Talk:Economy of the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Curiously contradictory reference

The intro paragraph to this article currently lists the US economy as the most productive per hour (GDP per hour worked), citing a reference http://www.conference-board.org/economics/downloads/ted09I.xls, which states that Luxembourg, Norway and several other nations exceed the GDP per hour ratio of the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.42.85 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Public debt

The info on public debt in the first paragraph is misleading. Its not that the numbers are incorrect, they are just old. If you just do the math yourself using the numbers in the main United States article (that page has up to date numbers) you will arrive at a debt of almost 81%, which is in fact higher than most major european countries. I'm not going to do the edit myself, because it will inevitably start a flame war so it needs to be done by somebody who can really back it up with proper sources... LarsHolmberg (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not old. It's sourced as being June of this year. This is one of the most recent figures used in Economy of Country articles. Some still have figures from 1997. The fact that the percentage comes to 81% means that American debt is higher than most major European countries. I don't see how that's a problem with the article though. Munci (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my problem with the numbers are not that they are old, but that they differ so significantly from the actual current situation. Especially since this old data is used as a basis for the second statement in the article, about how it compares to European countries. Also, I fail to see what your argument is. Should we not update the numbers just because they are fairly recent compared to the numbers in the Economy of Country article? That makes no sense to me... LarsHolmberg (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the figures on List of countries by public debt and edited this article to fit the statistics there. I cna't get webcitations to work though. Now the figures there are as uptodate as they can be. Munci (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I still dont feel that this issue has been addressed (bit of a late reply here, sorry :) - the numbers in the CIA fact book is from 2007 (as stated in the reference), the yahoo reference is from 2006 (and even then, it says 65%, not 61...), so saying that the data is from 2008 is just wrong. Perhaps we could use the same reference as United States public debt (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf, page 128). It states 65.6% for 2008 and a projected 90.4% for 2009. LarsHolmberg (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Same ref as United States public debt seems fine to me. Munci (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire debt issue is misunderstood by many people, as you have several layers of it. You have private sector, communal, national (domestic) external, and many others. China often gives a false impression that it has a low debt, while in reality it's debt far exceedes most countries at 120-177% of GDP, while the debt of the US is often lumped together regaurdless of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Social Security, Medicare and other "promissed" obligations from USA TODAY

Social Security, Medicare, etc... are not official debt obligations that anyone or any government has to pay back. The dulled-down writers at USA TODAY wrote a cute article about how "IF" one were to include such "promissed" benefits as "debts" the actual gross debt would be much higher, but this is just indiocy.

Social Security is not a debt. No other country counts their old age pension program as a debt. It could be written out of law tomorrow with no recourse by anyone. Please control your own political beliefs and avoid speculation in obtuse formats from lightweight sources.

International Comparisons of Private Income

If I knew how to change this chart, I would. I hope someone interested in reporting only facts, not their personal wishes, will do so.

This chart is a mismash of incomparable figures, no doubt created by excessive personal interest in one's own country. For instance, Australia and New Zealand both earn no where near the US in terms of per capita GDP in terms of PPP and shouldn't accurately be in the top 10 of this list. What someone has done, it seems, has merely converted official government measures of income into US dollars and ranked them in comparison to the US. This is not accurate because the exchange rate does not come close to comparing what can actually be bought in various countries with different incomes, hence we rank by purchasing power parity. (PPP)

An accurate listing of per capita GDP in terms of PPP is found here https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html or here http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/5.html or here http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/gdp_per_capita_2008_1.html Jasoncward (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Unemployment

This section is very vague. 23%? What does this include, all people over 15? If it is based on the traditional method of calculating unemployment, 23% would be chaotic for the U.S. It's usually reported at about 5-7% based on the times. Anyone care to clarify what's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.159.235 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the United States unemployment and underemployment numbers as collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is compiled and computed with a different methodology from most EU countries (for example, the US does not count the incarcerated in their unemployment numbers) Selfexiled (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not really correct. Neither the United States nor the EU counts its incarcerated in their unemployment rates. What you're referring to is the phenomenon of higher employment rates (workers/population) than might be imagined when looking at relative unemployment rates. That the United States has an employment rate that is relatively low for its unemployment rate is a result many things, one of which is our very high rate of incarceration. There's also the specific critism--the same argument, really--that America has a public policy of locking up its unemployed. That might skew statistics, but it's not because the US and Europe measure our statistics that differently.65.117.234.99 (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Accumulated expansion requests

• Add productivity statistics to infobox and article
• Extend history section backward from WWI to include the 1800s, the Revolutionary era, and the colonial period.
• Add Gini coefficient to infobox.
• Change exchange rate table into a graph
• Add information about the farming sector, including subsidies
• Add more details about what types and quantities of products are imported and exported.
• Add statistics about home prices (see real estate pricing)
• Add Unemployment in the United States as a subarticle (pull info from Unemployment)
• Show consolidated EU import/export statistics [1] [2]
• Add information about important industries, including agriculture and aquiculture
• Add information about energy and infrastructure
• Add more about the great convergence periods of 1940 - 1970s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machetero150 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• cite sources that don't come from purely right wing economists i.e. the heritage foundation, to make this more objective I would suggest adding sources from Economic policy institute as well as the brookings institute —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam1285 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

success was a sign of God's favor

I've never heard any serious economists in the US argue this, this needs a citation.--Rotten 16:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this claim. -- Beland 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Annuit Coeptis" ;)

welcome to Wikipedia my friends. In case you are to young (or lacking brain cells) to have figured out, absolutely anyone can write anything on Wikipedia. So don't be surprised that you find a lot of BS here. (I know of completely wrong information on one article and that wrong information has been there for the last 2 or 3 years - LOL. FYI, I would know that the information on the article is completely wrong). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.114.49 (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Gross external debt

"As of 2006, the gross external debt has nearly $9 trillion dollars or 64% of GDP."

There may be a problem with grammar as well as the data. According to [3], it has exceeded 10 trillion as of 30th June 2006. Or am I reading the data wrong ?

Gross External Debt Position, June 30, 2007 is $12,249,418,000,000.[4]

Annualised GDP as at June 30, 2007 is $13,768,800,000,000.[5]

Gross External Debt as percent of GDP = 12,249,418/13,768,800=88.96%

58.105.162.170 (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're combining internal and external debts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

External Debt

In the section External Debt, it is not very clear that it is amount of the gross debt that is mentioned. And it is probably actually wrong to equate that with NIIP. It would be more interesting to have a value for the net debt. Unfortunately, I don't know a source for that information. Rune Kock 00:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now found the net value at http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm. So I've inserted that figure and modified the text a bit to stress that the old number is a gross value. Rune Kock 19:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just looking through the report, as at December 31st, 2006, the Net position is -2,539,629,000,000 and the gross position is -16,294,619,000,000.

58.105.162.170 (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Public (gov) portion of economy

Misleading & properly labeled stats. If a label meaning [all] government spending is used, it should include all levels. Only Federal spending is used in the calculation. I see that the source is the CIA Factbook, which lists "budget". That only refers to Federal spending. 68.180.38.41 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding latest updates section

The article will benefit with adding a new section on the latest developments and news that gives the latest statistics and news affecting US economy. Saedirof (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree, I may try to do this if I have time.WacoJacko (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Intro

That first paragraph either should be clarified or removed. It's misleading: The US still holds the title of World's largest economy, on a country basis. The EU may hold the title of world's biggest economy, but the EU is not a country (let alone Eurozone). 27 countries make up the EU, and 15 Eurozone. The US, on the other hand is one single unified country.--Zereshk (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, defining the topic by what it isn't seems like a strange way to start the article. Rnb (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is a very strange introduction. In addition, the United States is still the largest economy in PPP (purchasing power parity) I believe. The Eurozone is the largest in terms of MER (market exchange rate), but that does not necessarily indicate that the Eurozone is the largest economy. Therefore, I agree with Zereshk that the first paragraph should be deleted. Dotter (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly concur. 96.227.18.198 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ack, that was me - got signed out somehow. john k (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A statement that the US economy has been the world's largest economy since 1870 is misleading; clearly the British Empire was a larger economic power until the beginning of the 20th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.56.223 (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the person who looked into the comment above. I still think the citation is worng as it talks about "the most productive economy" being the US. Productivity (ie amount of goods generated per person) is different from SIZE of national economy. Please can someone find a reliable source that says that the NATIONAL economy of the US has been the largest (I imagine on a dollar basis) since the 1890s or remove this sentence all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.56.223 (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This was just added back by PiCo. However, the EU is simply not a nation-state, and PiCo has provided no evidence to dispute this. The U.S. is thus the largest national economy, so I have put this back. Superm401 - Talk 13:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like someone is getting patriotic. On paper, the US economy is the largest, but anyone with a brain knows that China is the leading economy, as the US economy has become almost dependant on Chinese exports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.150.109 (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to think that a country with four or five times the population of the US and a smaller economy, is well-off as individuals, they are certainly welcome to do so. Their 30 year experiment with Communism was a disaster and they have a "stable" government now only with dictator-like judicial system. Once this changes, they will go through yet another wave of "recovery." Not an enviable position, either economically or politically. They will have to exceed the US economy by a factor of four to surpass Americans in standard of living. It will be awhile before they do this.

They have more "honor students" than the US has students. It does them no good. Their successful manufacturing systems were all individually designed by the West (Americans). They have no idea tomorrow what their next product should be until the US tells them. This is not true, say, of Italy who have entrepreneurs manufacturing stuff now, most of which will be a flop but some of which will be successful. This is true throughout the West. Can't patch in risk-takers who will mostly fail. Student7 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, being an outsider, plus coming from the EU, I also consider this comparaison should be removed... at best you can speak about the EU as the biggest market in the world, but certainly not the biggest economy, as most of the important structures are not centralized (no common foreign policy, nor defence for example, while those are the most basics components of what can be seen as a nation)... the day there will be a EU president, you could think about bringing back EU in the ranking, but for the moment, making this comparaison is VERY misleading and useless... otherwise you could compare anything and everything (pool Russia and former satellites of USSR, combine asian nations or south american nations etc...) Atalante66 (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sectors

What the hell is with the "Sectors" section? It has a brief thing about agriculture, and then a section called "financial" which includes, without explanation, a table, and that is all - nothing about manufacturing, or retailing, or the public sector, or health care, or anything else. john k (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove the section altogether, I think it's beyond the scope of the article to give a comprehensive understanding of each sector of the US economy; right now it's just a bunch of graphs and charts. Selfexiled (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Um,,, i thought Japan had a better economy than america.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.129.58 (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

image

The image of the dollar bill at the top is way too big, but when I go to edit it it claims to be only 250 pixels wide. I'm getting the full quality image too, not just a stretched one. What's up with that? JayKeaton (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Energy

The United States is no longer the largest energy consumer in the world, it was overtaken by China several weeks ago.

Government intervention

I realize that this is so deeply ingrained in the perspective of American economists that it's almost pointless to say this, but: the phrase "government intervention" smacks of POV, implying that the normal state of affairs is for the economy to run along pell-mell, entirely unmanaged, and activity by the government is an intrusion on this beautiful, autochthonous state. A more realistic picture is that an anarchist economy has never, in fact, existed, and for about as long as human history has allowed something we might call an "economy", states have been instrumental in directing the economic course. A better phraseology might be "role of government". Graft | talk 18:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Math in the intro doesn't add up

The intro says (1) the GDP of the US in 2007 was 13.8 trillion USD; (2) the external debt of the US in 2007 was 12 trillion USD; and (3) gross public debt (national debt) of the US in 2007 was 37% of GDP. The article on external debt confirms my understanding that external debt is a portion of total national debt. These numbers are self-contradictory. SkyDot (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

FALSE INTRO. "The economy of the United States is the world's second-largest national economy."

The opening statement "The economy of the United States is the world's second-largest national economy." is FALSE. The United States is STILL the world's largest national economy. Why do people insist on making these false statements? Fact is, there is NO national economy in the world right now that is larger then the US. For the Europhiles, news flash, the EU is NOT a country/nation. At least not yet anyways. Good luck with that.:)

The intro will be reverted to...

"The economy of the United States is the world's largest national economy."

Thank you. Akaloc (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"At least not yet anyways", at least not yet?? Do you have any idea how enormous the obstacles to unification of the EU into a single country are? Furthermore current events seem to show that when it comes to further unification it is the EU sceptics that are gaining the upper hand. There is nothing to indicate that unification of the EU is even a distant reality much less an imminent outcome.Zebulin (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. economy lost the title of "world's biggest" to the euro zone this week as the value of the dollar slumped in currency markets. Brian Love (Mar 14, 2008). "Weak dollar costs U.S. economy its No. 1 spot". Reuters. Terjen (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion above is quite humorously un-academic. Jason McConnell-Leech (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The number of people who put a single country against a economic block of 27 countries is astonishing. The US economy dwarfs any other country out there, and even the most pro-China estimates deem it will not be overtaken until 2040, and this doesn't touch about the actual economy, but rather GDP production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough

The economy,gas prices,unemployment rate,and everything that is wrong in today's society,America need to wake up and look what's happening to the "Land of the Free". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.254.130 (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still better than nearly any other economic situation in the world.

ref?

China trade costs jobs in every state, Economic Policy Institute, July 30, 2008. -- Cherubino (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unemployment

As of today, yahoo, CNN and other big news reporting corporations report in raise in Umemployment for the United States of America. 5.6 i believe to 6.1%.\

Thank you, Ashford11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.203.250 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Current financial crisis

There doesn't seem to be much said about the current financial crisis and the goverment bailout(if there is, it is buried in the article). I am sure that there may be a lot of people coming to this article looking for information regarding the current economic crisis(financial meltdown, recession, high unemploymemt, possible danger of depression)WacoJacko (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Section 5.3, Financial -- also "net worth" definition

All that this section has is a graph. There is no description to accompany it except for the caption: "Total US derivatives and total US wealth 1995-2007 compared to total world wealth in the year 2000". I'd like to see a couple of sentences here to give some context to the graph and answer simple questions like what is the definition of "U.S. Net Worth"? Does this include real estate, for example. Along these same lines, The phrase net worth appears in several of the captions, but never in the text. If not in this section, it should be defined (briefly) someplace in the article.Originalname37 (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Military impact

The military issue seems to be covered in a balanced fashion. Having said that, it's hard to imagine that someone can project that more money in the American economy would have "helped" it over the past several years! The economy has clearly suffered from gigantic inflation in housing and consumer spending. Clearly, more money would have made the resultant crash much worse, not "better." The US will be suffering from this hyper-inflation of house values for many years. I question the competence of a "scholar" who thinks otherwise. What we needed to sop up the money (borrowed money BTW) is a couple of more wars, if they indeed do "divert" money. Where is a good war when you need one? The "scholars" that proposed otherwise this seem more like serious anti-war activists than serious economists. Student7 (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the way the Democrats used for WWII and Korea to keep inflation within limits were price controls. In other words, too much money, not too little. The lead paragraph seems more blatantly anti-Bush than rational. I would be willing to read a less biased approach. The current statement suffers from WP:POV, the scholars credentials notwithstanding. Student7 (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Tourism

Not a single mention to tourism in all the article. I can't edit it because i have few information about tourism in USA and my english isn't good. --83.46.139.56 (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ten year projections, etc.

While we are quoting supposed "scholars" in their future projections, they all seem nonsensical. There is an 8-year projection for Iraq when Obama has a deadline (as do the Iraqis) of a much sooner withdrawal. Also, the budget is formulated annually. "Projections" of more than one year are just for show. Made by politicians to get media attention for an axe they are grinding. They are silly and out of place in this otherwise excellent article.Student7 (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

America needs to think!!!!!

America needs to stop buying imports and make the same imports right here in USA. And have a tax-cut on taxes,so the unempolyment rate(7.2%) can dramatic go down. It don't take a genius to run this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.254.130 (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop spreading propaganda here. (BTW, I am an American so think twice before you comment). If you are trying to spread a (political/economic?) message and/or philosophy, do so on other cites. You might also want to remember that your comments here are not going to get a lot of exposure so it is no use trying to gain voters or whatever you are trying to do by posting in the Discussion section of an article on Wikipedia. If there is something bothering you so much, please vent it on a more appropriate website, such as one that is about the economy, American politics, etc. Thanks : )

Best for America

''''''Revolutionary Leader needed now'''''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.22.2 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of Talk Page

What is this, a bloody soapbox for people to start preaching on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LitrainianKnight (talk • contribs) 05:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

REPOND TO "USE OF TALK PAGE"

NO, IT'S PEOPLE LIKE LITRAINIANKNIGHT, IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS WORLD NOW!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.254.130 (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

U6 and shadowstats

According to the BLS page, "Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for a job." Since U6 includes marginally attached workers, it includes discouraged workers.

I'm uncomfortable using shadowstats figures because it's not at all clear the numbers are reliable. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

History Section a bit short

Anyone good with pre-1930s economic history? The paragraph that sums it up is awfully tidy - no mention of slavery. And I love the part about high wages and immigrants. Sure, it may have been better than the alternatives in Europe and their was certainly a myth of prosperity that drew people, but it was far from peaches and cream. I added a line "and at times a willingness to exploit labor." I do feel this is accurate without being preachy or lengthy, so I hope it stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.80.100 (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"consistently outperforming European countries"

This sounds a bit like boasting, as there is no evidence to suggest how or in what sense the USA outperforms any European State. If we're talking about GDP then ok, but it's fairly obvious from what has been said hitherto that the USA has a higher GDP than any other nation.

Unless someone can cite this fact and explain on how and on what level the US 'outperforms' the UK/France/Germany, I'll remove this statement altogether. E.G Interactive (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reality?

I think there is a little too much fanboy talk in the article. Facts are:

1. If only china and europe wanted, they could crush the dollar with their dollar assets. This does not apply the other way round. The US put a lot of diplomatic effort in the last 5 years to not let this happen.

2. The US-Dollar had lost it's function as leading currency in 1969 as the US was too broke to change the dollar assets of france to gold. You all know this as the end of Bretton-Woods. Since then, the dollar has no basis to value it on. Except military power of the US in middle east and diplomatic power (see point 1).

Why aren't these issues mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.214.212 (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are not mentioned because they are not facts, but your own opinion. Also, your opinion is baseless too. It goes against all the facts that I could present to you across the table. I also suggest you pick up a book and start learning the basics of the economy as you have obviously no understanding of economics, but seem to be more interested in national wars that seem popular amongst the 8-12 year-olds online. No, if China with its holdings of the US Dollar were to "crush" the dollar, China would loose the value of its assets. It would go bad for China. Your view of America's (very small) debt to China is greatly exaggerated. Though a few BILLION dollars debt may sound like a big number to YOU, it is a very small portion of the entire US economy. In fact, US debt is less than US income (measured as GDP). The total net value of the USA is about $80 trillion. Think of it this way, sometimes even millionaires or even billionaires collect debt, yet still remain financially sound. Please think why that is. Second, you should learn more about what exactly are foreign reserves. Foreign reserves (that is, the dollars China is holding that you referred to) are an indicator of a country's economic status. Countries invest into a certain currency because they feel it is the strongest. There are several criteria to this: 1)large economy, 2)stable economy, 3)stable currency, 4)long-term growth, 5)stable economic growth, 6) exchange rates, and many other crucial criteria that help a country choose which currency to invest in. The fact that over 60% of the entire world invests into the US dollar signifies that the US economy is undoubtedly strongest and the most reliable/safest choice to make. As for your 2nd paragraph, well I just read it and .... I'm going to cut to the chase: your writing is plain stupid and lacking thought. It seems you are more of the kind of immature paranoid type who is fascinated with imagining that China is financially, economically, politically, and even militarily more powerful than the US. Please, I already have experience with your type and I encourage you to go out and learn with an open-mind rather than live in ignorance romanticizing about some WWIII scenario. China doesn't even compare to the US in any category, except that China has a larger population, has more pollution, produces more cars (though US-owned companies such as GM), and that China has more cybercrime than the US. The median income in the US is $55,000 while in China it is $1,300. The US economy is almost 3 times bigger than China's. The US has far more companies, small businesses, and billionaires than China. One in every 72 Americans is a millionaire. The US has 15 times more millionaires than China, even though China has 4 times more people. US Air Force is at least 4 time bigger than China's and the US Navy is the world's largest. Almost every modern air force in the world buys its planes from the US. In fact, the USN is bigger than the next 13 largest navies combined! China doesn't even have a blue-water navy, which means they can't even operate beyond the coast. Over 90% of the world's aircraft carriers are operated by the USN, while China doesn't even have one aircraft carrier. Politically, the US is the center of the world and is home to the UN, IMF, etc. It is the center of democracy and capitalism. China, on the other hand, has not produced any ideology of its own that others would follow. China is a mere puppet of Russia's communism. When we bring that up, I'll go back to military and mention that China gets nearly all its weapons from Russia. How can you be a strong country when you are so dependent on others? That also brings up technology, which I am sure your ignorant paranoid type like to talk about. Since when has China produced any technology? Over a span of thousands of years, China managed only to make paper money, gunpowder (which is disputed), and the toothbrush (which is disputed). In just 200 years, the US has given the world over half its inventions, such as the internet, computer, email, airplane, microwave, laser, television, supermarket, assembly line, smoke detector, dish washer, zipper, virtual reality, LCD, LED, light bulb, microchip, cash register, barcode, credit card, ATM, and air conditioning. A huge majority of the top schools in the world are American, such as Harvard, Yale, Caltech, MIT, UPenn, UCLA, Stanford, etc. China, on the other hand, has a severe brain drain because its education system is amongst the worst in the world and the smartest Chinese students are leaving to the US for a better future. When was the last time China ever made any software or medicine? The US is the world's leading researcher and manufacturer of medicine. It has produced great software and revolutionary ideas such as the internet, Wikipedia, eHow, Facebook MySpace, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, etc. It has produced the greatest technology companies and greatest software such as Microsoft (your OS), Intel (your computer's microchips), HP, DELL, Adobe (software), Oracle (software), etc. Then there is also the very important export called culture. American culture has been adobted all over the world. In almost every country television is filled with American movies, music, tv shows, etc. People love American fashion and American restaurants are the most successful in the whole world. Only international restaurants you find are all American - McD, BK, Subway, Pizza Hut, Dominos, Outback Steakhouse, Fuddruckers, TGI Fridays, Starbucks, etc. Since when has anyone other than Chinese want to watch Chinese movies? On the contrary, Chinese are hugely involved in (illegally) downloading American movies and music. This is a very good indicator of which country is leader (USA) and which country is the follower (China). China doesn't have an edge or will have an edge over the US in anything. 30 years ago they said Japan would surpass the US, but look how that worked out! If China would finally start taking care of its people like a humane country does then China would go bankrupt. It is still just a underdeveloped country and it will cost China a lot of money to finally modernize the country and bring basic things such as electricity, schools, clean water, and internet connection to a lot of its 1.3 billion people. It needs to first start feeding its own people instead of playing with currencies to keep wages dirt low just for the sake of attracting foreign investment. Please go and learn up about economics, currencies, Bretton-Woods, the gold standard, Nixon, US military operations abroad (not just the Middle East), US diplomatic relations just to name a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.114.49 (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just undid some edits to pages redirecting searches for US economy etc. to pictures of a trash can. May want to protect those pages --118.93.188.4 (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

i noticed the same when one types "economy of usa" (small caps). please make correction. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.236.229 (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We may need someone to keep a good watch on this Economy of the United States article as there are sure to be many anti-Americans who will come and plagiarize it. Watch for removal of information which is particularly positive of the US economy, which they might not like to face, though true and thus attempt to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.114.49 (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Employment Breakdown in the US

We should add a breakdown of employment in the US. Somebody please be so kind as to cite the number of people working in the US (I believe it is around 140 million) and how many are employed by government (~10 million?) and by the private sector (~130 million?). I'm not 100% on those numbers but if somebody can find a source and provide exact numbers that would be awesome! We could also explain how many small business are there in the US (~30 million?) and how many are employed by small business and how many by large corporation. Thanks guys and gals!

PS, keep up the great work Wikipedia. You belong right up there with the great information-sharing human breakthroughs such as the invention of the internet, Google, and Facebook/MySpace/Twitter! What a great age of information we live in as I hate those paper cuts you sometimes get from old-fashioned dictionaries, books, paper newspapers ; ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.114.49 (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Some "Du hast ..." German snake came in and deleted plenty of (positive) facts of the US economy. AS I SAID, WE NEED TO HAVE SOMEONE KEEP A GOOD EYE ON THE US ECONOMY ARTICLE AS THERE ARE SURE TO BE PLENTY OF ANTI-AMERICAN NUTCASES WHO WILL COME AND REMOVE POSITIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE UNITED STATES. We don't want innocent readers to come along on wikipedia and get wrong and misleading information, do we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.114.49 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - Request Protection for This Article

Hi all, I've noticed a lot of vandalism on this article. It is usually in the form of information removal, such as what the post below me points out of some user removing the information and replacing it with a picture of a trash can (I guess some anti-American nutcases' sort of humor supposed to be?). This article has clearly been the victim of anti-American extremists who have no sense of right vs. wrong and with all their wrongdoings and they can hurt many innocent readers who visit the article to obtain information. For them to visit the US Economy article at a time when valuable (and positive) information on the US Economy has been removed by anti-American extremists, it can be very dangerous as it provides them with only a one-sided, misleading article to read. Somebody by the name of "Du hast mich gefragt" (most likely this person doesn't have any information to contribute to an article about the US Economy and was visiting with only one intention: to destroy positive information about the US Economy (ie, vandalize)) has recently come in and deleted factual information which had reliable references attached. So my conclusion is we need some medium-level of protection that Wikipedia offers, either an administrator to watch the article or to prevent certain users from editing. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.114.49 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not going to get an admin to protect an article based upon there being one "bad" edit daily, at worst, especially with your blatant assumptions of bad faith. Like or lump, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 02:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy (or is it Jeske Couriano?, or Carl Johnson, or Jiri?), if that is even your real name as I doubt being wise to place much trust in you, I suggest to you that you go find something better to do then snoop around looking for attention. As you have pointed out, you are not an administrator so please leave it to the administrators to do their job and, quite frankly, go find something better to do! Besides, isn't the new school year starting pretty soon for you? Shouldn't you be more concentrated on that then browsing along Wikipedia? I am not here to argue with you, to be your friend, to be your "friend" on Facebook, to be a follower of your Twitter page, to subscribe to your Youtube, and so on. If you have nothing important to contribute to an article on the Economy of the USA, then please do not be mixing into this. PS, it is not blatant, it is common sense, which obviously you have none of. Thank you for letting me know that daily bad edits is allowed on Wikipedia; now we know why Wikipedia is not allowed in schools as it is clearly not a reliable source and merely a collection of a selection of the info, garbage, propaganda, opinions, and so on that the web has to offer with no morality or sense of justice in its publications whatsoever. You can clearly see from the History section of this article that user Du Hast Mich Defragt has not contributed anything whatsoever to the article. He has merely been deleting facts from the article. That is not constructive nor contributing to wikipedia, but it is completely destructive! Now, either you are too dumb to understand that or are perhaps you are just the same immoral character like that Du Hast Mich Defragt user and are trying to protect your own kind. Either way, I have nothing more to say to you and do not waist my time anymore or bother trying to message me in anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.114.49 (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it greatly if you stopped assuming I was attention-whoring and paid attention to the words I said for five seconds. What I've been saying is that there's no way you will get a semi for this article at this point in time, and an administrator agrees with me on this point. Even if Du hast's contributions to the article are vandalism, the vandalism has to be a lot more frequent than two edits 24 hours apart for protection; otherwise it just needlessly prevents IPs and unregistered users from editing the article. Also, semi-protection is not used to enforce content, which appears to me to be what you're trying to do. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 17:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia Stock Exchange

Am considering adding a reference to the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. As a major exchange and America's oldest, the PHXL deserves a mention in the article. If any objections, please state. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.61.146 (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

US economy ranking

I'm wondering why the rank said "1st" when the European Union's economy is bigger than the USA in terms of overall GDP? The GDP of the USA is $14 trillion and the EU? $16 trillion. So in that regard, the US economy should be 2nd not 1st. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiisunbiased (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That was just some edit somebody made to the article, but has been quickly removed. Please keep in mind that the European Union is not a country and that it would be unfair to start using the combined economy of entire political unions, such as the EU, or entire continents. These GDP rankings are to be purely only amongst countries because if we were to allow considering EU into the mix, then it would never end. We then would even have to start placing the combined economies of North America, Asia, and so many other organizations and political/economic unions it would become a complete mess. So please keep in mind that the reference to the EU that you read was just a recent edit somebody made, I have never seen it here before, and it has been also quickly removed and hasn't been here since. In case you are new to Wikipedia, please be aware that it is an open resource where any and all users are encouraged, as long as they follow some simple guidelines such as not posting false information and vulgar language (you get the idea), all users are encouraged to contribute to articles. This also means that occasionally you may fall victim and come across an article that has just been very recently vandalized and too recent for any one of those users continuously contributing to the article to have cleaned up the vandalism. If you're looking for information on Wikipedia, I would suggest my personal favorite is to use the references that are found at the bottom of Wikipedia articles. These references are the original sources and I have found that Wikipedia's real gem as far as researching goes is in looking at its massive collection of references both across the internet and in hard-copy form (that is, books and other printed material). Its value in this regard is priceless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.17.96 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The EU is not a country. 2. The US GDP is 12 trillion dollars higher than the leading European country, Germany, and 10 trillion dollars higher than China, who is ranked number 2. By verdict of reason, the US is the argest economy in terms of nominal GDP output. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturing discrepancy?

The article states "[the US] is the world's largest manufacturer, with a 2007 industrial output of US$2.69 trillion" and links to Manufacturing in the United States which is an article that doesn't exist. $2.7T is a notable figure, and I am somewhat surprised the page doesn't exist yet. Is there a reason, or a better article to link to that I am not aware of? -- kanzure (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There's Category:Manufacturing_in_the_United_States which also links to Manufacturing in the United States. Someone probably intended it to be just a category in the first place. At the very least I was hoping for something om par with Industry of China. -- kanzure (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Also under the "Manufacturing" sub-header: "The U.S. produces approximately 21% of the world's manufacturing output, a number which has remained unchanged for the last 40 years" isn't footnoted. Some data I find elsewhere isn't compatible with that statement. The link in footnote #90 is broken; I don't see which other link might source that statement. 69.95.233.53 (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Richard B. Woods

20 jobs that disappeared

I'm not sure of exactly the best place for this, but I found info on obsolete jobs in the USA:

• Marquit, Miranda. "20 Jobs That Have Disappeared." TheStreet. May 3, 2010. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

commentary

2011 The Economy and Generation X

Aeasl001 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC) For the last couple of years, the young adults of America are witnessing the demise of their future. Generation X is witnessing a decline in economy, jobs, and retirement. It seems as though this Generation will be one that will have to rebuild what others have destroyed. Many say that Generation X lacks loyalty, work ethic and motivation, but where is the hope for the Generation that will have to rebuild this country. Many of Generation X has watched their hardworking parents get laid off, some who have devoted their lives to their company. This Generation has grew up in a world of high technology, where everything is accessible. Even though Generation X did not grow up in the time of the Great Depression, or World Wars, they are experiencing tougher situations. All of this factors have impacted the mindset of the Generation. Generation X is characterized by being self-reliant, positive thinking, and has an inner belief that it is up them to succeed, all of traits will influence the direction of where they take United States and the world. Generation X has a tough road ahead due to many factors, but with their no-how, determination, and resilience, they can restore this economy.

: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_34/b4097060796052.htm : www.cnbc.com/id/24106406

Inaccurate phrase about social security in lede

Like other developed countries, the United States faces retiring baby boomers who have already begun withdrawing from their Social Security accounts;

This is imprecise. Social security is a pay-as-you-go system. People don't draw their pensions out of an account. Nobody has a social security account in the United States. Social security payments are paid out of a general fund and retirees who are eligible to receive social security will receive it until death, regardless of how much they paid into the system over their lifetimes. The wording may have been meant to be more poetic then factual and I'm sure US readers will understand that but for non-US readers, the phrase is misleading.

Why are the pictures so big?

Why are the pictures so big? Why not just use the standard thumb size, like other articles? Int21h (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The US per capita income is not $50,000

This is a lie. The per capita income stated by the Census is about $46,000. Please don't cook numbers to make a country sound wealthier than what it is. You can even check the United States Wikipedia page and see that the PPP and GDP per capita income numbers reflect that of what the Census gives it. Giving different numbers on different pages will make people take Wikipedia even less serious than they already do when it comes to information. If you look at the economy of the UK, Germany and other countries, the numbers are the same on both the pages of the country's article and their respective Wikipedia economy pages. I will be fixing this if someone else does not. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I really do think it should be mentioned that the average US worker works more hours than workers in other countries and that they receive less vacation times versus other developed countries. In many countries and at many jobs, if you were to cash out the extra vacation you had beyond 2 weeks (typical American average), it'd be like extra income. If countries like Germany and the US have similar income levels, Germans are probably working less hours for it.

Plus, there is a wider disparity of wealth. If GDP or PPP were what we should be judging, than the average citizen of a country like Saudi Arabia and other nearby Mid East countries would have a lot more money. Of course this is not the case and that is why it is not considered a developed country. The US has a disparity of wealth of 5% owning 44-45% of the economy (similar to Russia, Mexico). The highest disparity in the EU is Portugal (37%) and other developed countries like Japan, Canada and Australia are not higher. I do not have an average of developed non-US countries. I'd imagine it is the low-30's. With that being said, taking into account the excessive disparity of wealth the US has versus other developed countries, the income level is only about $40,000. Plus, some European countries have lower rates of marriage which can lower the family income level. This should all be written in correlation to illustrate the wealth of a country in comparison to others. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

15 trillion, divided by 310 million equals 49,000 (rounded) which considering the US economy is as high as 16 trillion to some sources, making the per capita 51k, 50k is the median. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone that knows how per capita works can figure this out in 30 seconds. GDP/population= X In this case, 16.2 trillion/315,000,000 = 51,428. Lower estimates would be 15.5 trillion/315,000,000 = 49,206 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Obsolete petroleum chart

The US' major export in 2011 was fuel! And the US is expected to be a net exporter of fuel until 2020. This means that the chart illustrating a deficiency in fuel is 2006, while accurate for that year, is clearly misrepresentative of the facts today and will need a replacement. Couldn't find an "obsolete" tag to place next to it, but will have to delete it if no one can come up with anything. (And it's a good chart except that, by projection, it inadvertently misrepresents the situation today). Student7 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Advantage: How American Innovation Can Overcome the Asian Challenge by Adam Segal, Reviewed by Andrew J. Nathan May/June 2011 Foreign Affairs 99.19.44.155 (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturing increase

Can't find it right now, but I think U.S. manufacturing is actually increasing. The reason for job loss in manufacturing? Productivity and automation. So manufacturing jobs have decreased, which is quite a different matter.

Also, see http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20120214/COLUMNISTS0207/302140001/Matt-Reed-We-lead-China-politics-could-cost-us

For op-ed piece on productivity, and foreign debt (also education, not germane to this article). I think debt is probably pretty accurate in the article already. I don't remember productivity, though. Student7 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Explanation

The failure to keep new manufacturing jobs from going overseas is undeniably an integral part of America's relative economic decline. Manufacturing has nominally kept up with inflation, but it has not kept up with the population growth or the growth in other countries. The decline in manufacturing jobs is primarily caused by companies like Apple and Microsoft making their products in China because of the virtually non-existent US tariff and a high corporate tax on manufacturers. Astrohoundy (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2012 (Eastern Standard Time)

Unsourced graphic: Changes in GDP/Capita

Author lists source as "own work." 151.204.190.111 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Debt and debt/gdp

Today, after making edits to the debt parameter of the infobox, I took another look at info from the cited sources. That leads me to question the info in the article.

The article cites this source in support of the debt figure. The figure used is described as "Total Public Debt Outstanding" by the source, and currently stands at $15,875,734,673,516.05.

The article cites this source in support of the Debt/GDP ratio figure. I added the cite because the previously cited source did not provide GDP or Debt/GDP information. I noted that one of the ratio figures given by that source agreed with the info in the article, and so thought that this source supported the article.

However, I now see that the figure I used from that second source is described there as "External Debt to GDP Ratio", and that the source also gives a figure which it describes as "Public Debt to GDP Ratio" which is very different from the ratio given in the article (about 72% vs. about 101%).

It appears to me from the description by those sources of the figures used that the 72% figure should be the one used as Debt/GDP. I'm not sure that I have a good handle on the terminology, though. Could someone more comfortable with this than I please take a look at this and make any corrections needed? Also, a clarifying footnote or at least a clarifying invisible comment would probably be useful here. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Employment growth by top tax rate image

I've started a centralised discussion here regarding File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg, which is used in this article. Gabbe (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source

Jojalozzo : As I can read in the message you sent, you removed my contribution for this only reason : " http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr/p/the-us-debt-dashboard-key-indicators-of.html is an anonymous blog and is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. " I have to precise : 1) http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr is not an anonymous blog : see the Contact section displayed on each page, top right hand side 2) This blog is considered as a reliable source for Wikipedia article, because it is already linked since many years by others Wikipedia pages. For instance : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency ; This is just the opposite than a blacklisted site by wikipedia. 3) Have you found a more exhaustive and up to date page elsewhere about these indicators, than http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr/p/the-us-debt-dashboard-key-indicators-of.html ? 4) The page http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr/p/the-us-debt-dashboard-key-indicators-of.html is mentioning every source of the data displayed, and/or is hot linking directly to the original and reliable source (FRED® Economic Data from Federal Reserve for instance).

For these reasons, I ask you revert your changes. --Brp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.174.103.32 (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If we can get the same info from the actual sources, let's do that. Perhaps this web site would be a good place to get the links we can use but I see no reason to promote that blog on Wikipedia when it is duplicating existing web content. Where there is synthesis, I do not believe that the author (Bruno Paul) would be considered a reliable source. Blogs are not considered reliable sources and if there are other articles where we are using this blog as a source, I think we should remove the links there as well. Jojalozzo 15:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, am I correct in understanding that you are associated in some way with this web site such that you may have a conflict of interest in this matter? Jojalozzo 15:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted a notice on the reliable sources noticeboard about these sources. That's the best place to get the opinions of those who are most familiar with evaluating sources. Jojalozzo 16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

1) Jojalozzo, you wrote: "I do not believe that the author (Bruno Paul) would be considered a reliable source." If you read correctly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLOGS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 , you should have written: "Blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Please: as an editor do not be confused between the words 'reliable' and 'acceptable', between a blog and its author. And "largely not" does not mean "never".

I would insist on the following points : a) some pages of Conscience Sociale are original studies in the field, not published elsewhere. They provide full data and references. Verifiability is fully provided. These blog pages may be considered as primary sources. b) some others pages are a strict synthesis of many others sources (primary or secondary), each time with references (hotlink or URL). We could remake the work already done and add hundreds of references (currently agregated on the blog pages for each chart) directly into Wikipedia, but we will then lack the synthetic view required by Wikipedia encyclopedia. These blog pages may be considered as secondary sources.

2) According to the link you provide, "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Yes I am associated with this blog; but where in the contributions do you see that I am advancing my own interest more than the aims of Wikipedia ? This only would caracterize a COI.

3) OK for your notice. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.56.241.24 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your points a) and b), neither original research nor synthesis is allowed here. Unless you are a recognized expert in economics, your blog is not available as a secondary source. Jojalozzo 19:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I realize I have not expressed my admiration for your blog pages. I very much appreciate all the work that's been put in there and I think it's a valuable resource for understanding national and international economics. Unfortunately, my opinion does not count and as Wikipedia editors our job is to improve the project while following policy which as far as I can tell precludes use or reference to your blog (unless I have missed your mention of published books or peer-reviewed articles on the subject). However, let's see what the folks at the reliable sources noticeboard say. Jojalozzo 22:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Lowest income percentiles" enjoy more space than middle class in Europe - removed

I deleted "Even in the lowest income percentiles people enjoy more space – average 400 square feet per person – than middle classes in Europe do" because technically, the 3-4 lowest percentiles are homeless, and probably either live in a shelter, a relative's couch or spare room, or on the street. I can't find the specifics in the cited sources (two of the three aren't on the web) but whatever they say, "the lowest income percentiles" needs to be more specific to prevent the sentence from being seriously misleading. EllenCT (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Relative size of finance industry, efficiency of wealth taxes, corporate profits vs. GDP, jobless recovery

This is kind of a hodge-podge, but I think these news items should be added to this article for the following reasons:

http://esoltas.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-rise-of-finance.html - the finance industry has grown from about a tenth of the economy in 1947 to about half of it now.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/06/america_s_wealth_tax_it_s_called_property_taxes_and_they_re_not_very_smart.html - the U.S. has wealth taxation but it is not egalitarian. In contrast the wealth tax article implies that there isn't any in the U.S., but that's not true. It's just regressive.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/corporate-profits-are-eating-the-economy/273687/ - corporate profits are so large, and corporations are just banking them, so it's sapping up demand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html - jobless recovery. EllenCT (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

See also http://esoltas.blogspot.com/2013/02/5-more-graphs-on-finance.html which is a follow-on to the first of those four. EllenCT (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added all of those except for the Slate piece, which is written from the left. It can be balanced with [6] from the right. (At least it seemed that way skimming it.) EllenCT (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

US net family net worth

The US median family net worth is very different from what most people think. Here is some information for the article:

http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems appropriate for Wealth in the United States. EllenCT (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Addition

The table under Economy by Sector contains numbers which do not add up. The 'percent of total employment' numbers come out to 88% even taking the >1% number as 1%, and the 'Employment Thousands Feb. 2013' total is barely higher than the first value in the column. I do not know the correct numbers, so I did not edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.151.208.58 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There are additional minor sectors (e.g. recreation) not included in the table. Please see the source cited (or Economy of the United States by sector for 2002 data....) I've removed the misleading and incorrect totals line from the end of the table. EllenCT (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent polling data finds overlooked middle class shrinkage

I wanted to include the first three sections of [7] and [8] ("While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press.") this weekend, but if someone else can't get to them first (please!) then they will have to wait. EllenCT (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)