When Soviet Living Standards Will Be better

[coloradoatheist]

Same with Russia.

But oil prices and a natural resource that will run out is important.
Are you implying that debt can grow forever?

A lot of countries have high debt to GDP, US is the norm. But I think Russia will be hit much harder when we run out of oil than the US.

If you wanted to find a reason why Russia might shoot down a plane and stire up wars, it's the reason
I am not following you here.

I believe that Russia has been stirring up trouble around the world to try and keep oil prices high.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[barbos]

A lot of countries have high debt to GDP, US is the norm. But I think Russia will be hit much harder when we run out of oil than the US.

If you wanted to find a reason why Russia might shoot down a plane and stire up wars, it's the reason
I am not following you here.

I believe that Russia has been stirring up trouble around the world to try and keep oil prices high.

Well, it was 16% of GDP and part of these 16% went into saving account.
I can't say 16% is a large number. The reason why it feels like a lot is because budget was mostly oil based.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, and how would Iran fit this "strategy"?
That was pretty stupid to help Iran to lift these sanctions?

 

[fromderinside]

A lot of countries have high debt to GDP, US is the norm. But I think Russia will be hit much harder when we run out of oil than the US.



I believe that Russia has been stirring up trouble around the world to try and keep oil prices high.

Well, it was 16% of GDP and part of these 16% went into saving account.
I can't say 16% is a large number. The reason why it feels like a lot is because budget was mostly oil based.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, and how would Iran fit this "strategy"?
That was pretty stupid to help Iran to lift these sanctions?

Putin learned from Corleone. Khamenei now owes him one. "It may ever come, but, one day I may ask a favor of you in return. Kiss my bleeping ring."

 

[bilby]

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.

LOL.

You really think that someone whose purchasing power has increased from 'one meal a day' to 'three meals a day' has seen less of a living standard increase than someone who has gone from 'one Ferrari in the garage' to 'three Ferraris in the garage', (or even from 'new clothes once a decade' to 'new clothes once a year'), don't you.

That's the problem with looking only at money; it's a good measure of all kinds of things, but quality of life isn't one of them. Sure, more money is slightly correlated with a better life, most of the time; but the relationship is far from directly proportional. Gains at the low end are worth far more, in terms of living standard per dollar, than gains at the top end.

Give a Tanzanian peasant farmer an old bicycle worth $10, and it will become his most treasured possession, and will totally change his life.

Give the same $10 old bicycle to an upper middle class American suburbanite, and he will put it straight in the trash.

Consider this:

Two people start a foot race. Bob runs 3 laps in the first ten minutes. Jim runs 1 lap in the first ten minutes. For the next 10 minutes Bob increases his pace 0% while Jim increases his pace 100%. How many laps does Jim make up in the second 10 minutes of the race? (I tried to keep the math easy for the leftists.)

Or, alternatively if you are convinced a person who has gained $5000 has gained more than a person who has gained $250 we can test this directly. You send me $5000 and I'll send you $250 and we'll meet back here to chat about who has gained more.

Your analogy, like the rest of your argument, completely misses the point.

This is not about mathematics; Every dollar buys the same amount of goods, and more dollars buys more goods than do fewer dollars - we agree on that point, and your pointless foot race analogy demonstrates it beautifully, (well done, have a gold star) - but the same dollar value of goods does not lead, in all cases, to the same improvement in living standard.

Given the question was about when the Russian economy and US economy would be equal this seems completely irrelevant. At that time they would have the same amount of dollars.

My point was, like in the race example, you don't gain by your improvement percentage. You gain by the absolute amount of ground you cover.

Two gold stars.

That's not the question. I agree with you on the first part of this:

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.

It is second part; the part in bold; that I am questioning.

Economically, you gain by the amount of ground you cover. Standard of living gains, however, increase by more than that at the low end. They go up by even more than the improvement percentage. Because standard of living, (unlike wealth, income, or GDP per capita), is not measured in dollars.

Your assumption that standard of living increases proportionally (or even close to proportionally) with absolute change in the absolute GDP per capita; or with the absolute dollar wealth of a given individual, is simply wrong.

And that basic error underlies many of the assumptions that lead you (and many others, particularly in the USA) to hold really dumb positions on economics, and as a result to hold really dumb and quite harmful political views too.

If you try to imagine this is a thread about when Russia and the US will have the same standard of living and the issue that vexes you so should just evaporate.

Don't beat yourself up over it; we all make mistakes occasionally.

Apology accepted.

 

[barbos]

Well, it was 16% of GDP and part of these 16% went into saving account.
I can't say 16% is a large number. The reason why it feels like a lot is because budget was mostly oil based.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, and how would Iran fit this "strategy"?
That was pretty stupid to help Iran to lift these sanctions?

Putin learned from Corleone. Khamenei now owes him one. "It may ever come, but, one day I may ask a favor of you in return. Kiss my bleeping ring."

That is the plan. But do you realize that contradicts the theory of "Russia causing troubles to increase oil prices"?