M1 growth in charts: the Majors vs. the BIICs
Sunday, February 28, 2010
This is expansionary monetary policy...
... this is expansionary monetary policy on drugs
Note: Japan's M1 growth is labeled on the RHS, with range -1.5% to 1.5%.
Any questions?
I know, kind of corny; and I did grapple over which set of economies should be labeled "on drugs", the BIICs or the Majors.
And BIICs is NOT a typo. I'm going with BIICs now - Brazil, Indonesia, India, and China. This is a modified version of Jim O'Neill's famous cohort, the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), whose economies in $ terms are expected to jointly transcend the G6 by 2050. Russia's been ousted for reasons that I will discuss at a later time.
Soon to come: Indonesia vs. Russia.
Rebecca Wilder
11 comments:
thats not corny at all...its a simple, fundamentally clear explanation that anyone can understand...ive commented elsewhere that i expect those 4 to reach "G7" status within 20 years...
The BIICs at least show some consistency together - the Majors are "all over the map", especially Britain. Glad you are now looking more closely at what you call the BIICs. When will we hear about Russia, hmmmm...
Probably over the weekend - this analysis will require some serious chart action! Hope you are staying warm in sunny Phoenix! Rebecca
Wow, that's in ten years! That would mean some serious currency revaluation (especially in China)! Rebecca
i consider purchasing power parity to be a better GDP measure & <span>according to the latest figures</span> the US is at $14.25 trillion and the chinese $8.77 trillion...
here's my thinking:
even at a modest 7% growth rate, the GDP of the BIICs quadruples in 20 years; and if they can top a 10% growth rate, their GDPs can almost increase eightfold in that time...
20 years or 10 years? *confused*
read that as 2020...man i am tired today!
don't get too tired - keep those charts coming - easier to understand than words to those of us who are visual - 2020 will be here before we know it and we need to be prepared - aj
from this morning:Should BRICs Become BRIICs?by Michael Schuman of TIME: The Curious Capitalist(you were first)
In support of your point, I think we're at a point where the label "risky" countries in terms of investments might well start getting associated with the developed economies, rather than the developing economies, which at this point seems much strongers from a fiscal, budgetary, debt and growth perspective.
I wrote this piece recently comparing the traditional BRICs to the United States and wondered which of the 5 looked most like an "Emerging Market", would be interesting to hear your thoughts on it, Rebecca: http://youngandinvested.com/markets-and-economy/is-the-united-states-an-%e2%80%9cemerging-market%e2%80%9d/
Post a Comment