Swiss study finds countries with low govt employment have better economies

[droski]

IMD, the Swiss business school, produces a comparison of public-sector employment as a percentage of total population for its Competitiveness Yearbook. It shows a striking correlation between economic success in emerging economies and relatively low populations of public employees, notably in Asia.

Korea, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and even China (at 8.3%) have low public employment as a percentage of total population. In Singapore, it's less than 3%. Also on the list, below 15%, are Colombia, Peru and Chile, three of South America's strongest economies.

Henninger: Is Egypt Hopeless? - WSJ.com

Can't be true. Gibbs told me the govt is the most efficient.

 

[sjt18]

For most of us who understand it is the guys who row the boat rather than the ones who ride that make it move... this is pretty much intuitive. For the Keynesians who believe that all you have to do to move a boat is get more passengers... even non-paying ones... this has to be mind blowing.

 

[tigervol9802]

IMD, the Swiss business school, produces a comparison of public-sector employment as a percentage of total population for its Competitiveness Yearbook. It shows a striking correlation between economic success in emerging economies and relatively low populations of public employees, notably in Asia.

Korea, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and even China (at 8.3%) have low public employment as a percentage of total population. In Singapore, it's less than 3%. Also on the list, below 15%, are Colombia, Peru and Chile, three of South America's strongest economies.

Henninger: Is Egypt Hopeless? - WSJ.com

Can't be true. Gibbs told me the govt is the most efficient.

But where is their happiness factor?

 

[BeecherVol]

IMD, the Swiss business school, produces a comparison of public-sector employment as a percentage of total population for its Competitiveness Yearbook. It shows a striking correlation between economic success in emerging economies and relatively low populations of public employees, notably in Asia.

Korea, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and even China (at 8.3%) have low public employment as a percentage of total population. In Singapore, it's less than 3%. Also on the list, below 15%, are Colombia, Peru and Chile, three of South America's strongest economies.

Henninger: Is Egypt Hopeless? - WSJ.com

Can't be true. Gibbs told me the govt is the most efficient.

Aren't gorillas native to most of those countrys?

 

[MG1968]

I'm sure Cuba is the exception to that rule, after all, it has great healthcare.

 

[utgibbs]

Uh, guys. I don't think the link is working.

However, I'll just shoot some facts about the countries listed.

Taiwan, Korea, India, Malaysia, Thailand off the top of my head all have universal government health care. Although Malaysia, I think, has a system similar to a Swiss / Obamacare model. Taiwan's is based on our Medicare system, but applied to the whole country.

China is Communist.

I can discuss Chile's economy and history at length. Shall we do that?

I wish the link worked. Are they "strong" because of growth figures?

 

[NEO]

Ah crap. Back to the woodshed.

 

[lawgator1]

I am surprised at you, droski, not knowing the difference between correlation and causation.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

IMD, the Swiss business school, produces a comparison of public-sector employment as a percentage of total population for its Competitiveness Yearbook. It shows a striking correlation between economic success in emerging economies and relatively low populations of public employees, notably in Asia.

Korea, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and even China (at 8.3%) have low public employment as a percentage of total population. In Singapore, it's less than 3%. Also on the list, below 15%, are Colombia, Peru and Chile, three of South America's strongest economies.

Henninger: Is Egypt Hopeless? - WSJ.com

Can't be true. Gibbs told me the govt is the most efficient.

I am so proud of these Latin American countries.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I can discuss Chile's economy and history at length. Shall we do that?

Please do. I am very familiar with their personal retirement accounts and the wisdom of the Chicago Boys...

 

[utgibbs]

Please do. I am very familiar with their personal retirement accounts and the wisdom of the Chicago Boys...

Oh, Rasputin. It is ON!

Do you mean that private social security system they just had to overhaul becuase of the administrative costs and the lack of payouts?

Do you mean the Chicago Boys who were run out on a rail when Pinochet had to renationalize the country in 1982? Chilean GDP never returned to where Allende left it until 1. The Chicago boys had been run out of the country for 5 years, and 2. The price of copper shot up dramatically. And Allende faced a de facto embargo which dramatically reduced the price of copper. In other words, Chile under Allende was left without its greatest asset and it still grew more than under the Chicago Boys dictatorship.

Please, OH PLEASE tell me you are trying to defend their record.

Get Beechervol, this one is going to have GRAPHICS!

 

[sjt18]

Uh, guys. I don't think the link is working.

However, I'll just shoot some facts about the countries listed.

Taiwan, Korea, India, Malaysia, Thailand off the top of my head all have universal government health care. Although Malaysia, I think, has a system similar to a Swiss / Obamacare model. Taiwan's is based on our Medicare system, but applied to the whole country.

And... not a single one of those countries provides the level, quantity, or quality of care that our messy system does.

Like I've said before, make it some sort of voucher system and you can get me on board for a universal system. That would bring the consumer back in as the arbitor of costs and value. But all of the moronic schemes tossed out by the left including Obamacare are destined to fail... And when I say "fail" I mean degrade our current system back to the levels of the systems you just cited.

China is Communist.

Not for awhile now. The more free market they become... the more prosperous they become. They have private companies operating, making a profit, investing capital, borrowing, etc.

I know for a FACT that the gov't completely lost control of Chinese steel companies last year. They were taking and filling orders so fast that the gov't could not account for it. They have a growing middle class and wealth. Social freedom is lagging but you can no longer define them as a centrally planned and controlled economy. In some ways, there's more free market principles at play there than in the US.

 

[utgibbs]

And... not a single one of those countries provides the level, quantity, or quality of care that our messy system does.

Like I've said before, make it some sort of voucher system and you can get me on board for a universal system. That would bring the consumer back in as the arbitor of costs and value. But all of the moronic schemes tossed out by the left including Obamacare are destined to fail... And when I say "fail" I mean degrade our current system back to the levels of the systems you just cited.

Not for awhile now. The more free market they become... the more prosperous they become. They have private companies operating, making a profit, investing capital, borrowing, etc.

You may want to take a look at your health metrics again.

And it has come at a complete shock to the rest of the world that China is no longer Communist. Shocking. I feel sorry for Egypt since their revolution just got trumped.

 

[sjt18]

You may want to take a look at your health metrics again.

No gibbs. I have looked at and seen the intentional flaws in your "metrics". They amount to nothing... and I mean NOTHING more than an answer in search of a question.

And it has come at a complete shock to the rest of the world that China is no longer Communist. Shocking. I feel sorry for Egypt since their revolution just got trumped.

No it wouldn't. Anyone who knows the definition of communism and knows what is now occurring in China knows they are transitioning away from a centrally planned and controlled economy to a free market economy. The process isn't complete but it is far enough down the road that they can no longer be called communist. You did know that a requisite component of communism is a centrally planned economy, right?

I have been directly involved in the sale of tens of millions of dollars worth of material to the Chinese in the past year. Communist is simply a label that no longer applies.

 

[utgibbs]

No gibbs. I have looked at and seen the intentional flaws in your "metrics". They amount to nothing... and I mean NOTHING more than an answer in search of a question.



No it wouldn't. Anyone who knows the definition of communism and knows what is now occurring in China knows they are transitioning away from a centrally planned and controlled economy to a free market economy. The process isn't complete but it is far enough down the road that they can no longer be called communist. You did know that a requisite component of communism is a centrally planned economy, right?

I have been directly involved in the sale of tens of millions of dollars worth of material to the Chinese in the past year. Communist is simply a label that no longer applies.

This is BIG news.

 

[MG1968]

This is BIG news.

to you it may be. It isn't to anybody who shops at WalMart.

 

[utgibbs]

to you it may be. It isn't to anybody who shops at WalMart.

But this was a PLANNED operation (namely, export-led development) carried out by the SOEs.

If this is Capitalism at its finest, I've got a cheese-doodle factory near Guandong you might be interested in....

 

[MG1968]

But this was a PLANNED operation (namely, export-led development) carried out by the SOEs.

If this is Capitalism at its finest, I've got a cheese-doodle factory near Guandong you might be interested in....

sure it was planned. why? because a communist, centrally planned and controlled economy was never going to work in a country with a population of over 1 billion people.

you trumpet all the people raised out of poverty in China, that had nothing to do with Communism. Why do you think Mao exterminated tens of millions of people?

 

[sjt18]

This is BIG news.

Not for anyone dealing with several different Chinese companies that buy the commodities we trade in.

 

[sjt18]

But this was a PLANNED operation (namely, export-led development) carried out by the SOEs.

If this is Capitalism at its finest, I've got a cheese-doodle factory near Guandong you might be interested in....

Who said it was capitalism at its finest? I simply told you the truth. They no longer economically meet the definition of "communist". They are in transition.

They have private companies gibbs. You knew that right? Their companies borrow money. Thus their recent moves to try to slow their economy by raising interest rates.

 

[WA_Vol]

IMD, the Swiss business school, produces a comparison of public-sector employment as a percentage of total population for its Competitiveness Yearbook. It shows a striking correlation between economic success in emerging economies and relatively low populations of public employees, notably in Asia.

Korea, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and even China (at 8.3%) have low public employment as a percentage of total population. In Singapore, it's less than 3%. Also on the list, below 15%, are Colombia, Peru and Chile, three of South America's strongest economies.

Henninger: Is Egypt Hopeless? - WSJ.com

Can't be true. Gibbs told me the govt is the most efficient.

I bet if you factored in city and state employment it would be even more telling.

 

[utgibbs]

Who said it was capitalism at its finest? I simply told you the truth. They no longer economically meet the definition of "communist". They are in transition.

They have private companies gibbs. You knew that right? Their companies borrow money. Thus their recent moves to try to slow their economy by raising interest rates.

:facepalm:

They have a lot of SOEs. These "private" companies are under strict rules operating in certain zones. They cannot deploy their Capital freely. The "private" companies they have are invited / allowed to be there.

Like you I've done a lot of business in China (and not just Taiwan). It is a one party state dominated by the Communisty Party.

I am not heaping praise on China! I have stated they have been the sole success story in raising people out of poverty. They have permitted some market mechanisms to function, but they are not a capitalist country.

It's like saying the BBC don't have the resources to buy cameras.

 

[sjt18]

:facepalm:

They have a lot of SOEs. These "private" companies are under strict rules operating in certain zones.

Yeah... so strict that the gov't completely lost control of their steel companies last year. So strict that they've raised interest rates at least twice since the new year and cannot slow their economy down.

They cannot deploy their Capital freely. The "private" companies they have are invited / allowed to be there.

So what? You just completely contradicted the position you've staked out. Communist countries don't even allow this amount of free enterprise.

Like you I've done a lot of business in China (and not just Taiwan). It is a one party state dominated by the Communisty Party.

And it STILL does not meet the definition of a communist economy any more.

I am not heaping praise on China! I have stated they have been the sole success story in raising people out of poverty. They have permitted some market mechanisms to function, but they are not a capitalist country.

I didn't say they were a thorough going capitalist country. I said they are in transition and are no longer a communist economy. Thanks btw for acknowledging that the success they have had is directly due to moving away from the centrally planned model.

 

[droski]

I have stated they have been the sole success story in raising people out of poverty.

and you still havent' explained how they've been raised out of poverty when the average person makes less than our poorest 2%.