. > > This myth is yet another one held by conservatives that is busted by > fact - this fact: When we look at all the countries of the world or > even just the countries of the OECD, there is no correlation between > growth rates and percentage of the economy that is government. In > fact, if there could be any correlation at all to be found, it would > the greater the per-capita nominal GDP, the greater the percentage of > nominal GDP is government. > > One can easily verify this for oneself by looking at lists of > countries by per-capita nominal GDP (look at all the > socialist/capitalist European and other OECD countries ahead of the US > by this measure of GDP) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita > > or by per-capita PPP GDP > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita > > and then comparing them to lists of countries by taxes or by > government spending as a percentage of GDP (click on the appropriate > parts above the list further down the page to get ascending or > descending orders for taxes and then for government spending) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending > > (and note that this above page seems to use for its list the PPP > measure of GDP). > > If there is any statistical trend at all that emerges from the > comparison, it is that the richer the country in terms of per-capita > GDP, the higher the percentage of GDP is government. (No, such a > correlation perfect, but that is not what a trend is.) > > (Side note on nominal vs PPP measures of GDP: The much more used > measure by professional economists is the nominal measure, since it > involves much less extrapolation. See > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product > > for an intro on all this.) > > Also: > > Go to Google and enter > > "The Effects of Government Expenditures and > Revenues on the Economy and Economic Well-Being:A Cross-National Analysis" pdf > > with the term "pdf" outside of the quotation marks. From the pdf file > we see the following: > > Quote: > > "Among the 21 OECD countries, the United States has the fourth > smallest public sector, with total government (federal, state, and > local) expenditures amounting to 37% of gross domestic product (GDP). > Total government spending accounted for > 34% of GDP (the smallest) in Ireland and 59% of GDP (the largest) in > Sweden. Countries with larger government spending relative to GDP tend > to have higher productivity growth rates and lower relative poverty > rates. There appears, however, to be no relation between government > spending and GDP growth. [Note: This is GDP growth, not absolute > per-capita GDP, which is looked at in the above comparisons with the > above lists.] > > Public social welfare expenditures are the benefits paid by all levels > of government providing support to maintain welfare. The level of > social welfare spending varies from country to country - the > market-oriented English-speaking countries such as the United States > tend to have social welfare expenditures equal to about 15% of GDP, > whereas the welfare-state Scandinavian countries spend much more, > typically about 25% of GDP. The evidence suggests that public social > welfare expenditures do not have an adverse effect on the economy. But > these expenditures can improve economic well-being - countries with > higher public social welfare expenditures relative to GDP have lower > relative poverty rates." > > Now in light of all this see the following on Norway's world-beating prosperity: > > "Moral economics -> world's highest living standard and greatest > happiness" > http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7633652&tstart=0 > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> So where does the money come from? Trees? >> >> Bob Hansen >> >> On Sep 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> This idea that socialist/capitalist Norway is as rich as they are only >> because they "have lots more oil and gas than we do" is just yet >> another myth made up by conservatives to try to explain away how >> economic conservatism is being proved by the facts to be all wrong.