Talk:Economy of the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Labor force by occupation

Where are the data in "labor force by occupation" from? (In the Statistics sidebar). Also, this article seems weak because nearly all of it avoids talking about what the U.S. economy is actually composed of in terms of numerical breakdowns; when the article does actually talk about the U.S. economy it uses vague generalities. - Connelly 18:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Noticed that Labor is written using british spelling, and seems unalterable. This is an article about America, American Spelling is to be used. Please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.14.137 (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to add paragraph explaining breakdown of US labor force. Indicate how many of those in the labor market are employed by government and how many by the private sector. I believe the private sector employs about 80-90% of all working Americans, but can't find source at the moment. Somebody please add, thanks.

American government does not adhere to neoclassical concepts

While America has moved quite a bit away from fully complying with Keynesian policy, the United States is by no means following neoclassical concepts. It would be a mistake to say that the United States ever experienced a change in the philosophies of its fiscal policy. I only mention this because someone keeps changing the introductory paragraph to note that America experienced such a paradigm in the '80s.

some issues

It's a good article, but marred a little by the inclusion of numerous statements that apply to many economies nowadays. For example:

'Government also provides many kinds of help to businesses and individuals. It offers low-interest loans and technical assistance to small businesses, and it provides loans to help students attend college. Government-sponsored enterprises buy home mortgages from le nders and turn them into securities that can be bought and sold by investors, thereby encouraging home lending. Government also actively promotes exports and seeks to prevent foreign countries from maintaining trade barriers that restrict imports.'

In parts, this makes what should be a more focused and authoritative text sound more like a junior high-school lesson on economics. By removing, or at least trimming, this part of the content, the article could be focused a little more on depth, without being over-technical.

Does anyone object to this perspective? Tony 01:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. I wanted to change it, but seeing as how all my other edits of this page for the sake of accuracy were reverted by some liberal vandal, I didn't bother.

GDP and quality of life

While it is accurate to point out at the end of Basic ingredients of the U.S. economy that money isn't everything, it doesn't belong in the middle of a discussion of GDP as it applies to the U.S. specifically, particularly as there is already a much more thorough discussion of this issue in Gross domestic product. I believe this is a special case of Tony's above comment. Stephen Compall 21:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

GDP and income and proven facts while "level of happiness" or whatever you want to call it is an OPINION. Here on wikipedia let us post the facts and let the viewers decide for themselves.

Hidden Unemployment

While I don't suggest changing the figure of the US' official unemployment rate, I think it should be noted that the US has a significant problem with hidden unemployment, more so than smaller industrialised nations (with the exception of Finland ). This link here just shows some of the issues encountered, perhaps this deserves a mention, showing both sides of the argument, while not taking precedence over the official figure? --JDnCoke 10:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I read the article from the link you provided, and it has several problems. I will discuss them, and this will hopefully be a strong argument against inserting this as a subsection in the article of the United States economy.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) measures the national unemployment rate, which was at an average 5.1% for the year 2005. In 2006, it has been lower, but obviously an annual average is not yet available. It defines a person as unemployed if that person is currently receiving unemployment benefits and has actively searched for a new job in the prior four weeks and is available for work. If a person stops receiving unemployment benefits before he or she finds a new job, he or she will be counted in the household survey as a person who is actively searching for work, is available to work, and cannot find it.

The household survey found that 1.6 million people had been a part of the labor force marginally. 448,000 of those people were discouraged by the current employment situation and had given up the search for a new job. Another 1.1 million simply had other responsibilities such as school or family which prevented them from finding a job. If those 448,000 people were counted in the unemployment numbers, the rate would still be under 5.0%. If all 1.6 million people were added, the rate would rise to 5.7%. To get those percentages, I simply added 448,000 or 1,600,000 to the unemployed persons number of 7,119,000 provided by the BEA and divided by the total number of persons in the labor force, which stood at 151,698,000 in August 2006. This is still well below the unemployment rate of most other industrialized nations, though this would be a bad comparison because the Bureau of Economic Analysis states:

"The sample survey system of counting the unemployed in the United States is also used by many foreign countries, including Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Economic Community. More recently, a number of Eastern European nations have instituted labor force surveys as well. However, some countries collect their official statistics on the unemployed from employment office registrations or unemployment insurance records. Many nations, including the United States, use both labor force survey data and administrative statistics to analyze unemployment."

The nations in the European Economic Community use the same system we use, so why would we need to adjust our unemployment rate to compare to theirs when we're already putting apple aside apple.

A second argument is that the labor force participation rate is lower than it was in 2000. This was true until the economy began to expand again in late 2003. It now stands at 66.2%, which is higher than the 65.0% which was stated on the external webpage provided above.

If anyone would like to discuss or dispute what I've written, please do. I want to know other people's knowledge of US employment and unemployment. thethirdperson 12:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I added a NPOV tag because 1) the article gives credit to Reagan's tax cuts for curing the US economy. This is debatable. 2) The article commits a similar error, crediting Bush 43's tax cuts for a recovery. This, too, is debatable.

~All potential NPOV issues have been edited. Tags have been removed. 20 November 2005

Bush tax cuts

The Bush tax cuts occured in 2003 and some people have argued that they resulted in an increase in taxes collected by the federal government. Here are the totals from the Bureau of Economic Analysis:

• 2000: 3,125.9
• 2001: 3,113.1
• 2002: 2,958.7
• 2003: 3,018.1
• 2004: 3,208.2
• 2005: 3,576.0 (est. after 2 quarters)

(chart is not adjusted for inflation) 2004 represents an all-time record high, as will 2005.

While tax receipts did rise in 2004 and 2005 the impact of the tax cuts is still hotly debated. In addition to a strong economy, temporary measures granting corporations a reduced rate on income they had previously stashed in overseas banks led to a massive temporary repatriation of funds as companies strived to take advantage of this provision.

TimShell 21:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Misleading Introductory Paragraph

"Since the shift in principals, the United States has transformed from being the world's largest creditor to having substantial fiscal and trade deficits; the significance of these deficits is disputed by economists."

This implies that the amassing of a debt and the inability of contemporary lawmakers to balance the United States budget is an objective under neoclassical economics. It is most assuredly not. The sentence has ben changed to simply note the ever-growing deficit in United States fiscal policy.

the United States has transformed from being the world's largest creditor to having a substantial current account deficit and a national debt of unprecedented size relative to national GDP

it has been much larger before, so how is it unprecendented??? Other countries also have similar amounts of debt relative to gdp

True, national debt is not as great in size relative to GDP as it was during WWII. [Introductory Paragraph] The introductory paragraph has been changed to reflect this. AscendedAnathema 05:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"the United States has transformed from being the world's largest creditor to having a substantial current account deficit and a national debt of unprecedented size relative to national GDP." it still says the same thing

My edits were undone by Sansviox. I am going to edit "since World War II" back in for the sake of pure factual accuracy, but I am going to create a new section below regarding his undoing my other edits. AscendedAnathema 03:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Neoliberalism and America

In regards to the federal government's adherence to principles of neoliberalism: though it is true that the federal government's macroeconomic policy does not completely adhere to neoliberalism and neoliberalism alone, neoliberalism is the predominant line of though in the formulation of macroeconomic policy. While subsidies and tariffs remain, they have been consistently lowered since GATT and the WTO and in fact the US was/is a leading proponent of applying free-trade and neoliberal policies to other nations to reduce quotas and tariffs through these organizations (see also: Washington Consensus, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.). There's a reason the US is considered to be the vanguard of neoliberalism the world over. The introduction has been reverted to better reflect this. --AscendedAnathema

There doesn't seem to be a consensus on the use of this term. It is usually only used as a perjorative by a certain school of thought. Keynesianism is similarily vague and should not be mentioned in this way. Such a bold declaration is certainly not appropriate for such an article, which if becomes slightly political transforms into a mess. The previous introduction lasted for months and months. It has only undergone this new editing because people have introduced more political language. It would better to introduce this point in a NPOV manner on an article about international trade. There are other elements of the introduction that have also gotten out of control, so please do not revert the changes entirely -- insert what you consider to be NPOV language on this point and we can examine it together. Tfine80 20:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the definition of "serious economics?" I have been taking economics classes for several years but they still haven't gotten to "serious economics." I wonder if there is a NPOV definiton for "serious economics," perhaps Tfine80, as the pro-NPOV editor he is, can provide one for us? At any rate, there is a standard consensus on the use of the term in the context of economics. In fact, the Wiki article on neoliberism itself details the "Standard" Definition of Neoliberalism." Furthermore, if mentions of Keynesianism (which do follow a certain set of principles and conclusions set fourth by Keynes which are no more vague than any other economics) are not appropriate for the introductory paragraph because of their vagueness, then I would expect it to be removed from the "History" section directly below the introduction. Likewise, the subsequent use of "supply-side economics" is a far more politically charged word than any in the previous introduction and has far more common use in the pejorative than does economic neoliberalism, which, when used in the pejorative, is primarily done so by anti-globalization activists with a political agenda. --AscendedAnathema

So remove "supply-side economics" as well. This article should be more of a physical description and history of US industry and a list of the basic economic statistics as most commonly defined -- the politics would be best suited for other articles. My point is that for many economists this term is meaningless and too political to have practical use. It is inappropriate to assert it in this manner, and by reverting this edit again, you may have set the stage for endless edit warring into the future. This article took a long time to become depoliticized and stable. I also agree that capitalism itself is a too political term -- it is removed in this version. Tfine80 22:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Supply-side economics," much like the other terms being debated, are commonly used words in the vocabulary of American economics which can be found in any economics textbook. Despite their potential political overtones, they do in fact have at least general definitions, principles, and ideals associated with them which can be found right here on Wikipedia. Besides, it is impossible to separate economics from politics, the two are intrinsically intertwined. Therefore their removal from an article of the American economy on the basis that they are too vague is totally unjustified, especially by someone who argues using vagaries such as "serious economics" and "many economists." AscendedAnathema 23:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It is so frustrating that there are so many editors who feel stating anything other than dry numerical facts NPOV. Neoliberalism is a widly accepted term. I'm sorry if neoliberalism is not in the U.S. education system, but that is no reason to edit it out whenever it is mentioned. It makes no sense whatsoever to replace neoliberalism with "capitalistic", which has happened here, and on several other pages I have edited. I think some people are mistaking the NPOV policy for mandatory vagueness. Thanks, I had to get that out!--sansvoix 22:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the appropriate NPOV thing would be to say something like "X, X, and X people have labelled the United States as influenced by a theoretized neoliberal school of economic philosophy". If you do a cursory search for this term in literature or on the internet, you will see that it is mostly used by leftist activists as a loose pejorative. Almost no one self-identifies as "neoliberal". Also, your claim about the U.S. educational system is childish considering United States professors have won over half of the Nobel Prizes for Economics. Tfine80 22:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course few people refer to themselves as a neoliberal! It is a set of policies and ideals. Neoliberalism is not just economics, it is a social philosophy --it is not a general political stance. I'm reading a text by Paul Krugman, who identifies himself as an American liberal. Krugman campaigns to stop the rejection of Keynesian Economics, which he credits for the collapse in Argentina, among other things. (Apperently Fox news called him a "Quasi-socialist") But even he agrees with many aspects of neoliberalism:

The raw fact is that every successful example of economic development this past century – every case of a poor nation that worked its way up to a more or less decent, or at least dramatically better, standard of living – has taken place via globalization, that is, by producing for the world market rather than trying for self-sufficiency. [[1]]

Its not all cut and dry my friend. Oh, and I didn't mean to claim that Americans were somehow uneducated, I was simply pointing out that neoliberalism is generally not a subject in the United States. Economists Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo García stated in the preface of What is "Neo-Liberalism"? that, "'Neo-Liberalism' is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States..." And I'm sure they are very un-childish, mature people.--sansvoix 23:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so. But the controversy is exactly why it is POV to make such a determination on Wikipedia. Tfine80 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering that there seems to be only one source of dissension over the applicability of use of "neoliberal" in the context of recent US macroeconomic policy, I would hardly consider there to be substantial disagreement or controversy on the issue and that the POV tag itself to be the result of one narrow point of view regarding this argument and therefore wholly unwarranted. AscendedAnathema 00:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Expansion request

The history section should extend backward from WWI to include the 1800s, the Revolutionary era, and the colonial period. -- Beland 10:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Income inquality

America's wealth is relatively highly concentrated. The average C.E.O. earns 500 times the typical amount a worker grosses, this is up from 25 times in the late 1970s. In terms of wealth the top 1% of Americans own 40% of all assets and 50.1% of the country's income goes to the top twenty percent of households. Average wages for the majority of employees have been largely stagnating since the 1970s.

This is from the Economy section of the United States article. I have moved it here for several reasons. First, it would be nice to add more detail along these lines to this article, and then summarize that in the parent article. Second, these claims do not cite sources or dates. I had some similar statistics with sources in an existing Wikipedia article, so I substituted those. Third, this paragraph seems to be trying to convince the reader that income inequality is a bad thing, and that it is a serious problem in the United States. (Which is a perfectly fine perspective which lots of people have, of course.) These assertions could benefit from additional points of view, such as those who say income inequality is simply the result of people being rewarded for making good choices and taking risks; those who say that America's wage stagnation (if it's real - I have no idea if that's accurate) is simply a correction for centuries-long oppression of other parts of the world (who have rising wages); and those who point out that the U.S. is more equal in this regard than many countries, especially in South America and Africa. Also, there's something of a fight to be had over talking about the wealthiest 10% vs the wealthiest 1%, and the latter makes things look a lot more unequal. We could, of course, cite both, but in that case it would be a good idea to make sure we are comparing apples to apples, and citing a specific source (and thus revealing the method of calculation) would help a lot. It would also be interesting to look at median wages, percentile wages, or nice graphs showing varying metrics. The raw data is available from the U.S. Census, I'm pretty sure. -- Beland 12:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, the article on Mexico mentioned that the top 20% receive 55% of all the national income. I was shocked when I read that. It would be nice if Wikipedia used the same income inequality stats in each article. Then you could make comparisons between nations. Most Americans think Mexico is much more "unequal" than the USA, but the income stat above doesn't really seem to indicate that. Maybe the wealth stat for Mexico is more skewed.

You could remove the judgement by comparing income and wealth inequality among nations in each article. For example in the USA article, compare wealth and income inequality in the USA to Canada, Mexico, Europe, and Japan.

National debt and table

I removed the table because the section on trading partners has two contrasting sets of statistics, both for 2004. Perhaps someone willing to fix and reference the stats can go over that template?--sansvoix 07:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the section on trading partners, and the stats for the previous table were referenced from the CBO.

The national debt, also known as the U.S. public debt and the gross federal debt, is the overall collective sum of yearly federal budget deficits owed by the United States federal government. The economic significance of this debt and its potential ramifications for future generations of Americans are controversial issues in the United States. A majority of citizens favor paying off the national debt in principle, though a minority feel this could have negative economic consequences. There is widespread disagreement on if the national debt should be addressed through increased taxes, reduced federal spending, or a combination of both. This, along with a majority of Americans being opposed to reducing spending on government services, makes efforts to reduce the debt difficult and complicated for congressional legislators. Another issue of concern is the growing proportion of the national debt owed to foreign institutions, particularly the central banks of Japan and China. [8] [9]

The debt ceiling set in 2004 is 8.2 trillion dollars. At the current rate of growing indebtedness, this level will be reached sometime in 2005. It is expected that Congress will approve further increase of the cap, sometime before the ceiling is reached. This would perpetuate the typical pattern of congress increasing the debt ceiling when faced with a budget deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office's projected national debt for 2006 is 8.681 trillion dollars, up from an actual 6.760 trillion in 2003. [10] This astronomical figure has become a familiar part of American popular culture in the form of a debt clock which shows the calculated national debt at a particular moment. [11]

While the U.S. national debt is the world's largest in absolute size, a more accurate measure is that of its size relative to GDP. When the national debt is put into this perspective it is considerably less today than in the past, particularly during World War II. By this measure, it is also considerably less than other industrialized nations such as Japan and roughly equivalent to several Western European nations

Please point out particular instances in which you feel the above is innapropriate. I am willing to concede on the irrelevance of the debt clock, and references to public opinion regarding the debt need references or should be left out entirely. However, I felt that overally, my version was of far greater quality in terms of its scope, grammar, syntax, tenor, citations, etc, than the previous version before it and even its present form. AscendedAnathema 04:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Current version:

Main article: U.S. public debt

The national debt, also known as the U.S. public debt and the gross federal debt, is the overall collective sum of yearly federal budget deficits owed by the United States federal government. The economic significance of this debt and its potential ramifications for future generations of Americans are controversial issues in the United States.

The borrowing cap debt ceiling as of 2004 stood at 8.2 trillion. At the current rate of growing indebtedness, this level will be reached sometime in 2005. It is expected that Senate will approve further increase of the cap, sometime before the ceiling is reached.

The size of the debt is in the trillions and consequently it has been part of popular culture to parody the growing debt with some type of doomsday clock, graphically showing the growing indebtedness every second.

While it is true that the national debt is the largest in the world, and growing larger every second, it is also true that the economy as a whole is also the largest in the world and growing every second.

As a result, the ratio of debt to GDP compares quite favorably to say, Japan.

Phew, I think the opinion parts of your edit should be left out. Especially the one that suggests reducing social spending will solve the debt problem. The first sentance in the paragraph stating the amount of debt in relation to 2003 is good, but I still would leave out the rest about the "astronomical figure" and debt clock. I should of not cut out your last paragraph, it is much better. --sansvoix 04:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, reducing government spending would help eliminate the federal deficit, which would at the very least alleviate the national debt. Almost half of the federal budget is dedicated to social services [2][3]. In spite of that, I never said that reducing "social spending" will solve the debt problem, but rather "reduced federal spending." I also feel that my previous

"While the U.S. national debt is the world's largest in absolute size, a more accurate measure is that of its size relative to GDP. When the national debt is put into this perspective it is considerably less today than in the past, particularly during World War II. By this measure, it is also considerably less than other industrialized nations such as Japan and roughly equivalent to several Western European nations. [4]"

was better than the current very last line of the article in that it has a wider scope of comparison to several nations instead of merely Japan, which has one of the largest debts relative to GDP of any industrialized nation and by which most other countries' debts will seem quite favorable in a somewhat skewed way. Also, why was this chart([5]) inappropriate? AscendedAnathema 16:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering the amound of time which has passed without response from Sansviox, if no one has any objections, I feel that I would be justified in changing the national debt section to the more comprehensive version I suggested above. If anyone has any suggestions please let me know. AscendedAnathema 03:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you do replace the current paragraph with yours. I agree with you that your paragraph which compares the national debt of the United States with many other industrialized nations gives a better scope than the current one which simply compares the United States to Japan. TheThirdPerson 11:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Basic Ingredients of the US Economy

"The second ingredient is labor. number of available workers and, more importantly, their productivity help determine the health of an economy."

What is this number? Why is it missing? It hasn't been there for a while, so I'm just wondering. CryptoQuick 10:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Table: economy of the United States

Could someone possibly explain to me why that table was removed? Not only does it summarise important statistics about the economy of the United States, but it renders the reading of this article much more enjoyable. I am sure that all would agree that this long article is tedious, especially the statistics at the bottom as regards salaries in different industries. Who could care less about how much a person is earning in the USA? We already know that the USA is the largest economy on the planet.

I hope that this will receive an immediate response.

Written by GreatKing on 10 January 2006

Responding to the GreatKing's comments on the table of the Economy of the United States, I am greatly dismayed by the fact that the table was removed. I somehow think, it was due to the fact that I was updating the unemployment rate of the United States by the month, instead of allowing the table to be updated per annum by someone else once a year. If the reason turns out to be that the person whomever removed the table was upset over the table being updated per month instead of only once a year, then I highly recommend that they should consider reposting the table and sanction it to be updated per month for the unemployment rate, and quite possibly for inflation based either on the CPI, core-CPI, PCEPI, or core-PCEPI. The reason patently being that the U.S. is the world's greatest economic power, and because of that, influences the world so greatly, the unemployment and inflation rates should be updated per month for that reason, and the process of updating should not be plagued with time-lag. In addition, I corrected the Total Wages for the U.S. per annum, for Q2 2005 yoy, to accurately reflect how much Americans earn as an amount of total gross (before-taxed) wages.

Someone please respond to this posting.

Written by Phil on 12 March 2006

Vandalism?

Are the values in the wages’ table correct? Isn’t $1 insufficient? And what sense do the links to G-Unit and the Economy of Puerto Rico make? 84.158.52.196 19:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is part of the US, so i think it applies. G-Unit is definitely vandalism.

History of the US Economy: Incorrect Data?

The History section of this article states that, by the end of Reagan's term, the U.S. economy "began to rebound" from "the worst recession in 40 years." Then it proceeds to relate a 50% expansion under Clinton.

I'm not sure how this article is measuring the U.S. economy or where these statistics are sourced from. I took a look at the Bureau of Economic Analysis Historical Gross Domestic Product Estimates and Historical Prices of the S&P 500 Index, and they paint a different picture:

History of US Economy under Reagan and Clinton (in 2000 Dollars)

Period	Starting GDP	Ending GDP	%Change	Starting S&P	Ending S&P	%Change
1980-1988	$5161B	$6742B	31%	114.16	277.03	143%
1992-2000	$7336B	$9817B	38%	408.78	1380.2	237%

Are there other important data missing from this comparison that were used in the original history section to establish the figures related there? dpotter 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Exchange Rates

Someone ought to update the exchange rates table at some point. We're missing the last 4 years.

additionally, some are wrong, e.g. UKP per USD should reald USD per UKP (i.e. the number should be its reciprocal)

I agree that the exchange rate table definitely should be updated or removed entirely until someone can produce one that is updated. If anyone knows where to find historical exchange rates, please update the table. --Thethirdperson 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wanted someone to update it. Someone did. I did. The table's values reflect how many of one currency it takes to translate into $1 USD. I'm not sure how to write it correctly in the reciprocal format that the above person mentioned because I'm a new student to economics. If someone wants to edit it, feel free. --Thethirdperson 19:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Exports?

Not a lot of info on imports and exports here. Seabhcán 14:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment This article is begining to take shape but it needs much more information on Imports and Exports (not just values, but types of product, quantities, etc). Also, the role of the Dollar float (& petrodollar) needs to be discussed along with foreign investment. The farming sector need to be dealt with in detail, including detail of state support, and subsidised exports. The 'other stats' section needs to be wikified, and the table on exchange rates needs to be turned into a graph. Seabhcán 12:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Government role in the economy

It says in the article that, before 1900, America had an almost "pure free market economy". Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't America follow a quasi-mercantilistic economic policy based on Hamilton's "American system"? --Onias 17:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That is true. It needs to be fixed. This fallacy "pure free market economy" is quite prevelant today, but historic facts say otherwise. --Northmeister 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's true, "pure free market economy" is a common misconception. Even Hong Kong has rent controls. The only pure free market economies are anarchic in nature, like Somalia's. That said, the idea of a "pure" free market is relative because one has never (arguably) been acheived before, anarchy aside. Laissez-faire capitalists still believe in strong public armed forces and police, even though those are services like anything else. Anyway, at least we can rely on the fact that America didn't have a free market economy before 1900. We still have one certainty to cling to. :-) --Onias 17:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 02:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Poverty?

Using radically different definitions, two major groups of advocates have claimed variously that (a) the United States has eliminated poverty over the last century; or (b) it has such a severe crisis of poverty that it ought to devote significantly more resources to the problem.

I have studied poverty for 3 years and have never heard even conservatives claim that "the US has eliminated poverty." where is the citation?? --24.183.47.13 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation is a major conservative group that strongly believes that poverty has been--more or less--eliminated.

Here is an excerpt of an article from January 5, 2004:

"To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation."

For the full article, please see Understanding Poverty in America. --Thethirdperson 23:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Corporatism

A section on the role of corporatism in the economy would be useful. Didn't America invent the idea of a legal person? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Home prices

I was just looking at Real estate pricing and it seems that home prices are significant economic statistic which is missing from this article. -- Beland 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unemployment in the United States

I would recommend adding an overview of Unemployment in the United States here and have material in the detailed article pulled from Unemployment. -- Beland 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Long Essay Blaming United States For World Economic Woes

I recommend deletion of this material on the grounds that it is biased and potentially original research. Isentropiclift 10:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Isentropiclift

You say that the essay is biased but do not give any argument to show that the thesis set forth in the essay does not stand the test of reason. As long as arguments in the essay are not refuted, why should the essay be deleted? Donald Rumsfeld preceding note added 22:39, 11 November 2006 by 194.95.59.130

I've deleted the essay for the following reasons:

• It's unarguably, and perhaps irredeemably POV.
• It's an essay that completely dominates - essentially replaces - the article that it's meant to contribute to, just on the basis of length.
• It doesn't cite any of its sources.
• It seems to be original research, which violates WP:NOR.

There are other reasons, if we really need to argue this, but I think that the burden of proof that this belongs on WP rests on the author, not on the Wikipedia community. Waitak 14:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an added note. Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus. If the author of the essay wants it here, here are the steps:

• Cite sources
• Format it properly
• Make a serious attempt to fit it in to the article that it's being placed in, not just dump it in the nearest convenient spot
• And most important, gain consensus. Talk about it, here, and see if you can convince the community.

Things don't get decided WP on the basis of persistence or force. They get decided on the basis of consensus. If consensus doesn't work (and it doesn't always) then there are fallbacks (like mediation). But if you haven't even attempted to gain consensus, then you just don't have a case - because you've chosen not to make one. Waitak 00:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, you're obviously reading this, because you responded to it once before re-adding the essay, and the other one in Poverty. Please stop adding this and talk about it here. You're behaving like a vandal, not an editor. Please stop it, and start acting constructively. Waitak 11:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

One of the sections begins with this statement: "The first ingredient of a nation's economic system is its natural resources." This is objectionable. The first ingredient of a nation's economic system is the degree of freedom an individual has to think and produce. Nations that have abundant natural resources (such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example) but are characterized by political and economic repression may be very poor; however, nations that don't have any natural resources (such as Hong Kong) but are economically free can be very prosperous. The key issues are whether or not the individual is free and whether or not the government has a burdensome presence in the economy.

Agreed. I removed the subjective statement (it read like a high school essay, anyway), but left the objective facts that followed. The Hong Kong, example, by the way, is a very good one.--199.125.45.10 14:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I heard this stuff before about "natural resources" being the main ingredient of the the US economy before. Except it was some low-intelligence, low-income ugly anti-American Aussie suffering from mental illnesses (literally). Switzerland doesn't have many natural resources now does it? But, Switzerland is nonetheless one of the most developed and richest countries on the planet. Whoever wrote that about natural resources needs to graduate from high school instead of blaming others for their own incompetence and foolishness and that person also has a lot to learn about the real world obviously. Just looking back at the post, and good point on Congo too. Like the person above me pointed out, African countries have many natural resources but are extremely poor. But, I'm sure we already have learned the lesson here. Enough said, anyone who says that natural resources was even one of the most important ingredients to US success is very unintelligent and narrow-minded, if not completely also lacking morals and sense of right/wrong in that they spit words that are fueled by their own pathetic hatred/jealousy of America, yet lacking any logic or reason.

Serious work needed!

This article has fallen under par. Way below par. There are so many points of contention with this article, I seriously suggest a peer review. it very much so needs one. I won't go into depth about it, but wow, this article is below standard according to me.

63.225.86.41 10:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reticulum

EU as US trade partner

US trade with EU http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html is more then trade with China http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html. In Side Table EU is not even mentioned as a major import or export partner!

EU should be mentioned as main import partner and main export partner.

China's currency is pegged ?

"While President Bush's administration cites low unemployment as a sign of an economic turnaround, some economists fault China's currency peg and Japan's large purchases of U.S. Treasuries in order to manipulate currency exchange rates for wage erosion of the U.S. middle class."

This is now historical, as the Yuan has been a managed float for more than a year now.

Could I also suggest that whoever is doing the rewrite have a quick look at the Plaza Accord which was when the G7 manipulated currencies. (Dollar down, Yen up)

Also perhaps foreign exchange reserves since the G7 no longer seems to be in the drivers seat.

And Bretton Woods since we seems to be in a reverse situation now.

Also, if Japan and China is holding up the dollar, aren't they allowing US to export inflation, and lowering its imported inflation ? Low inflation protects not erodes wages, right ?

The economy is strained by "twin deficits"?

The first section of the article is ridden with opinions and commentary amongst the facts. Citing journalists' and one economic policy organization's commentary does not make the commentary fact either. Outsourcing, trade deficits, and social safety nets are perfectly fine to be a part of the article, but your opinions of them are yours, not wikipedia's. I've already revised the article. If you have an argument against what I did, please respond to this.

Thethirdperson 7 January 2007, 9:31 (UTC)

EU?

Someone keeps adding in random bits of data from the European Union's economy. It's extremely out of place and isn't cited. Would someone mind editing it out until it's either discussed or placed in an appropriate place as well as correctly cited? Jeremyburkhart 09:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

US Debt and my Revert

This article used to have a section that basically suggested the US economy was in some kind of debt crisis. This really resembles a POV essay, and furthermore this view isn't supported by economists or real world evidence. I therefore support its removal.

US debt, though large in absolute terms is not large in size relative to the economy, either historically or in comparison to other countries. -- Mgunn 06:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hrm... 72.whateveritis seems to be getting a little wacky now... (I'll have to take a look at this sometime this weekend.) -- Mgunn 06:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro

The intro does not provide any sort of overview on the topic Aftermatt 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti

Someone needs to fix this line under History:

The post–World War II cock fighting bitch slapp ing years were a time of great prosperity in the United States.

Productivity

Productivity statistics are missing from the article and/or infobox. -- Beland 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is crap

Sorry but it it. This article talks about a bunch of useless crap and does not talk about the economy the way it should. I was looking at the articles about the Economy of Japan and the Economy of Germany and they actually talk about things that are supposed to be there.

This is what the US article talks about...

1 History 2 Basic ingredients of the U.S economy 2.1 Stabilization and growth 2.2 Regulation and control 2.2.1 Economic regulation 2.2.2 Social Regulations 2.3 Direct services 2.4 Direct assistance 3 National debt 4 External debt 5 Private income 5.1 International comparison 6 Poverty 7 Income inequality 8 Other statistics

And this is what the German and Japanese articles talk about....

Here is the German one....

1 General view 2 Primary sectors 2.1 Mining and minerals 3 Energy 4 Industry 5 Service sector 5.1 Tourism 5.2 Financial Services 6 Trade 6.1 Exports and imports 6.2 Balance of payments and currency 6.3 Foreign Investment 7 Investments 8 Labour force 9 Other statistics

And here is the Japanese one....

Contents [hide] 1 Natural resources 2 Macro-economic trend 3 Agriculture and fishery 3.1 Agriculture 3.2 Fishery 4 Industry 5 Services 6 Labor force 7 Current economic issues 8 "Post-war economic history" 9 Other economic indicators

See the difference? This articles is pure garbage and doesn't have sections about industry, energy, trade, agriculture and fishery, infrastructure, or a host of other important things. Also more than half of this article doesn't have any scources and talks about a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the economy. This article needs to be improved as soon as possible because it is horribly written and doesn't really even talk about the economy all that much. User:Daniel Chiswick 14 June, 2007.

Fixed Spam

Replaced "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO gay people" at the start of the opening paragraph with "The economy of the United States" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilithi Dragon (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

just pointing something out...

Is it just me, or does the British spellings in the infobox when talking about the United States seem a bit stupid? David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think all British spelling here is "wacked". However, that could be ethnocentric. Is this U.S. based or just world? 68.180.38.41 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Contentious points, good and bad, should not be in the introduction.

I have summarized some contentious points in the introduction. The article shouldn't spring headlong into a political debate right off the bat. Those issues should be discussed in detail later in the article. User ThomasPaine1776 has a bad habit of changing this article without consulting the talk page. --Rotten 09:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but your changes didn't mark an improvement either. Too much referenced information was lost and replaced w/ rhetoric that wasn't neutral enough. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I reverted this was a strong EU bias in the introduction; although the challenges mentioned are significant problems, the neglect of a comparatively high growth rate for a developed nation during the 1990's and the bit on the EU economy being larger than the US economy (which may be the case in exchange rate terms, but the link is to PPP numbers and those indicate that the US economy is larger than the combined EU economy.

It also seems dubious to make comparisons between one nation and an international body especially since many of the components of the body do not perceive themselves as members of one unified nation but rather as distinct nation states. The case for the appropriateness of the comparison gets even worse when one considers that the EU is not entirely Euro based and major players are outside of the monetary union (esp. the UK). Perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare the US economy to the worlds second largest national economy rather than arbitrarily choosing the international agglomeration which seems the most expedient.

Essentially my view is that the revision that was submitted was biased strongly towards the EU's economic policies while failing to address of any of the strengths of US long term policies and also failing to keep to the facts as described in the citations and in the rest of wikipedia.

Therefore I am of the view that the previous revision although perhaps a bit right leaning is not as biased as the intermediate revision of July 22.

Furthermore if the introduction is to be reverted to the specific discussion of the US deficiencies (debts etc) all of them should be listed in % of output terms and also linked to ranked pages of other nations % of output figures for the same attributes; otherwise there is no sense of proportion or relative standing for the average reader and it amounts to little more than economic agenda based grand standing.

Rhetoric is not much worse than referenced information selected with a bias towards a point of view. At least rhetoric is identifiable, selectively referenced information without counterpoint information and well reasoned comparisons is far more insidious.

Contentious points, good and bad, should not be in the introduction redux.

It really seems disingenuous to put a series of shock value numbers of US Economic difficulties into the introduction. These numbers need to be tempered by relative position in & of GDP which is what matters and then should be referenced to material regarding the %GDP position of that attribute in comparison to other countries.

I have changed the introduction to explicate the problems in general terms to avoid the pitfalls of the number shock methodology used by some editors, which neither makes sense in informing the reader nor is it consistent with other national economy articles in Wikipedia.

Eventually it would seem best to address these weaknesses in depth in the body of the article because it doesn't seem like these issues can be done justice (at least within the content guidelines I laid out regarding relative positioning and % GDP)in a short introduction paragraph. As it stood the absolute number methodology looked distinctly like headline reporting without useful and informative content

The bit on somewhat the slower growth since the 70's doesn't really have much validity, I ran some rough numbers and if you take the post war period through the 60's and compare it to the period from 1970 to 2000 the real growth rate difference is about .3 percent or so, hardly exciting and defenitely worth mentioning if one wants to talk about it. This issue also brings to light the bias and weakness of the previous introduction because comparatively positive numbers are left out here while the introduction was number happy at every negative opportunity.

Public Debt Percentage of GDP

The Public Debt should also include a side note with its percentage of GDP.

Which is around 68% of GDP.