When Soviet Living Standards Will Be better

[fromderinside]

I'm pretty sure that was his point.

Depends. It joedad means by revolution, party realignment, then I agree. Somehow I don't think that's his view. I got the sense that guns would be involved somehow and that's not going to happen on an organized scale in the US anytime soon.

 

[bilby]

I'm pretty sure that was his point.

Depends. It joedad means by revolution, party realignment, then I agree. Somehow I don't think that's his view. I got the sense that guns would be involved somehow and that's not going to happen on an organized scale in the US anytime soon.

Wake up, sheeple! It's already happening in Oregon!

 

[barbos]

Actually between 1990 and now Russian GDP grew more than US one.

According to graph I linked US GDP per capital grew by $31,000 since 1990 (to $54,600) and Russian GDP per capita is $12,700.

You should look at percentage growth.
Also, your graph is in nominal dollars, that's incorrect way to measure GDP. In PP dollars russian GDP is 2 times higher.

 

[barbos]

It will lead to where it always leads, revolution in the end. Whether that revolution is peaceful or not is another issue.

Takes a lot to get Russians up to revolting. Last revolution took WWI. Russia has never had a proper capitalistic base, in fact it seems to still be a culture based on obedience to a central figure and ethnicity over most any other value. We're not great at ignoring those here, but, even with just current anger over changes in self views in American we're a lot closer to some sort of revolt than are the Russians.

My question is is it better mine, mine, mine, or is it better leader, leader, leader.

This is fair observation. I wish US foreign policy critters understood that. Unlike Americans Russians don't have good experience from revolutions and there is a good reason for that because although last revolution did technically take WW1, but in practice it was german intelligence project, there were not much internal reasons for that kind of revolution. Now US is trying to create revolution again. Nothing good ever comes from externally induced revolts, US/West should realize that already.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm pretty sure that was his point.

Depends. It joedad means by revolution, party realignment, then I agree. Somehow I don't think that's his view. I got the sense that guns would be involved somehow and that's not going to happen on an organized scale in the US anytime soon.

Doesn't have to involve guns. Likely won't. FDR's New Deal was revolution.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Takes a lot to get Russians up to revolting. Last revolution took WWI. Russia has never had a proper capitalistic base, in fact it seems to still be a culture based on obedience to a central figure and ethnicity over most any other value. We're not great at ignoring those here, but, even with just current anger over changes in self views in American we're a lot closer to some sort of revolt than are the Russians.

My question is is it better mine, mine, mine, or is it better leader, leader, leader.

This is fair observation. I wish US foreign policy critters understood that. Unlike Americans Russians don't have good experience from revolutions and there is a good reason for that because although last revolution did technically take WW1, but in practice it was german intelligence project, there were not much internal reasons for that kind of revolution. Now US is trying to create revolution again. Nothing good ever comes from externally induced revolts, US/West should realize that already.

I really don't think that the US wants a Russian revolution. I think that they and Europe mostly want Russia to not invade any more eastern European countries.

 

[Jayjay]

According to graph I linked US GDP per capital grew by $31,000 since 1990 (to $54,600) and Russian GDP per capita is $12,700.

You should look at percentage growth.
Also, your graph is in nominal dollars, that's incorrect way to measure GDP. In PP dollars russian GDP is 2 times higher.

Even then, Russian GDP seems to not have grown faster compared to 1990. This is because there was a slump in early nineties:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-per-capita-ppp

 

[barbos]

This is fair observation. I wish US foreign policy critters understood that. Unlike Americans Russians don't have good experience from revolutions and there is a good reason for that because although last revolution did technically take WW1, but in practice it was german intelligence project, there were not much internal reasons for that kind of revolution. Now US is trying to create revolution again. Nothing good ever comes from externally induced revolts, US/West should realize that already.

I really don't think that the US wants a Russian revolution. I think that they and Europe mostly want Russia to not invade any more eastern European countries.

And to achieve that they they try to incite revolution. I mean it worked for germans in 1917 rather well.

 

[barbos]

You should look at percentage growth.
Also, your graph is in nominal dollars, that's incorrect way to measure GDP. In PP dollars russian GDP is 2 times higher.

Even then, Russian GDP seems to not have grown faster compared to 1990. This is because there was a slump in early nineties:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-per-capita-ppp

True, it's because of prior total collapse , but mathematically it grew more than in US.

 

[fromderinside]

Depends. It joedad means by revolution, party realignment, then I agree. Somehow I don't think that's his view. I got the sense that guns would be involved somehow and that's not going to happen on an organized scale in the US anytime soon.

Wake up, sheeple! It's already happening in Oregon!

Oh. You mean our neighbors. That's just a few cowboys who wandered off the range with too many shooters in them. You know how cowboys are. On the range for a couple months then into a bar, three drinks and blewie, Hitchcock stories.

 

[dismal]

According to graph I linked US GDP per capital grew by $31,000 since 1990 (to $54,600) and Russian GDP per capita is $12,700.

You should look at percentage growth.
Also, your graph is in nominal dollars, that's incorrect way to measure GDP. In PP dollars russian GDP is 2 times higher.

People don't eat percentage growth. Living standards are based on the absolute number.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You should look at percentage growth.
Also, your graph is in nominal dollars, that's incorrect way to measure GDP. In PP dollars russian GDP is 2 times higher.

People don't eat percentage growth. Living standards are based on the absolute number.

In Russia they might eat percentage growth. As I said, I don't know if people know what the true standards of living are elsewhere.

 

[barbos]

You should look at percentage growth.
Also, your graph is in nominal dollars, that's incorrect way to measure GDP. In PP dollars russian GDP is 2 times higher.

People don't eat percentage growth. Living standards are based on the absolute number.

I thought we were talking about economic growth which properly measured as percentage growth.
As for living standards, then numbers you provided do not apply because as I have said before you need to look at purchasing parity GDP.

 

[barbos]

People don't eat percentage growth. Living standards are based on the absolute number.

In Russia they might eat percentage growth. As I said, I don't know if people know what the true standards of living are elsewhere.

For that they invented purchasing parity GDP, which essentially measures how much stuff you can buy.

 

[coloradoatheist]

In Russia they might eat percentage growth. As I said, I don't know if people know what the true standards of living are elsewhere.

For that they invented purchasing parity GDP, which essentially measures how much stuff you can buy.

And with that, the figures are that Russia has half the US.

 

[dismal]

People don't eat percentage growth. Living standards are based on the absolute number.

I thought we were talking about economic growth which properly measured as percentage growth.
As for living standards, then numbers you provided do not apply because as I have said before you need to look at purchasing parity GDP.

There may be times when percentage growth may make sense to talk about. But when we are asking if X lives better than Y then absolute level is the more relevant thing.

The problem with percentage growth is it can be misleading when the starting point is really low. Like China starting at $250 GDP per capita under the communists. They have had massive levels of percentage growth in the last several decades but they are just getting to the point where they are passing Jamaica in absolute GDP per capita.

Generally those wildly high percentage growth numbers when starting from a low and previously suppressed base number are not going to be sustainable. In a few decades you'd have to own the world.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I thought we were talking about economic growth which properly measured as percentage growth.
As for living standards, then numbers you provided do not apply because as I have said before you need to look at purchasing parity GDP.

There may be times when percentage growth may make sense to talk about. But when we are asking if X lives better than Y then absolute level is the more relevant thing.

The problem with percentage growth is it can be misleading when the starting point is really low. Like China starting at $250 GDP per capita under the communists. They have had massive levels of percentage growth in the last several decades but they are just getting to the point where they are passing Jamaica in absolute GDP per capita.

Generally those wildly high percentage growth numbers when starting from a low and previously suppressed base number are not going to be sustainable. In a few decades you'd have to own the world.

How much of Russia's GDP is tied to oil. Is the decline in oil prices going to hurt the Russian economy?

 

[barbos]

For that they invented purchasing parity GDP, which essentially measures how much stuff you can buy.

And with that, the figures are that Russia has half the US.

Yes.

 

[barbos]

I thought we were talking about economic growth which properly measured as percentage growth.
As for living standards, then numbers you provided do not apply because as I have said before you need to look at purchasing parity GDP.

There may be times when percentage growth may make sense to talk about. But when we are asking if X lives better than Y then absolute level is the more relevant thing.

It was you who started talking about growth. I merely pointed out that correct way to talk about it is percentage.

The problem with percentage growth is it can be misleading when the starting point is really low.

absolute numbers are even more misleading than that.

 

[dismal]

There may be times when percentage growth may make sense to talk about. But when we are asking if X lives better than Y then absolute level is the more relevant thing.

It was you who started talking about growth. I merely pointed out that correct way to talk about it is percentage.

The problem with percentage growth is it can be misleading when the starting point is really low.

absolute numbers are even more misleading than that.

I have no idea what point you are making here.

If I ask "who has a better living standard today" I would look at the absolute number. If I ask "whose living standard has improved the most since 1990" I would look at the absolute change in the absolute number.

A person whose purchasing power has grown from $10,000 to $15,000 has experienced an increase of $5000 in purchasing power. A person whose purchasing power has grown from $250 to $500 has not experienced as big of an improvement. One can buy $5000 more worth of stuff. The other can buy $250 more worth of stuff.