Jump to content

Talk:Economy of the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Request for Comment Summary

Topic being considered:

Currently, several wikipedia articles take into account the European Union (EU) when discussing the gross domestic product (GDP) and ordered ranking of national economies. It is debated whether or not the EU should be referenced in these cases.

Pages where this consensus may apply:

In favor of including reference to the European Union:

Many economists and authorative reference sources online track and use the GDP of the European Union including:

  • The CIA (World FactBook)
  • The OECD
  • The International Monetary Fund

Even the World Bank refers to the European Union as the world's largest trading economy. The City of London tracks its importance relative to the European Union's economy as a whole.

Many online reference sources regularly make reference to the European Union and it is hard to imagine that there is any adverse effect on the readers of Wikipedia by including such a relevant reference point. The International Monetary Fund does include the GDP of the EU as an option in its September 2004 World Economic Outlook database. The European Union is not only a customs union as some may suggest and no authoriative general reference source or economic source makes that claim. On the other hand, there are several sources that refer to the economy of the European Union. When the EU refers to its single market that includes more than just a customs union. The customs union argument is flawed. Turkey is a member of the customs union and no attempt is made to aggregate the GDP of the EU with Turkey.

If we were to exclude references to the European Union based on the standard proposed below, we would also have to say that countries like Andorra did not have an economy prior to 1999 (with the introduction of the euro) and that even the United States did not have an economy until 1861. To apply a standard that would not allow us to talk about the GDP of the US prior to 1861 is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. We should not reject a long standing consensus that has already been reached in several articles and that is suppported by many economic organizations and reference sources for a dubious standard and position that is proposed by one person and that is not supported by any outside sources.

In favor of excluding reference to the European Union:

Common currency and monetary policy are key characteristics of integrated, national economies. At present, only the EU members who use the Euro (referred to as Eurozone nations) meet these criteria. In non-Eurozone nations, it is not possible to participate in the single market or in Eurozone nations' individual economies without first transacting in the foreign exchange market. Because the entire EU is closer to a customs union than a unified economy, it should not be considered in national economic aggregates. The inclusion of specific customs unions, free trade areas or other logical groupings of nations will serve to lessen the comparability and usability of national data provided by authoritative sources. The World Bank does not include the full European Union in its ranking of national economies and only includes the Eurozone nations at the end of the data table with other regional groupings [1]. The International Monetary Fund includes the EU and the Eurozone only as an option for geographic and historical aggregates; neither the EU nor the Eurozone are included in national comparisons in the September 2004 World Economic Outlook database [2].

The discussion of supranational GDPs is a valuable element of economic analysis in wikipedia articles, such as the discussion of regional or trade-area GDP in Economy of Asia, ASEAN Free Trade Area and Economy of Africa. The consumption and output of a region are objective facts that can be measured. The integration of disparate economies into a single national economy is an important geopolitical benchmark. In the United States, states governed by the Articles of Confederation were stripped of all sovereign power to issue currency by Article One of the United States Constitution. Such an action is crucial to the formation of a coherent economy from diverse member states.

The current ad hoc treatment of EU GDP as a national GDP obscures the distinction; listing the EU in ranked national lists without assigning a ranking (see List of countries by GDP (PPP)) is problematic. An earlier version of Economy of the United States described its GDP as "first (after EU)". Such treatment is ambiguous and lessens the usability of economic data.

Further, comparing a continent to a single country is not a correct comparison. If we are to look at Europe as an aggregate, then we must also look at North America as an aggregate. As such, this discussion may make sense under the topic "Economy of North America", but is not appropriate for "Economy of the US".


Comment moved to talk page:
Could you write about role of Pentagon, government agencies like NASA and Universities and other scientific organizations in US economy ?


Notes for economy article:

  • largest GNP
  • high in list of GNP per capita
  • 5% world population
  • 20% world coal production
    • appalachians, wyoming, west va, kentucky, illinois, indiana, ohio
  • 20% world copper production
    • az, ut, montana, nv, nm
  • 20% world crude oil production
    • 2nd largest producer. major oil fields in:
      • alaska, calif, gulf of mexico, louisiana, oklahoma
  • 50% world corn production
  • slightly under 20% beef, pork, mutton and lamb
  • 10%+ wheat production

US exports account for 10% of world exports.

enterprises such as airlines, telephones that are gov owned in other countries are privately run in US.

Taxation - federal, state and local government

  • for federal tax
    • personal income tax (most important source)
    • federal excise tax on alcohol, gasoline, and tobacco.
  • state (depends on state)
    • income tax
    • sales tax
    • excise tax
  • local
    • sales tax
    • income tax
    • prop tax

labor force 3/4 of all union members are AFL-CIO soc sec taxes

industry manufacturing 20% GNP services second after manufacturing. fastest growth of all sectors in second half of 20th century

financial

  • federal reserve - central banking by 12 fed reserve banks supervised by board of govs in DC
  • treasury manages national debt - bonds, deposits in fed res banks.
  • private commercial banks controlled by state. liberalization of state laws lead to more intra and inter state banking. 40% of all commercial banks belong to fed res system. Req for min reserve deposits in fed banks and req for percentage deposits of savings and checking accounts in fed banks.
  • credit agencies, savings and loan institutions
  • insurance, security and commodity brokerages

stock exchanges:

  • major ones: nyse, amex, cboe, nasdaq(?? not exactly?)
    • minor: pac stock exc

international trade more debt owned to foreign creditors than reverse.

highway system: 44,000 mile Interstate Highway System. In all 50 states. 90% of cities w/ pop > 50,000 are connected. Carries 20% of nation traffic.

railroads: primarily for moving freight. Amtrak is national passenger system.

waterways: mississippi, great lakes, gulf coast, pacific and atlantic coasts.

air: 500 public airports. Busiest is Chicago and Atlanta.

Why is GDP per capita displayed so prominently? I'm sure Saudi Arabia and Brunei have a high GDP as well, but most of that wealth goes to a small minority. What is the reason for mentioning a statistic of GDP divided by population at the top as opposed to some other random statistic? It implies that the average American is better off than other peoples (why else would you do that division), implying that Americans roughly get a similar share of that $33,000. This is nothing like the case. It's funny how capitalists present the US economy in a communist-like manner when it suits there purposes to do so. I am removing this from the top because there is no reason for it's existence, especially the bogus implied impression, at the top of the page. -- Lancemurdoch 04:39, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Impressive

  • For people this is impressive. Someone has aptly noted that the CIA fact book fiscal budget numbers are neither federal nor state and local receipts and expenditures. Does anyone know what the CIA fact book "Budget" (2003): "revenues: $1.782 trillion" and "expenditures: $2.156 trillion, including capital expenditures of NA" ([3]) are? All the other countries I just checked have their "Budget" in line with the 35-55% of GDP that OECD calculate from the "Fiscal balances and public indebtedness - EO75 Annex Tables" (([4]).
  • The BEA NIPA tables ([5])show 3,120.0 and 3,499.2 for Q1 '04, while this text show $3.127 and $3.499, is that a revision? Are these numbers consolidated by the BEA itself and is that where the numbers are from? - Jerryseinfeld 23:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

changes

The term market-oriented makes little sense. People in the USSR went to the market as well. The difference between the USSR and US were in production - control was either by by CPSU or corporate bureaucrats. Thus the difference is one was capitalist, and the other called itself socialist.

This tone goes through much of this, which was originally written by the CIA(!), and includes a lot of double-talk. I've also noted how the US government gave massive funding to things such as the Internet ('nee DARPAnet) and in the recent past has been spending millions a year on biotech projects like the Human Genome Project.

The explanation for a two-tier labor market is equally ideological - industrial productivity has increased over past decades, but the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage has actually fallen. And professionals and white collar workers wages have been under attack as well, compare a programmers inflation-adjusted wages and unemployment rate today to say 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. White collar college-educated professionals were better off by almost any standard in the late 1960s in the US than today. So the idea that the 20% of Americans who are professionals are living some sublime existence.

I have changed much of this. I question whether US corporations "face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets". Barriers in what markets, tomatos? steel? I seriously question whether this is true or not, but I'll leave it in anyway since I haven't researched it thoroughly. Ruy Lopez 12:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is it possible for someone to be banned for chronic povulation? The CIA's World Factbook is a source of statistical information you dumbass, it doesn't have anything to do with their spooky Cold War operations. Trey Stone 23:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Statistical information" like this that found its way into the Wikipedia article? "In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits." Ruy Lopez 17:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That passage you quoted seems factually accurate and quite unbiased to me. What is your problem with it? jni 11:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We are talking about whether or not this passage contains statistical information or non-statistical information. What are you talking about, and what relation does it have to this thread? Ruy Lopez 12:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook contains factual data about GDP, unemployment, poverty, population, etc etc., yes, as well as description like that, which as the above user said is factual. J. Parker Stone 00:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV nonsense

Roy Lopez' Edits

I have been reverting your edits, reading them as clumsy attempts to present a socialist perspective on the Economy of the United States. However, some of your edits show glimpses of merit, though I have difficulty seeing that merit very well behind the POV form the edits have taken so far. I'd like to discuss the objective of your edits so that we can take advantage of that merit and incorporate it in a manner that fits the NPOV guidelines. — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

The existing article is ideological. I don't know anyone who would say the US economy is (primarily) capitalist is a "socialist" POV. Many people to the right of socialist concede this, some are even proud of it. I don't know why inserting it is POV. Calling the US a "market economy" as if say the USSR or Cuba doesn't or didn't have markets is absurd, the primary difference between the two economic systems is in the production system for commodities going to the market, not the market itself. I've said this above and don't even know why calling the US economy a capitalist one would be considered socialist.
You seem to be misunderstanding what "market economy" means, both here and at market economy. A market economy doesn't denote the existence of markets, but that the economy is driven by the markets, as opposed to being driven by an organised authority. You are right—there is no difference in the market itself. However, there is a difference in the influence that the market's activities (who buys what and when and for how much) which doesn't occur in a planned economy. The distinctions you are trying to make with your edits are unnecessary unless the reader holds the same misconception of what "market economy" means as you hold.
Re: [I] don't even know why calling the US economy a capitalist one would be considered socialist. Calling it capitalist isn't inherently socialist. ItThe USA is, in fact, capitalist. However, you are removing "market economy" and replacing it with "capitalist", presuming that the former is unimportant and the latter is. The POV comes from insisting on highlighting the capitalist aspect of the USA economy at the same time as highlighting the negative aspects of the system, which you conveniently detail below. — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:20, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
I said "Over the past three decades, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage in the United States has dropped. Decades of brisk productivity growth began slowing down in the mid-1960s, since which productivity growth has been slow, and long, deep recessions during which high unemployment exists have returned." These are facts, and are what I replaced the explanation of how a "two-tiered labour market" came about with, which I found completely POV. In fact, it says the exact same thing George W. Bush was saying on the campaign trail, people having trouble finding work should learn computers (he forgot to mention unemployment in IT was higher than the national average at the time). The POV explanation has to go, and some information has to be included about how the US economy has been floundering since the early 1970s - the average inflation adjusted hourly wage is lower (the average wage is lower! People made more per hour 30 years ago than today), economic growth has slowed, the US economy doesn't dominate the world like it used to as other countries and economic blocs have been catching up, recessions and unemployment since the early 1970s have been worse and more frequent compared to the post-war years and so on and so forth. This is mentioned above as well.
Go back and read NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. A cardinal rule is (paraphrasing) "avoid removing information that you consider POV—instead, add more that balances it, and rephrase the existing information to use neutral words." You're not doing that. Yes, the US economy has been in a downturn, and yes, I think much of the problem is the system. However, removing information unilaterally is a no-no. If you think it's POV and a substantial set of editors disagree, the right way to deal with it is to reach consensus here and make the changes multilaterally. — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:20, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Also, the fact that the US government massively subsidized every industry the US is globally competitive in (except for maybe Hollywood) has to be mentioned.
"Massively" is a POV adverb. Cite undisputable facts (like numbers) and let the reader come to their own conclusions about the extent of something. What you should be saying here is some citeable facts about tax breaks or outright subsidies that shows what you call "massive subsidisation" and let the reader decide what to call those facts. — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:20, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
I'm open to changes, but the POV stuff has to go (weasel phrases like "market economy", "surplus workers" etc.; the two-tiered economy explanation; plus the idea that the lower economic groups are stagnating economically - yes, if by lower you mean the majority of the population). Ruy Lopez 03:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Market economy" is only a weasel word if you don't understand what its technical definition is. "Surplus workers" is unnecessarily euphemistic; however, replacing it with something unnecessarily harsh is, well, unnecessarily harsh (and POV, to boot). We don't need to decide for the reader what's bad and what's good, or what they should think about the article.
"Two-tiered" is probably not POV by itself, but it may be worded in a POV way. The only problem with talking about the stagnation of the lower economic groups (in the context of a two-tiered economy) is, perhaps, concealing the fact that this group is the vast majority (if that is, in fact, the case—we need to show the reader that it is, not tell them that it is so).
Finally, please play by the rules. The article stood, by consensus, as it was before you came along. You wish to make contentious edits, therefore, you need to make sure they are not contentious before they can stand. Unilaterally making the edits and then camping on them to defend them is a red flag to most editors that someone is defending bias. Please don't make it hard for everyone else watching this article to extend the basic courtesy of assuming good faith, by showing us that you are interested in consensus. — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:20, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

The correct way to measure changes in worker pay from one period to the next is not by examining wages alone, but by looking at the total compensation per hour (both wages AND benefits). Nonwage benefits have become an increasing share of total hourly worker compensation. In 1960, 9 percent of worker compensation was in the form of fringe benefits; in 1975, 16 percent ; and by 1990, 20 percent. So while it is technically true that average real wages have been falling over the past three decades, real pay (compensation) has generally been rising. 69.19.2.36 04:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that brings up a larger issue, which is in some way related, but also perhaps beyond this entry. Yes, the cost of benefits has been going up, but at a much, much faster rate than the actual content of the benefits. Specifically, there the cost of health care has been increasingly in a dramatic manner, far exceeding inflation, but, while it costs more, the worker with the health care benefits is not getting more health care, the cost is just rising. I know this is a bit convoluted, but, and this is just my opinion, in a strange way it demonstrates that there is some common ground between "business" and "workers" here. In that workers' raises are in the form of health care costs, thought the worker sees no change in care. So, in the companies' views, they are giving more, but, to the worker, they are getting the same. Who does get more? Big Pharma, Insurance Companies, etc. This is an issue that is important to both workers and management, then. Now, I am not suggesting it is the ONLY reason for wage stangation. For example, the 4 percent inflation in compensation between 1975 and 1990 cited above is hardly astronomical; therefore, it is hard to blame a substantial portion of anything but recent wage stagnation on health care. Much of it, in my opinion, has to do lower union membership, and deindustrialization. Clearly, a job in retail does not pay as well as a job at a still mill. The former is a common job for those out of high-school today, the latter was a common job (at least where I grew up) for those coming out of high school up until the late 1970s when they started to close.

Reversion of Very Verily

I have reverted an edit by VeryVerily to this page. I have no opinion about the paragraph in question, but VV, if you wish to "rm socialist pov nonsense", then I suggest you nut it out on this page and reach consensus first. - Mark 07:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A bit of history for context: Ruy Lopez made that edit, removing a (from some POVs, perfectly good) paragraph at the same time. He also sprinkled the "capitalist" label through the first paragraph. After a short revert battle, I engaged him in the talk section immediately above rather than get into a full-blown revert war. Ruy Lopez has not responded in (I think, without checking) about a week. I'm still of the opinion that his addition and deletion need thorough NPOV work at the very least.
However, your reversion of VV's outright deletion, since it ignored the history, talk page, and my edit summary saying that it needed attention, was justified. Again, just some context. I'm not willing to wade into that paragraph myself at this point, though I feel reversion may be in order if Ruy Lopez never returns to the discussion. Cheers!  — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:19, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Saxifrage. A few comments here. First, I did not ignore the history, talk page, etc.; I am well aware of the history of the article, having been intimately involved with it for some time. Ruy Lopez has been on a long-running campaign for a year now using at least twelve different accounts to introduce communist POV into articles. In this one it took the form of putting the American economy in as negative a light as possible, and this paragraph is an example. At present it is nearly exclusively negative, omitting the many positive aspects of recent American economic development. Furthermore, the points it covers are well covered in the sections below in better, clearer, more thorough, and more balanced detail. Certainly POV statements such as that privatized health care is a "problem" have no place in this article. The paragraph is superfluous and POV and wouldn't belong in the "Overview" section even if it weren't. I'm deleting it again. VeryVerily 18:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In fairness, it technically said the "Rising costs and profits" are a problem, not the private system itself. Still socialist POV nonsense, of course. - Calmypal 19:54, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
On those grounds I'll agree. I didn't much like either that paragraph or the one Ruy Lopez replaced, and it's true that the useful content of them is covered better elsewhere. What would have made this less controversial would be dropping a note here or in the edit summary saying "as Ruy Lopez has declined to defend the edit on Talk for X time, I have removed the contested paragraph" or some such. Gotta appear to do the right thing just as much as one needs to actually do the right thing, and beyond that, appearance is everything when we need consensus.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:14, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Encylopedia, anyone?

Why do so many articles in Wikipedia deteriorate into pointless, frequently US-centric discussions of the role of government and markets? In a "real encyclopedia" (a comparison I wouldn't have used until recently, but I'm getting increasingly disillusioned with Wikipedia), this would not be the case. There would be substantive discussion, for example, in this article, of the impact of the oil crisis, fluctuations in the dollar, trade wars, GATT and WTO, the current structural trade deficit, to name just some international issues that completely absent. When things deteriorate into pointless edit wars ("no, my POV needs to be in there explicitly! More visibly!") an article that's actually useful for users (as opposed to editors) is not the outcome. Anybody ask themselves, from the point of view of potential readers, what should be in the article? Personally, I think it needs starting from scratch to develop a decent structure; though some of the material could be partially reused. (Sorry, previous contributors, but sometimes it's to speak the brutal truth.) Rd232 15:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In summary, virtually the entire article could either be deleted without loss (as being duplicated in more suitable articles or a bad starting-point, even if some of the points/issues come back in) or moved to a daughter article (History of the Economy of the United States). On a basic level, this article should be about the economy. Far too much of it is political; which should be referenced but not dwelt on to this extent. To give another example: deindustrialisation? Outsourcing? Competition with Japan, China, EU? Not worth discussing perhaps?? Rd232 16:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In summary of the summary, the article should remind people more of Time [8] or the Economist [9] than a high school essay. Rd232 16:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It could be moved to an article called “An Americana political view of recent US economic history.” It mentions most presidents yet complete ignores economic cycles. As you mentioned, it also deals only with political 'hot potatoes'.
The rest of the article isn't bad, though it repeats a lot of basic concepts. I think some politics might be starting to spill into the rest of the article. Interestingly, despite all the editing wars, no one seems to notice that the top of the article say the US is a market economy, but the middle of the article say it's a mixed economy. Seano1 22:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article seems to dwell too much on politics, and not enough on the actual economy of the United States (economic cycles, etc.). In that vein, I've trimmed down references to Carter's low approval ratings. Too heavy-handed? - Walkiped 20:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It goes without saying that U.S. politics and economics are inextricably intertwined, but I'll wait for a consensus on whether the text should be restored. I tried to simply say that Carter was and remains very unpopular due to his policies when I first rewrote the article, but an anon felt such a simple statement was too POV, so I added evidence. - Calmypal 20:44, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Male-Female Wage Gap

In a discussion of the U.S. economy, I thought that I would see at least a mention of the gender gap in wages. In the Economy of Africa article, the statistic is placed prominently along with GPA and other economic indicators. The gender gap is not such a small difference that I think it a quivel to point out. If it was a fraction of a percent, it probably would better belong in a statistics book, but something as large as a 25% difference (depending on your source, it could be smaller or larger) should be noted since it plays a large role in U.S. economics.

I don't agree. When you compare men and women with the exact same job title having the exact same level of continuous experience, then the difference between the sexes all but disappear. The problem is that people compare the averages, which does skew more towards men. That is due to multiple factors which include men being attracted to higher wage careers, men being attracted to dangerous careers which include hazard pay, and men overwhelmingly working swing or graveyard shifts which include shift differentials. Men also do not get pregnant, leave the workforce for years at a time, attempt to return years later, and then compare themselves to the same men who now have years more of experience. Further, when those women return, they are often the primary child-care parent, so they are not able to focus on their career the same way that men can.

EU/US Economy Size

I changed the text and table to indicate that the US has the largest economy in the world. It previously read second largest after EU. The entire EU is not considered to be a single economy, especially because the entire EU does not share a common currency and unified fiscal policy. This is one of the hallmarks of a coherent economy, esp. in regards to GDP, ficsal policy, monetary policy. The EMU 12 (those countries on the Euro) can be considered as a single economy, but their output is approx $8 trillion. (See User:Feco/Temp/EU_GDP) for those figures... all figures taken from CIA world factbook for the member countries). Feco 06:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me understand this, you want to the use the CIA world factbook as a source for the size of the economy for every economy except for the EU ? And your reasoning is that it's not considered a single economy ???? Not considered a single economy by whom ? by you ? If we're using the factbook as the source, we should use it for the size of the EU economy as well. Parmaestro 16:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The EU doesn't meet the definition of an economy b/c it doesn't share a common currency. Thus, there are no ways to exchange goods and services without passing through the foreign exchange market. Different currencies also mean there can be no unified monetary policy, and there is a much less likely chance for integrated fiscal policy in regards to output targeting. Those are hallmarks of an economy. The Euro Zone meets the criteria, but excludes the UK, which is why Euro Zone GDP is significantly lower than US GDP. Feco
I used CIA Factbook numbers b/c that seemed to be the statistical source cited by other authors of the article. OECD shows the Euro Zone as an aggregated value and also has more up-to-date GDP (2004 data as of Apr 2005) numbers. See [10] for data. World Bank does not show EU or Euro Zone with country rankings, but has the EMU only listed here: [11] and here: [12].
Hopefully, the citations above will convince you that I'm not mining the data to get what I want.Feco

I'm more than willing to post this on RfC if you don't agree with my reasoning above. If that's the case, let's jointly come up with the text to post on RfC. Feco

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be so harsh earlier. It's just that I've looked at several rankings on the internet of GDP including the World Factbook and the IMF. Every ranking I've ever seen has the GDP of the European Union higher than the US. I'm still wondering if there is any authoratative reference that uses the figures that you use. It seems to me that as an encyclopedia we should be reporting what is generally agreed upon rather than breaking new ground especially in an area such as economic figures where there is a lot of data already available. Is there anyone else using the data the way that you have formulated? I think it's more important to know what's being used by economists rather than the personal opinions of a few people online editing this encyclopedia. Hopefully, we can come to some kind of an agreement on what can be used as a source for economic data rather than creating our own via either fiat or RfC. 82.230.182.51 19:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the EU/EMU is usually not included in rankings-by-country on economic data. Recently, they have been starting to be included, but usually as footnotes. Links 8, 9, 10 above all have that presentation... the EU/EMU is listed at the bottom of the table. I have never seen a ranking-by-country that includes the EU as a whole in a format that makes it appear as a single country. Feco
That's right, because it's not a country. That's why the article previously specifically stated that it has the highest gdp of any country and the rankings always indicated number 1. But where it is included in rankings, the figure listed for it is higher than the US' not lower, including the source we are using for the article. None of these outside sources use a gdp figure for the EU that is lower than the US. Parmaestro 19:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't we at least revert back to the article prior to the edits until this is resolved? Otherwise someone could simply make edits based on specious reasoning (unlike this case) and then claim that we can't revert back to prevent an editing war and that the issue needs to be decided by RfC or otherwise first? Parmaestro 19:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I made the changes b/c the article (to me) read like a deliberate attempt to mislead. The entire EU does have a higher GDP, but there isn't a compelling reason to aggregate the member states into one entity for economic comparison. GDP rankings from "offical" sources (OECD and World Bank have the authority to speak on economic matters, much more so than the CIA) don't treat the EU as a single entity (see links 8,9,10 above). Grouping the EU as a ranking seems (to me) to be analagous to grouping North America, Asia, etc... the information is useful in certain contexts, but not in an apples-to-apples comparison of the size of countries' economies. Feco
The orginal wording of the article specifically stated that the US has the highest gdp of any country. It might have been misleading if that sentence wasn't there immediately after the sentence you are disputing.
If you click on the link in the article https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html which is the footnote for rankings, you will see a list of rankings with the EU above the US in a list that otherwise includes only countries. Parmaestro 20:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The CIA shows 2004 data for EU and 2003 data for US. Assuming the US grew 0.5460% (yes.. little more than half a percent) from 2003 to 2004, it will be equal to the EU's GDP. The US econ did grow by more than that much in 2004. Also, I don't consider the CIA to be a good source for this data. They most likely did not gather it for themselves (even if they did, why trust them with the World Bank is a much more authoritative source for econ info?), but instead reaggregated someone else's data. To me, the World Bank is the authoritative source. On their tables [13], they don't show the EU at all, and only list the EMU at the very end of the data with other super-regional groupings.Feco
It's very difficult to track a moving target. You keep changing the arguments that you are using. However, I am certainly willing to agree that we should be using better sources for our articles. The list you have from the World Bank is a list of GDP by country. I haven't made the argument that the EU is a country. Even the World Bank states that EU is the world's largest trading economy. The European Commission is the one that negotiates and represents the Union's members states interests collectively before the WTO not the individual states. Parmaestro 20:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not intentionally being a moving target, just responding to your Qs w/ analysis. My argument remains: 1) EU is not a coherent economy 2) thus, it should not factor into the qualitative or quantitative rankings of economies' sizes. Argument 1 is based on the basic macroeconomic definition of an economy... the authoritative source (World Bank GDP figures) for economic data does not treat it as such. The EU is the textbook definition of a customs union. It is the largest customs union in the world. A customs union does not an economy make. Looking at the aggregated GDP for a customs union doesn't make sense.Feco
Your two sources that you quote as authorative on the subject would appear to disagree with you. The World Bank specifically refers to the European Union as the world's largest trading economy. The OECD includes the European Union with the United States and other large countries in its analysis of economic data. You claim it doesn't make sense to look at the aggregated GDP of the European Union but that is precisely what the OECD and many of the world's economists due. So, at this point we have the CIA World Factbook (which was your original source and basis of the article and not intially challenged) and the OECD which you cited as authorative both using the aggregated GDP and the World Bank which you state as authoritative also saying the EU is the world's largest economy and you haven't refered to anyone yet who agrees with your assesment that it's inappropriate and senseless to use the agregated gdp figure. This is widely used by economists. Instead of relying on our own interperations of the data, why not just present the data. ~~
I would be inclined to agree with you if I believed that the European Union is economically only a customs union. The customs union aspect was established back in 1967. Integration of the various economies has proceeded substantially past that since then. Specifically with the Single European Act and subsequent agreements. Parmaestro 22:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice Treaties all establish the EU beyond a mere customs union. Refer back to your basic economic schooling for the four stages of economic integration; Free Trade Area, Customs Union, Single Market and finally Economic Union. The European Union is presently at the footsteps of full Economic Union. Most of Europe's economic policies are determined by the European government and the ECB. It doesn't make as much sense to refer to individual European economies any more. I have to wonder how much of this argument is based in a sense of hurt national pride. Walshicus 13:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
categorical labels are always difficult to apply in practice... in this case, I'd debate that a single market requires greater integration of capital markets. Including non-Eurozone countries as part of a single market ignores the fact that UK consumers (as an example) cannot interact directly with the Eurozone econ. Feco 18:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Instead of "largest economy" or "second largest economy" the article could read "country with the largest economy." It would be not only true, but acceptable (I hope) by both side, and we could avoid revert wars. On the pages List of countries by GDP (PPP) and List of countries by population it seems we reached a compromise by including the EU but without numeral, so the US is technically the 1st on the GDP list.) Alensha 12:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Eurozone is an area with an unified currency, the EU is a single economy with several currencies and several degrees of integration. The UK is integrated in the EU, dispite having problems with its integration. Just like Denmark and Sweden. So, there are many countries that use the dollar, are these countries also part of the US economy? hey they share the dollar with the US, don't they? Yeah... wright... Dispite that, I understand Feco's oppinion on the Euroland countries, these form the core of the UE. I'll repeat once more, the EU should be on its place! It should be numbered like a country. The EU is even an autonomous part of the G7! Do you want a better proof than that? Please, leave your nationalistic pride at home. And, ho... it is not European-ego! -Pedro 02:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Questions regarding RfC: (1) Does the EU have its own balance of payments account with the IMF? (2) To what extent are environmental regulations uniform throughout the EU? (3) To what extent are Labor laws and regulations consistent or applied by a uniform authority throughout the EU? (4) Do member states who have not adopted the Euro currency have fixed-exchange rates with the Euro or floating exchange rates, or are both being used? (5) Can member states still impose tariffs upon one another? Nobs 14:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Does the EU have its own balance of payments account with the IMF?- Not that I can tell. The IMF's page [14] doesn't list the EU with other nations for BoP data, but it does individually list member nations. Note that the Euro nations' Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) are in their individual accounts... i.e.- Germany purchases SDRs using its own Euros, as distinct from the European Central Bank purchasing SDRs.
2 & 3. Most regulations are applied uniformly throughout the EU, although there are several exceptions relating to the newly-admitted states... free movement of labor is restricted from "new" members to "old"... subsidy policies are not yet uniform... a gross oversimplification is that "old" Europe has given in to some protectionist/xenophobic tendencies in regards to Central/Eastern European members (also witness the anti-Turkish sentiment).
4. Do member states who have not adopted the Euro currency have fixed-exchange rates with the Euro or floating exchange rates?- The British Pound clearly floats against the Euro... since the UK is the largest non-Euro part of the EU, I didn't look up the other countries.[15]
5. As far as I know, member states can't impose tariffs on each other's goods, although there is probably the standard "national interest" boilerplate exception somewhere in the treaties.

Feco 19:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you good answers. What about the role of the European Central Bank? Hitherto I was under the impression only national governments could hold or draw upon SDR's. Perhaps this needs somemore clarification. Nobs 19:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Upon further research, it looks like the ECB doesn't hold any SDRs. It's difficult to find an ECB "balance sheet" comparable to the US Fed's balance sheet. One thing, the ECB data repeatedly discusses Monetary Financial Institutions (MFIs) in lots of different statistics. My take on the term MFI is that it covers the monetary authority in member nations... the consolidated MFI assets are definiately public (as opposed to private, for-profit) central bank-like entities. The MFIs hold SDRs, but the ECB clearly indicates that ownership of the SDRs remains with individual nations' MFIs. Beyond just the SDR issue, the ECB treats everything as an aggregation of MFIs... perhaps the structure is simliar to the 12 regional Fed banks "owning" the US Federal Reserve. Either way, the ECB looks like much less of a monetary authority than the Fed or the ECB's predecessor institutions in Europe. Feco 19:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
This is a very interesting discussion. I'm in inclined to agree with you in most respects, strictly speaking. It does seem however that the EU's goal ultimatley is to be a unified economy, whether they ever achieve it without changing all the definitions we are accustomed to is another matter. Perhaps just some reference to the EU's stated intentions on those pages would be fair, and let the reader click to IMF and other references to get their own figures.Nobs 20:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Well... the EU's intention is a fuzzy subject... EU elites tend to see the goal of a unified, federalized "United States of Europe". EU citizens are becoming increasingly disillusioned. The Economist (I consider it to be the best predictor of European politics) is predicting a series of "rolling no" votes as member states hold voter referendums on the new EU constitution. Parties on the right and left in Europe are both turning anti-EU. So the future look of the EU is up in the air right now. Feco 20:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Archived Content of RfC discussion

Consolidated1

RfC Notice (draft)

Talk:Economy of the United States: Currently, several articles take into account the European Union when discussing the gross domestic product and ordered ranking of national economies. It is debated whether or not the EU should be referenced in these cases.

RfC Summary (draft)

Topic being considered:

Currently, several wikipedia articles take into account the European Union (EU) when discussing the gross domestic product (GDP) and ordered ranking of national economies. It is debated whether or not the EU should be referenced in these cases.

Pages where this consensus may apply:

In favor of including reference to the European Union:

Many economists and authorative reference sources online track and use the GDP of the European Union including:

  • The CIA (World FactBook)
  • The OECD
  • The International Monetary Fund

Even the World Bank refers to the European Union as the world's largest trading economy. The City of London tracks its importance relative to the European Union's economy as a whole.

Many online reference sources regularly make reference to the European Union and it is hard to imagine that there is any adverse effect on the readers of Wikipedia by including such a relevant reference point. The International Monetary Fund does include the GDP of the EU as an option in its September 2004 World Economic Outlook database. The European Union is not only a customs union as some may suggest and no authoriative general reference source or economic source makes that claim. On the other hand, there are several sources that refer to the economy of the European Union. When the EU refers to its single market that includes more than just a customs union. The customs union argument is flawed. Turkey is a member of the customs union and no attempt is made to aggregate the GDP of the EU with Turkey.

If we were to exclude references to the European Union based on the standard proposed below, we would also have to say that countries like Andorra did not have an economy prior to 1999 (with the introduction of the euro) and that even the United States did not have an economy until 1861. To apply a standard that would not allow us to talk about the GDP of the US prior to 1861 is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. We should not reject a long standing consensus that has already been reached in several articles and that is suppported by many economic organizations and reference sources for a dubious standard and position that is proposed by one person and that is not supported by any outside sources.

In favor of excluding reference to the European Union:

Common currency and monetary policy are key characteristics of integrated, national economies. At present, only the EU members who use the Euro (referred to as Eurozone nations) meet these criteria. In non-Eurozone nations, it is not possible to participate in the single market or in Eurozone nations' individual economies without first transacting in the foreign exchange market. Because the entire EU is closer to a customs union than a unified economy, it should not be considered in national economic aggregates. The inclusion of specific customs unions, free trade areas or other logical groupings of nations will serve to lessen the comparability and usability of national data provided by authoritative sources. The World Bank does not include the full European Union in its ranking of national economies and only includes the Eurozone nations at the end of the data table with other regional groupings [16]. The International Monetary Fund includes the EU and the Eurozone only as an option for geographic and historical aggregates; neither the EU nor the Eurozone are included in national comparisons in the September 2004 World Economic Outlook database [17].

The discussion of supranational GDPs is a valuable element of economic analysis in wikipedia articles, such as the discussion of regional or trade-area GDP in Economy of Asia, ASEAN Free Trade Area and Economy of Africa. The consumption and output of a region are objective facts that can be measured. The integration of disparate economies into a single national economy is an important geopolitical benchmark. In the United States, states governed by the Articles of Confederation were stripped of all sovereign power to issue currency by Article One of the United States Constitution. Such an action is crucial to the formation of a coherent economy from diverse member states.

The current ad hoc treatment of EU GDP as a national GDP obscures the distinction; listing the EU in ranked national lists without assigning a ranking (see List of countries by GDP (PPP)) is problematic. An earlier version of Economy of the United States described its GDP as "first (after EU)". Such treatment is ambiguous and lessens the usability of economic data.

Feco1

RfC Notice (draft) Talk:Economy of the United States: Currently, several articles take into account the European Union when discussing the Gross Domestic Product and ordered ranking of national economies. It is debated whether or not the EU should be considered in these cases.

RfC Summary (draft) Topic being considered:

Currently, several wikipedia articles take into account the European Union (EU) when discussing the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and ordered ranking of national economies. It is debated whether or not the EU should be considered in these cases.

Pages where this consensus may apply:

In favor of excluding the full European Union from rankings of national economic aggregates:

Common currency and monetary policy are key characteristics of national economies. At present, only the EU members who use the Euro (referred to as Eurozone nations) meet these criteria. In non-Eurozone nations, it is not possible to participate in the Eurozone nations' economies without first passing through the foreign exchange market. Because the entire EU is a customs union, not a unified economy, it should not be considered in national economic aggregates. The inclusion of specific customs unions, free trade areas or other logical groupings of nations will serve to lessen the comparability and usabilty of data provided by authoritative sources. The World Bank does not include the full European Union in its ranking of national economies and only includes the Eurozone nations at the end of the data table with other regional groupings [18]. The International Monetary Fund does not include the EU or the Eurozone as an option for country-level comparisons in its September 2004 World Economic Outlook database [19].

In favor of including the full European Union in rankings of national economic aggregates:

Parmaestro1

RfC Notice (draft) Talk:Economy of the United States: Currently, several articles take into account the European Union when discussing the Gross Domestic Product and ordered ranking of the world's economies. It is debated whether or not the EU can ever be referenced in these cases.

RfC Summary (draft) Topic being considered:

Currently, several wikipedia articles take into account the European Union (EU) when discussing the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and ordered ranking of the world's economies. It is debated whether or not the EU can ever be referenced in these cases.

It is debated whether or not it makes sense to reference the GDP of the European Union or even if the GDP of the European Union has any sense.

In favor of making a reference to the GDP of the European Union where it is appropriate: Many economists and authorative reference sources online track and use the GDP of the European Union including:

  • The CIA (World FactBook)
  • The OECD
  • The International Monetary Fund

Even the World Bank refers to the European Union as the world's largest trading economy.

Many online reference sources regulary make reference to the European Union and it is hard to imagine that there is any adverse effect on the readers of Wikipedia by including such a relevant reference point. The International Monetary Fund does include the GDP of the EU as an option in its September 2004 World Economic Outlook database. The European Union is not only a customs union as some may suggest and no authoriative general reference source or economic source makes that claim. On the other hand, there are several sources that refer to the economy of the European Union. When the EU refers to its single market that includes more than just a customs union.


In favor of prohibiting any reference to the GDP of the European Union:

Why the NPOV dispute tag?

The NPOV dispute tag seems to have been on this article a while, without an obvious reason why; any specific objections to removing it? Enchanter 19:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

POV tag now removed. Enchanter 22:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I think the problem was that there has been edit wars about current economic conditions and the prominence given to issues like the trade deficit and hypothetical financial crisis scenarios. There have also been edit wars about socialism v. capitalism and the concept of a market-driven economy. Tfine80 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The most advanced economy

I changed the sentence "one of the most advanced" into "the most advanced". I did it because if there is a criteria by which the so-called "advanced" economies may be identified, then surely you can then rank them and determine who #1 is. And if not the only remaining superpower USA, then who?

After all, comparing economies involves comparing numbers and that is less biased than, say, claiming that Elvis was the "best" singer of all time. (129.241.134.241 13:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

But, sadly, there is no criteria, so, it doesn't make sense. GDP, which can be measured, does not neatly translate into 'advanced'. We've already had to deal with edit wars about the quality of the US economy; we don't need to provoke renewed conflict with a meaningless claim. What does advanced mean, anyway? Japan and West European are pretty advanced in my view. Tfine80 15:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, you can compare US with the advanced economies of the past, like the Roman Empire. The Romans were the most powerful nation on Earth, had a vast cultural impact on other nations etc. The same can be said about America. In fact, many countries worry about "americanization".
Also, everyone agrees that American economy DRIVES the other economies. A crisis in US will cause stock markets in Europe to fall etc. It was US who caused the crisis of 20-s, which then caused WW2. It was also US which helped many European countries to get back on their feet after that war.
Furthermore, if the American economy has an upturn despite the cost of occupying Iraq, that says something as well. (129.241.134.241 16:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC))
You're focusing on also vague issues of economic strength, not the nebulous concept of "technologically advanced" which cannot be measured. The US is more advanced in some areas, less in others. I really think it needs to be changed back, and if someone else supports me here, I think it should be done. Tfine80 19:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
There is an interesting formula that you can use in general economic advancement with the concept of "social advancement" and "economic advancement." The formula is linear and turns the bottom and top 10% of household income into a degree style that can be multiplied by the GDP/capita of the nation.
...where A = advancement, T = Top 10% Household Income, L = Bottom 10% Household Income, and G = GDP per capita
Example of the United States:
Highest 10% HI - 30.5%
Lowest 10% HI - 1.8%
GDP/capita - $40,100
Advancement - $33,305
Example of the European Union:
Highest 10% HI - 25.4%
Lowest 10% HI - 2.9%
GDP/capita - $26,900
Advancement - $24,544
Example of Japan:
Highest 10% HI - 21.7%
Lowest 10% HI - 4.8%
GDP/capita - $29,400
Advancement - $28,071
The US in this indicator surpasses the EU by a margin of $8,761; and Japan by $5,234. This index is worth taking a look at. The information required for the formula, if researched, might be found by economic sector. By estimating the distribution of wealth in certain fields by running linear correlations on Wages and Highest Income/Lowest Income (per country), you could combine the estimate with the wages at the section at the bottom of the page that I put in yesterday. The theory behind this is that GDP in, for example, China, doesn't make it the second most advanced nation on Earth. It has some human rights problems (as does the US) that don't allow it to opperate efficiently. The Gini index for Scandanavian nations show equality, but not quantity. Therefore the product of equality and quantity produces advancement -User:Weatherguy1033 01:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1136688361"