JCC ACA exchange - Year 2 - Share Your Stories

What are the others you're using and do explain why you're completely ignoring GDP.

 

DOWN with China.

Also, thanks, Obama.

 

I'm not ignoring GDP. I don't think it's as critical a measure as PPP

China and the U.S. are neck and neck in manufacturing output. China leads the U.S. in energy consumption and in the total volume of exports. in foreign currency reserves, in its balance of trade vis a vis the rest of the world.

 

I favor the argument that GDP is useless if we want to live in a sustainable world. For example, a good chunk of U.S. GDP growth has been driven by the recent "fracking boom," but this measure doesn't-- and never has-- taken into account the future economic consequences, namely climate change. Fossil fuel extraction will can easily cost the economy more in the long run than the growth it will bring. China's economic growth is probably even worse in these terms. Oh well.

 

This Austrian export especially:

 

is there anyone serious at this point who doesnt acknowledge that GDP is a pretty inadequate indicator? the problem is we're still trying to craft/decide on a better one...

 

He is not nearly awesome enough for Dutchness.

Vivec, I believe the Chinese economy is larger than the US on PPP, which is basically the only meaningful measure.

EDIT: Just saw second page posts that weren't there before. Whoops.

In any event anyone who is asserting GDP > PPP is just saying that they don't understand economics.

 

If PPP was the 'only measure that mattered' you'd expect a bit more of a sputnik moment here.

 

I thought GDP and PPP were not mutually exclusive, but one way to measure relative GDP is by using PPP.

 

Yes that's not correct.

 

Vivec - there's vested political interest in the US using its clout to insist on GDP as a standard measurement.
Even - You're correct in that PPP is a way of measuring GDP, but more accurately it measures non-tradable goods in the domestic market so it gives a better measure of the worth of the economy, currency and citizenry.

Also, Vivec: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/04/daily-chart-19



UNTIL 1890 China was the world’s largest economy, before America surpassed it. By the end of 2014 China is on track to reclaim its crown. Comparing economic output is tricky: exchange rates get in the way. Simply converting GDP from renminbi to dollars at market rates may not reflect the true cost of living. Bread and beer may be cheaper in one country than another, for example. To account for these differences, economists make adjustments based on a comparable basket of goods and services across the globe, so-called purchasing-power parity (PPP). New data released on April 30th from the International Comparison Programme, a part of the UN, calculated the cost of living in 199 countries in 2011. On this basis, China’s PPP exchange rate is now higher than economists had previously estimated using data from the previous survey in 2005: a whopping 20% higher. So China, which had been forecast to overtake America in 2019 by the IMF, will be crowned the world's pre-eminent country by the end of this year according to The Economist’scalculations. The American Century ends, and the Pacific Century begins.

 

Vivec seems to like it and he pretends to be serious

 

If we're at the point where you're going to just not at all read my posts, I'll post them again.

What's the central theme to these? That there are multiple indicators and that you shouldn't have your mouth glued to the crotch of one.

But hey I guess it's easier to win arguments if you make the other person's point for them.

 

However, PPP is effectively a per capita measurement...

 

gdp is bunk

 

When they round me up, that's your cue to head out.

 

actually they come for me first. going by niemoller's account, anyways

 

why do you care so much about the US's perceived supremacy in the world anyway? jabba's original post clearly represents the current and future trend, not to mention that it was... you know, a joke.

i mean, "Now that the U.S. is no longer the largest economy in the world in terms of PPP (although, to not appear disingenuous -- not in terms of PPP per capita, GDP, and GDP per capita), it's so much harder to make arguments about how awesome we are despite our general lack of awesomeness"... doesn't quite have the same comedic timing, really.

 

I'm probably the last person associated with patriotism, but if you're going to do the anti-america circlejerk, at least do it right.

 

there was more to my last post than just that first sentence, you know.

 

There was only one question in that post.

 

Just to put my ACA premiums into context:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-going-up-at-the-same-rate-as-everyone-elses/

So I guess if I simply renew, the plan goes up a whopping 18%, but if I shop around for a comparable alternative on the exchange I should be able to limit the increase to <5% ?

I guess I'll be testing this out over the weekend. That's a bit disconcerting if the lesson is that no one can keep their plan for more than a year unless they're comfortable with being completely soaked.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/af...increase-10-to-15-percent-in-florida/29778050

alternatively, I can simply move my family every year to whatever county in whatever state has seen the lowest premium increases.

http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-pa-blue-cross-obamacare-premiums-1117-20141117-story.html

see how helpful it is to have good, publicly available national data on premium prices? It makes us better consumers knowing that we can keep our health costs down so long as we make it the all consuming myopic goal of our existence. Transparency is everything.

 

yay "competition"!!!

 

I feel like I'm pretty much on exactly the same train I was on with my family on a pre ACA employer plan, riding the locomotive (loco-motive in the sense of being driven by pure crazy) of declining benefits and increasing premiums all the way down to the logical end point of paying out 100% of my discretionary income for the privilege of completely self-insuring my own healthcare.

At the end of the day, I really shouldn't complain. Pay As You Go plus catastrophic coverage is affordable for my family, with the caveat that health care costs shouldn't be rising several times faster than the increases in my household income. If it's about dishing out no less than what we can take, then the U.S. healthcare system is working just fine for me and my family.

The advantage of the ACA is still significant for us - I'm no longer chained to a single employer out of fear that any move will result in the loss of my wife's ability to get health care coverage. She can get her own health insurance at any time, so long as the law is not appealed. It still makes it all worthwhile.

 

I really, really detest how certain things work in the US healthcare market. The employer thing is one of them. Personally, I think we should make health insurance coverage taxable. I don't think that would ever get through, because people would rage about how it's a tax increase, people need healthcare, it just makes healthcare more expensive for everyone. However, if employers were not required to offer health care coverage, and there was no tax benefit for taking health care coverage through your employer, then there would be a lot more people on the individual market, and people wouldn't be beholden to their employer for coverage.

Employers would also be able to give people higher hourly wages and higher salaries. Furthermore, it would give incentives for companies to take full time employees rather than capping employee hours.

Single payer, coincidentally, would solve all of this, and be much cheaper.