Comments on: I have always wanted to produce this graph

By: nef: how wrong, let me count the ways « Freethinking Economist

nef: how wrong, let me count the ways « Freethinking Economist — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:54:38 +0000

[...] we might have been without it for many years. For the education of nef researchers, consider this graph comparing GDP over 18 years. The ‘choice’ that France, Germany made not to do finance [...]

By: Top Blogging for the 7th December « Left Outside

Top Blogging for the 7th December « Left Outside — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:03:05 +0000

[...] Giles Wilkes thinks that the detractors of “Anglo-Saxon” economies need to have a good long think about the consequences of other systems. [...]

By: Paul Sagar

Paul Sagar — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:46:03 +0000

The obvious retort is that yes, in terms of growth delivered, the Anglo Saxon model gives you more of it. The interesting issue is whether that therefore makes the Anglo Saxon model ipso facto the most desirable model both vis a vis other approaches in existence and re what we might want to do about our present approach.

Of course, we want growth. But we may want other values too (social cohesion, equality, less power and influence of the corporate sector, greater public ownership, respect for the environment, whatever). And we may feel that while the Anglo Saxon approach gives us lots of growth, it doesn’t give us enough of the other good stuff.

Not to say I necessarily think that other approaches do, on balance, yield us better alternatives over all. Or that the idiots your post is targetted at take the nuanced position I’m pointing too. I just wanted to make the point that growth isn’t the only value (whilst trying not to be an anti-growth moron).

By: tim leunig

tim leunig — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:58:18 +0000

Giles

It also depends one when you start your analysis. If you start in Jan 1997, rather than Q2 1991, then the US has grown 35%, the UK 29% and France 26%. If the UK workforce has grown 0.2% faster per year, then French growth per worker has been higher than ours. This seems at least plausible, given immigration levels.

Capitalism works, but there is precious little evidence that one form or another works better, taken at that sort of aggregate level.

Tim

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:31:00 +0000

thought this might be of interest:

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5286

The Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) hears evidence from four expert commentators on its new inquiry into public administration and the fiscal squeeze.

Video and audio evidence session: Public administration and the fiscal squeeze
Public Administration Select Committee
The witnesses are:

10am

David Halpern, Director of Research at the Institute for Government and former Number 10 adviser
Andrew Haldenby, Director of Reform, an independent, charitable, non-party think tank
Tony Travers, London School of Economics
Colin Talbot, Manchester Business School
The short inquiry is looking at how ministers and public servants can conduct the business of government most effectively in the face of likely future public spending cuts.

PASC’s particular focus is the impact of hard economic times on government administration and public services, rather than on the economics of deficit reduction.

It also comes as proposals are being put forward by government and others to achieve ‘smarter government’.

The session is expected to cover the following issues:

the nature of expected cuts to public expenditure (targeted or across-the-board)
possible effects on the size and organisation of central government, frontline public services and other public sector bodies
the relative merits of different approaches to making public spending cuts
how to determine the areas that government should and should not be involved in
how government officials and public servants could manage the process of implementing cuts most effectively

By: freethinkingeconomist

freethinkingeconomist — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:17:25 +0000

This is obviously a huge topic, and I’ve done little rather than post a simple graph. But your last sentence says it. Trouble is with the ultimate malthuisian limits, and the distributional issues. But it definitely works.

I’ll post another graph some time.

By: Left Outside

Left Outside — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:45:40 +0000

I had much the same thought as the commenter above, but then I spent an hour playing with http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/index.php and open office calc.

And discovered! Nah, pretty similar if you adjust on a per capita basis. Although Germany catches up with France by 2008, having lost ground since 1997, unlike as descibed above. I might do a post on it soon since I have some data to play with now. (Might throw in Italy too, that’s a country that always makes me think; “economics must be irrelevant because Italy’s still going.” a la Chris Dillow)

You’ve got to give it to Capitalism; it does produce growth.

By: freethinkingeconomist

freethinkingeconomist — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:55:50 +0000

No, plumbus, unless you thnk that the UK and the US have outgrown France’s population growth by 10%, then clearly no. I suspect the figure is more like 3%.. Go to the OECD if you think you have figures elsewhere.

The “real message” you have just given is about as false as any I can imagine. So feudalism works just as well, really?

By: plumbus

plumbus — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:17:35 +0000

Im sorry but this irrelevant, its GDP per head that tells you how rich people are. The USA has, for obvious historical reasons had very high immigration rates, the same is true to a lesser extent og the UK. Japan, France & Germany have, at some points, had falling populations.
The real message is that political models seem to have no long-term effect on growth at all.