He (Dubya) raised the self esteem of millions of foreign citizens. Being able to laugh at the expense of the leader of a dominant world power gives significant health benefits.
I think Dubyah definitely began the end of US hegemony (which I see as a bad thing), but probably in larger part because of his devastation of the US economy and the placement of a gigantic US debt into the hands of its sole future strategic rival.
Yeah, it was the destruction of the economy that made him the second worst US President (after Lincoln). All of those things contributed to the end of US Hegemony, I meant that the war in Iraq functions as a potent symbol of the end of that power.
Our disagreement is about the meaning and purpose of globalization; let’s not get into that discussion right now, it’ll take a while.
You can compare those, because the large debts weren’t caused by the “economic crisis”. The fact that most Western nations also ran up debt doesn’t mean the economic crisis caused the debt increase, only that they chose the same response to the economic crisis (which probably has more to do with increasing their own discretionary power than with lowering unemployment).
Singapore didn’t run up huge levels of debt and has a much lower unemployment level than the countries that did run up debt. They could have chosen otherwise, but didn’t.
Singapore isin’t a Western nation or a fully developed on, and they have extremely high economic growth (around 10%), so that’s not comparable to stable Westerne economies. Singapore had economic growth of 1.1% during 2008, so they didn’t have to loan anything in that year.
In fact, a quick search showed that Singapore had significant budget deficit for 2009:
“-- 2009/2010 budget deficit to be 6 pct of GDP, before accounting for transfers. ”
So it seems Singapore has used their national reserves immediately after their economy fell, just like all the other Western nations. They don’t have to take a loan because they have significant national reserves.
Although it’s true that Obama has increased spending more than Bush, even if he didn’t increase it (inflation adjusted) at all, the U.S. would have taken a significant loan, just like all the other Western nations, as tax income dropped for probably all of them.
Furthermore, economic crisis did indeed cause large debts, because it caused the tax income for the state to drop, and the rest was loaned because Western nations do not wan’t to reduce spending. Although nothing seems to have consensus in economics, many economists made the decision not to cut spending, which can make the economic crisis even worse. I think that was even a common agreement amongst most Western nations.
Summing up, your claim that large debts are a bad thing in this situation has not been proved at all. Although I’m not an expert in economics, there’s no consensus for that claim in science.
Singapore, 22 Jan. S$20.5b (US$15b) might not sound like a lot of money in these days of trillion dollar collapses, but when it represents 6% of GDP (estimated at US$227b in 2007), then it becomes one of the most aggressive stimulus plans on a per capita basis in the planet.
Singapore isin’t a Western nation or a fully developed on, and they have extremely high economic growth (around 10%), so that’s not comparable to stable Westerne economies.
Whether Singapore is considered “Western” or not is irrelevant. The disagreement was over whether the “economic crisis” forced the current US Government to run up large amount of debt. Singapore shows that not only is it possible to face a global economic crisis without running up large amounts of debt, but that doing so can leave you better off in terms of unemployment. And to claim that Singapore isn’t a “developed” nation is quite strange. Singapore has a per capita GDP of $50,300, while the US only has a per capita GDP of $46,400, Germany has a per capita GDP of $34,200, and France has a per capita GDP of $32,800. Are you going to argue that the US, Germany, and France aren’t fully developed?
Furthermore, economic crisis did indeed cause large debts, because it caused the tax income for the state to drop, and the rest was loaned because Western nations do not wan’t to reduce spending.
The economic crisis only caused large debt increases if going out to eat everyday causes me to take on debt (because I refuse to cut back elsewhere in my budget). The fact remains that there were viable alternatives to multiplying the debt (alternatives that actually worked better in the case of Singapore).
Although nothing seems to have consensus in economics, many economists made the decision not to cut spending, which can make the economic crisis even worse. I think that was even a common agreement amongst most Western nations.
The fact that Western nations listened to the economists that told them that current events justifies them increasing their own discretionary power and ability to give handouts to their allies instead of listening to economists that told them otherwise doesn’t surprise me one bit.
I posted a link that showed Singapore had a budget deficit the very second their economy shrinked, in fact, the same thing happened in Western nations. Singapore didn’t have to take a loan because thay had a national reserve.
So in fact the policy Singapore has is the same as Western nations, with the only difference that Singapore happened to have money saved. Singapore didn’t want to cut spending to they used their savings. There’s no real difference in policy, they even have a stimulus package.
So in fact the policy Singapore has is the same as Western nations, with the only difference that Singapore happened to have money saved.
How do you get that as being a coincidence? The very same things that make a nation spend prudently are the ones that make it have a reserve fund in the first place! What’s America’s emergency reserve fund? There isn’t one—just the possibility of borrowing more. (Not necessarily a bad move for a nation with the US’s credit rating, but still.)
I bring this up in part because it parallels the differences between US states. Some states had to get backdoor bailouts through grants for projects, while others (like Texas) only had the budget problem of “couldn’t contribute as much to the rainy day fund (a real account) this time”. The very concept is foreign to e.g. California.
I see, I don’t remember any of that being in the post I replied to (perhaps you edited your post?). I see how that article supports your view that Singapore did engage in “economic stimulus”. My (mis)perception comes from the fact that I was only looking at the change in the debt level, when they paid for their “stimulus package” out of savings (so didn’t show up as much increase in debt).
On the other hand, I think my judgment that Singapore responded better than the US to the economic downturn is still well supported. Their Stimulus was much more focused on lowering the cost of hiring workers than the US stimulus package and for that the current administration deserves some blame. Don’t you agree?
What good things can be said about G. W. Bush?
He hugely increased African aid and foreign aid in general (though with big deadly strings). That came as a big surprise to me.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/aid-to-africa-triples-during-bush-presidency-but-strings-attached-430480.html
good?
Edit:
Better link
He (Dubya) raised the self esteem of millions of foreign citizens. Being able to laugh at the expense of the leader of a dominant world power gives significant health benefits.
As a result of the conquest of Iraq, water was let into the marshes which Saddam Hussein had been letting dry out. This is a clear environmental win.
The war in Iraq was the beginning of the end of US hegemony.
I think Dubyah definitely began the end of US hegemony (which I see as a bad thing), but probably in larger part because of his devastation of the US economy and the placement of a gigantic US debt into the hands of its sole future strategic rival.
Yeah, it was the destruction of the economy that made him the second worst US President (after Lincoln). All of those things contributed to the end of US Hegemony, I meant that the war in Iraq functions as a potent symbol of the end of that power.
Our disagreement is about the meaning and purpose of globalization; let’s not get into that discussion right now, it’ll take a while.
Millions of lives saved in Africa through expanded public health.
He didn’t increase the projected level of debt for the US as much as the current president.
You can’t compare those, because the economic crisis happened mostly after Bush. Large debts have been taken by pretty much all Western nations.
You can compare those, because the large debts weren’t caused by the “economic crisis”. The fact that most Western nations also ran up debt doesn’t mean the economic crisis caused the debt increase, only that they chose the same response to the economic crisis (which probably has more to do with increasing their own discretionary power than with lowering unemployment).
Singapore didn’t run up huge levels of debt and has a much lower unemployment level than the countries that did run up debt. They could have chosen otherwise, but didn’t.
Singapore isin’t a Western nation or a fully developed on, and they have extremely high economic growth (around 10%), so that’s not comparable to stable Westerne economies. Singapore had economic growth of 1.1% during 2008, so they didn’t have to loan anything in that year.
In fact, a quick search showed that Singapore had significant budget deficit for 2009: “-- 2009/2010 budget deficit to be 6 pct of GDP, before accounting for transfers. ” So it seems Singapore has used their national reserves immediately after their economy fell, just like all the other Western nations. They don’t have to take a loan because they have significant national reserves.
Although it’s true that Obama has increased spending more than Bush, even if he didn’t increase it (inflation adjusted) at all, the U.S. would have taken a significant loan, just like all the other Western nations, as tax income dropped for probably all of them.
Furthermore, economic crisis did indeed cause large debts, because it caused the tax income for the state to drop, and the rest was loaned because Western nations do not wan’t to reduce spending. Although nothing seems to have consensus in economics, many economists made the decision not to cut spending, which can make the economic crisis even worse. I think that was even a common agreement amongst most Western nations.
Summing up, your claim that large debts are a bad thing in this situation has not been proved at all. Although I’m not an expert in economics, there’s no consensus for that claim in science.
http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-finance-news/singapore-budget-2009-resilience-package-is-economic-stimulus.html
Whether Singapore is considered “Western” or not is irrelevant. The disagreement was over whether the “economic crisis” forced the current US Government to run up large amount of debt. Singapore shows that not only is it possible to face a global economic crisis without running up large amounts of debt, but that doing so can leave you better off in terms of unemployment. And to claim that Singapore isn’t a “developed” nation is quite strange. Singapore has a per capita GDP of $50,300, while the US only has a per capita GDP of $46,400, Germany has a per capita GDP of $34,200, and France has a per capita GDP of $32,800. Are you going to argue that the US, Germany, and France aren’t fully developed?
The economic crisis only caused large debt increases if going out to eat everyday causes me to take on debt (because I refuse to cut back elsewhere in my budget). The fact remains that there were viable alternatives to multiplying the debt (alternatives that actually worked better in the case of Singapore).
The fact that Western nations listened to the economists that told them that current events justifies them increasing their own discretionary power and ability to give handouts to their allies instead of listening to economists that told them otherwise doesn’t surprise me one bit.
I posted a link that showed Singapore had a budget deficit the very second their economy shrinked, in fact, the same thing happened in Western nations. Singapore didn’t have to take a loan because thay had a national reserve.
So in fact the policy Singapore has is the same as Western nations, with the only difference that Singapore happened to have money saved. Singapore didn’t want to cut spending to they used their savings. There’s no real difference in policy, they even have a stimulus package.
How do you get that as being a coincidence? The very same things that make a nation spend prudently are the ones that make it have a reserve fund in the first place! What’s America’s emergency reserve fund? There isn’t one—just the possibility of borrowing more. (Not necessarily a bad move for a nation with the US’s credit rating, but still.)
I bring this up in part because it parallels the differences between US states. Some states had to get backdoor bailouts through grants for projects, while others (like Texas) only had the budget problem of “couldn’t contribute as much to the rainy day fund (a real account) this time”. The very concept is foreign to e.g. California.
Yeah, yeah, mind = killed, etc.
I see, I don’t remember any of that being in the post I replied to (perhaps you edited your post?). I see how that article supports your view that Singapore did engage in “economic stimulus”. My (mis)perception comes from the fact that I was only looking at the change in the debt level, when they paid for their “stimulus package” out of savings (so didn’t show up as much increase in debt).
On the other hand, I think my judgment that Singapore responded better than the US to the economic downturn is still well supported. Their Stimulus was much more focused on lowering the cost of hiring workers than the US stimulus package and for that the current administration deserves some blame. Don’t you agree?