Chart by Curious Cat Economics Blog using data from the Wind Energy Association. Chart may be used with attribution as specified here.

In 2013 the addition to wind power capacity slowed a great deal in most countries. Globally capacity was increased just 13% (the increases in order since 2006: 26%, 27%, 29%, 32%, 25%, 19% and again 19% in 2012). China alone was responsible for adding 16,000 megawatts of the 25,838 total added globally in 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.

The 8 countries shown on the chart account for 81% of total wind energy capacity globally. From 2005 to 2013 those 8 countries have accounted for between 79 and 82% of total capacity – which is amazingly consistent.

Wind power now accounts for approximately 4% of total electricity used.

Related: Chart of Global Wind Energy Capacity by Country 2005 to 2012 – In 2010 Global Wind Energy Capacity Exceeded 2.5% of Global Electricity Needs – Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment – Nuclear Power Generation by Country from 1985-2010

Countries where wind power accounts for the largest total shares of electricity: Denmark 34%, Spain 21%, Portugal 19%, Ireland 16%, Germany 9%.

The USA installed just 1 GW (gigawatts) in 2013, compared to 13 GW in 2012. That left the USA solidly in 2nd place (China 91 GW, USA 61 GW, Germany 35 GW, Spain 23 GW). The USA now accounts for 19% of global installed capacity the lowest percentage since 2007.

China is said to have installed more capacity

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.).

Bloomberg converted the data to look at debt load per person (looking at gross debt – estimated for 2014). Japan has ill-fortune to lead in this statistic with $99,725 in debt per person (242% of GDP), Ireland is in second with $60, 356 (121% of GDP). USA 3rd $58,604 (107%). Singapore 4th $56,980 (106%). Italy 6th $46,757 (133%). UK 9th $38,939 (95%). Greece 12th $38,444 (174%). Germany 14th $35,881 (78%). Malaysia 32nd $6,106 (57%). China 48th $1,489 (21%). India 53rd $946 (68%). Indonesia 54th $919 (27%).

I think the gross debt numbers can be more misleading than net debt figures. I believe Singapore has very large assets so that the “net” debt is very small (or non-existent). Japan is 242% in gross debt to GDP but 142% of net debt (which is still huge but obviously much lower). The USA in contrast has gross debt at 107% with a net debt of 88%.

Related: Government Debt as Percent of GDP 1998-2010 for OECD – Gross Government Debt as Percentage of GDP 1990-2009: USA, Japan, Germany, China – Chart of Largest Petroleum Consuming Countries from 1980 to 2010 – Top Countries For Renewable Energy Capacity

The GDP is calculated was adjusted in 2013 and the data series going back in time was adjusted. These changes resulted in increasing historical GDP values and making the portion of GDP for health care to decline (for example in 2011 using the old calculation health care was 17.9% of GDP and now 2011 is shown as health care spending representing 17.3% of GDP).

While health care spending increased faster than inflation yet again, the economy actually grew at a higher rate than health care spending grew. That the spending on health care actually declined as a percentage of GDP is good news; and it may even be that this hasn’t happened for decades (I am not sure but I think that might be the case).

Still health care spending growing above the rate of inflation is bad news and something that has to change. We have to start addressing the massive excessive costs for health care in the USA versus the rest of the world. The broken USA health care system costs twice as much as other rich countries for worse results. And those are just the direct accounting costs – not the costs of millions without preventative health care, sleepness nights worrying about caring for sick children without health coverage, millions of hours spent on completing forms to try and comply with the requirements of the health care system’s endless demand for paperwork, lives crippled by health care bankruptcies…

Health Spending by Type of Service or Product: Personal Health Care

• Hospital Care: Hospital spending increased 4.9% to $882 billion in 2012.
• Physician and Clinical Services: Spending on physician and clinical services increased 4.6% in 2012 to $565 billion.
• Other Professional Services: Spending for other professional services reached $76 billion in 2012, increasing 4.5%. Spending in this category includes establishments of independent health practitioners (except physicians and dentists) that primarily provide services such as physical therapy, optometry, podiatry, and chiropractic medicine.
• Dental Services: Spending for dental services increased 3.0% in 2012 to $111 billion. Out-of-pocket spending for dental services (which accounted for 42% of all dental spending) increased 3.9% in 2012.
• Other Health, Residential, and Personal Care Services: Spending for other health, residential, and personal care services grew 4.5% in 2012 to $138 billion. This category includes expenditures for medical services that are generally delivered by providers in non-traditional settings such as schools, community centers, the workplace, ambulance providers, and residential mental health and substance abuse facilities.
• Home Health Care: Spending growth for freestanding home health care agencies accelerated in 2012, increasing 5.1% to $78 billion. Medicare and Medicaid spending accounted for approximately 81% of total home health care spending in 2012.
• Nursing Care Facilities and Continuing Care Retirement Communities: Spending for freestanding nursing care facilities and continuing care retirement communities increased 1.6% in 2012 to $152 billion.
• Prescription Drugs: Retail prescription drug spending slowed in 2012, growing 0.4% to $263 billion. The low growth in 2012 was driven largely by a slowdown in overall prices paid for retail prescription drugs, as numerous blockbuster drugs lost patent protection in late 2011 and 2012, and generic versions of those drugs became available.
• Durable Medical Equipment: Retail spending for durable medical equipment reached $41 billion in 2012, and increased 5.6 percent in 2012, the same rate of growth as in 2011. Spending in this category includes items such as contact lenses, eyeglasses and hearing aids.
• Other Non-durable Medical Products: Retail spending for other non-durable medical products, such as over-the-counter medicines, medical instruments, and surgical dressings grew 1.8% to $54 billion in 2012.

Health Spending by Major Sources of Funds:
• Medicare: Medicare spending, which represented 20% of national health spending in 2012, grew 4.8% to $573 billion.
• Medicaid: Total Medicaid spending grew 3.3% in 2012 to $421 billion. The relatively low annual rates of growth in Medicaid spending in 2011 and 2012 can be explained in part by slower enrollment growth tied to improved economic conditions and efforts by states to control health care costs. Federal Medicaid expenditures decreased 4.2% in 2012, while state and local Medicaid expenditures grew 15.0% – a result of the expiration of enhanced federal aid to states in the middle of 2011.
• Private Health Insurance: Overall, premiums reached $917 billion in 2012, an increase of 3.2%. The net cost ratio for private health insurance, the difference between premiums and benefits as a share of premiums, was 12.0% in 2012 compared with 12.4% in 2011. Private health insurance enrollment increased 0.4% to 188.0 million in 2012, but still 9.4 million lower than in 2007.
• Out-of-Pocket: Out-of-pocket spending grew 3.8% in 2012 to $328 billion.

Health Spending by Type of Sponsor*:
• In 2012, households accounted for the largest share of spending (28%), followed by the federal government (26%), private businesses (21%), and state and local governments (18%).
• The federal government financed 26% of total health spending in 2012, a slight decrease from 27% in 2011. The reduction in the federal share reflects the expiration in June 2011 of enhanced federal funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
• The share of the health care bill financed by state and local governments increased from 17% in 2011 to 18% in 2012. This increased share of spending was due to states no longer receiving additional aid from the federal government in the form of enhanced matching rates.
• The remaining sponsors of health care maintained constant shares between 2011 and 2012 — households (28%), private businesses (21%), and other private revenues (7%).

The data in this post is provided by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

* Type of sponsor is defined as the entity that is ultimately responsible for financing the health care bill, such as a private business, household, or government. These sponsors pay insurance premiums, out-of- pocket costs, or finance health care through dedicated taxes or general revenues.

While it is good news that the health care spending grew less than GDP did in 2012, it is a big problem that spending has grown from $8,086 per person in 2009 to $8,915 in 2012. Costs need to decrease, not just increase a fraction less than GDP. And they need to decrease for years to reduce the problem from the current catastrophic state to just bad for the economy and thus all of us.

Related: USA Spent a Record $2.7 Trillion, $8,680 per person, 17.9% of GDP on Health Care in 2011 – Health Care in the USA Cost 17.9% of GDP, $2.6 Trillion, $8,402 per person in 2010 – USA Spends Record $2.5 Trillion, $8,086 per person 17.6% of GDP on Health Care in 2009 – USA Spent $7,960 Compared to $3,800 for Other Rich Countries on Health Care in 2009 with No Better Health Results

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 US Department of Energy.

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 US Department of Energy.

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.

Chart by Curious Cat Economics Blog using data from the Wind Energy Association. Chart may be used with attribution as specified here.

The 8 countries shown on the chart account for 82% of total wind energy capacity globally. From 2005 to 2012 those 8 countries have accounted for between 79 and 82% of total capacity – which is amazingly consistent.

Japan and Brazil are 13th and 15th in wind energy capacity in 2012 (both with just over one third of France’s capacity). Japan has increased capacity only 97% from 2005 to 2012 and just 13% from 2010 to 2012. Globally wind energy capacity increased 41% from 2010 to 2012. The leading 8 countries increased by 43% collectively lead by China increasing by 68% and the USA up by 49%. Germany added only 15% from 2010 through 2012 and Spain just 10%.

Brazil has been adding capacity quickly – up 170% from 2010 through 2012, by far the largest increase for a county with significant wind energy capacity. Mexico, 24th in 2012, is another country I would expect to grow above the global rate in the next 10 years (I also expect Brazil, India and Japan to do so).

In 2005 China accounted for 2% of wind energy capacity globally they accounted for 30% in 2012. The USA went from 15% to 24%, Germany from 31% to 12%, Spain from 17% to 9% and India from 8% to 7%.

Related: Global Wind Energy Capacity Exceeds 2.5% of Global Electricity Needs (2011) – Nuclear Power Generation by Country from 1985-2010 – Chart of Wind Power Generation Capacity Globally 2005 to 2012 (through June)

The problem was most extreme in Greece where almost two-thirds of those under-25 are unemployed. The rate was 62.5% in February, the most recently available data.
…
Youth unemployment in Spain is 56.4%, in Portugal 42.5%. Italy recorded its highest overall unemployment rate since records began in 1977, at 12%, with youth joblessness at 40.5%. Economists said that the rise in unemployment was fairly broad-based with rises in so-called core countries as well, including Belgium and the Netherlands. The rate in France was 11%.
…
Ireland recorded one of the biggest falls in unemployment, down to 13.5% from 14.9% a year ago. That compares with a rate of 7.7% for the UK, where youth unemployment is 20.2%. The lowest rates for youth unemployment were in Germany at 7.5% and Austria at 8%.

Unemployment continues to be a huge problem. The slow recovery from the great recession caused by the too big to fail financial institutions continues to do great damage. That damage is very visible in unemployment figures and the huge transfer of wealth from savers to bail out otherwise failed financial institutions (that not only haven’t been made to be small enough to fail but continue to pay themseves enormous bonuses while taking the billions in transfer of wealth from retirees that have had their income sliced by the interest rate policies necessatated to bail out the bankers).

The USA employment situation is still bad but has actually could easily be much worse. Unemployment in the USA stands at 7.5% now (the rate for teenagers is 24.1%).

Related: 157,000 Jobs Added in January and Adjustments for the Prior Two Months add 127,000 More (Feb 2013) – USA Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.8%, 200,000 Jobs Added (Oct 2012) – USA Adds 216,00 Jobs in March and the Unemployment Rate Stands at 8.8% (March 2011)

• USA health care expenditures grew 3.9% to $2.7 trillion in 2011, or $8,680 per person, and accounted for 17.9% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
• Medicare spending grew 6.2% to $554.3 billion in 2011, to 21% of total health care spending.
• Medicaid spending grew 2.5% to $407.7 billion in 2011, or 15% of total health care spending.
• Private health insurance spending grew 3.8% to $896.3 billion in 2011, or 33 percent of total health care expenditures.
• Out of pocket spending grew 2.8% to $307.7 billion in 2011, or 11 percent of total health care spending.
• Hospital expenditures grew 4.3% to $850.6 billion in 2011.
• Physician and clinical services expenditures grew 4.3% to $541.4 billion in 2011.
• Prescription drug spending increased 2.9% to $263.0 billion in 2011.
• Per person personal health care spending for the 65 and older population was $14,797 in 2004, 5.6 times higher than spending per child ($2,650) and 3.3 times spending per working-age person ($4,511).

Individuals (28%) and the federal government (28%) accounted for the largest share of those paying for health care in the USA. Businesses pay 21% of the costs of health care while state and local governments pay 17%.

The United States Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) project that health care spending will rise to 19.6% of GDP by 2021. Since the long term failure of the USA health care system has resulted in costs increasing faster than inflation every year for decades, it seems reasonable to expect that trend to continue. The burden on the USA grows more and more harmful to the USA each year these rising costs continue.

In 2004, the elderly (65 years old and older) accounted for 12% of the population, and accounted for 34% of spending.

Data from US CMS (sadly the way they provide the data online my guess is this url will fail to work in a year, as they post the updated data – I don’t see a way to provide a link to a url with persistent data).

Half of the population spends little or nothing on health care, while 5% of the population spends almost half of the total amount (The High Concentration of U.S. Health Care Expenditures: Research in Action).

Related: USA Spends Record $2.5 Trillion, $8,086 per person 17.6% of GDP on Health Care in 2009 – USA Spent $2.2 Trillion, 16.2% of GDP, on Health Care in 2007 – USA Health Care Costs reach 15.3% of GDP – the highest percentage ever (2005) – Systemic Health Care Failure: Small Business Coverage

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

The number of unemployed persons, at 12.3 million, was little changed in January. The
unemployment rate was 7.9% and has been at or near that level since September 2012.

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.3%), adult women (7.3%), teenagers (23.4%), whites (7.0%), african-american (13.8%), Hispanics (9.7%), and Asians (6.5%) showed little or no change in January.

In January, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was about unchanged at 4.7 million and accounted for 38.1% of the unemployed. The continued high level of long term unemployment is a continuing concern.

Health care continued to add jobs in January (+23,000). Within health care, job growth occurred in ambulatory health care services (+28,000), which includes doctors’ offices and outpatient care centers. In the last year, health care employment has increased by 320,000.

Manufacturing employment was essentially unchanged in January and has changed little, on net, since July 2012.

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cents to $23.78. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.1 percent. In January, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 5 cents to $19.97.

Related: 243,000 Jobs Added in January 2012 to Bring the USA Unemployment Rate Down to 8.3% – USA Unemployment Rate Remains at 9.7% (Feb 2010) – What Do Unemployment Stats Mean?

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