growth

Dennis R Redmond dredmond at oregon.uoregon.edu
Sat May 6 17:47:13 PDT 2000



> From: "christian a. gregory" <gregoch at mail.auburn.edu>
> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:38:10 -0500
>
> So, you think population changes in the U.S. would make these numbers look
> dismal? Why? And you consider double or triple average annual growth over
> the decade (US: 3.4; EU 1.7; Japan .9) makes growth "about equivalent" for
> the US, Japan and the EU? How so?

Eurostat figures, available for downloading over at <http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/> show US population growth to be 1.02% during the Nineties, while the EU rate is 0.37% and Japan 0.25%. That adds up to a significant difference over time. Basically, the EU grew much faster per capita than the US in the early Nineties, and the US caught up in the late Nineties. But the difference isn't huge -- one percent higher growth over a couple of years doth not the death-knell of an economy sound. Inflation rates continue to be lower in the EU, and the EU continues to invest more as a % of GDP in its economy than the US, suggesting that the euro is increasingly undervalued. Some currency speculator out there is going to make a killing by buying euros with overvalued dollars. Currently, the EU economy is growing about as fast per capita as the US.


> Besides, doesn't Anderson take into account the bubble and debt in the
> sentence you cite?

Nope. The US really does owe the new metropoles 2 trillion euros. It's that simple. If the US were self-financing and investing furiously in its industrial base, you could make a case for a renaissance of the Pax Americana. But the new metropoles are the ones furiously investing in the US, while the rentiers invest in their portfolios.

-- Dennis



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list