Tag: gdp per capita

• Do you trust your government?

  

  This, it turns out, is an important question, because there’s a strong correlation between trust in government and overall prosperity (the above chart is via NZZ). The extreme examples of distrust are somewhat intuitive. If, for example, you don’t believe that your government will uphold property rights, why would you ever want to risk investing in property?

  But it can be even more subtle and insidious:

  Trust is central to both stability and development. If citizens have trust in their system, they will be more likely to push for growth-promoting reforms. Moreover, they will be more confident that politicians will actually implement such reforms, and that sacrifices made today will pay off in the future. If this trust is lost, democracies become unstable, and autocratic tendencies are more likely to prevail. However, trust is also important for the transition from an autocracy geared solely toward the extraction of resources and wealth into a progressive democracy. A politically dominant class that governs autocratically will make concessions voluntarily and refrain from repression only if it trusts that it too will benefit from the institutional changes over the long term, and that it will not later be deprived of all opportunities.

  All of this forms part of the work of economists Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson, who were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics earlier this year. Their research explains why wealth is so unevenly distributed across the world. It’s a problem of institutions. But it’s also highly relevant to countries that are already rich.

  Distrust is on the rise in countries like the UK (57%), France, (51%), Germany (49%), and Italy (47%). The outliers among OECD countries are places like Luxembourg and Switzerland. Only 25% of Swiss people express distrust in the government. That’s a good thing for overall prosperity and it shows in their GDP. So how can we be more like the Swiss?

  Radical transparency when it comes to decision making and more of a direct democracy (versus a representative democracy) are two places to start, according to the research. People, it seems, trust their government more when they themselves make more of the decisions.

  Here’s the full NZZ article. It’s an illuminating read.

  2024.11.03

• Real estate is a byproduct of economic growth

  I sometimes wonder if I wasn’t born and raised in Toronto if I still would have gone to architecture school and become a real estate developer. I mean, if I grew up in Paris, maybe I would have become a fashion designer. Or if I grew up in Park City, maybe I would have started a snowboard company, slash become a ski bum. I would enjoy doing all of these things. And places certainly do influence us, more than most of us probably appreciate.

  My point with all of this is that Canada likes to somewhat paradoxically over index on housing. I say paradoxically because we never seem to have enough of it for Canadians — certainly the affordable varietal — and yet:

  “Canada relies heavily on its real-estate sector to power the economy. Housing investment in Canada as a share of gross domestic product reached 8.9% in 2022, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, much higher than the 4.8% on average for the 38 member countries in the OECD.“

  If you look at all of the industries that make up the Canadian economy, “real estate and rental and leasing” is at the top with 13.01% of GDP (as of 2020). And if you add “construction” on top of this, the total is about 20.09% (again, as of 2020). This feels suboptimal. And I say this as a developer and builder of real estate.

  Real estate is largely a byproduct of economic growth. When someone starts a business and then needs something like an office or a warehouse, that is a positive thing for the economy. Jobs are being created by the business and further jobs are being created by the people who will deliver the space they need. But if you aren’t creating new jobs in the first place, then just dealing in real estate will only take you so far.

  Immigration helps, but it can also create a mirage of growth and prosperity. If you look at real GDP growth across the G7 from 2019 to today, Canada looks pretty good. We’re second (+4.5%) only to the US (+8.9%). But if you look at GDP per capita over the same time period, we’re dead last (-2%), whereas the US remains on top (+7.2%).

  I’m not an economist; I just build things. But in my opinion, this is a problem. We should be doing everything we can to foster a stronger culture of innovation and entrepreneurship in this country. We have the talent. I mean, Ethereum has roots in this city! We just need more people turning this intellect into wonderful new companies.

  2024.02.18

• EU regions, by economic development

  The European Union uses something called the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (or NUTS) in order to geographically subdivide its member states and collect statistical data. There are three scales: NUTS 1, 2, and 3. And generally speaking, they follow existing administrative boundaries. Or at least that’s the goal.

  In addition to being used for collecting statistical data, they also form the basis for how the EU implements its “cohesion policies“, which are designed to direct funds toward less developed regions within the Union based on GDP per capita (PPP).

  

  Because these NUTS impact funding allocations and because they can be redrawn if certain criteria are met, there’s not surprisingly an incentive to gerrymander. The Pudding has a great visual essay that explains why this happens and how Hungary split its central region into two new ones, isolating its capital, Budapest.

  Big cities tend to be, of course, more developed than their surrounding areas. But it is interesting to see by how much. Though an extreme outlier, the Inner London – West region has a GDP per capita that is 625% the EU average (2017 numbers).

  Image: The Pudding

  2019.05.02

• Impact of temperature on economic production

  In 2015, Marshall Burke, Sol Hsiang, and Ted Miguel published a paper in Nature that looked at the relationship between temperature (climate) and economic output. They examined the historical impact of temperature changes (1960-2010) on 166 countries and then used this data to try and predict the potential future impacts of climate change on GDP per capita.   

  What they discovered is that temperature has a non-linear impact on economic production. Put differently, there’s an optimal annual average temperature. And it turns out to be 13 degrees celsius. If a country sits below this average number, then warming increases productivity. But if a country sits above this number, then warming has a negative impact on productivity. And the impact gets worse (stronger negative correlation) at higher temperatures.

  Some of you are probably wondering whether the correlations they found should be interpreted as causation. For what it’s worth, the study tries to correct for non-temperature related economic changes (such as a recession or policy changes) and it also looks at how individual countries perform against themselves during temperature fluctuations. So the control and treatment groups are arguably pretty tight.

  All of this suggests that there are a number of countries that stand to benefit from climate change (at least from this perspective). They are the ones that are cold today. 

  For more on the study, click here.

  2018.12.30

• Warren’s blog

  I just finished reading Warren Buffet’s 2015 annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders. If you haven’t yet read one of his letters and you’re at all interested in business and investing, I would encourage you to check them out. (By going to their website you’ll also get a reminder of what the web looked like circa 1995.)

  When I read them I feel as if I’m reading a giant blog post from Warren Buffet – albeit one that only gets published once a year. They’re well-written and easy to read. They’re personal. They’re light and humorous. (He drops Tinder, the mobile dating app, in this year’s letter.) And they’re packed full of invaluable information and insights.

  To give you a sample, here are two snippets that I liked:

  “Our flexibility in capital allocation – our willingness to invest large sums passively in non-controlled
  businesses – gives us a significant edge over companies that limit themselves to acquisitions they will
  operate. Woody Allen once explained that the advantage of being bi-sexual is that it doubles your chance
  of finding a date on Saturday night. In like manner – well, not exactly like manner – our appetite for either
  operating businesses or passive investments doubles our chances of finding sensible uses for Berkshire’s
  endless gusher of cash.”
  

  “America’s population is growing about .8% per year (.5% from births minus deaths and .3% from net
  migration). Thus 2% of overall growth produces about 1.2% of per capita growth. That may not sound impressive.
  But in a single generation of, say, 25 years, that rate of growth leads to a gain of 34.4% in real GDP per capita.
  (Compounding’s effects produce the excess over the percentage that would result by simply multiplying 25 x 1.2%.)
  In turn, that 34.4% gain will produce a staggering $19,000 increase in real GDP per capita for the next generation.”

  Overall, he remains, and rightly so I’d say, very bullish on the United States: “For 240 years it’s been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start.”

  What do you think?

  2016.03.02