NationStates Jolt Archive

OK. A new economic subject for debate.

For the last two or three hundred years, one of the basic measures of a nation's economic health has been it's rate of economic growth. Now this made sense for most of this time, as the population was growing alongside the economy. As the number of people eating the pie got bigger, the pie had to get bigger for the people simply to stay at the same economic level.
This also makes sense for countries where the current per capita GDP is low. These countries have a lower average standard of living than elsewhere in the world. One of the effects of this is a brain drain, which can be crippiling to the country that is losing all of its best minds.

However, the current situation

USA Population Growth = 0.92% (2004 est.)
USA Economic Growth = 3.1% (2003 est.)

EU Population Growth = 0.17% (July 2004 est.)
EU Economic Growth = 1% (2004 est.)

Japan Population Growth = 0.08% (2004 est.)
Japan Economic Growth = 2.7% (2003 est.)

Source: CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html)

In these countries the standard of living is already high enough that this should not motivate a need for economic growth. The only motivation should be the population growth. As you can see the growth rate is between 3 and 30 times the population growth in the first world.

Is it not time that the holy grail of growth was abandoned, in favour of some other measure of success? Something like reducing the differential between the top 1% and the middle 30% of incomes might be a good idea.

Any suggestions or comments.

OK. A new economic subject for debate.

For the last two or three hundred years, one of the basic measures of a nation's economic health has been it's rate of economic growth. Now this made sense for most of this time, as the population was growing alongside the economy. As the number of people eating the pie got bigger, the pie had to get bigger for the people simply to stay at the same economic level.
This also makes sense for countries where the current per capita GDP is low. These countries have a lower average standard of living than elsewhere in the world. One of the effects of this is a brain drain, which can be crippiling to the country that is losing all of its best minds.

However, the current situation

USA Population Growth = 0.92% (2004 est.)
USA Economic Growth = 3.1% (2003 est.)

EU Population Growth = 0.17% (July 2004 est.)
EU Economic Growth = 1% (2004 est.)

Japan Population Growth = 0.08% (2004 est.)
Japan Economic Growth = 2.7% (2003 est.)

Source: CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html)

In these countries the standard of living is already high enough that this should not motivate a need for economic growth. The only motivation should be the population growth. As you can see the growth rate is between 3 and 30 times the population growth in the first world.

Is it not time that the holy grail of growth was abandoned, in favour of some other measure of success? Something like reducing the differential between the top 1% and the middle 30% of incomes might be a good idea.

Any suggestions or comments.
But why should there be a limit on the standard of living? If we all aspire to have summer homes on the shore and ski lodges in Aspen, won't we need to continue to encourage economic growth?

But why should there be a limit on the standard of living? If we all aspire to have summer homes on the shore and ski lodges in Aspen, won't we need to continue to encourage economic growth?

I am not suggesting that growth should be stopped, I am simply concerned that this is the predominant financial indicator. Would not unemployment be a better indicator if we all aspired to the Aspen life style. Or maybe distribution of income?
Growth may simply measure how much richer, the Aspen crowd are getting, whilst the rest of us schmucks pass the winter in some grey and nondescript city block.
If you are concerned about everyone having this opportunity, growth is not what you need to focus on.

http://www.steverd.com/overintv/i-bump.jpg

i say that the standard of living is good enough already. let's concentrate on people's happiness, rather than just economic growth.
and no, i don't think that high economic growth necessarily means happier people.

What's worse is that most groups base their financial situation on the fact that people won't stop breeding.

Think about it. What would it mean for the industries if population size was static?

*Has a strange growth on his back*

What's worse is that most groups base their financial situation on the fact that people won't stop breeding.

Think about it. What would it mean for the industries if population size was static?

Which is nearly the case in Japan. Growth economics predicates ever increasing demand. That is just not logically possible.
Time to change to some other measure of a good economy.

OK. A new economic subject for debate.

I think your argument could have come from the book, "How to lie with statistics." Its true that any figure or number can be perverted to show supposed gains. Look at how any Wall Street company operates; hiding information that reflects poorly on your company is one of the chief objectives of any public company. Market shocks, investor confidence, company investment ratings, all may be shaken by a company not "Growing" as predicted. Sometimes as little as 1% less growth than expected can lead to huge losses in stock value. Executives become more and more concerned with the perception of their company than their actual performance.

Ditto national growth figures. I heard that sales were down in January this year, why? Because auto dealers have scaled back or discontinued all of their heavy incentives and deals to pull in costomers. That lead to a 3% drop in their sales. If you remove that statistic from the equation, sales actually rose in January! But all that we hear is that sales fell, our confidence wanes in this "recovery" and consumer spending falls as a result.

All these figures must be interpreted. Just as the stock market rises or falls on fear and speculation sometimes, economic data can sometimes indicate little more than a shift in the weather, a slight change in mood.

Growth is just one indicator of how an economy is doing; its not a bad one though; since it reflects the economy as a whole, it can indicate how the nation as a whole is doing. Just like the national sales figures I mentioned though, it can be shaded, misinterpreted, or inaccurate.

I think your argument could have come from the book, "How to lie with statistics." Its true that any figure or number can be perverted to show supposed gains. Look at how any Wall Street company operates; hiding information that reflects poorly on your company is one of the chief objectives of any public company. Market shocks, investor confidence, company investment ratings, all may be shaken by a company not "Growing" as predicted. Sometimes as little as 1% less growth than expected can lead to huge losses in stock value. Executives become more and more concerned with the perception of their company than their actual performance.

Ditto national growth figures. I heard that sales were down in January this year, why? Because auto dealers have scaled back or discontinued all of their heavy incentives and deals to pull in costomers. That lead to a 3% drop in their sales. If you remove that statistic from the equation, sales actually rose in January! But all that we hear is that sales fell, our confidence wanes in this "recovery" and consumer spending falls as a result.

All these figures must be interpreted. Just as the stock market rises or falls on fear and speculation sometimes, economic data can sometimes indicate little more than a shift in the weather, a slight change in mood.

Growth is just one indicator of how an economy is doing; its not a bad one though; since it reflects the economy as a whole, it can indicate how the nation as a whole is doing. Just like the national sales figures I mentioned though, it can be shaded, misinterpreted, or inaccurate.


Thank you, I think. But the statistics are not mine. I cited the source. If you wish to suggest a more reliable source I will gladly add those figures.

Your first paragraph, about investor confidence being shaken if a company or country does not grow as expected is exactly what I am talking about. Why should the growth targets be so all important. If the dividend return is higher than expected but growth was down, then it was a bad year? No, there were profits made, the shareholders got their return on their investment. What is bad about this? Directors becoming obsessed with growth this year, will tend to make bad investment decisions. We are pushed inexorably toward a short-termist culture by the cult of growth.

Why does consumer confidence fail in the market because the auto manufacturers finally cut back on their drive to expand the saturated market. Because analysts, and pundits point to the fallback in growth. The average man in the streat hears that growth has reduced, and misunderstands this as meaning recession has started. If no-one mentioned growth, then consumer confidence would depend upon other more solid factors. Things like job stability, interest rates etc.

Growth is one factor, that measures the GDP. It says nothing about the distribution of this product. It says nothing about the industrial capacity, or the agricultural harvest. It reflects much more paper shifting than any actual economic activity.

I suggest we start ignoring it.

This is why some companies avoid going public, or why people like Gates make sure they have enough control over the company to keep people from being idiots.

This is why some companies avoid going public, or why people like Gates make sure they have enough control over the company to keep people from being idiots.

It is noticable that a lot of the most successful companies (not all before people start shouting GM or GE at me) are private companies or have a controlling interest in one persons hands.
Gates, I believe lucked into this, rather than planned it, due to his innate paranoia. But his business sense has always been good, if not always fair.

Growth may simply measure how much richer, the Aspen crowd are getting, whilst the rest of us schmucks pass the winter in some grey and nondescript city block.

and, in fact, this is already the case. growth and increased productivity has not translated into higher incomes for the vast majority of people. growth by itself means nothing.

Thank you, I think. But the statistics are not mine. I cited the source. If you wish to suggest a more reliable source I will gladly add those figures.

Your first paragraph, about investor confidence being shaken if a company or country does not grow as expected is exactly what I am talking about. Why should the growth targets be so all important. If the dividend return is higher than expected but growth was down, then it was a bad year? No, there were profits made, the shareholders got their return on their investment. What is bad about this? Directors becoming obsessed with growth this year, will tend to make bad investment decisions. We are pushed inexorably toward a short-termist culture by the cult of growth.

Why does consumer confidence fail in the market because the auto manufacturers finally cut back on their drive to expand the saturated market. Because analysts, and pundits point to the fallback in growth. The average man in the streat hears that growth has reduced, and misunderstands this as meaning recession has started. If no-one mentioned growth, then consumer confidence would depend upon other more solid factors. Things like job stability, interest rates etc.

Growth is one factor, that measures the GDP. It says nothing about the distribution of this product. It says nothing about the industrial capacity, or the agricultural harvest. It reflects much more paper shifting than any actual economic activity.

I suggest we start ignoring it.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. "How to lie with Statistics" is a very famous old book from the 1950's...its on its billionth reprinting by now. I was told to read it back in high school, and again in college. Its basically a small guide warning you that statistics and numbers are inherantly flawed without proper context.

That's what I was talking about; Context. Without context you only have meaningless numbers that tell you nothing. People then learn to manipulate those numbers to create the impression of context; the result is bad business all around.

So, in short, I'm agreeing with you in a number of different ways and examples.

It is noticable that a lot of the most successful companies (not all before people start shouting GM or GE at me) are private companies or have a controlling interest in one persons hands.
Gates, I believe lucked into this, rather than planned it, due to his innate paranoia. But his business sense has always been good, if not always fair.


Yep. Whether by luck or no, and despite some of his other issues, I've always found him somewhat admirable. That and staying a democrat (though I'm not one myself) rather than being lured in by the money-oriented right.

Noticably, for me at least, the continual trend of various media forms (especially RPG companies) towards being owned by market share entities has led to some questionable content issues and massive quality issues. (D&D books have more errors than a week of newspapers, and most of them -very- obvious. Its just -gross-.)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. "How to lie with Statistics" is a very famous old book from the 1950's...its on its billionth reprinting by now. I was told to read it back in high school, and again in college. Its basically a small guide warning you that statistics and numbers are inherantly flawed without proper context.

That's what I was talking about; Context. Without context you only have meaningless numbers that tell you nothing. People then learn to manipulate those numbers to create the impression of context; the result is bad business all around.

So, in short, I'm agreeing with you in a number of different ways and examples.

I would actually believe that even within a specified and apropriate context statistics can prove anything you want them to. I am glad that we are in agreement. Sorry if I was excessively dense and misundestod.

You forget a few important things;

One is inflation. As the cost of good increases growth gets 'fudged' up.

Two - why should any generation be content with the same or less than the previous generation? Isnt the whole point to grow out of poverty into prosperity?

three - In biological terms there is a word for when something stops growing. Death.

It is noticable that a lot of the most successful companies (not all before people start shouting GM or GE at me) are private companies or have a controlling interest in one persons hands.
Gates, I believe lucked into this, rather than planned it, due to his innate paranoia. But his business sense has always been good, if not always fair.
IMO, it depends on what stage of the business cycle the company is on. New companies and new markets need a more entrepreneurial, risk-taking attitude; and that is easier in a private company. More established businesses can adopt a more rational position, and use their size to beat down the competition.

On your general point, I would agree with both yourself and Niccolo Medici, that GDP and associated growth can pick up a lot of strange signals, because it is based on added value as measured by price, and does not itself directly measure (non-monetary) material wealth or standard of living. And that is particularly so these days in Western countries when a very large component of GDP is from the service sector. A well known anomoly is the inclusion of paid child-care in GDP and the exclusion of (unpaid) parental care.

That said, there is a strong argument for using price as a proxy for utitlity in a free market: the 'value' of a good or service is whatever people are prepared to pay for it. However, this argument rapidly becomes both philisophical and rather too complex for me.

More importantly, probably the biggest advantage of GDP and growth as a measure is that it is both measurable, and its metric is broadly agreed upon, and it gives consistent results. Certainly across time, and, with limitations, across geographical areas. This allows one to associate it with more concrete benefits. There are blips, caused by the sort of temporary anomoly that Niccolo mentioned, but, in general, there is a very strong link between GDP and things like employment and standards of living. For example, it is well established that economic growth of about 1% (IIRC) is the minimum required for steady employment - higher growth leads to rising employment (or rising prices if full employment already exists), whereas lower growth leads to stagnation or recession.

GDP may may be an artificial indicator, but its a robust one, basically.

BTW, most western governments these days don't just target high growth. They aim for growth within a range, typically 1½-4½%. The intention is steady and sustainable growth, thus full employment and continuing international competitiveness. (And if that sounds like a political slogan, that's not coincidence - it's Gordon Brown's strategy. ;) ) Too high a growth in a developed economy risks the latter.


(Kudos to Niccolo for referencing "How to Lie with Statistics", incidentally. It should be a set text in schools.)

I would actually believe that even within a specified and apropriate context statistics can prove anything you want them to ......
Sorry, I'm professionally obliged to take issue with you on this point. Whilst you are largely right in terms of common usage, don't blame it on the numbers. The numbers measure what the numbers measure, period. Excepting problems on the collection or analysis of the numbers, what tells the lies are the words used to describe them or the thoughts to interpret them.

Remember, "lies, damn lies and statistics" was coined by one politician in debate against another. Substitute "politics" (or nowadays, "marketing"), and you get to the sense of the phrase.
[/professionally obligated rant]

You forget a few important things;

One is inflation. As the cost of good increases growth gets 'fudged' up.

Two - why should any generation be content with the same or less than the previous generation? Isnt the whole point to grow out of poverty into prosperity?

three - In biological terms there is a word for when something stops growing. Death.

In that case I have been dead for 25 years or so. Please be so kind as to inform my relatives.

As to the second point. See post #3 on this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8258484&postcount=3)

The figures I quoted were real growth figures, i.e. adjusted for inflation. While I did not state this I did provide a link to the source of these figures, which does clearly state this.

Sorry, I'm professionally obliged to take issue with you on this point. Whilst you are largely right in terms of common usage, don't blame it on the numbers. The numbers measure what the numbers measure, period. Excepting problems on the collection or analysis of the numbers, what tells the lies are the words used to describe them or the thoughts to interpret them.

Remember, "lies, damn lies and statistics" was coined by one politician in debate against another. Substitute "politics" (or nowadays, "marketing"), and you get to the sense of the phrase.
[/professionally obligated rant]

Sorry to have provoked a professional rant. (Are you a statistician, or an economist or a mthematician, I ask myself.)
I was not blaming the figures. What I said was that with satistics you can prove whatever you want. This involves the agent, the person with the desire. The numbers themselves are, indeed neutral, they have, and can have, no vested interests. The person presenting them is the villain of the piece. The numbers being just the witless pawns in his machievellian plans.

(Damn, now the Machiavel supporters will get on my case. Yes I know he wrote it for comission)

Sorry to have provoked a professional rant. (Are you a statistician, or an economist or a mthematician, I ask myself.)
I was not blaming the figures. What I said was that with satistics you can prove whatever you want. This involves the agent, the person with the desire. The numbers themselves are, indeed neutral, they have, and can have, no vested interests. The person presenting them is the villain of the piece. The numbers being just the witless pawns in his machievellian plans.

(Damn, now the Machiavel supporters will get on my case. Yes I know he wrote it for comission)

**laughs** You have at least one Machiavelli supporter on your side. The word "Machiavellian" and the good name of Niccolo Machievelli are two different things, and most of us know it. It matters little what he wrote for the Medici family. ;)

Sorry to have provoked a professional rant. (Are you a statistician, or an economist or a mthematician, I ask myself.)
I was not blaming the figures. What I said was that with satistics you can prove whatever you want. This involves the agent, the person with the desire. The numbers themselves are, indeed neutral, they have, and can have, no vested interests. The person presenting them is the villain of the piece. The numbers being just the witless pawns in his machievellian plans.

(Damn, now the Machiavel supporters will get on my case. Yes I know he wrote it for comission)
No problem. ;) I didn't take offence at your remark. I just spend a lot of my professional life in the following conversational loop:

Them: "The statistics prove it."
Me: "You can't say that."
Them: "But they're statistics, you can prove anything with ...."
Me: "NO, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT EITHER! Not unless you're prepared to lie."
Them: "Is there a problem with that?" :confused:

Meh.

(I'm a economic statistician, BTW. Not clever enough to be a mathematician. :( )

More importantly, probably the biggest advantage of GDP and growth as a measure is that it is both measurable, and its metric is broadly agreed upon, and it gives consistent results. Certainly across time, and, with limitations, across geographical areas. This allows one to associate it with more concrete benefits. There are blips, caused by the sort of temporary anomoly that Niccolo mentioned, but, in general, there is a very strong link between GDP and things like employment and standards of living. For example, it is well established that economic growth of about 1% (IIRC) is the minimum required for steady employment - higher growth leads to rising employment (or rising prices if full employment already exists), whereas lower growth leads to stagnation or recession.

GDP may may be an artificial indicator, but its a robust one, basically.

BTW, most western governments these days don't just target high growth. They aim for growth within a range, typically 1½-4½%. The intention is steady and sustainable growth, thus full employment and continuing international competitiveness. (And if that sounds like a political slogan, that's not coincidence - it's Gordon Brown's strategy. ;) ) Too high a growth in a developed economy risks the latter.


(Kudos to Niccolo for referencing "How to Lie with Statistics", incidentally. It should be a set text in schools.)

The established figure for ideal growth of 1% in real terms, surely has to depend upon the population growth figures for 15 to 20 years earlier. (I am going to add in a factor that was not present in my original post, the time offset for population growth figures to affect the employment market.)
As this figure changes, so the ideal growth rate should change, otherwise you may well generate unemployment or inflation. On a national level, discussing the economy of a nation as a whole, then I can see a role for the growth figures in the financial control data. As you say its metric is easily established and comparable over time. My objection is its predominance over other factors such as industrial output, average productivity, etc.

At a corporate level it is a killer. It appears that CEOs do not really understand the risks of excessive growth, and have a penchant for blowing enormous bubbles, which then have to be hidden by dubious, at best, accounting. Worldcom may be the best example of this.

Aiming for economic growth that is 5 times the current population growth seems a little excessive (and that is the bottom end figure of those you cited)
The Right Honourable Mr Gordon Brown MP, for Dunfermline East may argue that these figures will provide steady and sustainable growth. But he has not explained to the public, ever, why this should be desirable. It is just taken on faith that growth is good.

The established figure for ideal growth of 1% in real terms, surely has to depend upon the population growth figures for 15 to 20 years earlier. (I am going to add in a factor that was not present in my original post, the time offset for population growth figures to affect the employment market.)
Yes, I'm pretty sure you're right about population changes. I strongly suspect the GDP/employment model depends on all else being held constant.

As this figure changes, so the ideal growth rate should change, otherwise you may well generate unemployment or inflation. On a national level, discussing the economy of a nation as a whole, then I can see a role for the growth figures in the financial control data. As you say its metric is easily established and comparable over time. My objection is its predominance over other factors such as industrial output, average productivity, etc.
I think the counter-argument is two-fold:
1. Employment is slightly different, but things like output, productivity &c are not good in themselves, but only in what they enable - increased capital and goods, competitiveness, profits &c. So it's the level of these that should be measured, if you're looking at the wealth of a nation.
2. As above, GDP provides a robust proxy for capital creation and consumption of goods and services, which is itself the measure of economic wealth.

At a corporate level it is a killer. It appears that CEOs do not really understand the risks of excessive growth, and have a penchant for blowing enormous bubbles, which then have to be hidden by dubious, at best, accounting. Worldcom may be the best example of this.
I agree that a fixation on accounting profits and growth can be very damaging both to investers and to corporates itself. Are you saying that accounting fiddles are the corporate equivalent of national inflation? And that both have their root in an over-reliance on measurements (form over content by another name)? Certainly an interesting thought. I think I agree - one of the reasons I'm a statistician is that I dislike idealogical thinking.

Aiming for economic growth that is 5 times the current population growth seems a little excessive (and that is the bottom end figure of those you cited)

I believe that the consensus view is that 1-1½% is the underlying, natural growth rate for a developed economy at full employment (probably per capita, as you point out). I don't have any sources to hand, and the figure will be largely theoretical, but its derived from studies of 'natural drivers' of growth - competition and technology led efficiency gains mainly, as I understand it. Yes, there's a lot of assumptions in that statement, not least that such a growth is sustainable indefinately. However, IMO, modern history suggests to me that it's broadly reasonable to expect long-term growth in the absence of shocks to the economy.

The Right Honourable Mr Gordon Brown MP, for Dunfermline East may argue that these figures will provide steady and sustainable growth. But he has not explained to the public, ever, why this should be desirable. It is just taken on faith that growth is good.
Well, at one level, it's that international competition demands efficiency gains, which would drive down employment in the absence of growth. (If no efficiency gains, we lose competitiveness, and thus jobs.) At another level, just as important (unfortunately), growth sounds good. Especially in the context of a nominally left-wing politician trying not to frighten the horses.


Just to clarify my own position, BTW, I'm playing devil's advocate on a lot of this. The reason I'm not an economist is that I couldn't suspend my disbelief for long enough, and I agree that GDP and growth metrics contain a lot of 'funny money' and dodgy accounting. It's an interesting subject (I took an option not to do a thesis in my Master's, but if I had it would actually have been on a comparison of international measurements of GDP).

Even so, it has to be said that, as an explanatory variable in economic models, GDP works very well in predicting real world effects. One just needs to exercise caution over what it means, and not confuse it with reality itself. Hence it is usually quoted as an index rather than an absolute level.

It appears that we are in pretty full agreement on this topic. My basic concern is over the sounds good part. Together with the image I have of it becoming an unquestioned measure of success.

An aside. MA/MSc. without a thesis is worth nothing in some countries. I am having to redo mine here. Only Masters by research are accepted for revalidation in Brazil.

It appears that we are in pretty full agreement on this topic. My basic concern is over the sounds good part. Together with the image I have of it becoming an unquestioned measure of success.
Cool.
An aside. MA/MSc. without a thesis is worth nothing in some countries. I am having to redo mine here. Only Masters by research are accepted for revalidation in Brazil.
:D I'd like to see the look on my course leader's face on being told that an MSC from the LSE is worthless!

What are you studying BTW?

Cool.

:D I'd like to see the look on my course leader's face on being told that an MSC from the LSE is worthless!

What are you studying BTW?

I have an MA in History and Philosophy of Sicence, and am currently redoing a Masters in straight Philosophy this time. (I have to write my dissertation in Portuguese which is fun, especially as it is on Hume's Moral system)
BA in Philosophy and Computing. With an emphasis on artificial intelligence and logic.

Your Bachelor was?

Any suggestions or comments.
No big deal, we always knew this day would come. The US economy's share of world GDP has been growing for decades. Now it's growing less, and will continue to do so.

The world's economy will gorw faster than ours. It's inevitable, as countries develop. And that's exactly what we wanted.
We worked for 50 years to make it happen.

Our smaller piece of the global economic pie will be better than any slice of the old one.

No big deal, we always knew this day would come. The US economy's share of world GDP has been growing for decades. Now it's growing less, and will continue to do so.

The world's economy will gorw faster than ours. It's inevitable, as countries develop. And that's exactly what we wanted.
We worked for 50 years to make it happen.

Our smaller piece of the global economic pie will be better than any slice of the old one.

It was not intended as a comment on the comparative economic stengths of any of the first world countries. It was a question about whether growth is really something that we (they) should still be aiming at in such a determined manner.

How relevant is growth as a measure of success?

It was not intended as a comment on the comparative economic stengths of any of the first world countries. It was a question about whether growth is really something that we (they) should still be aiming at in such a determined manner.

How relevant is growth as a measure of success?
In a system of checks and balances moved by an invisible hand, "growth" seems like a relevant term.

EDIT: That was a pretty vague statement. Growth to me, is not a relevant measure of economic success, becuase it's myopic and usually, preached by so-called pundits.
Usually what's good for some, is bad for others (and vice-versa).
It's a matter of perspective, in other words.

In a system of checks and balances moved by an invisible hand, "growth" seems like a relevant term.

EDIT: That was a pretty vague statement. Growth to me, is not a relevant measure of economic success, becuase it's myopic and usually, preached by so-called pundits.
Usually what's good for some, is bad for others (and vice-versa).
It's a matter of perspective, in other words.

The lord giveth with one hand, and taketh away with the other.

The main thrust of my argument is really against the pundits. If you have read through my discussion with White Hats you will see that.

Oh, and Hi to my square colleague in the NS Political Compass.

The lord giveth with one hand, and taketh away with the other.

The main thrust of my argument is really against the pundits. If you have read through my discussion with White Hats you will see that.

Oh, and Hi to my square colleague in the NS Political Compass.


My family is Portuguese, and my Grandmother (who I take care of) is fluent, as her parents were Portuguese-Brazilian immigrants.

Yup, I was gettin' lonely there in my square. And then it all made sense. :D

Falo português, but I am an an ex-pat Brit.
The weather is a damn sight better here though.

Falo português, but I am an an ex-pat Brit.
The weather is a damn sight better here though.
Then my politics most closely match someone not from the USA, but across the globe?
That's really interesting.

I have an MA in History and Philosophy of Sicence, and am currently redoing a Masters in straight Philosophy this time. (I have to write my dissertation in Portuguese which is fun, especially as it is on Hume's Moral system)
BA in Philosophy and Computing. With an emphasis on artificial intelligence and logic.

Your Bachelor was?
I'm suitably impressed by your Masters. Way beyond my capabilities. Good luck with the dissertation.

My BA was from the Open University, who run a modular system. Most of my units were in pure maths and statistics, but I also did minors in theology, brain biology and behaviour, and general relativity. I also got a Postgraduate Certificate in economics.

As iam desended from Kings i say we go back to a Feudalistic society and then everything will be sweet. ;)

In that case I have been dead for 25 years or so. Please be so kind as to inform my relatives..

When was the last time you cut your hair? or your fingernails? if you want to be a smartass you could at least be clever. (oh, and BALD does not count! :) )

Your preimse for #2 is still flawed. I will agree that neither figure alone is an accurate measure of household prosperity, but GDP does come closer when you look at the big picture.

I didn't notice the inflation adjusted figures. I'll have to spend a bit more time looking closer. I know that one flaw already is determining how to measure inflation! There is a current hulabaloo about that with ss benefits right now.