You literally brought up SF in reference to your childhood so that comparison was, of course, fair game
I'm saying recency bias is good and to be expected in comparing recent trends, which are the most applicable. Yes, San Francisco is a small but very visible group. The fact is homelessness in the US overall has increased in 2023 so while it's not as serious as the encampments in San Fran, the US is getting slumier.
By individual households, which obviously include young people. A wealthy family is counted only once in the numerator, no matter how many houses they may own.
OK, I see. However, home ownership is a very stable number in itself because people keep the homes they buy for decades. The increasing age of new home buyers, however is rising in the US and that does reflect housing becoming more expensive. Although there is almost no point saying it because you already said it's a problem which you hope can be ameliorated by new builds.
You originally argued everything was getting worse and crumbling. Now, you’ve modified the argument to say that f’(x) isn’t < 0, how would it; f’(x) obviously is > 0 but not fast enough.
When I made that original statement, I was talking about recent trends. I didn't mean that the US, through 30 years of technological advances, is going backwards in an absolute fashion. Indeed, some things have gotten worse after COVID, some have improved and some depends on the source of data you believe. I do give you this: the data you've shown me makes me see the US in a more positive light than before, although the starting point was very low.
None really exist: of the original issues you’ve brought up: poverty, crime, infrastructure, and overdoses: poverty and infrastructure have gotten better compared to the pre pandemic, crime is flat, and overdoses are up (but largely from adverse selection) - for the supermajority people, population health metrics are better
They depend on where you draw your data. I had data showing poverty increasing, and homelessness increasing as well. You had some opposite data. You said violent crime is down but your convenient neglect of lesser crimes such as robbery of businesses means that your statistic isn't overall useful. The life expectancy is certainly down since COVID so I don't see how you can say the overall health metrics are better.
So for the most recent few years, I see the US at best being mostly stagnant, perhaps slow progress in some areas but it's definitely not going swimmingly.
I’ve never talked about the U.S. in a vacuum; you’ve indeed conceded my point that the U.S. is better governed than Europe.
I have no need to conceed such a point. I have always compared the US to China. Europe is its vassal; even when Europe is better-governed than the US, the US will throw a monkey wrench in it and they will fall behind. There is no comparison between the scattered small nations of Europe and the US.
GDP growth isn’t dispositive to proving China is uniquely well governed (poor countries have faster gdp growth due to catch-up;
Oh of course it's not the only metric. Lots of countries can grow quickly, especially small ones. But for a country to advance its economy, technology and military at a clip that alarms the US into action and then defeats those actions continuing its own growth, now that is supremely well-governed. No other country than China can do it.
COVID death differentials include the fact that Americans are more risk-loving and health policies are endogenous for cultural values)
Actually, this is completely the fault of US governance. Instead of uniting the people behind a national effort to defeat a virus, the US government let politics get involved and it became a symbol of support for Trump and the Republican party to ignore all guidelines and to live as if there were no danger. Now that is a failure in governance the level of which I've never seen in any other country.
Nope. Megacorps don’t on net grow slower than small caps (in fact, the S&P 500 has outperformed the S&P 1500) and the U.S. and China outgrow Europe and SEA (larger vs. smaller country comparisons). Having more people and land allows for greater specialization, economies of scale, and economies of scope. Asian Tigers are a completely fair comparison group: if China is mega competent (compared to the Asian tigers), it should be able to better adapt to shocks including bad relations with the U.S. and thus have the same or better growth numbers
Completely wrong on all counts. My comparison is not directly of a megacorp vs a small cap; my comparison is a small cap being purposfully lifted by an established megacorp vs a new and hopeful megacorp competing from the get go with established megacorps. And the "competition" is on percentage growth. The Tigers being the former and China being the latter. The Tigers went a route that had no future as independent powers because their growths were tied to a dependence on another power. China's route can be replicated by no other country.
Faster than similarly situated Asian tigers.
Nope, look above.
