Talk:Economy of the United States

Archives: 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

so-called tax cuts

The Bush so-called "tax cuts" occured in 2003 and 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)

2004 represents an all-time record high, as will 2005.

To claim that these so-called "tax cuts" caused the deficit is 100% factually absurd, since an increase in taxes cannot be responsible for a deficit. When tax receipts are rising to record levels, only increased spending can cause a deficit.

TimShell 21:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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