I don’t really agree with this but I think it is an interesting read. And I do agree the standard stock/bond/cash portfolio model is not good enough.

I would rather own real estate than gold. I doubt I would ever have more than 5% gold and only would suggest that if someone was really rich (so had money to put everywhere). Even then I imagine I would balance it with investments in other commodities.

One of the many problems with “stock” allocations is that doesn’t tell you enough. I think global exposure is wise (to some extent S&P 500 does this as many of those companies have huge international exposure – still I would go beyond that). Also I would be willing to take some stock in commodities type companies (oil and gas, mining, real estate, forests…) as a different bucket than “stocks” even though they are stocks.

And given the super low interest rates I see dividend paying stocks as an alternative to bonds.

The Cockroach Portfolio does suggest only government bonds (and is meant for the USA where those bonds are fairly sensible I think) but in the age of the internet many of my readers are global. It may well not make sense to have a huge portion of your portfolio in many countries bonds. And outside the USA I wouldn’t have such a large portion in USA bonds. And they don’t address the average maturity (at least in this article) – I would avoid longer maturities given the super low rates now. If rates were higher I would get some long term bonds.

View of Glacier National Park, from Bears Hump Trail in Waterton International Peace Park in Canada, by John Hunter

These adjustments mean I don’t have as simple a suggestion as the cockroach portfolio. But I think that is sensible. There is no one portfolio that makes sense. What portfolio is wise depends on many things.

I think something along the lines of this would make sense today for someone living in the USA (but I would vary it a fair bit depending on the person’s situation and it would change in different market conditions)

• 35% Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX)
• 15% Total International Stock Index Fund (VGTSX)
• 10% Vanguard emerging markets fund (VWO), or something similar
• 20% high quality “dividend aristocrat” type stocks
• 10% REIT Index Fund (VGSIX) or direct real estate ownership
• 5% bonds
• 5% cash

I would likely go a bit higher for real estate with direct ownership. As the portfolio was approaching the time withdrawals would be made (retirement) I would want real estate investments to be substantially cash flow positive (and leverage to be limited – hopefully under 50%). I would like primary residence to be without a mortgage or with a very small mortgage.

If I was drawing substantial income from the portfolio I would likely increase cash to at least 3 years of projected need (though even this gets a bit fuzzy as adjusting for expected interest and dividends makes sense to me).

I’m willing to include dividend stocks that don’t meet the dividend aristocrat rules but are similar: (ABBV, INTC even AAPL). I would consider including a bit in pipeline MLPs such as OKS (higher current yields but likely less growth).

Related: Lazy Golfer Portfolio Allocation – Sleep Well Fund Results – Retirement Savings Allocation for 2010 – How to Protect Your Financial Health

It is important to keep in mind the data is in current USA dollars, so big swings in exchange rates can have a big impact (and can cause swings to be exacerbated when they move in tandem with stock market movements – if for example the market declines by 15% and the currency declines by 10% against the US dollar those factors combine to move the result down).

The chart shows the top four countries based on stock market capitalization, with data from 200 to 2012. The chart created by Curious Cat Investing and Economics Blog may be used with attribution. Data from the World Bank.

As with so much recent economic data China’s performance here is remarkable. China grew from 1.8% of world capitalization in 2000 to 6.9% in 2012. And Hong Kong’s data is reported separately, as it normally is with global data sets. Adding Hong Kong to China’s totals would give 3.7% in 2000 with growth to to 8.9% in 2012 (Hong Kong stayed very stable – 1.9% in 2000, 2% in 2012). China alone (without HK) is very slightly ahead of Japan.

The first chart shows the largest 4 market capitalizations (2012: USA $18.6 trillion, China and Japan at $3.7 trillion and UK at $3 trillion). Obviously the dominance of the USA in this metric is quite impressive the next 7 countries added together don’t quite reach the USA’s stock market capitalization. I also including the data showing the global stock market capitalization divided by 3 (I just divide it by three to have the chart be more usable – it lets us see the overall global fluctuations but doesn’t cram all the other data in the lower third of the chart).

Canada is the 5th country by market capitalization (shown on the next chart) with $2 trillion. From 2000 to 2012 China’s market capitalization increased by $3.1 trillion. The USA increased by $3.6 trillion from a much larger starting point. China increased by 536% while the USA was up 23.5%. The world stock market capitalization increased 65% from 2000 to 2012.

Related: Stock Market Capitalization by Country from 1990 to 2010 – Government Debt as Percent of GDP 1998-2010 – Manufacturing Output by Country 1999-2011: China, USA, Japan, Germany

USA, China, Japan and UK represented 47% of world stock market capitalization in 2000 and 55% in 2012. In the second chart I include countries with stock market capitalizations making them 5th through 12th in the rankings.

The chart shows the 5th through 12th countries based on stock market capitalization, with data from 200 to 2012. The chart created by Curious Cat Investing and Economics Blog may be used with attribution. Data from the World Bank.

This second group of countries accounted for 16% of global stock market value in 2000 and 21% in 2012. So they took 500 basis points of the 800 basis points the top 4 lost, meaning all the other countries picked up 300 basis points. India was the biggest gainer, up 753%, (though that has declined quite a bit this year) then South Korea up 590%, China was up 536%, Brazil up 444%, no other market over $1 trillion in value in 2012 was up over 250%.

As the chart shows this second grouping is pretty tightly packed together, with Canada ($2 trillion in 2012) and France ($1.8 trillion) with a bit of separation at the top. Germany had $1.5 trillion and the rest all were over $1.1 trillion.

Apple’s stock market capitalization soared over $600 billion in 2012 (Apple’s stock market capitalization today is $444 billion). Following Apple in stock market capitalization today are: Exxon is $384 billion, Google $295 billion, Berkshire Hathaway $284 billion, Microsoft $270, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China $256 billion, GE $248 billion, Walmart $247 billion, Chevron $241 billion, China Mobile $228 billion, Nestlé $222 billion.

The data is from the world bank and based on the listed domestic companies are the domestically incorporated companies listed on the country’s stock exchanges at the end of the year. I think that means that for example, Toyota stock (TM) is all counted in Japan (even though you can buy ADRs in the USA on the NYSE). And also Apple (AAPL) is all counted in the USA, even though both of those companies make a large portion of their money in other countries and produce much of there product in factories in other countries.

I would not be surprise to see a collection of the lower stock market capitalization countries increase in the next 20 years at rates higher than the largest (so countries like Brazil, South Africa, Thailand, Mexico, Malaysia, Ghana, Indonesia, Philippines…). I would be surprised if some of the smaller countries don’t do poorly but some will likely do fantastically well and over-shadow the poor performers (from a global investors perspective). I believe China will likely do very well (though being volatile).

The USA also has a chance to do very well – largely due to the international performance of many of the companies based there. I do expect to see a growing number of the top 100 market capitalization companies to be non-USA based companies over the next 20 years (mainly because the dominance the USA has there now is so large and many countries are doing smart things to drive successful businesses in their countries compared to 30 years ago). The USA did many good things, but probably more of the reason for the USA’s success if the bad policies elsewhere (as well as the post WW II position the USA was left in and the smart decision by the USA in the 1950s and 1960 to push science and engineering). Today many countries in Asia and Europe are better focused on the value of science and engineering than the leaders in the USA are. The USA is coasting on the huge science and engineering infrastructure built and nourished earlier.

They say “misguided government incentives” much of which are due to payments to politicians by too-big-to-fail institution to get exactly the government incentives they wanted. There is a small bit of the entire problem that is likely due to the desire to have homeownership levels above that which was realistic (beyond that driven by too-big-to-fail lobbyists).

“Were safer” says a recent economist. Which I guess is true in that it isn’t quite as risky as when the too-big-to-fail-banks nearly brought down the entire globally economy and required mass government bailouts that were of a different quality than all other bailouts of failed organizations in the past (not just a different quantity). The changes have been minor. The CEOs and executives that took tens and hundreds of millions out of bank treasures into their own pockets then testified they didn’t understand the organization they paid themselves tens and hundreds of a millions to “run.”

We left those organizations intact. We bailed out their executives. We allowed them to pay our politicians in order to get the politicians to allow the continued too-big-to-fail ponzie scheme to continue. The too-big-to-fail executives take the handouts from those they pay to give them the handouts and we vote in those that continue to let the too-big-to-fail executives to take millions from their companies treasuries and continue spin financial schemes that will either work out in which case they will take tens and hundreds of millions into their person bank accounts. Or they won’t in which case they will take tens of millions into their personal bank accounts while the citizens again bail out those that pay our representatives to allow this ludicrous system to continue.

Banks Seen at Risk Five Years After Lehman Collapse

If you get the impression I am upset by the actions of those who have been given responsibility that can be used to ruin millions of people’s economic lives and who have done so you are correct. When teenagers are selfish, irresponsible, brats it is obnoxious but fairly common. When our political leaders and those giving those political leaders the most cash behave as our have the last 20 years it is reprehensible. When the obvious result occurs and tremendous suffering is caused by their reckless, greedy, selfish, foolish and uncaring actions and then just continue to do the same things it is despicable.

That we chose to put those politicians that enable this is sad. But those that are risking the global economy in order to continue their narcissistic behavior are not excused by our foolish decision to re-elect those selling out the country to those paying them for favors.

The exact balance that is unknown. What amount of corruption from political leaders and financial executives can the economy support and survive? I don’t know. Maybe we can support the unforgivable behavior of those leaders in the last 5 years and the the 10 years before that. Maybe throwing millions of people out of jobs, killing thousands of businesses, forcing retirees to have their yields cut to almost zero in order to bail out banks that allow their executives to bleed their treasuries dry with more gusto than kleptocratic dictators in soon to be bankrupt countries. It is disgusting that this behavior continues. How many hundred of billions or trillions more in bailouts and fraud will be extracted from the productive parts of our economies to pay for this unsupportable behavior. Maybe our economies can take this kleptocratic behavior and survive. Maybe it can’t. That we elect people that have decided to take the cash and allow that risk to be tested is a foolish risk to take.

The too-big-to-fail crowd is just fleecing foolish taxpayers and paying those taxpayers representatives (I imagine to knowing continue to fleecing or I suppose it is possible the politicians don’t have the ability to understand what they are doing). The global economy generates trillions of benefits. Such wealth allows for a great deal of kleptocracy and risky bets (that can just be passed onto foolish taxpayers if they don’t work).

The scope of the swindle being perpetrated by the too-big-to-fail crowd and their bought and paid for politicians (who it must be said we continue to put back into office) is beyond anything every attempted before. The devastation caused by their reckless action doesn’t slow them down. They just take the bailouts and place even biggest bets, continue to take tens of millions for themselves, and leave the taxpayers to pick up the mess when it is too large.

That too-big-to-fail bailout champions are not only still alive and allowing those working their to take millions every year is nearly unbelievable.

In order to survive this massively risky economic future you would be wise to be very financial adept. Debt is very risky in such a situation. But debt is actually a way to get huge rewards at the right times in this environment (but do this wrong and you will be bankrupt). The huge bailout culture creates bubbles – making a great deal during the bubbles can be used a way to get capital to survive the costs of bailing out the kleptocrats we have allowed to steal from the productive economy. I am not even sure what are safe investments.

My guess is that the right real estate is one good place to invest (but the kleptocrat economy creates all sorts of risks that are difficult to measure). Companies that are very resilient to economic catastrophe are likely another good place. You have to find companies that don’t listen to the too-big-to-fail crowd that attempts to create risky financial structures in order to make cases to justify taking tens of millions (basically they pretend that this financial engineering created millions in value today so count that as earnings, based on those earnings I get millions… it is innately crazy that anyone accepts this junk but just watch those CEOs of our too-big-to-fail institutions when they testified on the hill and you see these are people that don’t have a clue about running an honest business.

This is such utter crap. For decades this excuse has been used to justify insane risks. Businesses may need cash to fund growth (buy assets, invest in research and development…). They might need some cash to get by while cash flow is not adequate. It may well make sense to have some sensible hedging. None of this requires too-big-to-fail banks.

Relatively small banks can do facilitate these needs. Insurance for business risks can be financed by insurers.

There is nothing that requires us to have speculators allowed to create risks that require government bailouts larger than the largest expenses any governments have every made (larger than World War II). There is nothing that requires 98% of the speculation. I don’t care if people speculate with their money and do not have the ability to massively impact the entire market (capitalism is based on the idea no actors have market power – every actor is a the mercy of the market, not the other way around).

Too-big-to-fail speculation mainly allows fake financial estimates to claim profits that haven’t actually taken place yet have. We can eliminate that with no loss to society. It also allows creating financial speculation so complex no-one can understand the huge fees the too-big-to-fail crowd takes. Again who cares, eliminate this. Nothing should be allowed to be 1/10 the size of too-big-to-fail. The only potential cost of this (and I doubt it would be a cost but theoretically it could be) is perhaps borrowing or hedging would be a bit less efficient. This is completely fine. There is not even remotely any justification for large, risky financial institutions in order to reduce the costs a small bit.

The current financial system is extremely complex and risky. There is no economic reason to allow such risks to continue. We can have financial needs met without ludicrously risky financial gimmicks. We should not vote in people that continue to sell out our productive economy to kleptocrats in the too-big-to-fail financial institutions to game the system the way they have the last 30 years.

The collusion (investment banking fees, front running trading [“high frequency trading”], libor, foreign exchange price fixing…) are illegal actions that use fraud to steal from market participants. Those actions should be investigated and criminally prosecuted but frankly that is minor compared to the main too-big-to-fail system corruptions.

The truth is I am able to navigate the massively distorted investment climate created by out too-big-to-fail designed financial system better than most. It is tricky but I think I’ll do fine. I imagine I will actually likely benefit – there are massive distortions and bubble that too-big-to-fail directed economies will generate that I imagine I will likely benefit from (though I have a greater risk of messing up in this riskier investment climate than one that would be much better for everyone in the economy outside the too-big-to-fail kleptocrats). I would much rather be able to invest without the massive distortions caused by the too-big-to-fail directed economic policies of our largest governments. But others are much less able to navigate the massively distorted investing climate. It is immensely more difficult to just make sensible long term, and safe, investment strategies today than is was until recently (the last 10 years or so).

But hundreds of millions or billions of people are suffering greatly and likely to continue to as long as we allow the kleptocrats at too-big-to-fail institutions to direct our government’s to continually do those too-big-to-fail institutions huge favors.

13 Bankers

Related: Buffett Calls on Bank CEOs and Boards to be Held Responsible – Credit Crisis the Result of Planned Looting of the World Economy – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is as An Executive at One – Is Adding More Banker and Politician Bailouts the Answer? – Paying Back Direct Cash from Taxpayers Does not Excuse Bank Misdeeds – Executive pay “excesses are so great now they will either force companies to take huge risks to justify such pay and then go bankrupt when such risks fail” – Failure to Regulate Financial Markets Leads to Predictable Consequences – Small Banks Having Trouble Competing with Bailed Out Banks

Bono (who is fairly well known as the lead singer for U2): “Commerce — entrepreneurial capitalism — takes more people out of poverty than aid, of course, we know that.”

That is my belief and something I believe in strongly. Real capitalism will bring people out of poverty. That isn’t the same thing as any businesses will do that. Businesses that use monopolistic powers to extract benefits to themselves and suppress free markets may well do more damage than good. But we will continue to bring more people out of poverty through economic development and capitalism than through aid.

Related: Helping Capitalism Make the World Better – Kiva – Giving Entrepreneurs an Opportunity to Succeed – Dr. Deming’s personal aim was to advance commerce, prosperity and peace – Business 901 Podcast with Me: Deming’s Management Ideas Today – Monopolies and Oligopolies do not a Free Market Make

I think one of the things I would do is to make it cost more to hire foreigners. Just slap on a tax of something like $10,000 per year for a visa. If what I decided was actually going to adopted I would need to do a lot more study, but I think something like that would help (maybe weight it by median pay – multiple that by 2, or something, for software developers…).

It is a complex issue. In general I think reducing barriers to economic competition is good. But I do agree some make sense in the context we have. Given the way things are it may well make sense to take measures that maybe could be avoided with a completely overhauled economic and political system.

I believe there are many good things to having highly skilled workers in your country. So if the problem was in recruiting them (which isn’t a problem in the USA right now) then a tax on the each visa wouldn’t be wise, but I think it might make sense now for the USA.

I think overall the USA benefits tremendously from all the workers attracted from elsewhere. We are much better off leaving things as they are than overreacting the other way (and being too restrictive) – but I do believe it could be tweaked in ways that could help.

Outsourcing Made by India Seen Hit by Immigration Law

Related: Relocating to Another Country – Working as a Software Developer – Science PhD Job Market in 2012 – Career Prospect for Engineers Continues to Look Positive

Chart of manufacturing production by China, USA, Japan and Germany from 1999 to 2011. The chart was created by the Curious Cat Economics Blog using UN data. You may use the chart with attribution. All data is shown in current USD (United States Dollar).

The story of global manufacturing production continues to be China’s growth, which is the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom however is not correct in the belief that the USA has failed. China shot past the USA, which dropped into 2nd place, but the USA still manufactures a great deal and has continually increased output (though very slowly in the last few years).

The story is pretty much the same as I have been writing for 8 years now. The biggest difference in that story is just that China actually finally moved into 1st place in 2010 and, maybe, the slowing of the USA growth in output (if that continues, I think the USA growth will improve). I said last year, that I expected China to build on the lead it finally took, and they did so. I expect that to continue, but I also wouldn’t be surprised to see China’s momentum slow (especially a few more years out – it may not slow for 3 or 4 more years).

As before, the four leading nations for manufacturing production remain solidly ahead of all the rest. Korea and Italy had manufacturing output of $313 billion in 2011 and Brazil moved up to $308 are in 4-6 place. Those 3 countries together could be in 4th place (ahead of just Germany). Even adding Korea and Italy together the total is short of Germany by $103 in 2011). I would expect Korea and Brazil to grow manufacturing output substantially more than Italy in the next 5 years.

The country supposedly growing their manufacturing the most in the last 10 years is Russia, up 375%. Frankly I don’t believe that data accurately reflects reality. China is next, up 346%. Followed by Indonesia up 345.6%, Brazil up 280%, India up 255%, South Korea up 163% and then Germany up 95%. The figures are all in current USD, inflation alone would result in an increase of about 27% for the period. The slowest gains in manufacturing output are the UK (up just 21%), USA up 32%, Japan up 33% and France up 43%.

Chart of manufacturing production from 1999 to 2011 by the 5th through 14th largest manufacturing countries. The chart was created by the Curious Cat Economics Blog using UN data. You may use the chart with attribution. All data is shown in current USD (United States Dollar).

Of course, when looking at economic data all sorts of questions can be raised. My not believing the Russia data, for example. Also even accepting an inflation of 27% for the economy as a whole, for many manufactured goods that may not be very accurate. And using US $ for everyone creates some issues based on foreign exchange movements (so a country could actually produce 10% more in their own currency but if that currency fell 20% against the $ then they would show a 10% decline in manufacturing output). The data has weaknesses that have to be understood. Even so the data is useful and provides a very good long term picture of what is really going on economically.

I actually believe the USA’s 10 year figure is a discrepancy, but we will see how things shape up in the next 5 to 10 years. The USA had some very bad years from 2006 to 2009.

I expect in the next 10 years Indonesia and Brazil will do quite well and have a great shot at being among the tops in this group of the 14 leading manufacturing countries. China will likely do well, but I think growth will slow and it may well fall back from the lead (though likely remain somewhat near the top). India could do well, but their continued failure to address infrastructure and corruption problems make it very challenging. If they successfully addressed those they could easily be in the lead. I doubt they will though, so I expect them to be held back. Mexico has a chance to do very well, though they also have problems to deal with.

A bunch of the leading countries will struggle to grow significantly. The USA, Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia, France, UK, Spain and Canada are not likely to do fantastically. I would expect the USA to be near the top of this group. That leaves Korea as a country I think can outperform all in the previous sentence but to have trouble keeping up with any of the countries in the previous paragraph that don’t create problems for themselves.

Related: Manufacturing Output as Percent of GDP from 1980 to 2010 by Country – Manufacturing Employment Data: USA, Japan, Germany, UK and more, 1990 to 2009 – Top 15 Manufacturing Countries in 2009 – How Accurate is Manufacturing Data? – Top 12 Manufacturing Countries in 2007

Between 2006 and 2010 USA health care expenditures increased by 19%. Government spending accounted for 40% of costs (remember that figure is lowered due to Deloitte’s including inputed value for care of relatives). Those 65 and older account for 61% of the inputed cost care that is provided.

Seniors and baby boomers account for 64% of health care costs, but comprise only 40% of the USA population. The imputed cost of supervisory care and hospital care are far higher proportions of health care expenditures of seniors (65 and older).

I find this imputed value largely not worth considering. There are problems with the way we count GDP and economic activity (that affect health care and lots of other things). It is fine to be aware that they think $492 billion of extra care is given by family members but using that figure in any sensible way (other than saying hey there is a huge cost in people’s time to dealing with our health care system and sick people that isn’t counted in economic data) is questionable.

It is useful in looking at the increasingly old population we will see in the future and judging their is a large need for supervisory care that is not captured in just looking at the costs included in economic data currently. Not only will our grandkids have to pay for our living beyond our means today they will have to do so while providing unpaid care to their parents and grandparents.

The burden of long term supervisor care (that which can be provided by a non-health care professional) is one reason a resurgence in multi-generation housing options make sense to me. There are other good reasons also (child care, socialization, financial support to the young…). There are some real advantages and real disadvantages to such options. But I think economic advantages are going to encourage more of this going forward.

Related: Personal Finance Basics: Long-term Care Insurance – Health Care in the USA Cost 17.9% of GDP, $2.6 Trillion, $8,402 per person in 2010 – Resources for Improving Health Care System Performance

If you want to really cut taxes you must cut taxes and not pass on paying for your cuts to your kids. It seems pretty obvious those that advocating cutting current taxes the last few decades were only interested in living beyond their means today and foisting the responsibility to pay to their grandchildren. That is despicable behavior.

The fiscal cliff is an opportunity to return to a budget that has the generation doing the spending paying the taxes (last seen in the Clinton administration). The fiscal cliff outcome is going to be far from perfect. But the result will be a much more honorable outcome than foisting ever increasing taxes on future generations to pay for our current spending.

Obviously, if you reducing how much you are adding to your credit card balance each month and start paying your bills that means you don’t get to live off your future earnings today. So you will suffer today compared to continuing to tax the future to pay for your spending.

I hope the compromise results in spending cuts and an elimination of the Bush generation shifting taxes (cutting taxes on the the current wealthy without spending cuts – so just taxing the future to pay for tax cuts today). It is unlikely the fiscal cliff results in us actually paying for our spending (the best possible result is not an elimination of adding to the taxes future generations must pay but just a reduction in the level of tax increases we are imposing on the future every year).

Lots of little things should be done to save a few billion (maybe it could add up to $50 billion a year if we are very lucky). But the serious spending cuts have to come from reductions in military spending, reducing waste in the health care system and making social security more actuarially sensible (social security is not part of the fiscal cliff discussions though). Reducing tax breaks also has to happen, unless absolutely huge spending cuts can be found which is not at all likely.

The concept of the minimum tax rate (AMT – Alternative Minimum Tax) is fine (even good actually), but the implementation now is very poor. Every year they have to pass an exemption to avoid catching millions of actually middle class (say earning $50,000 a year) from being caught by poorly written law. I think they should rework this to be a policy that actually works instead of one they have to make exceptions for every year (they pass the law the current way to avoid paying for the policy they want – it is only waste in order for them to lie about the income level they are voting for).

I wouldn’t mind if the fiscal cliff results take affect without action. Then they can step in and make a few adjustments. Add some spending; reducing taxes on those making less than $100,000; possibly add some adjustments to reduce taxes on investment income (capital gains and dividends). A change to cap the mortgage deduction would make a great deal of sense. Helping people buy a modest house is fine. Taxpayers helping people buy mansions is silly. If we go this route things will be harder at first (and financial markets will get excited and talking heads will bather on and on) but we will get a better long term result. But we will still only be reducing the level of extra taxes we are adding onto future generations. I expect they will compromise before significant fiscal cliff affects take place (which is long after the fake “deadline”).

The debate is mainly about which special interests win (is military spending going to be reduced at all from the enormously high levels, are we going to stop wasting money on security theater, is social security policy going to acknowledge drastically longer life expectancy, are we going to continue the coddling of trust fund babies and hedge fund managers the current politicians have to voting for, how large of excessive health care costs will be tolerated…?) and how large the additional taxes we will pass along to the future will be.

No one is talking about paying for some of of the huge spending we did in the last few decades that we didn’t pay for. No one is even talking about paying for our own spending. Hopefully the fiscal cliff will result in a reduction of the amount of the taxes we are adding to the future every single year. Sadly we are likely to increase taxes on our grandchildren at a much higher rate than if we did nothing (the compromise is largely about who gets to benefit today at the expense of our grandchildren not actually paying for the spending we are going to do and have done the last few decades).

We also have failed to reform the health care system for decades. The costs in the US are double that of other rich countries with no better results. This results in hundreds of billions of dollars in costs to the government annually (health care for employees – including military, government retires, and medicare and medicare). These costs have to be reduced by getting the USA system so it is closer to the rest of the world. Even just getting to mediocre results would save hundreds of billions a year but seems unlikely given how extremely poorly we have done. Mainly this is due to those benefiting from the current massively overpriced system paying congresspeople to avoid any fixes that reduce their personal benefits from the current broken system.

The USA government is likely to foist a large cost on those holding USA government debt in order to reduce the amount of tax increases on future generations. This will take the form of inflation. This means holding USA government debt is risky and not very sensible in my opinion (if you do so use inflation protected bonds). Essentially investors today are betting they can time their investment to avoid the inflation that is nearly inevitable. Given the extremely low payments currently this is a very bad investment idea in my opinion.

The extent of the irresponsible spending and taxing-the-future has been so large that massive levels of inflation in the USA are possible in the coming decades. It is a significant risk to the economy created by those seeking to lower taxes the last few decades by increasing the tax on our grandchildren.

Related: The Long-Term USA Federal Budget Outlook – Economic Consequences Flow from Failing to Follow Real Capitalist Model and Living Beyond Our Means – Anti-Market Policies from Our Talking Head and Political Class – The USA Economy Needs to Reduce Personal and Government Debt – NY State Raises Pension Age to Save $48 Billion

You can find yourself with pile of money without saving; if you win the lottery or inherit a few million from your rich relative via some tax dodge scheme like generation skipping trusts or charitable remainder trusts.

But the rest of us just have to do a pretty simple thing: save money. Then, keep saving money and invest that money sensibly. The key is saving money. The next key is not taking foolish risks. Getting fantastic returns is exciting but is not likely and the focus should be on lowering risk until you have enough savings to take risks with a portion of the portfolio.

My favorite tips along these lines are:

• spend less than you make
• save some of every raise you get
• save 10-15% of income for retirement
• add to any retirement account with employer matching (where say they add $500 for every $1,000 you put into your 401(k)

Spending less than you make and building up your long term savings puts you in the strongest personal finance position. These things matter much more than making a huge salary or getting fantastic investing returns some year. Avoiding risky investments is wise, and sure making great returns helps a great deal, but really just saving and investing in a boring manner puts you in great shape in the long run. Many of those making huge salaries are in atrocious personal financial shape.

Another way you can boost savings is to do so when you pay off a monthly bill. So when I paid off my car loan I just kept saving the old payment. Then I was able to buy my new car with the cash I saved in advance when I was ready for a new car.

Many people seem to fret about how to get great returns or figuring out exactly what they need to save when they should be fretting about saving money. Yes exactly how much you need to save for retirement is hard to judge. Start saving 10-15% and when you are 45, having saved for 20 years, you can get an idea of what adjustments to make. If you don’t want to save 10-15% of your income for retirement at age 25, fine save what you can and just increase that amount with each raise you get.

Jim Blankenship’s post, Let’s Increase America’s Savings Rate in November!, asks for recomendations for increasing the saving rate by 100 basis points (for example, increasing your savings from 8% of your income to 9%). Saving some of your next raise is my favorite practice to succeed in this area.

Related: Smart practices to protect you personal financial well being – Saving for Retirement Has to be a Priority – Don’t Expect to Spend Over 4% of Your Retirement Investment Assets Annually – Easy budgeting

The chart below shows manufacturing production by country as a percent of GDP of the 10 countries that manufacture the most. China has over 30% of the GDP from manufacturing, though the GDP share fell dramatically from 2005 and is solidly in the lead.

Nearly every country is decreasing the percentage of their economic output from manufacturing. Korea is the only exception, in this group. I would expect Korea to start following the general trend. Also China has reduced less than others, I expect China will also move toward the trend shown by the others (from 2005 to 2010 they certainly did).

For the 10 largest manufacturing countries in 2010, the overall manufacturing GDP percentage was 24.9% of GDP in 1980 and dropped to 17.7% in 2010. The point often missed by those looking at their country is most of these countries are growing manufacturing, they are just growing the rest of their economy more rapidly. It isn’t accurate to see this as a decline of manufacturing. It is manufacturing growing more slowly than (information technology, health care, etc.).

This chart shows manufacturing output, as percent of GDP, by country and was created by the Curious Cat Economics Blog based on UN data. You may use the chart with attribution.

The manufacturing share of the USA economy dropped from 21% in 1980 to 18% in 1990, 15% in 2000 and 13% in 2010. Still, as previous posts show, the USA manufacturing output has grown substantially: over 300% since 1980, and 175% since 1990. The proportion of manufacturing output by the USA (for the top 10 manufacturers) has declined from 33% in 1980, 32% in 1990, 35% in 2000 to 26% in 2010. If you exclude China, the USA was 36% of the manufacturing output of these 10 countries in 1980 and 36% in 2010. China’s share grew from 7.5% to 27% during that period.

The United Kingdom has seen manufacturing fall all the way to 10% of GDP, manufacturing little more than they did 15 years ago. Japan is the only other country growing manufacturing so slowly (but Japan has one of the highest proportion of GDP from manufacturing – at 20%). Japan manufactures very well actually, the costs are very high and so they have challenges but they have continued to manufacture quite a bit, even if they are not growing output much.

India’s manufacturing output as a percent of GDP bounces around a bit this is largely because they were such a small manufacturer (and the rapid and somewhat chaotic growth of their economy in general). India’s economy benefited greatly from information technology and call center jobs for economic growth. Very few other emerging economies have had alternatives to manufacturing to grow their economies quickly.

India still is manufacturing far below their potential for several reasons: poor infrastructure, incredibly poorly functioning bureaucracy standing in the way of manufacturing business opportunities and corruption. Without addressing these issues much more successfully it is hard for me to believe they will become a serious manufacturer (even with huge amounts of available labor and a very large domestic market).

India has been trying to grow their manufacturing output, and has done so in the last 10 years. I do think India can move ahead of England and France but, India’s manufacturing output could also easily be overtaken by Indonesia, Mexico, and others, if they don’t deal with their systemic weaknesses much more effectively.

Of the top 10 manufacturing countries, those with the largest manufacturing portions of their economies in 2010 were: China 32% and South Korea 27.5%. Globally, while manufacturing has grown, other areas of economic activity have been growing faster than manufacturing.

Related: The Relative Economic Position of the USA is Likely to Decline – Manufacturing Data, Accuracy Questions – Top 12 Manufacturing Countries in 2007 – Manufacturing Employment Data: 1979 to 2007 – USA Manufacturing Output Continues to Increase (over the long term)