Foodstamp73
10th January 2003, 13:44
-------------------------Wise Leader has asked:
А что ты думаешь про
1) Что на самом, самом деле, изменить цикличность экономики практически нельзя, так что нужно просто подождать пока рецессия закончится
2) Что потенциал роста страны с развитой экономикой всегда меньше чем потенциал роста страны с развивающейся экономикой? Тоесть чем богаче страна, тем медленнее она растет. как бы достигает потолка роста. Так что сравнение с Китаем/Россией не совсем подходит
3) Рост экономики не самоцель? Рост экономики не всегда тоже самое что благо состояние народа.
--------------------------------------------
1) Monetary policy can even out cyclical fluctuation of aggregate output, which is what's been done by the Fed for many decades with varying degrees of success. In the last 3 or 4 decades fluctuations diminished dramatically compared to pre-WWII period. Fiscal policy is less effective, especially under free floating exchange rates
2) This is true, but this observation is not carved in stone and it does not follow that a large country should give up on growth and do nothing.
3) Growth would not be as relevant if countries never fought wars and terrorized each other. Economic growth is equivalent to survival in a permanently hostile environment. I agree that high-growth economies are high-stress and high-inequality economies. However these negative effects are dwarfed by exteranal threats such as terrorism or occupation by a more economically and technologically advanced country. Living under stress is better than dying. Higher economic and technological prosperity can prevent many attacks and save many lives, whereas stopping and relaxing would mean opening yourself to ever-increasing external threats.
Peace and harmony in international politics are not achievable (see the thread about war below in this section), therefore growth economic and military is the only survival strategy for a country. Unfortunately military superiority has always lead to abuses, but from the standpoint of the superior country aggression is better than falling behind and becoming a victim. In other words kill or be killed.
А что ты думаешь про
1) Что на самом, самом деле, изменить цикличность экономики практически нельзя, так что нужно просто подождать пока рецессия закончится
2) Что потенциал роста страны с развитой экономикой всегда меньше чем потенциал роста страны с развивающейся экономикой? Тоесть чем богаче страна, тем медленнее она растет. как бы достигает потолка роста. Так что сравнение с Китаем/Россией не совсем подходит
3) Рост экономики не самоцель? Рост экономики не всегда тоже самое что благо состояние народа.
--------------------------------------------
1) Monetary policy can even out cyclical fluctuation of aggregate output, which is what's been done by the Fed for many decades with varying degrees of success. In the last 3 or 4 decades fluctuations diminished dramatically compared to pre-WWII period. Fiscal policy is less effective, especially under free floating exchange rates
2) This is true, but this observation is not carved in stone and it does not follow that a large country should give up on growth and do nothing.
3) Growth would not be as relevant if countries never fought wars and terrorized each other. Economic growth is equivalent to survival in a permanently hostile environment. I agree that high-growth economies are high-stress and high-inequality economies. However these negative effects are dwarfed by exteranal threats such as terrorism or occupation by a more economically and technologically advanced country. Living under stress is better than dying. Higher economic and technological prosperity can prevent many attacks and save many lives, whereas stopping and relaxing would mean opening yourself to ever-increasing external threats.
Peace and harmony in international politics are not achievable (see the thread about war below in this section), therefore growth economic and military is the only survival strategy for a country. Unfortunately military superiority has always lead to abuses, but from the standpoint of the superior country aggression is better than falling behind and becoming a victim. In other words kill or be killed.