For proper search in rich media, check out a service like www.blinkx.tv, where the audio is transcibed. No reliance on meta-data, and the sectioning is also automated.
Not that one, a bit too old, but yes it posed the same questions. It was not about growth, only static conditions. But ok, I take everything back since I can't give the exact to the article.
I don't know if you mean growth per capita, but that must surely be the only interesting measure since the US population is growing and the european one is contracting. The US productivity numbers both in static terms and their derivatives (growth, growth growth, etc) have always been better the last 100 years I suppose.
Yes, I admit that I can't quote exacly from which study my claims originate. I hope, however, that people's faith in publications such as The Economist is such that I would not have to. There was a report recently in that very magazine whose conclusion was the one I was arguing for: the apparent gap in economic strength, growth and productivity can be explained by largely two things: longer working hours in the US and different ways of calculating macro economic conditions. But once again, I cannot give you the exact publication date of that perticular issue (I think it was in July...). But perhaps you could find the content of the argument interesting rather dismiss solely it because of lack of exact sources. But maybe that would destabilize your view of the world too much, carefully crafted by Fox News (just kidding).
The 2001 numbers are too old to use in this case. They may seem current, but they are not. The appreciation of the Euro to the Dollar between the end of 2001 and now is almost 30%. And since you are comparing everything in dollar terms, that makes a huge diference. I'm not sure about the dollar against the swedish koruna though, but I'm guessing it is similar.
Purchasing power parity is also a very tricky measure. The simplest form of of that measure that I know is the "Big Mac" index, used by "The Economist" to compare economies relatively. Here they use a single product and still admit that the model has big flaws.
So an overvalued currency makes the US numbers look fantastic. That will become a huge problem once China and the rest of the world stops buying US treasury bonds.
Once again, I'm not jingoistic, but I seem to detect a tendency of american statisticians to make their numbers look more impressive. The software as an investment is an excellent example.
Actually, GDP per working hour (productivity) is on par in Western Europe and the US. Far higher in economies such as Sweden, Norway, Finland and The Netherlands. The gap in GDP per capita can be explained by the fact that in the US, people work a lot more.
Another important difference, which at first galnce might not look so important, is that fact that the US counts software as an investment (counts in GDP) where as in the EU it counts as operating costs. I don't know which is better, but it makes the US economy seem to be about 1% bigger Than it actually is.
Factor in both these things and Europe has higher productivity and probably that obtuse concept: "Quality of life".
I'm not biased, since I'm half American, half European...
Slashdot Mirror
No. Stanford owns the PageRank patent.
For proper search in rich media, check out a service like www.blinkx.tv, where the audio is transcibed. No reliance on meta-data, and the sectioning is also automated.
Not that one, a bit too old, but yes it posed the same questions. It was not about growth, only static conditions. But ok, I take everything back since I can't give the exact to the article. I don't know if you mean growth per capita, but that must surely be the only interesting measure since the US population is growing and the european one is contracting. The US productivity numbers both in static terms and their derivatives (growth, growth growth, etc) have always been better the last 100 years I suppose.
Yes, I admit that I can't quote exacly from which study my claims originate. I hope, however, that people's faith in publications such as The Economist is such that I would not have to. There was a report recently in that very magazine whose conclusion was the one I was arguing for: the apparent gap in economic strength, growth and productivity can be explained by largely two things: longer working hours in the US and different ways of calculating macro economic conditions. But once again, I cannot give you the exact publication date of that perticular issue (I think it was in July...). But perhaps you could find the content of the argument interesting rather dismiss solely it because of lack of exact sources. But maybe that would destabilize your view of the world too much, carefully crafted by Fox News (just kidding).
The 2001 numbers are too old to use in this case. They may seem current, but they are not. The appreciation of the Euro to the Dollar between the end of 2001 and now is almost 30%. And since you are comparing everything in dollar terms, that makes a huge diference. I'm not sure about the dollar against the swedish koruna though, but I'm guessing it is similar. Purchasing power parity is also a very tricky measure. The simplest form of of that measure that I know is the "Big Mac" index, used by "The Economist" to compare economies relatively. Here they use a single product and still admit that the model has big flaws. So an overvalued currency makes the US numbers look fantastic. That will become a huge problem once China and the rest of the world stops buying US treasury bonds. Once again, I'm not jingoistic, but I seem to detect a tendency of american statisticians to make their numbers look more impressive. The software as an investment is an excellent example.
Actually, GDP per working hour (productivity) is on par in Western Europe and the US. Far higher in economies such as Sweden, Norway, Finland and The Netherlands. The gap in GDP per capita can be explained by the fact that in the US, people work a lot more. Another important difference, which at first galnce might not look so important, is that fact that the US counts software as an investment (counts in GDP) where as in the EU it counts as operating costs. I don't know which is better, but it makes the US economy seem to be about 1% bigger Than it actually is. Factor in both these things and Europe has higher productivity and probably that obtuse concept: "Quality of life". I'm not biased, since I'm half American, half European...
Sorry, but that quote is by french atheist Denis Diderot.