Jump to content

Talk:Economy of the United States: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 47.17.27.96 - "→‎External debt of the USA (and other countries): +ref (World Bank)"
JCS3 (talk | contribs)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 103: Line 103:
==US public debt==
==US public debt==
[[World factbook]] cites 73.6% of GDP (2015 est.) and US treasury department [http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current "102% of GDP"].
[[World factbook]] cites 73.6% of GDP (2015 est.) and US treasury department [http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current "102% of GDP"].

== Source for 2016 year over year growth ==

Source self-contradicts on percent growth. Reports 1.9% growth, which is correct given other sources, and a growth rate of 1.6%, which is unreported by sources such as BEA. Reference: https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm [[User:JCS3|JCS3]] ([[User talk:JCS3|talk]]) 03:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:29, 12 February 2017

Template:Vital article

"poverty or low income"

This is a good edit, for at least three reasons. First, these numbers are from 2011 so they're way outdated. We should have more up to date data in there. Second, 2011 is the bottom of the recession, more or less, so it's not surprising that these numbers are high. You pick a different year you get different results. Third, the source is essentially an op-ed piece that engages in some statistical shadiness. As pointed out here the reason why supposedly half the population is "in poverty or low income" is because being "in poverty or low income" is defined as roughly being ... below the median income. Since *by definition* half the population is below the median, you get that half the population is "in poverty or low income". Which means that it's not actually a useful statistics - it just tells you that everyone who has below median income has... below median income.

There are scholarly sources on this out there. Including more up to date ones. Let's use those rather than this nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=842&source=1) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by United States. Visitors can easily look up market access information for US by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert you since this link did not meet WP:EL for this article (not broad enough in its scope) --> moved it to Taxation in the United States instead. SSZ (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment section, possible additional/current information.

There multiple components that have contributed to the state in which our economy is in now. Such as our economies failed attempts at recovery from our most recent recession, as well as the instability of our labor market. Now if we look at the unemployment/underemployment statistics, underemployment reached its peak in September 2010 of 9.25 million people, then recent research marked it down as 6.65 million as of May 2015. Unemployment reached its peak of 15.35 million in October 2009 and as of May 2015 has been brought down to 8.67 million. [1] Now these numbers do show marked improvement, however, since the last recession neither maximum points have been brought down to half that point. This is the current challenge to our labor market, and shows that we have yet a long road to reach economic recovery. Now not to say that our economy has not been improving, our economy just does not seem to be improving fast enough. According to a recent report released by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics “Over the last year, states saw moderate gains in employment and declines in the unemployment rate which, coupled with a growing labor force, indicate genuine labor market improvements—improvements that must continue in order to achieve full employment.” Now according to this article, the cited report indicated only 42 states and the District of Columbia did show marked improvement in their job market by adding job availability. Not only was there marked improvement in job availability but the number of those unemployed also fell and showed improvement however, the number of states that did was only 29. Of course out of these numbers some states did not improve as well if at all and some even declined. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.173.160 (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Economic Policy Institute analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current Population Survey public data series. “A more comprehensive measure of slack in the labor market." The State of Working America. 2015. Web. 15 April 2016. Retrieved from: http://stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/number-of-underemployed/.
  2. ^ Kimball, Will. Economic Indicators. “State economies continue steady improvement, but stimulus would improve growth.” Economic Policy Institute. 2016. Web. 14 April 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.epi.org/publication/state-economies-continue-steady-improvement-but-stimulus-would-still-boost-growth/.

Proposed inclusions

The number of Americans in poverty and poverty rate: 1959 to 2011. United States.

I propose including the graph on the right, the graphs at [1] and [2], and the table below from [3]:

United States' families median net worth source: Fed Survey of Consumer Finances[1]
in 2013 dollars 1998 2013 change
All families $102,500 $81,200 -20.8%
Bottom 20% of incomes $8,300 $6,100 -26.5%
2nd lowest 20% of incomes $47,400 $22,400 -52.7%
Middle 20% of incomes $76,300 $61,700 -19.1%
Top 10% $646,600 $1,130,700 +74.9%

References

  1. ^ Weston, Liz (May 10, 2016). "Americans Are Pissed — This Chart Might Explain Why". nerdwallet.com.

I also propose including, "In the United States between 2001 and 2014, higher income was associated with greater longevity, and differences in life expectancy across income groups increased over time."[4]. EllenCT (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External debt of the USA (and other countries)

An essential data is missing in this article: namely the list of US foreign debt holders (by country) (e.g. Paris Club). The total of US external debt was roughly $18 trillion (source: CIA World Factbook). The problem is that those countries, with few notable exceptions (such as China), are themselves mostly net debtors as countries.

      • What gives?***

Subsidiary question: WHO are the private foreign national holders of the US debt (domestic and foreign US debt)? e.g. "pension fund investment houses" (on behalf of their pensioners - the financial beneficiaries); banks/insurance companies and private individuals (e.g. Rothschild et al.) aka London Club.

Finally, what is the total net private debt of all US citizens? *WHO* are the top lenders (name of beneficial owners-lenders). These numbers must add up correctly. Reliable sources are needed ASAP. Thanks much.

PS: I suspect most, if not, the vast majority of US debt simply cannot be attributed to any major beneficial owners simply because of a built-in secrecy in the system, globally (e.g. Offshore banking /legal trusts/ IBCs / Private foundations/ front men)...by DESIGN? (globally speaking, total assets must always equal total liabilities)

47.17.16.137 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One source: International Debt Statistics (World Bank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.96 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of large equity holders in the USA by beneficial owners

This list is also missing (i.e. list of top beneficial owners by nationality). Forbes' List of high net worth individuals/billionaires helps but this is different. I suspect however some TRILLIONAIRES/families are missing (if they exist). 47.17.16.137 (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Economy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US public debt

World factbook cites 73.6% of GDP (2015 est.) and US treasury department "102% of GDP".

Source for 2016 year over year growth

Source self-contradicts on percent growth. Reports 1.9% growth, which is correct given other sources, and a growth rate of 1.6%, which is unreported by sources such as BEA. Reference: https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm JCS3 (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]