300 000 000 Americans

Do you think that the 2008 summer Olympics is a reflection of this?

China accounts for most growth in demand for Australian minerals.

Please elaborate.


As for the 'most' developed country comment: I thought the US was on the bottom of the 'more developed countries' :S

Going along with ponrauils web definition of developed country, let's look at the human development index - the only measure that counts for me. Economics are like statistics, I can make them look like anything I want. The human development index, while also a numbers game, is a lot more tangible cause people can relate to it. People can look around and evaluate for themselves. It's about literacy and childbirth survival rates. Basic stuff.

So, according to the human development index, the US is pretty high up there. Now, let's look at the human poverty index for developing countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index

The US ranks lowest. Looking at its competitors it's no surprise, I guess. After all, the US is a country of extremes. A country with extreme diversity/challenges/opportunities/intelligence/visions/ideals/etc. By the mere fact of the geographic area this country covers, statistically speaking, it should have the dramatic differences. I'd never say that the US is one of the most developed countries, but at the same time, I interact with exceptionally intelligent people every single day. I am part of the GDP. My city has money and so do the people that live here. Yet, I realize that this is only a small part of this country. I've been to places so poor, it makes me want to vomit. I've been to places so depressing and bleak I'd slit my wrists if I had to stay longer than a night. I've been to places so lavish and so pretentious and so exclusive you are embarrassed to tell anybody about it. None of these extremes are minorities. They are all real and plenty and 'a/the world' for some people. IMO, the bigger a country, the less likely it falls into one extreme. The smaller the country (ie Luxembourg) the 'easier' to make it into 'a' category.

None of this matters, however.

Unfortunately, the only one truly important measure/index has not been quantified yet: the human compassion index. No country should be able to call itself 'developed', unless it demonstrates true human compassion and effort to share its wealth, dreams, and hopes. As long as there are humans on this earth dreaming of surviving infancy and a drop of water and the rest of the 'developed countries' shed blood over oil while doing essentially nothing to take care (or the very least stops exploiting) its fellow humans, that nation does not deserve the title 'developed'.

Since the early 90' the American production has been protected significantly. Both by import restrictions (tariffs and customs) and by direct change in the society. First of all the government has turned the USA into the biggest developed low wages country in the world, due to the restriction of union influences regarding wages. This is of course relative, but compared to other developed countries these patterns is notable. This combined with the tariffs is a clear sign that the US wants to keep the production on the right side of the boarder. Perhaps the only right strategy in the globalization process. But the United States hasn't settled with that, they also put underdeveloped low wages countries on a short leash. Such as China.

And their extended interest in foreign countries national resources could be added to this as well. We (as in the west world) can't let India and China get their hands on natural resources that we need to live our life’s, well at least it has to be processed through us. This isn't just about oil, it also involves materials, such as metals.

There is more to it then this, but then I would have to dig in to my pile of books, and I’m not up to that at the moment.

Talk normal to me. What do you mean by institutionlized changes? What by changes in society? I don't see a big change in the minimum wage area - it's always been extremely low, yet it is increasing. When I was in college minimum wage was $4, today it is $7 something.

As for the natural resources, the US has always been after oil. Not much more, right? They don't go after Australia for their diamonds in the same manner they go after the middle east for their oil. Where is the change in recent history?


I am not disputing the fact that the US acts decisively and strategically in all areas pertaining to world economics, but I don't see it having changed since, what? pre-second world war?

Institutions are the rules of interaction, constantly changing. That's what creates the dynamics of a society. They both restrain us and supply us with possibilities. many economics use institutional theory to describe economic change, the two famous is Douglas North and Ronald Coase. In neoclassic theory there are no models or theories that explains dynamics, by analyzing institution we can more effectively describe the changes.

I do my master in this particular field.

In this matter, I can only speak about what I’ve read. The united states are very protective regarding their national production, but with your growth in GNP your wages should be much higher. But as you said, USA have had low wage for a very long time. Though, they haven't developed as they should have, not compared to your GNP. Perhaps this situation can't be explained by analysing the changes in institutions, but I find it rather strange if that kind of analyzes would be totally irrelevant in this context.

Well, the United States prime interest is of course oil. But if you speak of the western world as one economic area, the supply of plain steel is diminishing. Prizes are rushing towards the roof which is a new situation that creates a economic pressure on the developed countries. Including the USA. The signs are there, just look at the steel companies stocks (and other metal companies as well). The United States has increased their import quota of raw steel the past two years and not to due any significant increase in production. Perhaps it means nothing, but still...

I think it has changed some. I find it to be more aggressive and the signs of imperialism are constantly there. But I guess that is a matter of opinion.

LOL.
People here already lost me somewhere on the first page.

So, institutions aren’t defined as organizations, but rather fluid models of economic relationships?

but I don't. So, stop using those big words and pro-talk and explain it such that people without a masters in economics know what you are talking about.

I am not disputing any of what you are saying, mostly because I don't know what your point is. I was just wondering what 'institutional change' means. A clear example would help more than the names of economic theorists. But I really do appreciate your effort in trying to explain it

That's more of an example I can wrap my brain around and yes, it does make sense. I always wondered why minimum wage was so low in this country. Mind you, we probably have the highest earning individuals AND lowest earning individuals in this country. When you have people making literally millions of dollars at age 30 in a 'normal' job, yet others that make virtually nothing in what should be a high paying job, it makes you wonder.... but then, this country has such a vast spread of life-styles/earning potentials/industries/businesses that it might be explained that way.

Take real estate for example. I live in a townhouse in a 'desirable' (not best or most prestigious) location in the suburbs. My townhouse outside of Seattle costs more than the huge single family house with property and pool in a gated community that we sold in Florida. In Minnesota you'd get a BIG house with acres of property and high end interior modifications for $150K. I don't think you'd get an old studio apartment in need of major renovations in Manhattan for that price. A 3 bedroom house in Silicon Valley (do they still use that term?) runs at about a million $s. Here you'd get one for about half that. Both many years old in need of updates.

Even around here, if I moved about one or two hours south, I'd be able to buy a big house and property for what I paid for my townhouse with ultra cheap carpet (). Yet, there are no jobs for me 1 or 2 hours south. Ok, there would be jobs (I am a CPA and there are jobs for me everywhere) but it would be in such a little firm, I'd get paid a heck of a lot less.

Apparently where I live the median housing price is $405,000 while in Birmingham, AL it is $75,000 and in Newport Beach, CA it is $1,360,000!! Nationwide it is $227,500.

Obviously, salaries need to range accordingly. But how to equate all of this? If housing would be a lot less, I don't need to make as much, right? Yet, airplane tickets and hotels are pretty much the same for everyone, no matter where you make your living at. Same goes for healthcare and college tuition. Plus, how on earth can a family move from Danville, Il with a median housing price of $65K move to CA where the median housing price starts in the $400Ks? With housing prices this different, there is a need for dramatic differences in salaries and wages. However, a low minimum amount in NYC is a lot less meaningful than in tiny town, rural state.

This is also where the ‘taxbreaks’ make me often laugh. We all are taxed at the same rates. Surely, there is a difference in rate depending on how much you make, but no consideration is given to where in the country you live. Someone living in NYC making $40K a year is taxed the same amount as someone living in Akron, OH, making the same amount. Yet, the cost of living is drastically different. Anywho, politicians will brag about tax breaks and how they propose law changes that will allow people to sock away thousands of dollars TAX FREE to be used for their chidrens education, their own retirement, even vacation (believe it or not). The problem with those proposition is, you see, that only a small percent of our population HAS those thousands of dollars to sock away to begin with. One proposal dealt with some $70K per year tax free if put in certain savings account. The median annual income in this country is $43K (2003 figure). Now who exactly is to benefit of those ‘tax breaks’???

I know I am rambling…. But I find this very interesting and we can take it offline if you still care to talk about it.

Why do you think that is? What’s the theory on it? Who are the buyers?

I very much agree.

LOL!

12345

HA HA HA

That's hilarious. Oh, wait...