American Economics Thread

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
You completely ignore the ability to deploy section which is substantially qualified later since the report simultaneously spends a substantial number of paragraphs downplaying Chinese achievements in nuclear reactor technology and elaborating on political barriers to development (regulations, etc). The most natural reading considering the report in whole is that the report assumed that nuclear technology development was the same level but China can ramp it up faster. You continue to mischaracterize the report and then wish away sections of the report you dislike instead of the obviously correct conclusion - the report is just lobbying and all study conclusions can be safely ignored
No. China has 27 total nuclear reactors, most of which are AP1000s with one experimental 4th gen reactor. Hence the highly qualified conclusion on ability to deploy
Most reactors in China are CPR-1000 or HPR-1000. They are basically clones of French nuclear reactors which were themselves clones of US Westinghouse reactors. Most new reactor construction in China uses the Hualong One design. Which is an indigenous Chinese design. The AP1000 is only a fraction of new reactor builds in China.

Oh and China has 55 operational nuclear reactors.

I copied straight from the report lol
It shows. The report has lots of inaccuracies in it. Reading it you would think the US invented nuclear power for electric generation. But the first nuclear reactor generating electricity and sending it back to the grid was actually a Soviet Union nuclear reactor.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on how you continual mischaracterize its findings including the sentence you cite on ability to deploy. I don’t care for the fusion findings since fusion is the technology of the future and always will be.
So basically China is innovating in nuclear power. Which is supposed to be a good thing.
 

HighGround

Junior Member
Registered Member
At the time of the Roman Empire, they were not under a gold standard. What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, one of the causes for the fall of the Roman Empire was precisely the fact that they reduced the value of the coins to support military and public spending, which was extremely high, one of the causes that many historians believe was fundamental to the fall of Rome. .

Well no. The point isn't that they were specifically on the "gold standard" or not. The point is that basing your monetary systems around a metal, as the romans did, does not prevent inflation or currency manipulation.

But inflation isn't the reason the Roman Empire failed anyway, and monetary mismanagement contributed to, but was not the primary cause of the collapse.

Your initial mistake is to start calling the phenomenon of deflation a bad thing. You are missing the point.

Calling the phenomenon of price reduction "deflation" is one of the most serious mistakes a person can make in economic science. It is the equivalent of confusing getting rich with getting poor. This error leads people to believe that an increase in the production of goods and services -- something that, in itself, is the basis of enrichment, but which also causes a fall in prices -- is at the same time the cause of a economic contraction and the impoverishment it generates.

To correctly understand the point, it is necessary to clarify a few things.

Okay, I'm gonna stop you right here. I am not missing the point. You are.

I've already stated that deflation can be a good thing if it is achieved using advances in TFP. What we've been discussing is monetary deflation, which is most definitively a bad thing, and something you keep avoiding talking about.

This would be exactly the scenario under a gold standard, as the supply of gold grows modestly from one year to the next as a result of continued and expanded mining, and the volume of spending in terms of gold grows proportionately. Under these circumstances, an ordinary seller would be in a position to sell his goods at lower prices and, at the same time, at a higher volume.
.
.
.
Furthermore, notwithstanding the corresponding fall in prices caused by the more rapid increase in the production and supply of goods and services, the increase in the quantity of gold and the volume of expenditure in terms of gold makes debt repayment somewhat more difficult. easy. For example, suppose that sales revenues in the economic system are increasing at a rate of 2% -- because of increases in the supply of gold and the volume of spending -- but that prices are falling at a rate of 3%. , because the supply of goods and services increased by 5% in the year.

This is incredibly economically illiterate. What actually happens and what has happened is an accelerated cycle of "creative destruction" that caused frequent boom/bust cycles due to the inability of the gold standard to adequately respond to fluctuations in money demand and lack of banking regulations.

The principal issue is the inadequacy of the Gold Standard to maintain price stability. That's what happens when you fix the price of gold. Volatility and fluctuations don't go away when you "fix" the price of the currency, it merely moves those fluctuations to the prices of goods instead.

Finally, in relation to mass unemployment: if there is deflation -- in the correct sense of the term, that is, a reduction in the amount of money and the volume of spending -- then a fall in prices, far from being the cause of deflation/depression, will be the solution. In such circumstances, a reduction in wages and prices is exactly what is needed to allow a reduced amount of money and spending to buy everything that a previously larger amount of money and spending could buy. If, for example, as occurred in the United States in 1929, there was originally $50 billion in wage spending employing 50 million workers at an average annual wage of $1,000, and now, because of deflation, there is only $40 billion in spending on 40 million workers, full employment could be restored if the average wage fell from $1,000 to $800 per year. In that case, $40 billion could employ as many workers as $50 billion did.
.
.
.
Thus, precisely because of the impossibility of creating gold in abundance -- as today the central bank can do with banknotes --, banks were much more cautious in their loans. Consequently, the expansion of the money supply through fractional reserves was much more contained.

Uh no, and again, a Gold Standard doesn't prevent an expansion of the money supply. Regulations and control does, but even if we assume that the money supply stays fixed, that's a bad thing. Supply and demand are never stable 24/7. They are dynamic day to day and will be impacted by events and factors outside of related economic activity.

Second, you criticize fractional banking and centralized banking, when it is precisely those two things that allow for creation of credit, and prevention of economic catastrophy.

Third, there was both a drop in wages and a drop in employment. You're also not differentiating between nominal wages and real wages. In a recession, real wages rise even as nominal wages drop. Not that this is relevant to your argument anyway.


And the result was that, from 1815 to 1913, there was price deflation in the USA. In other words, prices fell year after year -- something unimaginable nowadays. Something that cost US$100 in 1815 only cost US$65 in 1913. Average price inflation during this period was -0.43%. That is, every year, things became 0.43% cheaper. When you look at the post-Civil War period -- from 1865 to 1914 --, the values become even more extraordinary. Something that cost $100 in 1865 only cost $60 in 1913, which means there was an average annual deflation of 1% -- every year, things got 1% cheaper.

Between 1815 and 1913 there were over 20 economic cycles with wild fluctuations in prices. So no, things didn't get "1% cheaper". They got 50% cheapr and then 30% more expensive and then 40% cheaper and then 20% more expensive. It was actually a horrible time.

The only "good" deflation was the deflationary period of 1870-1890, due to the Second Industrial revolution. Hardly some side effect of the gold standard.


What was the result of the creation of the American central bank? What happened to the American economy after the government took control of the currency? Did the dollar remain with the same purchasing power?

In 1920, there was the first post-Fed crisis, generated by the acceleration of monetary expansion. This was the last crisis in which a government did almost nothing to try to mitigate it -- which is exactly why its duration was short.

During the remainder of the 1920s, the money supply grew more rapidly again, culminating in the 1929 crisis.

In 1933, Roosevelt prohibited American citizens from redeeming their dollars in gold. Americans were even prohibited from owning any amount of gold at home or abroad. The dollar was devalued and became redeemable in gold only for foreign governments and central banks. Still, a small connection with gold was maintained.

In 1945, with the Bretton Woods agreement, the dollar became the standard world currency, although still linked to gold. With one detail: the dollar could not be redeemed in gold by American citizens; it could be redeemed in gold only to foreign governments and their central banks. No American individual could exchange dollars for gold. Only governments had this privilege. This arrangement, albeit tortuously, restricted the Fed somewhat, because if it inflated the dollar, foreign governments could exercise their right to exchange dollars for gold, causing a huge flight of gold from the US.

In 1971, however, precisely as a result of a large volume of gold outflow from the USA, Richard Nixon put an end to everything and definitively removed the USA from what was still left of the gold standard, defaulting on foreign governments and creating the paper system. -floating currencies that we currently know.

The result of the Federal Reserve was a stable money supply, fewer economic cycles, and stable prices. And this can be empirically seen by just looking at the price of bread...
 

chgough34

Junior Member
Registered Member
Ability to deploy means we can make it. If you don't have the ability to deploy, you can't make it. So the US is a dreamer only while China dreams and does. If you don't have something, it's just wishful thinking to say that you're on par in tech to the top builder in the world.
As usual - these memes end up dragging out a lot and far from their original point, which is largely the point and go into all kinds of side tangents (+I’m simply unfamiliar with Chinese microeconomic data which makes cross-country comparisons invariably difficult) so to make this succinct and to prevent more tangents from swallowing the the entire thing, I’ll close and you can have the last word

1. The ADVANCE Act passing Congress was prima facie proof that Congress is able to make substantive technocratic changes in a bipartisan manner. Congress does many ADVANCE Act type laws in any given session.

2. US firms (especially) and U.S. human capital development are competitive. Full stop. Human capital development in China being competitive doesn’t cut against that (and if anything, make for more substantive gains from trade). It’s honestly more a feat the U.S. which has been ~3-5% of the world population has been continuously dominant for so long (and will be for at least another career lifetime).

3. US households are unambiguously financially solvent and are net savers (which cuts against a non-tautological textual definition of paycheck to paycheck) and correctly evaluate their future income stability to be quite high and are risk-loving at the same time, thus, their savings will be more focused on illiquid vehicles for their only one truly uninsurable risk - retirement. That there are withdrawal penalties is a risk they are willing to take since they evaluate those probabilities to be small and thus an acceptable cost for consumption today. Some people don’t evaluate their risks this way or are more financially risk-averse: a reasonable choice but differences in risk assessments and risk aversion are not financial distress or “paycheck to paycheck”.

even if you use solely survey data - the paycheck to paycheck numbers have to be squared with household surveys showing most people are confident in their finances -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
@ page 5)
 
Last edited:

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
As usual - these memes end up dragging out a lot and far from their original point, which is largely the point and go into all kinds of side tangents (+I’m simply unfamiliar with Chinese microeconomic data which makes cross-country comparisons invariably difficult) so to make this succinct and to prevent more tangents from swallowing the the entire thing,
Ohhhhhh Dude, you're back! How did you recover mentally from looking at a chart AND words that said China had 56 reactors building 27, then claiming with confidence to me that China only had 27? That kinda shame Chinese people have to leave the forum and go meditate in the mountains for. Americans just keep running their mouths like no mistakes were made, huh? Like if most people get hit in the face with a turd, they gotta go home, take a shower, change into new clothes but for you, there's nothing to recover from cus you live in the latrines LOLOL

And on top of that, you had to get by the shock of how badly you underestimated your enemy; it's like initially thinking you're up against a dude who's 3 feet tall then realizing you're up against a giant who actually grows 3 feet per year. But you made it through that too and you're here running your mouth again like nothing happened. Amazing! Amazingly American.
I’ll close and you can have the last word
Dude, no, we're having so much fun. And you don't even take mental damage from being proven wrong; why stop?
1. The ADVANCE Act passing Congress was prima facie proof that Congress is able to make substantive technocratic changes in a bipartisan manner. Congress does many ADVANCE Act type laws in any given session.
Changes are seen in the results. We've not seen them yet.
2. US firms (especially) and U.S. human capital development are competitive. Full stop. Human capital development in China being competitive doesn’t cut against that (and if anything, make for more substantive gains from trade). It’s honestly more a feat the U.S. which has been ~3-5% of the world population has been continuously dominant for so long (and will be for at least another career lifetime).
Yeah, they're competitive. They went from being dominant to being competitive and that downward trend will continue with the rise of Chinese tech. US firms compete differently from China. Chinese firms compete with superior technology while American firms compete using politics and threats/bribes from DC. And once again, you are ahead of your time as a US politician by stating that it was already a miracle that the US lasted so long as the dominant power; we knew that was going to be one of the things that the US says on its way out but you have foresight to say it 2 decades early. Bravo.
3. US households are unambiguously financially solvent and are net savers (which cuts against a non-tautological textual definition of paycheck to paycheck) and correctly evaluate their future income stability to be quite high and are risk-loving at the same time, thus, their savings will be more focused on illiquid vehicles for their only one truly uninsurable risk - retirement. That there are withdrawal penalties is a risk they are willing to take since they evaluate those probabilities to be small and thus an acceptable cost for consumption today. Some people don’t evaluate their risks this way or are more financially risk-averse: a reasonable choice but differences in risk assessments and risk aversion are not financial distress or “paycheck to paycheck”.
This is economics lingo defending financially irresponsible spending that is needed to keep the US economy rolling. Paycheck to paycheck works only as long as nothing falls through. No losing one's job and so substantial emergencies. That's financial frailty but not distress... not yet.
even if you use solely survey data - the paycheck to paycheck numbers have to be squared with household surveys showing most people are confident in their finances -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Happy is subjective. Being paycheck to paycheck or not having the money to cover a $100/$400/$1K expense is objective. Homeless people are happy just to find a nice dry box with no holes and no smells to sleep under.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
@ page 5)
72% say they're doing at least OK with no definition of what that means, and the number is on a downward trend. What do you hope that measn? Americans without $1K to pull out if they needed it think they're doing ok. Who am I to argue when these are the same people who can make 6 figures and have nothing left over after expenses and 401K (not even maxing it out but "reasonable contribution")?
Oh yeah, which is why I think all research conclusions from the report are suspect (which was my point the entire time).
Yeah, the conclusion that even though China has the only gen 4 reactor and is building 27 reactors to America's 0, that America is still somehow likely technologically par with China is real suspect.
 
Last edited:

chgough34

Junior Member
Registered Member
Inflation has cooled substantially, now CPI is a bit >2% now -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and this is even without considering the massive wave of apartments that are soon to come into the market (housing costs are ~40% of consumer inflation) -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

chgough34

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yet more evidence against “lol Congress doesn’t do anything” - the Congress recently passed a law increasing federal support for fighting Parkinson’s Disease through both treatment and screening - for highly technocratic nonideological issues, there is substantial bipartisan support for sweeping reforms

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Data center construction for AI is absolutely booming in the U.S. - for the first time ever, the Census Bureau is going to separately report out data center construction in its monthly construction report


The U.S. FDA has approved a second in class innovative anti-Alzheimer’s drug which will increase competition in the market and improve patient outcomes

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

First-in class geothermal energy technology) now being deployed by Southern California Edison, an electric utility, which will improve reliability, environmental sustainability (especially important in SoCal due to the air pollution), and shows the long running payoffs from the U.S. being first to deploy innovative oil and gas technologies (the geothermal technology was first used in an oil and gas context and now scaled up substantially)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

$500m in workforce development and research & development grants have been recently to geographies with less technological innovation. Recent economic research has shown that only ~15% of young people in the U.S. internally migrate from the metro areas that they grew up in, yet 90% of VC funding is concentrated in San Francisco/San Jose, New York City, and Boston. Increasing the geographic diversity of technological innovation will create more opportunities for local residents and serve to act as a spark to create positive feedback loops in smaller metropolitan areas. The combined populations of the San Jose-San Francisco metro, New York City metro, and Boston metro areas are just 10% of the US population but even with that are the source of 90% of VC innovation, now creating the new economy (instead of simply using its outputs) will be diffused across the other 90%. Even the most mid-tier obscure U.S. metropolitan areas are home to incredibly innovative old economy firms (for example, Indianapolis is home to the headquarters to Eli Lilly - a massive pharmaceutical company, Corteva - one of the worlds largest agtech companies, Cumins - the worlds largest car engine manufacturer, and Calumet Specialty Products - a leading exporter of all sorts of specialty chemicals). Now that innovation will be replicated in t

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

43 out of 50 US states have foreign-born/immigrant shares of the population below historic highs. For all the talk of an “immigrant crisis”, the U.S. is uniquely capable of assimilating immigrants into a broader American culture and has done so at a much larger scale before - heck, even among the current states with half of the U.S. immigrant population - California, Texas, Florida, and New York - California and New York are well below their historic immigrant shares of the population.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
First of all, I'm really surprised you're here talking about the effectiveness of the US government right after the debate in which your country just showcased the (lack of) mental acuity of the 2 men who are supposedly the best in the US vying for the presidency.
Yet more evidence against “lol Congress doesn’t do anything” -
Once again, you've confused trying to do something vs doing something. Trying to do something is passing a bill and allocating money for a project. Having the project bear fruit with new world-leading technology is actually doing something. So in the next 2 paragraphs, you've shown no evidence of congress or US politicians doing anything.
the Congress recently passed a law increasing federal support for fighting Parkinson’s Disease through both treatment and screening - for highly technocratic nonideological issues, there is substantial bipartisan support for sweeping reforms

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Data center construction for AI is absolutely booming in the U.S. - for the first time ever, the Census Bureau is going to separately report out data center construction in its monthly construction report

They're trying to do something. Results pending. Evidence of nothing, especially nothing to brag about.
The U.S. FDA has approved a second in class innovative anti-Alzheimer’s drug which will increase competition in the market and improve patient outcomes

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
This I congratulate them on. Branches of the government that are run by scientists rather than career politicians such as the CDC and FDA are something I hold in high regard. Unfortunately, it is often that the well-thought-out efforts of these respectable scientists are shot down and rejected by higher ranking politicians in congress who are intellectually unfit to lick clean the shoes of these scientists, a scenario most pronounced during COVID.
First-in class geothermal energy technology) now being deployed by Southern California Edison, an electric utility, which will improve reliability, environmental sustainability (especially important in SoCal due to the air pollution), and shows the long running payoffs from the U.S. being first to deploy innovative oil and gas technologies (the geothermal technology was first used in an oil and gas context and now scaled up substantially)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
That has nothing to do with congress; that is 2 private US companies signing a contract with each other.
$500m in workforce development and research & development grants have been recently to geographies with less technological innovation. Recent economic research has shown that only ~15% of young people in the U.S. internally migrate from the metro areas that they grew up in, yet 90% of VC funding is concentrated in San Francisco/San Jose, New York City, and Boston. Increasing the geographic diversity of technological innovation will create more opportunities for local residents and serve to act as a spark to create positive feedback loops in smaller metropolitan areas. The combined populations of the San Jose-San Francisco metro, New York City metro, and Boston metro areas are just 10% of the US population but even with that are the source of 90% of VC innovation, now creating the new economy (instead of simply using its outputs) will be diffused across the other 90%. Even the most mid-tier obscure U.S. metropolitan areas are home to incredibly innovative old economy firms (for example, Indianapolis is home to the headquarters to Eli Lilly - a massive pharmaceutical company, Corteva - one of the worlds largest agtech companies, Cumins - the worlds largest car engine manufacturer, and Calumet Specialty Products - a leading exporter of all sorts of specialty chemicals). Now that innovation will be replicated in t

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Once again, spending money is not getting results.
43 out of 50 US states have foreign-born/immigrant shares of the population below historic highs. For all the talk of an “immigrant crisis”, the U.S. is uniquely capable of assimilating immigrants into a broader American culture and has done so at a much larger scale before - heck, even among the current states with half of the U.S. immigrant population - California, Texas, Florida, and New York - California and New York are well below their historic immigrant shares of the population.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
What does "below historic highs" even mean? Everyday you've either set a new record or you're below historic highs. Also, having immigrants doesn't mean they're the valuable type of immigrants and it doesn't mean that they assimilate to your culture, not that that matters anyway if they're not the right/valuable type.

Your entire post is of no value, a conglomeration of random articles poorly masquerading as evidence of competence within the US government, the same government led by an old man whose normal speech resembles a computer program crashing.
 
Top