Businessweek Archives

Revenge of the Communists, Part II


? The Revenge of the Communists |

Main

| The tech squeeze continues ?

June 01, 2005

Revenge of the Communists, Part II

Michael Mandel

Here's a look at the growth performance of the twenty largest global economies over the past ten years. The number after each country is the increase in real GDP per capita, 1995-2005, based on IMF data.

China 108.5%

Russia 52.7%

India 50.4%

Iran 47.8%

Korea 42.6%

Taiwan 39.3%

Spain 30.5%

United Kingdom 26.7%

Canada 25.9%

Australia 25.7%

United States 25.6%

Mexico 24.5%

Turkey 22.9%

Thailand 19.6%

France 19.0%

Brazil 16.9%

Italy 14.7%

Indonesia 13.5%

Germany 11.2%

Japan 9.5%

The top 5 on this list: China, Russia, India, Iran, Korea. The U.S. places only #11, just behind Australia and just ahead of Mexico.

Time to learn HTML tables...

09:02 AM

Growth

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

This explains a lot of the growth:

http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2005/06/wealth-effect-on-steroids.html

Posted by: Tim Iacono at June 1, 2005 10:03 AM

Comparing economic size and growth rates is bogus. It's a heck of a lot easier to grow near zero, and the larger the economy, the harder it is to double in size.

China, growing at 108.5% in the past decade, starts from a base that was artifically suppressed for decades by Communism. Despite the label, the recent regimes understand the value of trade and capital.

It's always easier to show phenomenal growth from a point near zero (gee, we went from $1 million to $2 million; that's 100% growth!); it's much harder as you grow the economy (to achieve 100% growth over an economy of, say, $1 Trillion requires you add $1 Trillion to that economy...a much harder task.

Posted by: Carol Anne Ogdin at June 1, 2005 10:52 AM

You're right as on growth rate indexed against size.

My net worth increased by a factor of 10 in my first 12 months after college graduation (due to starting a job + stopping tuition payments). I have no chance of duplicating that feat again today :).

China probably will not do 108% again from 2005 to 2015. India might do more than 50% from 2005 to 2015, however. The US will probably do the same 25% again.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:20 PM

Thank you for continuing to remind us that China is a communist country. With an economic performance so much better than our own, it's so easy to forget that they're suffering under the burden of a backwards social, political, and economic ideology. Or, does this data suggest that economics has no "loyalty" to political ideology?

-- Jack Krupansky

Posted by: Jack Krupansky at June 1, 2005 12:23 PM

Mexico in particular is a pathetic country. It grew slower than the US and vastly slower than China or India, even though :

1) It does not have hostile, warlike neighbors (like India does)

2) It does not have communism (like China does) or centuries of cultural baggage (like both India and China).

3) It has the ability to export its entire unskilled underclass of 15 million out of the country and into the US, who in turn later send back $50 billion/year (no other country has this special privelege).

4) It has been doing trade with the US and Europe for MUCH longer than India and China have.

5) It has tremendous natural resources.

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:28 PM

in reference to "economics has no loyalty to any certain political ideology",so are you pro-immigration and pro-communism?

Posted by: able to identify a commun at June 4, 2005 07:26 PM

Yes, I'm pro-immigration. No, I'm not pro-communist. In fact, I think China's (communist) government is going to have trouble dealing with the country's next big (capitalist) crisis.

Posted by: Michael Mandel at June 5, 2005 10:01 PM

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Marry at January 2, 2006 04:17 AM

the rapidality economics start from scrach is easier. however. the difficulity may be occured due to the

structure and ownership shift from fully state control to the semi- prviate dominated. the wave of purchasing of private automobil and private housing will be the key events in the folowing decade. the income gap between rich and pool will widening . the FDI and venture capital funded firms will change the feature of the chinese economics for sure. the living style and culture may also will upgrade to new phases.

Posted by: swingcalss at January 2, 2006 11:16 PM

per capita

Posted by: laura at April 18, 2006 06:28 PM

? The Revenge of the Communists |

Main

| The tech squeeze continues ?

June 01, 2005

Revenge of the Communists, Part II

Michael Mandel

Here's a look at the growth performance of the twenty largest global economies over the past ten years. The number after each country is the increase in real GDP per capita, 1995-2005, based on IMF data.

China 108.5%

Russia 52.7%

India 50.4%

Iran 47.8%

Korea 42.6%

Taiwan 39.3%

Spain 30.5%

United Kingdom 26.7%

Canada 25.9%

Australia 25.7%

United States 25.6%

Mexico 24.5%

Turkey 22.9%

Thailand 19.6%

France 19.0%

Brazil 16.9%

Italy 14.7%

Indonesia 13.5%

Germany 11.2%

Japan 9.5%

The top 5 on this list: China, Russia, India, Iran, Korea. The U.S. places only #11, just behind Australia and just ahead of Mexico.

Time to learn HTML tables...

09:02 AM

Growth

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

This explains a lot of the growth:

http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2005/06/wealth-effect-on-steroids.html

Posted by: Tim Iacono at June 1, 2005 10:03 AM

Comparing economic size and growth rates is bogus. It's a heck of a lot easier to grow near zero, and the larger the economy, the harder it is to double in size.

China, growing at 108.5% in the past decade, starts from a base that was artifically suppressed for decades by Communism. Despite the label, the recent regimes understand the value of trade and capital.

It's always easier to show phenomenal growth from a point near zero (gee, we went from $1 million to $2 million; that's 100% growth!); it's much harder as you grow the economy (to achieve 100% growth over an economy of, say, $1 Trillion requires you add $1 Trillion to that economy...a much harder task.

Posted by: Carol Anne Ogdin at June 1, 2005 10:52 AM

You're right as on growth rate indexed against size.

My net worth increased by a factor of 10 in my first 12 months after college graduation (due to starting a job + stopping tuition payments). I have no chance of duplicating that feat again today :).

China probably will not do 108% again from 2005 to 2015. India might do more than 50% from 2005 to 2015, however. The US will probably do the same 25% again.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:20 PM

Thank you for continuing to remind us that China is a communist country. With an economic performance so much better than our own, it's so easy to forget that they're suffering under the burden of a backwards social, political, and economic ideology. Or, does this data suggest that economics has no "loyalty" to political ideology?

-- Jack Krupansky

Posted by: Jack Krupansky at June 1, 2005 12:23 PM

Mexico in particular is a pathetic country. It grew slower than the US and vastly slower than China or India, even though :

1) It does not have hostile, warlike neighbors (like India does)

2) It does not have communism (like China does) or centuries of cultural baggage (like both India and China).

3) It has the ability to export its entire unskilled underclass of 15 million out of the country and into the US, who in turn later send back $50 billion/year (no other country has this special privelege).

4) It has been doing trade with the US and Europe for MUCH longer than India and China have.

5) It has tremendous natural resources.

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:28 PM

in reference to "economics has no loyalty to any certain political ideology",so are you pro-immigration and pro-communism?

Posted by: able to identify a commun at June 4, 2005 07:26 PM

Yes, I'm pro-immigration. No, I'm not pro-communist. In fact, I think China's (communist) government is going to have trouble dealing with the country's next big (capitalist) crisis.

Posted by: Michael Mandel at June 5, 2005 10:01 PM

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Marry at January 2, 2006 04:17 AM

the rapidality economics start from scrach is easier. however. the difficulity may be occured due to the

structure and ownership shift from fully state control to the semi- prviate dominated. the wave of purchasing of private automobil and private housing will be the key events in the folowing decade. the income gap between rich and pool will widening . the FDI and venture capital funded firms will change the feature of the chinese economics for sure. the living style and culture may also will upgrade to new phases.

Posted by: swingcalss at January 2, 2006 11:16 PM

per capita

Posted by: laura at April 18, 2006 06:28 PM

? The Revenge of the Communists |

Main

| The tech squeeze continues ?

June 01, 2005

Revenge of the Communists, Part II

Michael Mandel

Here's a look at the growth performance of the twenty largest global economies over the past ten years. The number after each country is the increase in real GDP per capita, 1995-2005, based on IMF data.

China 108.5%

Russia 52.7%

India 50.4%

Iran 47.8%

Korea 42.6%

Taiwan 39.3%

Spain 30.5%

United Kingdom 26.7%

Canada 25.9%

Australia 25.7%

United States 25.6%

Mexico 24.5%

Turkey 22.9%

Thailand 19.6%

France 19.0%

Brazil 16.9%

Italy 14.7%

Indonesia 13.5%

Germany 11.2%

Japan 9.5%

The top 5 on this list: China, Russia, India, Iran, Korea. The U.S. places only #11, just behind Australia and just ahead of Mexico.

Time to learn HTML tables...

09:02 AM

Growth

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

This explains a lot of the growth:

http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2005/06/wealth-effect-on-steroids.html

Posted by: Tim Iacono at June 1, 2005 10:03 AM

Comparing economic size and growth rates is bogus. It's a heck of a lot easier to grow near zero, and the larger the economy, the harder it is to double in size.

China, growing at 108.5% in the past decade, starts from a base that was artifically suppressed for decades by Communism. Despite the label, the recent regimes understand the value of trade and capital.

It's always easier to show phenomenal growth from a point near zero (gee, we went from $1 million to $2 million; that's 100% growth!); it's much harder as you grow the economy (to achieve 100% growth over an economy of, say, $1 Trillion requires you add $1 Trillion to that economy...a much harder task.

Posted by: Carol Anne Ogdin at June 1, 2005 10:52 AM

You're right as on growth rate indexed against size.

My net worth increased by a factor of 10 in my first 12 months after college graduation (due to starting a job + stopping tuition payments). I have no chance of duplicating that feat again today :).

China probably will not do 108% again from 2005 to 2015. India might do more than 50% from 2005 to 2015, however. The US will probably do the same 25% again.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:20 PM

Thank you for continuing to remind us that China is a communist country. With an economic performance so much better than our own, it's so easy to forget that they're suffering under the burden of a backwards social, political, and economic ideology. Or, does this data suggest that economics has no "loyalty" to political ideology?

-- Jack Krupansky

Posted by: Jack Krupansky at June 1, 2005 12:23 PM

Mexico in particular is a pathetic country. It grew slower than the US and vastly slower than China or India, even though :

1) It does not have hostile, warlike neighbors (like India does)

2) It does not have communism (like China does) or centuries of cultural baggage (like both India and China).

3) It has the ability to export its entire unskilled underclass of 15 million out of the country and into the US, who in turn later send back $50 billion/year (no other country has this special privelege).

4) It has been doing trade with the US and Europe for MUCH longer than India and China have.

5) It has tremendous natural resources.

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:28 PM

in reference to "economics has no loyalty to any certain political ideology",so are you pro-immigration and pro-communism?

Posted by: able to identify a commun at June 4, 2005 07:26 PM

Yes, I'm pro-immigration. No, I'm not pro-communist. In fact, I think China's (communist) government is going to have trouble dealing with the country's next big (capitalist) crisis.

Posted by: Michael Mandel at June 5, 2005 10:01 PM

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Marry at January 2, 2006 04:17 AM

the rapidality economics start from scrach is easier. however. the difficulity may be occured due to the

structure and ownership shift from fully state control to the semi- prviate dominated. the wave of purchasing of private automobil and private housing will be the key events in the folowing decade. the income gap between rich and pool will widening . the FDI and venture capital funded firms will change the feature of the chinese economics for sure. the living style and culture may also will upgrade to new phases.

Posted by: swingcalss at January 2, 2006 11:16 PM

per capita

Posted by: laura at April 18, 2006 06:28 PM

? The Revenge of the Communists |

Main

| The tech squeeze continues ?

June 01, 2005

Revenge of the Communists, Part II

Michael Mandel

Here's a look at the growth performance of the twenty largest global economies over the past ten years. The number after each country is the increase in real GDP per capita, 1995-2005, based on IMF data.

China 108.5%

Russia 52.7%

India 50.4%

Iran 47.8%

Korea 42.6%

Taiwan 39.3%

Spain 30.5%

United Kingdom 26.7%

Canada 25.9%

Australia 25.7%

United States 25.6%

Mexico 24.5%

Turkey 22.9%

Thailand 19.6%

France 19.0%

Brazil 16.9%

Italy 14.7%

Indonesia 13.5%

Germany 11.2%

Japan 9.5%

The top 5 on this list: China, Russia, India, Iran, Korea. The U.S. places only #11, just behind Australia and just ahead of Mexico.

Time to learn HTML tables...

09:02 AM

Growth

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

This explains a lot of the growth:

http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2005/06/wealth-effect-on-steroids.html

Posted by: Tim Iacono at June 1, 2005 10:03 AM

Comparing economic size and growth rates is bogus. It's a heck of a lot easier to grow near zero, and the larger the economy, the harder it is to double in size.

China, growing at 108.5% in the past decade, starts from a base that was artifically suppressed for decades by Communism. Despite the label, the recent regimes understand the value of trade and capital.

It's always easier to show phenomenal growth from a point near zero (gee, we went from $1 million to $2 million; that's 100% growth!); it's much harder as you grow the economy (to achieve 100% growth over an economy of, say, $1 Trillion requires you add $1 Trillion to that economy...a much harder task.

Posted by: Carol Anne Ogdin at June 1, 2005 10:52 AM

You're right as on growth rate indexed against size.

My net worth increased by a factor of 10 in my first 12 months after college graduation (due to starting a job + stopping tuition payments). I have no chance of duplicating that feat again today :).

China probably will not do 108% again from 2005 to 2015. India might do more than 50% from 2005 to 2015, however. The US will probably do the same 25% again.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:20 PM

Thank you for continuing to remind us that China is a communist country. With an economic performance so much better than our own, it's so easy to forget that they're suffering under the burden of a backwards social, political, and economic ideology. Or, does this data suggest that economics has no "loyalty" to political ideology?

-- Jack Krupansky

Posted by: Jack Krupansky at June 1, 2005 12:23 PM

Mexico in particular is a pathetic country. It grew slower than the US and vastly slower than China or India, even though :

1) It does not have hostile, warlike neighbors (like India does)

2) It does not have communism (like China does) or centuries of cultural baggage (like both India and China).

3) It has the ability to export its entire unskilled underclass of 15 million out of the country and into the US, who in turn later send back $50 billion/year (no other country has this special privelege).

4) It has been doing trade with the US and Europe for MUCH longer than India and China have.

5) It has tremendous natural resources.

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:28 PM

in reference to "economics has no loyalty to any certain political ideology",so are you pro-immigration and pro-communism?

Posted by: able to identify a commun at June 4, 2005 07:26 PM

Yes, I'm pro-immigration. No, I'm not pro-communist. In fact, I think China's (communist) government is going to have trouble dealing with the country's next big (capitalist) crisis.

Posted by: Michael Mandel at June 5, 2005 10:01 PM

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Marry at January 2, 2006 04:17 AM

the rapidality economics start from scrach is easier. however. the difficulity may be occured due to the

structure and ownership shift from fully state control to the semi- prviate dominated. the wave of purchasing of private automobil and private housing will be the key events in the folowing decade. the income gap between rich and pool will widening . the FDI and venture capital funded firms will change the feature of the chinese economics for sure. the living style and culture may also will upgrade to new phases.

Posted by: swingcalss at January 2, 2006 11:16 PM

per capita

Posted by: laura at April 18, 2006 06:28 PM

? The Revenge of the Communists |

Main

| The tech squeeze continues ?

June 01, 2005

Revenge of the Communists, Part II

Michael Mandel

Here's a look at the growth performance of the twenty largest global economies over the past ten years. The number after each country is the increase in real GDP per capita, 1995-2005, based on IMF data.

China 108.5%

Russia 52.7%

India 50.4%

Iran 47.8%

Korea 42.6%

Taiwan 39.3%

Spain 30.5%

United Kingdom 26.7%

Canada 25.9%

Australia 25.7%

United States 25.6%

Mexico 24.5%

Turkey 22.9%

Thailand 19.6%

France 19.0%

Brazil 16.9%

Italy 14.7%

Indonesia 13.5%

Germany 11.2%

Japan 9.5%

The top 5 on this list: China, Russia, India, Iran, Korea. The U.S. places only #11, just behind Australia and just ahead of Mexico.

Time to learn HTML tables...

09:02 AM

Growth

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

This explains a lot of the growth:

http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2005/06/wealth-effect-on-steroids.html

Posted by: Tim Iacono at June 1, 2005 10:03 AM

Comparing economic size and growth rates is bogus. It's a heck of a lot easier to grow near zero, and the larger the economy, the harder it is to double in size.

China, growing at 108.5% in the past decade, starts from a base that was artifically suppressed for decades by Communism. Despite the label, the recent regimes understand the value of trade and capital.

It's always easier to show phenomenal growth from a point near zero (gee, we went from $1 million to $2 million; that's 100% growth!); it's much harder as you grow the economy (to achieve 100% growth over an economy of, say, $1 Trillion requires you add $1 Trillion to that economy...a much harder task.

Posted by: Carol Anne Ogdin at June 1, 2005 10:52 AM

You're right as on growth rate indexed against size.

My net worth increased by a factor of 10 in my first 12 months after college graduation (due to starting a job + stopping tuition payments). I have no chance of duplicating that feat again today :).

China probably will not do 108% again from 2005 to 2015. India might do more than 50% from 2005 to 2015, however. The US will probably do the same 25% again.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:20 PM

Thank you for continuing to remind us that China is a communist country. With an economic performance so much better than our own, it's so easy to forget that they're suffering under the burden of a backwards social, political, and economic ideology. Or, does this data suggest that economics has no "loyalty" to political ideology?

-- Jack Krupansky

Posted by: Jack Krupansky at June 1, 2005 12:23 PM

Mexico in particular is a pathetic country. It grew slower than the US and vastly slower than China or India, even though :

1) It does not have hostile, warlike neighbors (like India does)

2) It does not have communism (like China does) or centuries of cultural baggage (like both India and China).

3) It has the ability to export its entire unskilled underclass of 15 million out of the country and into the US, who in turn later send back $50 billion/year (no other country has this special privelege).

4) It has been doing trade with the US and Europe for MUCH longer than India and China have.

5) It has tremendous natural resources.

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:28 PM

in reference to "economics has no loyalty to any certain political ideology",so are you pro-immigration and pro-communism?

Posted by: able to identify a commun at June 4, 2005 07:26 PM

Yes, I'm pro-immigration. No, I'm not pro-communist. In fact, I think China's (communist) government is going to have trouble dealing with the country's next big (capitalist) crisis.

Posted by: Michael Mandel at June 5, 2005 10:01 PM

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Marry at January 2, 2006 04:17 AM

the rapidality economics start from scrach is easier. however. the difficulity may be occured due to the

structure and ownership shift from fully state control to the semi- prviate dominated. the wave of purchasing of private automobil and private housing will be the key events in the folowing decade. the income gap between rich and pool will widening . the FDI and venture capital funded firms will change the feature of the chinese economics for sure. the living style and culture may also will upgrade to new phases.

Posted by: swingcalss at January 2, 2006 11:16 PM

per capita

Posted by: laura at April 18, 2006 06:28 PM

? The Revenge of the Communists |

Main

| The tech squeeze continues ?

June 01, 2005

Revenge of the Communists, Part II

Michael Mandel

Here's a look at the growth performance of the twenty largest global economies over the past ten years. The number after each country is the increase in real GDP per capita, 1995-2005, based on IMF data.

China 108.5%

Russia 52.7%

India 50.4%

Iran 47.8%

Korea 42.6%

Taiwan 39.3%

Spain 30.5%

United Kingdom 26.7%

Canada 25.9%

Australia 25.7%

United States 25.6%

Mexico 24.5%

Turkey 22.9%

Thailand 19.6%

France 19.0%

Brazil 16.9%

Italy 14.7%

Indonesia 13.5%

Germany 11.2%

Japan 9.5%

The top 5 on this list: China, Russia, India, Iran, Korea. The U.S. places only #11, just behind Australia and just ahead of Mexico.

Time to learn HTML tables...

09:02 AM

Growth

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

This explains a lot of the growth:

http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2005/06/wealth-effect-on-steroids.html

Posted by: Tim Iacono at June 1, 2005 10:03 AM

Comparing economic size and growth rates is bogus. It's a heck of a lot easier to grow near zero, and the larger the economy, the harder it is to double in size.

China, growing at 108.5% in the past decade, starts from a base that was artifically suppressed for decades by Communism. Despite the label, the recent regimes understand the value of trade and capital.

It's always easier to show phenomenal growth from a point near zero (gee, we went from $1 million to $2 million; that's 100% growth!); it's much harder as you grow the economy (to achieve 100% growth over an economy of, say, $1 Trillion requires you add $1 Trillion to that economy...a much harder task.

Posted by: Carol Anne Ogdin at June 1, 2005 10:52 AM

You're right as on growth rate indexed against size.

My net worth increased by a factor of 10 in my first 12 months after college graduation (due to starting a job + stopping tuition payments). I have no chance of duplicating that feat again today :).

China probably will not do 108% again from 2005 to 2015. India might do more than 50% from 2005 to 2015, however. The US will probably do the same 25% again.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:20 PM

Thank you for continuing to remind us that China is a communist country. With an economic performance so much better than our own, it's so easy to forget that they're suffering under the burden of a backwards social, political, and economic ideology. Or, does this data suggest that economics has no "loyalty" to political ideology?

-- Jack Krupansky

Posted by: Jack Krupansky at June 1, 2005 12:23 PM

Mexico in particular is a pathetic country. It grew slower than the US and vastly slower than China or India, even though :

1) It does not have hostile, warlike neighbors (like India does)

2) It does not have communism (like China does) or centuries of cultural baggage (like both India and China).

3) It has the ability to export its entire unskilled underclass of 15 million out of the country and into the US, who in turn later send back $50 billion/year (no other country has this special privelege).

4) It has been doing trade with the US and Europe for MUCH longer than India and China have.

5) It has tremendous natural resources.

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:28 PM

in reference to "economics has no loyalty to any certain political ideology",so are you pro-immigration and pro-communism?

Posted by: able to identify a commun at June 4, 2005 07:26 PM

Yes, I'm pro-immigration. No, I'm not pro-communist. In fact, I think China's (communist) government is going to have trouble dealing with the country's next big (capitalist) crisis.

Posted by: Michael Mandel at June 5, 2005 10:01 PM

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Marry at January 2, 2006 04:17 AM

the rapidality economics start from scrach is easier. however. the difficulity may be occured due to the

structure and ownership shift from fully state control to the semi- prviate dominated. the wave of purchasing of private automobil and private housing will be the key events in the folowing decade. the income gap between rich and pool will widening . the FDI and venture capital funded firms will change the feature of the chinese economics for sure. the living style and culture may also will upgrade to new phases.

Posted by: swingcalss at January 2, 2006 11:16 PM

per capita

Posted by: laura at April 18, 2006 06:28 PM

? The Revenge of the Communists |

Main

| The tech squeeze continues ?

June 01, 2005

Revenge of the Communists, Part II

Michael Mandel

Here's a look at the growth performance of the twenty largest global economies over the past ten years. The number after each country is the increase in real GDP per capita, 1995-2005, based on IMF data.

China 108.5%

Russia 52.7%

India 50.4%

Iran 47.8%

Korea 42.6%

Taiwan 39.3%

Spain 30.5%

United Kingdom 26.7%

Canada 25.9%

Australia 25.7%

United States 25.6%

Mexico 24.5%

Turkey 22.9%

Thailand 19.6%

France 19.0%

Brazil 16.9%

Italy 14.7%

Indonesia 13.5%

Germany 11.2%

Japan 9.5%

The top 5 on this list: China, Russia, India, Iran, Korea. The U.S. places only #11, just behind Australia and just ahead of Mexico.

Time to learn HTML tables...

09:02 AM

Growth

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

This explains a lot of the growth:

http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2005/06/wealth-effect-on-steroids.html

Posted by: Tim Iacono at June 1, 2005 10:03 AM

Comparing economic size and growth rates is bogus. It's a heck of a lot easier to grow near zero, and the larger the economy, the harder it is to double in size.

China, growing at 108.5% in the past decade, starts from a base that was artifically suppressed for decades by Communism. Despite the label, the recent regimes understand the value of trade and capital.

It's always easier to show phenomenal growth from a point near zero (gee, we went from $1 million to $2 million; that's 100% growth!); it's much harder as you grow the economy (to achieve 100% growth over an economy of, say, $1 Trillion requires you add $1 Trillion to that economy...a much harder task.

Posted by: Carol Anne Ogdin at June 1, 2005 10:52 AM

You're right as on growth rate indexed against size.

My net worth increased by a factor of 10 in my first 12 months after college graduation (due to starting a job + stopping tuition payments). I have no chance of duplicating that feat again today :).

China probably will not do 108% again from 2005 to 2015. India might do more than 50% from 2005 to 2015, however. The US will probably do the same 25% again.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:20 PM

Thank you for continuing to remind us that China is a communist country. With an economic performance so much better than our own, it's so easy to forget that they're suffering under the burden of a backwards social, political, and economic ideology. Or, does this data suggest that economics has no "loyalty" to political ideology?

-- Jack Krupansky

Posted by: Jack Krupansky at June 1, 2005 12:23 PM

Mexico in particular is a pathetic country. It grew slower than the US and vastly slower than China or India, even though :

1) It does not have hostile, warlike neighbors (like India does)

2) It does not have communism (like China does) or centuries of cultural baggage (like both India and China).

3) It has the ability to export its entire unskilled underclass of 15 million out of the country and into the US, who in turn later send back $50 billion/year (no other country has this special privelege).

4) It has been doing trade with the US and Europe for MUCH longer than India and China have.

5) It has tremendous natural resources.

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Kartik at June 1, 2005 12:28 PM

in reference to "economics has no loyalty to any certain political ideology",so are you pro-immigration and pro-communism?

Posted by: able to identify a commun at June 4, 2005 07:26 PM

Yes, I'm pro-immigration. No, I'm not pro-communist. In fact, I think China's (communist) government is going to have trouble dealing with the country's next big (capitalist) crisis.

Posted by: Michael Mandel at June 5, 2005 10:01 PM

Given all these advantages, it's failure to be more than 1.8% of the world economy (with a population similar to that of Japan) is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Marry at January 2, 2006 04:17 AM

the rapidality economics start from scrach is easier. however. the difficulity may be occured due to the

structure and ownership shift from fully state control to the semi- prviate dominated. the wave of purchasing of private automobil and private housing will be the key events in the folowing decade. the income gap between rich and pool will widening . the FDI and venture capital funded firms will change the feature of the chinese economics for sure. the living style and culture may also will upgrade to new phases.

Posted by: swingcalss at January 2, 2006 11:16 PM

per capita

Posted by: laura at April 18, 2006 06:28 PM


Soul Searcher
LIMITED-TIME OFFER SUBSCRIBE NOW

(enter your email)
(enter up to 5 email addresses, separated by commas)

Max 250 characters

 
blog comments powered by Disqus