The Great Convergence by Richard Baldwin makes some interesting points about “globalization.” I actually find the long term history the most interesting aspect. It is very easy for people today to forget the recently rich “West” has not always been so dominant.
That shows how quickly things changed. The industrialization of Europe and the USA was an incredibly powerful global economic force. The rapid economic gains of Japan, Korea, Singapore, China and India in the last 50 years should be understood in the context of the last 200 years not just the last 100 years.
A central point Richard advocates for in the book is realizing that the current conditions are different from the conditions in which traditional economic theory (including comparative advantage) hold. The reasoning and argument for this claim are a bit too complex to make sensibly in this post but the book does that fairly well (not convincingly in my opinion, but enough to make the argument that we can’t assume traditional economic theory for international trade is completely valid given the current conditions).
I don’t expect this blog post to convince people. I don’t even think his book will. But he makes a case that is worth listen to. And I believe he is onto something. I have for years been seeing the strains of “comparative advantage” in our current world economy. That doesn’t mean I am not mainly a fan of freer trade. I am. I don’t think complex trade deals such as TPP are the right move. And I do think more care needs to be taken to consider current economic conditions and factor that into our trade policies.
Richard Baldwin uses 3 costs and the economic consequences of those changing over time to show globalizations history, where we are today and where we are going.
It isn’t very easy to follow but the book provides lots of explanation for the dramatic consequences of these costs changing over time.
One of his themes is that mobility of labor is still fairly costly. It isn’t easy to move people from one place to another. Though he does discuss how alternatives that are similar to this (for example telepresence and remote controlled robots to allow a highly technical person to operate remotely) without actually do moving the person are going to have huge economic consequences.
The “high spillovers” are the positive externalities that spin off of a highly knowledgable workforce.
Even though there are plenty of ways to improve the economic conditions for most people today is very good compared to similar people 50 years ago. There are a few, small population segments that there are arguments for being worse off, but these are a tiny percentage of the global population.
However, we humans often compare ourselves to whoever is better off than us and feel jealous. So instead of appreciating good roads, food, shelter, health care, etc. we see where things could be better (either our parents had it a bit better or these people I see on TV or in this other country, etc.). It is good to see how we could improve if we then take action to improve. To just be frustrated that others have it better doesn’t do any good, it doesn’t seem to me.
There are significant ways governments can help or hinder the economic well being of their citizens. I am a big believer in the power of capitalism to provide wealth to society. That isn’t the same as supporting the huge push to “crony capitalism” that many of the political parties throughout the world are promoting. The “capitalism” in that phrase exists for alliteration, the real meaning is the word crony.
These type of rankings are far from accurate, what does most innovative really mean? But they do provide some insight and I think those at the top of the list do have practices worth examining. And I do believe those near the top of this list are doing a better job of providing for the economic future of their citizens than other countries. But the reality is much messier than a ranking illustrates.
With that in mind the ranking shows
One thing that is obvious is the ranking is very biased toward already rich countries. When you look at the measures they use to rank it is easy to see this is a strong bias with their method.
China is 21st. Malaysia is 23rd and an interesting country doing very well compared to median income (I am just guessing without actually plotting data). Hong Kong is 35th, which is lower than I imagine most people would have predicted. Thailand is 44th. Brazil is 46th and even with their problems seems low. Brazil has a great deal of potential if they can take care of serious problems that their economy faces.
In a previous post I examined the GDP Growth Per Capita for Selected Countries from 1970 to 2010, Korea is the country that grew the most (not China, Japan, Singapore…).
Related: Leading Countries for Economic Freedom: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland – Economic Consequences Flow from Failing to Follow Real Capitalist Model and Living Beyond Our Means – Easiest Countries in Which to Operate a Businesses (2011)
The data, from IMF, does not include China or India.
The chart shows data for net debt (gross debt reduced by certain assets: gold, currency deposits, debt securities etc.).
Viewing our post on the data in 2014 we can see that the USA improved on the expectations, managing to hold net debt to 80% instead of increasing to 88% as expected. Nearly every country managed to take on less debt than predicted (Vietnam took on more, but is very low so this is not a problem).
Taking on debt to invest in valuable resources (building roads, mass transit, internet infrastructure, education, environmental regulation and enforcement, health care, renewable energy…) that will boost long term economic performance can be very useful. The tricky part is knowing the debt levels doesn’t tell you whether the debt was taken on for investment or just to let current taxpayers send the bills for their consumption to their grandchildren.
Also government debt can become a huge burden on the economy (especially if the debt is owed outside the country). The general consensus today seems to be that 100% net debt level is the maximum safe amount and increasing beyond that gets riskier and riskier.
Solar energy capacity has been growing amazingly quickly the last few years. Part of the reason for this is the starting point was so low, making it easy to have large gains.
The 2014 and 2015 data on this chart is from IAE report for total installed photovoltaic (PV) solar capacity. See previous post on chart of Solar Energy Capacity by Country from 2009 to 2013. Different data sources for different year (and/or countries in the same year) is not ideal but for the purposes of this data in this post is sufficient.
Installed PV capacity is even more questionable that much other economic data. Economic data are always approximations of reality but with PV you have additional questions. The same plant located outside London or Rome have different capability to produce (and there are many factors that contribute not just the most obvious such as how much sun shines in a particular geography). Installed PV data is based on the capability of the equipment regardless of the solar potential of the location.
So even with the same investment it is likely Italy gets more production than Germany. The IAE report attempted to determine what was the likely ability of the solar PV capacity to produce for each country as a percentage of total electricity needs. They estimate Italy has the largest percentage of electricity needs capable of being produced by installed PV systems at 8%, with Greece at 7.4% and Germany at 7.1%. Japan is ranked 5th at just under 4%, UK is 12th at 2.5%, China is 22nd at 1%, India 24th and the USA 25th at close to .9%. They estimate the total global percentage at 1.3%.
These figures also show the huge power needs of China and the USA. Even with huge investments in Solar they us so much electricity that it is slow to make large gains in the percentage of total power generated by solar.
In the USA in 2013 solar energy capacity was under 1% USA total electrical capacity. In 2013 hydropower was 6.8%, wind was 5.3% and biomass was 1.3%. The increase in solar capacity should continue to grow rapidly and is making significant contributions to the macroeconomic energy picture (even if it doesn’t appear dramatic).
Related: Chart of Global Wind Energy Capacity by Country from 2005 to 2015 – Leasing or Purchasing a Solar Energy System For Your House – Nuclear Power Generation by Country from 1985-2010 – Manufacturing Output by Country 1999-2011: China, USA, Japan, Germany
Even if some lobbyists and their friends in Washington DC try to distract from the long term failure of the USA health care system the data continues to pour in about how bad it is.
None of these rankings are perfect and neither is this one. But it is clear beyond any doubt that the USA healthcare system is extremely costly for no better health results than other rich countries (and even more expensive with again no better results than most poor countries). It is a huge drain on the economy that we continue to allow lobbyists and special interests to take advantage of the rest of us via the Democrats and Republican parties actions over the last few decades.
We have to improve. The costs imposed on everyone to support those benefiting from this decades old transfer of economic wealth to health care special interests should no longer be accepted.
The top 5 countries are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Spain, South Korea and Japan. The first four have costs about 25% of the USA. Japan costs about 40% of the USA per person cost.
Mylan’s despicable actions with Epi-pen and the direct participation of both political parties in increasing the costs foisted on the health care system by Mylan is just one in hundreds of the individual actions that continue to saddle the rest of USA economy with huge costs.
Related: Out of Pocket “Maximum”, Understanding USA Health Care Costs – Decades Later The USA Health Care System is Still a Deadly Disease for Our Economy – 2015 Health Care Price Report, Costs in the USA and Elsewhere – USA Health Care Spending 2013: $2.9 trillion $9,255 per person and 17.4% of GDP – USA Spends $7,960 Compared to Around $3,800 for Other Rich Countries on Health Care with No Better Health Results (2009 data)
The International Federation of Health Plans has published the 2015 Comparative Price Report, Variation in Medical and Hospital Prices by Country. Once again this illustrates the excessive cost of health care in the USA. See related posts for some of our previous posts on this topic.
The damage to the USA economy due to inflated health care costs is huge. A significant portion of the excessive costs are due to policies the government enacts (which only make sense if you believe the cash given to politicians by those seeking to retain the excessive costs structure in the USA the last few decades buy the votes of the political parties and the individual politicians).
In 2015, Humira (a drug from Abbvie to treat rheumatoid arthritis that is either the highest grossing drug in the world, or close to it) costs $2,669 on average in the USA; $822 in Switzerland; $1,362 in the United Kingdom. This is the cost of a 28 day supply.
All the prices shown here are for the prices reported are the average allowed costs, which include both member cost sharing and health plan payment. So it only includes costs for those covered by health plans (it doesn’t include even much larger price tags given those without insurance in the USA).
Harvoni (a drug from Gilead to treat hepatitis C is also near the top of drugs with the largest revenue worldwide). This is also a drug that has been used as a lightning rod for the whole area of overpriced drugs. One interesting thing is this is actually one that is not nearly as inflated in the USA over other countries nearly as much as most are. Again, for a 28 day supply the costs are $16,861 in Switzerland; $22,554 in the United Kingdom and $32,114 in the USA. Obviously quite a lot but “only” double the cost in the USA instead of over triple for Humira (from Switzerland to the USA).
Tecfidera is prescribed to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis. The cost for a 30 day supply vary from $663 in the United Kingdom to $5,089 in the USA ($1,855 Switzerland).
There are actually some drugs that are more expensive outside the USA (though it is rare). OxyContin is prescribed to treat severe ongoing pain and is also abused a great deal. The prices vary from $95 in Switzerland to $590 in the United Kingdom ($265 in United States).
The report also includes the cost of medical procedures. For both the drugs and the procedures they include not only average but measures to show how variable the pricing is. As you would expect (if you pay attention to the massive pricing variation in the USA system) the variation in the cost of medical procedures is wide. For an appendectomy in the USA the 25th percentile of cost was $9,322 and for the 95th was $33,250; the average USA cost was $15,930. The average cost in Switzerland was $6,040 and in the United Kingdom was $8,009.
As has been obvious for decades the USA needs to stop allowing those benefiting from the massively large excessive health care costs in the USA from buying the Democrats and Republicans support to keep prices so high. But there has been very little good movement on this front in decades.
Related: USA Heath Care System Needs Reform – USA Health Care Spending 2013: $2.9 trillion $9,255 per person and 17.4% of GDP – Decades Later The USA Health Care System is Still a Deadly Disease for Our Economy – USA Spends $7,960 per person Compared to Around $3,800 for Other Rich Countries on Health Care with No Better Health Results (2009) – Drug Prices in the USA (2005)
After a slowing of additional capacity added in 2013, both 2014 and 2015 saw a bit of a rebound in additions to global wind energy capacity. In 2013 capacity increased only 13% while in both 2014 and 2015 it increased 17%. Still 17% is less than any year in the last 10, except 2013.
At the end of 2013 China had 29% of global capacity (after being responsible for adding 62% of all the capacity added in 2013). In 2005 China had 2% of global wind energy capacity.
At the end of 2015 China accounted for 34% of global capacity, the only country in the top 8 increasing their share of global capacity. The USA now has 17% of capacity. Germany has 10%.
Europe moved first in adding large scale wind energy capacity but has added capacity very slowly in the last 5 years. Germany had 31% of global capacity in 2005. Spain had 17% in 2005 and now has just 5% (during that time Spain has more than doubled their wind energy capacity).
The 6 countries shown on the chart account for 76% of total wind energy capacity globally. From 2005 to 2015 those 8 countries have accounted for between 74 and 77% of total capacity – which is amazingly consistent.
Wind power now accounts for approximately 4 to 5% of total electricity used.
Related: Chart of Global Wind Energy Capacity by Country 2005 to 2013 – Solar Energy Capacity by Country (2005 to 2013) – Nuclear Power Generation by Country from 1985-2010 – Chart of Largest Petroleum Consuming Countries from 1980 to 2010
The report, The Dwindling Taxable Share Of U.S. Corporate Stock, from the Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center includes some amazing data.
In 1965 foreign ownership of USA stocks totaled about 2%, in 1990 it had risen to 10% and by 2015 to 26%. That the foreign ownership is so high surprised me. Holdings in retirement accounts (defined benefit accounts, IRAs etc.) was under 10% in 1965, rose to over 30% in 1990 and to about 40% in 2015. The holdings in retirement accounts doesn’t really surprise me.
The combination of these factors (and a few others) has decreased the holding of USA stocks that are taxable in the USA from 84% in 1965 to 24% in 2015. From the report
As with much economic data it isn’t an easy matter to determine what values to use in order to get figures such as “foreign ownership.” Still this is very interesting data, and as the report suggests further research in this area would be useful.
Related: There is No Such Thing as “True Unemployment Rate” – The 20 Most Valuable Companies in the World – February 2016 (top 10 all based in the USA) – Why China’s Economic Data is Questionable – Data provides an imperfect proxy for reality (we often forget the proxy nature of data)
|2||Alphabet (GOOGL)||USA||$496 billion|
|4||Exxon Mobil||USA||$341 billion|
|5||Berkshire Hathaway||USA||$329 billion|
|8||Johnson & Johnson||USA||$296 billion|
|10||Wells Fargo||USA||$245 billion|
Apple lost $131 billion in market cap since my October post. Alphabet (Google) lost just $1 billion in market cap, and for a short time moved past Apple into the top stop. Facebook achieved a rare increase during this period, gaining $16 billion and moving up 1 spot on the list. All the top 10 most valuable companies are based in the USA once again.
The next ten most valuable companies:
|13||China Mobile||China||$219 billion|
|15||JPMorgan Chase||USA||$214 billion|
|16||Procter & Gamble||USA||$211 billion|
|18||Industrial & Commercial Bank of China||China||$206 billion*|
|20||Petro China||China||$191 billion|
Market capitalization shown are of the close of business February 26th, as shown on Google Finance.
The 11th to 20th most valuable companies includes 4 USA companies, 3 Chinese companies and 3 Swiss companies. Toyota fell from 20th to 25th and was replaced in the top 20 by Verizon, which resulted in the USA gaining 1 company and costing Japan their only company in the top 20. Pfizer also dropped out and was replaced by Walmart.
The total value of the top 20 decreased by $189 billion since my October post: from $6.054 trillion to $5.865 trillion. Since my October 2014 post of the 20 most valuable companies in the world the total value of the top 20 companies has risen from $5.722 trillion to $5.865 trillion, an increase of $143 billion. The companies making up the top 20 has changed in each period.
A few other companies of interest (based on their market capitalization):
Credit scores are far from a great measure of weather a person is a great credit risk for a specific loan, in my opinion. However, they are very widely used and therefor, very important. They also are somewhat useful. And lenders don’t base judgement solely on credit scores, they consider many other factors, if they have any sense at all.
Credit scores range from 300 to 850. They are calculated by various credit reporting organizations, including FICO. They factor in payment history, percent of outstanding credit available that is used, credit report checks, length of outstanding credit accounts, etc..
Metlife report on consumers and credit scores provides some interesting data.
|Credit score range||Default rate*|
* Default rate in this case means, 90 days past due. MetLife got this data from the Consumer Financial Health Study dataset**.
Peer to peer lending platform, Lending Club, limits loans to those with a minimum credit score of 660 (remember there are multiple organizations that provide credit scores, this minimum is based on Lending Club’s score). In general I see scores above 700 in A and B loans, scores from 650-700 in C and D loans. Remember the credit score is not the only factor setting the rate (you will see scores above 700 in the C loans sometimes, etc.). Credit scores provide some insight but are just 1 factor in approving loans or setting rates (an important one but not a completely dominant one).
About 38% of people have credit scores from 750-850. Another 37% from 600-749 and about 25% from 350-599.
Vantage Score decided to make their score range go up to 1000, not the standard 850. Maybe a 750 score for them is comparable to 680? They say super-prime is 900+ (750-850 on more common scale), prime is 701-900 (680-739), near-prime 641-700 (620-679), subprime 501-640 (550-619). Anyway that chart shows the changing default rates from 2003 to 2010 by type of loan.
This Federal Reserve report on meeting between Federal Reserve Board staff and Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) 20 June 2013 has some interesting material.
For guidance, the following table generally matches a borrower’s odds-of-default with the corresponding FICO 8 score (calculated on performance from Oct 2008 – Oct 2010). Of course, the range of scores and odds-of-default [the data is related to mortgages] will vary with each model as creditors develop and validate their own credit scoring models.
Odds-of Default FICO 8 Score percent of population** 5:1 610 9% 10:1 645 9% 20:1 685 6% 30:1 705 6% 40:1 720 6% 50:1 735 9% 100:1 770 30%
As you can see at a 610 level, 20 loans out of 100 defaulted. At 685 just 5 in 100 defaulted and at 770 just 1 in 100 did.
** I had to adjust this, because the report didn’t report it in this form, so it a very approximate measure (I made estimates for something like scores from 735 to 769 etc.). Again this is data from the Oct 2008 – Oct 2010 period. The rest of the population (about 25%) would have scores below 610.
This page references a Fed report (that I can’t find) that found the following default rates on new loans for the two years after origination, 2000-2002:
|Credit score range||Default rate*|
The Consumer Financial Health Study respondents were asked to self-assess their credit quality and for permission to pull their actual credit scores.8 Forty-five percent of survey participants granted permission, yielding an “opt-in” sample size of 3,215. We appended two objective measures of creditworthiness to the dataset: Experian provided VantageScore 3.0 credit scores, and LexisNexis® Risk Solutions provided RiskView™ scores. VantageScore is a generic credit scoring model that was created by the three major credit bureaus (Equifax®, Experian and TransUnion®) and, in addition to
tradeline data, includes rent, utility and cell phone payment data when it is available in consumer credit files.