On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:15:05 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

You should be aware that GDP is Gross Domestic Product. It's a measure
of productivity, not a more ephemeral "quality of life". (So much for
"better education" heh?)

One of the fundamental principles of economy is that money has
no value in itself. One should not confuse means with ends, and
money firmly belongs in the former category. If a measure for
the "efficiency" (and that is what this tangent of the debate was
about) or "success" of an economy needs to be chosen, then the
well-being of the people who participate in it (in so far as this
can be quantified) seems a much more reasonable yardstick than
abstract numbers written down on pieces of paper or stored in
computer memories.

Philosophically you are correct, but technically you're addressing
apples/oranges. GDP measures productivity. Theoretically it could be a
slave economy that produced incredible amounts of goods/service.
Practically an examination of the attempts at a Marxist-Leninist
planned economy demonstrate that would be highly unlikely.

Despite what you might glean from your reading of the media, Americans
as a whole are well housed, well-nourished, well educated and healthy.
Whether or not a bigger house, bigger (and more) vehicles, more
televisions, more cell-phones, etc. etc. equal happiness is undecided.

The USA has a high GDP per capita, but much of this money
seems to be to the country what the Peruvian silver was to
16th century Spain -- "like rain for a roof" as a Venetian (IIRC)
ambassador put it. It streams away without being usefully spent
or invested, and the country is piling up debts nevertheless.
(Even the excuse is the same -- global warfare.)

Belgians have learnt from experience what a high debt burden
means for a country, and we really can't recommend it.

What Belgians have learned from experience is that as a small country
they can depend upon other, larger, more powerful nations to defend
them and hence they can ride along as the nastier burdens are carried
by others. Much like the Japanese, you've got the advantage of
providing a "butter" economy without the burden of a "guns" segment of
the budget. The Japanese have justification in that they are
constitutionally prohibited from developing much in the way of a
military.

The debt burden of the US is a result of responding to a signficant
attack on our nation and a severe blow to our economy by a ruthless
enemy. We choose to defend ourselve and incur those costs. In the
process, you get defended as well.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org