Is the world getting better, getting worse, staying the same, or indeterminate?

[Kidlicious]

Why does China's high savings rate lead to much better results than the Soviet Union's high savings rate ever did?

Savings doesn't necessarily mean growth. It depends on why people (or the nation) is saving. If they are saving to make investments in productive enterprises the economy will grow. If they are hoarding cash or speculating on real estate the economy will eventually collapse, generally speaking. I say generally because wealth can be stored for future use so long as other wealth is being used productively. We will have to wait and see if that's the case with China. But I can't think of one nation that has developed without saving substantially. The US, UK, Germany, Japan, USSR and China developed because they saved substantially.

[Kidlicious]

Please provide an example of a poor country that has not previously been taken advantage of by a rich country.

What does that have to do with anything? Just because you may have been taken advantage of in the past doesn't mean you can improve by saving.

[loinburger]

You really only need the 1% of the population who has all of the wealth to do any saving/investing, and what else are they going to do with their ill-gotten billions? There are only so many solid gold yachts and Presidential elections you can buy.

[C0ckney]

You mean before the development of China?

you are economically illiterate.

[Kidlicious]

you are economically illiterate.

That's coming from an anarchist, oh wait, a collective anarchist.

[-Jrabbit]

And yet, he's right.

[giblets]

Savings doesn't necessarily mean growth. It depends on why people (or the nation) is saving. If they are saving to make investments in productive enterprises the economy will grow. If they are hoarding cash or speculating on real estate the economy will eventually collapse, generally speaking. I say generally because wealth can be stored for future use so long as other wealth is being used productively. We will have to wait and see if that's the case with China. But I can't think of one nation that has developed without saving substantially. The US, UK, Germany, Japan, USSR and China developed because they saved substantially.

You are closer to a realistic model here but you can't assume a country will have productive enterprises to invest in. If private investors decide to invest their money overseas you won't get much growth in the home country will you? You have to keep creating new investment opportunities by implementing new technologies etc. in order to have sustainable growth.

[Kidlicious]

And yet, he's right.

Are you economic literate? COckney is an idiot who knows how to talk like he knows what he's talking about. If he actually knew anything he would call himself something so ridiculous.

[Kidlicious]

You are closer to a realistic model here but you can't assume a country will have productive enterprises to invest in. If private investors decide to invest their money overseas you won't get much growth in the home country will you? You have to keep creating new investment opportunities by implementing new technologies etc. in order to have sustainable growth.

They will invest where they will get the most return. If that is in their home country then that will be better for their country, but if they invest overseas it's better than just squandering their money, not teaching their children to save.

[Kidlicious]

You really only need the 1% of the population who has all of the wealth to do any saving/investing, and what else are they going to do with their ill-gotten billions? There are only so many solid gold yachts and Presidential elections you can buy.

It's better if you have either an emerging new wealth class or you use the government to create savings and investment.

[Aeson]

What do you think happens to money that is spent? It evaporates?

[Kidlicious]

What do you think happens to money that is spent? It evaporates?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but if you spend all your money you saved none, and therefore have no investment. Your consumption will be less in the future.

[kentonio]

What does that have to do with anything?

You tell me, you're the one that made the statement..

The fact that one nation is rich and another nation is poor doesn't mean the rich nation took advantage of the poor nation.

I'm asking you to back it up with a real world example. Otherwise I'd have to presume you were talking **** again.

[Kidlicious]

You tell me, you're the one that made the statement..



I'm asking you to back it up with a real world example. Otherwise I'd have to presume you were talking **** again.

I'm saying nations don't become rich because no rich nation took advantage of them, and they rarely are poor because they are being taken advantage of. You'll have to step up your game.

[PLATO]

***Random Post*** I often wonder if some people really have no idea how utterly stupid and uneducated they sound when posting. ***Random Post***