How do small countries make money?
The same as for large countries: they make and sell goods and services. Singapore is an extreme example: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications... Very high per capita income (higher than the U.S.), https://www.cia.gov/library/publications... very small population (about 4.6 million), and very high population density (17,000 people per sq. mile) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou... South Korea and the the Netherlands are other countries with high population densities (1,260 and 1,020 people/mi^s respectively) and reasonably high per capita GDPs ($26K and $40.3K respectively) For small countries with smaller population densities that are doing well, consider: Norway, Ireland, and Switzerland. In any country, of any size, you can't be well off without high productivity. You seem to dismiss this as technology, but that isn't all it is. It involves cultural aspects such as a strong work ethic, a low level of corruption, political stability, a well-educated work force, etc. If you have those resources, then small size doesn't hurt. If you don't then large size doesn't help. Russia, for example, has incredible resources. But its per capita GDP is not all the high and would be much lower if it weren't for its oil and natural gas sales. It all goes back to comparative advantage as opposed to absolute advantage. http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch40/T40-0.php
Why is war bad for the economy of a country?
War is not good for an economy. This is the case for multiple reasons, as the factors of production are adversely impacted: labor, land, and capital.First of all, war requires a portion of individuals, from the labor force, to fight in the conflict. Since this is the case, many lives are lost, or those individuals are wounded, as this adversely impacts the factor of production of labor. A portion of the labor force is lost, hence some of the economic productivity is forever lost.Secondly, war requires a large amount of capital. Yes, firms that make military equipment are highly productive, but, that high production comes with a lost opportunity cost. In other words, those resources are redirected to developing capital equipment for war, instead of developing items in other parts of the economy.Thirdly, much of the capital is misdirected and eventually destroyed. As countries engage in conflict, not only lives are lost, but other forms of capital are destroyed. For example, roads, buildings, infrastructure, farm land, businesses, and the like are destroyed. This loss impacts the economic output for a nation, as these represent other factors of production that are used to develop economic output.Lastly, war requires more liquid capital. Typically, governments have expanded the monetary base to underwrite the war efforts. Governments will expand the money supply by printing more money, or these governments borrowing more debt. Both of these measures have inflationary outcomes, as citizens pay the economic cost for the expansion of the monetary base. If a nation has developed a large poool of capital savings, and this nation engages in war, that pool of savings will be eroded thanks to inflationary measures, and it will be misdirected and lost, as previously mentioned with the first two examples.In conclusion, engaging in a war, sometimes is a necessary evil, however, these aforementioned economic impacts are real, and typical are overlooked by those who seek to engage in the war. In fact, they will trumpet how war improves the economy. This is nothing more than an expression of the derivative of the broken window fallacy.
I hate collectivism, socialism, communism...the whole lot of it. Does that now make me a traitor to my country?
I'll give you about a 75% on that. The other 25% is a sure miss. At the time of the Great Depression, and now, government was the only way out. Taxing the rich, or taking every last nickel they have provides no way out. They, both then and now, used up the system so badly, that it could not be fixed by them. Dead End, and no turn arounds. The government HAD to come in and cut a new bypass, just to free things up. Restricting the volatility of banks who lent beyond their capacity to recover was a common denominator, then and now. Despite everything you may read, no one! can force a bank to lend money, other than the bank itself. "But if I didn't lend the money, I'd have lost .25% in the market, and that is critical to my shareholders." Is not a good answer, if in doing so, you cause the bank to go under. Many banks did, both then and now. When the power of those with capital, is depleted by them to the point where that power is useless to confront the hole they've dug, the choice is the government, or a death spiral. We have now reached that point twice in 100 years. Both times the root cause was the same. Both times the solution applied has been the same. This does not indict capitalism in favor of communism, nor democracy in favor of socialism. It indicts greed and the short-sighted behavior of those who believe they are inherently so gifted, that gambling away other peoples retirement accounts, savings, and wealth can't touch them. That money is gone. Those accounts are shredded. The government did not do that, nor should it stand idly by and watch food riots and mob executions of the 'aristocracy', to placate the pain of the hungry and dispossessed. The government should, and did, try to create a path out of the mess, once the blunder had been uncovered. Is it optimal? No! Optimal is when there are enough assets to recover the losses. The writers of the Constitution were honorable men. So much so that they, in writing, stepped far ahead of their times, and their self interests. The final words of the Constitution speak to that: "...We pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." To bad for We the People, that few, if any, in power today, have the courage to make the same commitment! Best Wishes
Help me plz history project dunno wot 2 do?
Well I wouldn't know since I fought in the Civil War and am answering from beyond. But a thought the library has alot of books on Wars and other helpful information and if you don't know what a library is. It's a big building with alot of books and many other interesting things. Look in your local phone book. Well I am going back to sleep now will wake up again in another century and check my email again. I check it when I awaken from my sleep and by the way I will say hello from Daniel Boone for you.
What country did the most in ww2?
Britain, for the following reasons. Firstly, Britain was the only Allied country to be continuously in arms against the Axis powers for the entire war. Secondly,after the French surrender in June 1940,Britain was the only country to remain opposed to the Germans, and continue fighting.A British surrender, negotiated peace, or defeat in 1940 would have left Germany in control of continental Europe, probably up till the present day, as Hitler would then have been able to turn his full resources against Russia, and thus defeat them. Thirdly, it was the British leader, Churchill, that convinced USA to help with weapons and war materiel in 1940 and 1941, and then, after Pearl Harbour, concentrate American resources on a 'Germany First' policy of securing Victory in Europe as a priority, including extending Lend Lease military aid to the Soviet Union. Finally,Britain's geographical position provided the base for the American build up of men and resources that was needed to successfully prosecute the war against the Nazis.Without Britain, an amphibious invasion launched across the Atlantic by USA was, with the best will in the world, impractical to say the least. Those in favour of USSR having made the biggest contribution to Allied victory seem to forget that, under the Pact of Steel, Stalin supplied the Germans with oil, grain,steel and other materials which they used to feed their war machine, right up till Operation Barbarossa in 1941.Secondly, Russia was only kept in the war in 1942 by substantial aid in terms of strategic raw materials and tanks, warplanes,trucks and so on from Britain and America.Much of the military equipment used by the Russians in the initial defence of Stalingrad came from this source, without which they could well have been overwhelmed.
Of the 3 ways listed here, what way would stimulate the economy faster?
1. Putting money in the hands of those who would spend it? 2. Taking money from the rich in the form of higher taxes? 3. Putting spending constrains on the government? 4. Your solution, what would you do? My answers: 1.how do you know that the money (stimulus) would be spent on new purchases and not used to pay off old debts, or simply saved? 2. to take the money from the rich and give to the poor is a socialist agenda. 3. the government is our biggest employer to put spending restrains on them would cause more unemployment. 4. My choice is to let the tax rates stay were they are and close tax loopholes. To reduce the size of government and let the private sector take over the function and jobs that the government used to do. SS, medicare, medicade insurance would not be part of the reduction. Right new laws that would allow all parts made in America to be interchangeable within all industries, all electronic components, nut and bolts, car parts would fit any other regardless of who makes them. We are in this together and only working together as one can we succeed The time to seek personal wealth must be put on hold, and all must contribute to the nation that has given you so much, think of Her. It was said by a great leader, "Ask not what your contry can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." What are your recommendations? .
I learned that war is great for the economy. This doesn't seem true any more. Why or why not?
War is always bad for the real economy, even if you can make it look like war benefitted a cook try economically, like the myth that WW2 saved the US from the Great Depression. Since war basically always involves a country being invaded or attacked & a country that is doing the invading or attacking, I’ll describe both.You can probably see why the economies of any country being invaded would be devastated. Infrastructure is destroyed and transportation becomes difficult. Physical, human, and social capital are destroyed. War also prevents them from being developed. People are drawn away to fight in the war and waste valuable time that they could have been developing human and social capital. Because productivity is down, people are making less money and savings rates decline, which means there’s less loanable funds for investment.The effect on the economy waging the war is less obvious but is also disastrous. War is always bad for the economy, without fail, but may not appear this way in terms of Keynesian metrics. Without looking at GDP and a bunch of other facts and figures that generally don’t mean much, just think about productivity (a better way to look at general economic health than GDP.) If you make more and better stuff, the economy is better. People are living better lives. So if you take a good amount of young working age people and commit them to destruction instead of production, a country’s economy is doing worse, not better. This is deceptive because the civilian unemployment rate is actually lower, but this is only because you’re decreasing the total amount of civilians and putting them into the military, there’s not actually a greater number of people being productive.The other way war impoverishes the invading country is through central banking. When the US got involved in the Afghanistan war, they lowered interest rates so that they could borrow more money to finance the war effort. These artificially low interest rates eventually led to the housing bubble because people could borrow at subprime rates and then eventually defaulted when interest rates increased, and the bubble burst. The result was the Great Recession.