Borders do not just matter legally but in a myriad of more ways; e.g. topographical features, demographics, culture, language, religion, currency. These underpin economic differences. It is unclear what data the speaker takes to trace the cycle, GDP is mention, but for which year(s)? The US is the largest economy on the planet (and has been meddling in the domestic affairs of most countries on the planet) so most countries tend to sync with it at some point or another for varying periods. The lecturer is also unclear what data are used for investment flows (is this flows or stocks, capital or FDI and over what periods). The lecturer also fudges the high UK trade correlation (why given the larger trade distance compared to Canada plus no NAFTA agreement). Moreover, 'countries' are not data points but labels to open containers of socio-cultural-ecological.... systems. So any data from a country does not just represent stocks, flows, production or whatever of what is happening solely within that country but in the rest of the world as well. E.g. Singapore capital inflows and outflows are over and above what one would expect on the basis of its domestic economy; i.e. it is a regional business hub. Needless to say that hen the US does QE and the rest of the world also does QE so the value of the dollar doesn't go down :-) And yes it also depends on exchange rates (XR) and in particular how XRs are set. Some countries (and this is another difference borders make) have XRs pegged to the US dollar while others are free flowing. Additional info doesn't make for better calculations; the additional info has to also be more 'correct'. Entrepreneurs according to Austrian economics (see Schumpeter) are at the drivers of business cycles by destroying old industries and creating new ones through innovation. People go to a college and pay fiat money to study this? Then they have to take exams and regurgitate this nonsense to get a good mark?
I shall watch this video again. Cheers.
right
Fe right.
RIGHT YES RIGHT
Borders do not just matter legally but in a myriad of more ways; e.g. topographical features, demographics, culture, language, religion, currency. These underpin economic differences. It is unclear what data the speaker takes to trace the cycle, GDP is mention, but for which year(s)? The US is the largest economy on the planet (and has been meddling in the domestic affairs of most countries on the planet) so most countries tend to sync with it at some point or another for varying periods. The lecturer is also unclear what data are used for investment flows (is this flows or stocks, capital or FDI and over what periods). The lecturer also fudges the high UK trade correlation (why given the larger trade distance compared to Canada plus no NAFTA agreement). Moreover, 'countries' are not data points but labels to open containers of socio-cultural-ecological.... systems. So any data from a country does not just represent stocks, flows, production or whatever of what is happening solely within that country but in the rest of the world as well. E.g. Singapore capital inflows and outflows are over and above what one would expect on the basis of its domestic economy; i.e. it is a regional business hub. Needless to say that hen the US does QE and the rest of the world also does QE so the value of the dollar doesn't go down :-) And yes it also depends on exchange rates (XR) and in particular how XRs are set. Some countries (and this is another difference borders make) have XRs pegged to the US dollar while others are free flowing. Additional info doesn't make for better calculations; the additional info has to also be more 'correct'.
Entrepreneurs according to Austrian economics (see Schumpeter) are at the drivers of business cycles by destroying old industries and creating new ones through innovation. People go to a college and pay fiat money to study this? Then they have to take exams and regurgitate this nonsense to get a good mark?
First
right