President Obama's Foreign Policy

[Starlight]

On a scale of 1 - 10, I'd rate Bush as a 1, his father, Clinton and Obama around 5. Wasn't alive long enough to be aware of Reagan's foreign policy but my limited study of that period puts him around 5 - 6.

Obama's foreign policy is leagues better than Bush's and better than any foreign policy articulated by Republicans during the last seven years. That's the clear distinction.

I fully agree with you on all those except for Reagan, who I'd rate 2-3.

[Darth Ovious]

I don't what the big fuss is now anyway over Russia. it's a different Russia now from the one that was Communist and fell apart. Russia is now more Christian than America.

The main reason why Russia and China are making their way up the ladder in terms of economic power is because they still value their traditional values. Traditional values that western countries abandoned in favour of progressive clap trap.

[Paprika]

I don't what the big fuss is now anyway over Russia.

It's just existential angst caused by Russia threatening the 'lone superpower' status of the USA. And the neocons amplify it for their own purposes.

If you Brits were still interested in empire, you'd understand.

[Starlight]

The main reason why Russia and China are making their way up the ladder in terms of economic power is because they still value their traditional values. Traditional values that western countries abandoned in favour of progressive clap trap.

??? Traditional values or lack of them have little to do with economics.

Economic productivity (GDP) is just a measure of total goods and services produced. You can think of it as = number of workers * number of hours worked per worker * productivity per worker-hour.

Productivity per worker-hour is about how productive the individual workers are, which is a function of their knowledge and competence, what sort of tools they are using to boost their productivity, how much effort they are putting in, minus how counterproductive their society itself is. You can think of it as = effort (0% to 100%) * technology (1 to infinity) * corruption (0 to 1, with 0 being total corruption and 1 being no corruption). Where "technology" includes scientific developments, the ability to purchase the tools, and the education to use them.

Over the last hundred and fifty years or so, GDP has steadily increased in the Western world by ~1 to 1.5% per year due to continuous scientific development. Tractors, factories, computers etc, have made people more productive: The same amount of human effort results in an orders of magnitude more goods being produced in the same amount of time. GDP just keeps going up and up and up as a result. A secondary factor is that women have joined the workforce, essentially doubling the total workforce as a proportion of the population... but that's inherently a limited change because you can't go above 100% of the population working. Whereas technological change is potentially unlimited - we can imagine a future colonist on another planet simply pressing a button and having nanobots prepare thousands of fields worth of food... the total productivity that could result from a small amount of human effort could thus potentially increase without bound.

The Western world is currently at the 'leading edge' of technological development in the sense that we are by and large currently using the latest technology. We have the education/know-how to use it, the money to buy it, and the access to it. There's not much of a way to grow our GDPs other than further scientific development. The alternatives are trying to make people work harder or work longer hours or get more people working... but those are all inherently finite things - there's only so many hours in the day, and people can only work so hard, and you can't have more than 100% of your population working... those are all hard bounds that it's inherently impossible to ever overcome. So the GDP of the West seems likely to continue to grow at ~1% per year, as scientific developments continue to occur that make production increasingly more efficient. Possibly if there is a huge investment in scientific research it might speed up, or if there is a lack of investment it might slow down. But the West is inherently limited to that rate of growth.

Other nations, who have fallen behind, are not limited to that rate of growth because they can catch up. If a nation was previously extremely corrupt and almost everything being produced was being lost due to corruption, then by fixing its corruption problem it might overnight multiply it's total GDP by 2 or 3. Or if a nation was previously communist and there were zero incentives in place for people to put any effort into their work, then changing to a system that put some incentives in place for people to make an effort in their work might dramatically increase their GDP. Or if a nation lacked widespread education and the ability to buy and use modern technology, then upskilling their workers and purchase modern technological tools would make their workers more efficient and dramatically increase their GDP per person.

The natural result of all this is that nations that are behind the rest in terms of GDP per person have the ability to catch up to the rest fast if they correct the systemic failures that are causing them to lag behind everyone else. But the ones at the front of the pack can only grow their GDPs as fast as science is growing, which history suggests is a rate of ~1-1.5% per year. "Traditional values" or lack of them, have nothing much to do with economic growth whatsoever.

[Darth Ovious]

??? Traditional values or lack of them have little to do with economics.

Economic productivity (GDP) is just a measure of total goods and services produced. You can think of it as = number of workers * number of hours worked per worker * productivity per worker-hour.

Productivity per worker-hour is about how productive the individual workers are, which is a function of their knowledge and competence, what sort of tools they are using to boost their productivity, how much effort they are putting in, minus how counterproductive their society itself is. You can think of it as = effort (0% to 100%) * technology (1 to infinity) * corruption (0 to 1, with 0 being total corruption and 1 being no corruption). Where "technology" includes scientific developments, the ability to purchase the tools, and the education to use them.

Over the last hundred and fifty years or so, GDP has steadily increased in the Western world by ~1 to 1.5% per year due to continuous scientific development. Tractors, factories, computers etc, have made people more productive: The same amount of human effort results in an orders of magnitude more goods being produced in the same amount of time. GDP just keeps going up and up and up as a result. A secondary factor is that women have joined the workforce, essentially doubling the total workforce as a proportion of the population... but that's inherently a limited change because you can't go above 100% of the population working. Whereas technological change is potentially unlimited - we can imagine a future colonist on another planet simply pressing a button and having nanobots prepare thousands of fields worth of food... the total productivity that could result from a small amount of human effort could thus potentially increase without bound.

The Western world is currently at the 'leading edge' of technological development in the sense that we are by and large currently using the latest technology. We have the education/know-how to use it, the money to buy it, and the access to it. There's not much of a way to grow our GDPs other than further scientific development. The alternatives are trying to make people work harder or work longer hours or get more people working... but those are all inherently finite things - there's only so many hours in the day, and people can only work so hard, and you can't have more than 100% of your population working... those are all hard bounds that it's inherently impossible to ever overcome. So the GDP of the West seems likely to continue to grow at ~1% per year, as scientific developments continue to occur that make production increasingly more efficient. Possibly if there is a huge investment in scientific research it might speed up, or if there is a lack of investment it might slow down. But the West is inherently limited to that rate of growth.

Other nations, who have fallen behind, are not limited to that rate of growth because they can catch up. If a nation was previously extremely corrupt and almost everything being produced was being lost due to corruption, then by fixing its corruption problem it might overnight multiply it's total GDP by 2 or 3. Or if a nation was previously communist and there were zero incentives in place for people to put any effort into their work, then changing to a system that put some incentives in place for people to make an effort in their work might dramatically increase their GDP. Or if a nation lacked widespread education and the ability to buy and use modern technology, then upskilling their workers and purchase modern technological tools would make their workers more efficient and dramatically increase their GDP per person.

The natural result of all this is that nations that are behind the rest in terms of GDP per person have the ability to catch up to the rest fast if they correct the systemic failures that are causing them to lag behind everyone else. But the ones at the front of the pack can only grow their GDPs as fast as science is growing, which history suggests is a rate of ~1-1.5% per year. "Traditional values" or lack of them, have nothing much to do with economic growth whatsoever.

So in concerns to the part in bold which you have stated but have now followed the rest with your understanding of production I have a couple of questions for you.

1) What happens when birth rates decline and thus your future working population decreases?

2) And why is it western progressive nations have declining birth rates?

[Starlight]

So in concerns to the part in bold which you have stated but have now followed the rest with your understanding of production I have a couple of questions for you.

1) What happens when birth rates decline and thus your future working population decreases?

2) And why is it western progressive nations have declining birth rates?

Obviously total population affects total GDP. Although it doesn't affect GDP per person, which is what people usually care about.

I guess birth rates are dropping because people don't want so many children and have access to effective contraception methods. A lot of people in third world countries want to have less children but lack access to the effective contraception methods necessary for doing so.

[Darth Ovious]

Obviously total population affects total GDP. Although it doesn't affect GDP per person, which is what people usually care about.

Is total GDP important when comparing economic power with other nations?

I guess birth rates are dropping because people don't want so many children and have access to effective contraception methods. A lot of people in third world countries want to have less children but lack access to the effective contraception methods necessary for doing so.

So the first part acknowledges the abandoning of traditional values and the family unit in the west.

As for the people in third world countries wanting less children this actually isn't true because they depend on those children to look after them in their old age. Their system is different because they don't have government assistance when it comes to pensions and don't pay for a private pension either. The reason why a lot of families have so many children as well is because of high mortality rates. They need some children to survive in order to do this and so often over estimate with their number of children in order to make sure that at least a couple survive. Male children grow up to work and provide for their parents in their old age and daughters are married into other families in order to grow the family support network.

[Sam]

Is total GDP important when comparing economic power with other nations?



So the first part acknowledges the abandoning of traditional values and the family unit in the west.

As for the people in third world countries wanting less children this actually isn't true because they depend on those children to look after them in their old age. Their system is different because they don't have government assistance when it comes to pensions and don't pay for a private pension either. The reason why a lot of families have so many children as well is because of high mortality rates. They need some children to survive in order to do this and so often over estimate with their number of children in order to make sure that at least a couple survive. Male children grow up to work and provide for their parents in their old age and daughters are married into other families in order to grow the family support network.

So ... "traditional values" = "high childhood mortality rate"?

[Darth Ovious]

So ... "traditional values" = "high childhood mortality rate"?

That's not what I said. I was answering the claim that people in third world countries would like to have less children but they couldn't afford contraception in order to do so. In reality they have more children to take into account that they will lose some to high childhood mortality rates.

Western families can practice traditional family by maintaining the 2.3 children per average for every family in order to keep the population size stabilised.

[Sam]

That's not what I said. I was answering the claim that people in third world countries would like to have less children but they couldn't afford contraception in order to do so. In reality they have more children to take into account that they will lose some to high childhood mortality rates.

Western families can practice traditional family by maintaining the 2.3 children per average for every family in order to keep the population size stabilised.

You're going to have to explain what "traditional values" are, then. Because you said that Russia and China have 'em, Western nations don't and they involve a higher population growth rate than the Western Nations (including the USA) are hitting. And yet:

Image 007.jpg

Image 010.png

Image 011.png

Image 012.jpg

[Darth Ovious]

You're going to have to explain what "traditional values" are, then. Because you said that Russia and China have 'em, Western nations don't and they involve a higher population growth rate than the Western Nations (including the USA) are hitting. And yet:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6598[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6599[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6600[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6601[/ATTACH]

Yes, however if you look at the graphs then you will see that America's birth rate is currently decreasing while Russia's started increasing at about year 2000. China's is now levelling out after years of a one child policy in place. Once America's birth rate goes below that of the other two nations then America will not be replacing their future working population at the same rate.

As mentioned before technology makes a difference and America does have better technology for the moment. However things will change in the near future, about the next 20 years.

[Sam]

Yes, however if you look at the graphs then you will see that America's birth rate is currently decreasing while Russia's started increasing at about year 2000. China's is now levelling out after years of a one child policy in place. Once America's birth rate goes below that of the other two nations then America will not be replacing their future working population at the same rate.

As mentioned before technology makes a difference and America does have better technology for the moment. However things will change in the near future, about the next 20 years.

So how do Russia and China "still value traditional values" if Russia and China both have fertility rates lower than the USA (and on par with Western Nations) if Russia has only made insufficient (and negligible) gains since 2000 while China actually instituted a national policy to keep the birth rate artificially low?

Your economic theory doesn't hold up here. Russia's a big economic power because it's a petrol state with huge exports of oil and gas, along with the benefit of the many vestiges of the old empire. China's a huge economic power because it runs enormous trade surpluses and maintains a high GDP. Both are military powers because, like the US, they can funnel a lot of money into their militaries.

Fertility rates are pretty far down on the causal ladder.

[Darth Ovious]

So how do Russia and China "still value traditional values" if Russia and China both have fertility rates lower than the USA (and on par with Western Nations) if Russia has only made insufficient (and negligible) gains since 2000 while China actually instituted a national policy to keep the birth rate artificially low?

What is the divorce rate for each country?

Your economic theory doesn't hold up here. Russia's a big economic power because it's a petrol state with huge exports of oil and gas, along with the benefit of the many vestiges of the old empire.

So how come Communist Russia fell apart when they had access to all that oil and gas. Was it something to do with the values they promoted?

China's a huge economic power because it runs enormous trade surpluses and maintains a high GDP.

How does it do that?

Both are military powers because, like the US, they can funnel a lot of money into their militaries.

Of course

Fertility rates are pretty far down on the causal ladder.

So it's not important to replace your working population?

[Sam]

What is the divorce rate for each country?

According to Wikipedia, China's divorce rate is 22%, Russia's 51%, and USA's 53%. Gonna be hard to draw a "traditional values" conclusion from that with your current respective lists. Russia's divorce rate is on par with the USA's and China's valuation of "traditional values" included a national policy of an artificially low birth rate.

So how come Communist Russia fell apart when they had access to all that oil and gas. Was it something to do with the values they promoted?

Lots of reasons. So many reasons. Primarily, though, it's because centralized economic planning, at least in the middle-to-late 20th century, was far, far worse than capitalism. The whole point of Reagan's defense program wasn't to out-gun the Soviets. It was to outspend them.

How does it do that?

It does it well.

So it's not important to replace your working population?

It's of some importance, yes. It is not, though, the primary causal factor or even one of them. Say the USA had a significantly higher working population than it does now — what's that going to get you? Either a lot of people who have to work for far less than current workers or a lot of people drawing unemployment. And with the advances in machine AI and automation already occurring, we're about to find out that cheap human labor (China) and even energy exports (US/Russia) aren't going to be saving graces.

[One Bad Pig]

Thank you Sam. I really needed a belly laugh today. Obama ranks with Jimmy Carter and James Polk as utter and complete failures.

How was James Polk an utter and complete failure (overall or in foreign policy)?