Talk:Economy of the United States/Archive 2

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  some issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GDP and quality of life 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hidden Unemployment 

message: The Bush tax cuts occured in 2003 and some people have argued that they resulted in an increase in taxes collected by the federal government.  Here are the totals from the Bureau of Economic Analysis:
*2000: 3,125.9
*2001: 3,113.1
*2002: 2,958.7
*2003: 3,018.1
*2004: 3,208.2
*2005: 3,576.0 (est. after 2 quarters)
(chart is not adjusted for inflation)
2004 represents an all-time record high, as will 2005.
While tax receipts did rise in 2004 and 2005 the impact of the tax cuts is still hotly debated.  In addition to a strong economy, temporary measures granting corporations a reduced rate on income they had previously stashed in overseas banks led to a massive temporary repatriation of funds as companies strived to take advantage of this provision.  
TimShell 21:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush tax cuts 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Misleading Introductory Paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion request 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Income inquality 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Basic Ingredients of the US Economy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: The History section of this article states that, by the end of Reagan's term, the U.S. economy "began to rebound" from "the worst recession in 40 years."  Then it proceeds to relate a 50% expansion under Clinton.  
I'm not sure how this article is measuring the U.S. economy or where these statistics are sourced from.  I took a look at the Bureau of Economic Analysis Historical Gross Domestic Product Estimates and Historical Prices of the S&P 500 Index, and they paint a different picture:
 History of US Economy under Reagan and Clinton (in 2000 Dollars)
Period   	Starting GDP	Ending GDP	%Change	Starting S&P	Ending S&P	%Change
1980-1988	$5161B      	$6742B    	31%    	114.16      	277.03    	143%
1992-2000	$7336B      	$9817B    	38%    	408.78      	1380.2    	237%
Are there other important data missing from this comparison that were used in the original history section to establish the figures related there? dpotter 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the US Economy:  Incorrect Data? 

message: Someone ought to update the exchange rates table at some point.  We're missing the last 4 years.
additionally, some are wrong, e.g. UKP per USD should reald USD per UKP (i.e. the number should be its reciprocal)
I agree that the exchange rate table definitely should be updated or removed entirely until someone can produce one that is updated.  If anyone knows where to find historical exchange rates, please update the table.  --Thethirdperson 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exchange Rates 

message: Not a lot of info on imports and exports here. Seabhcán 14:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment This article is begining to take shape but it needs much more information on Imports and Exports (not just values, but types of product, quantities, etc). Also, the role of the Dollar float (& petrodollar) needs to be discussed along with foreign investment. The farming sector need to be dealt with in detail, including detail of state support, and subsidised exports. The 'other stats' section needs to be wikified, and the table on exchange rates needs to be turned into a graph. Seabhcán 12:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exports? 

message: It says in the article that, before 1900, America had an almost "pure free market economy". Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't America follow a quasi-mercantilistic economic policy based on Hamilton's "American system"? --Onias 17:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true. It needs to be fixed. This fallacy "pure free market economy" is quite prevelant today, but historic facts say otherwise. --Northmeister 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's true, "pure free market economy" is a common misconception. Even Hong Kong has rent controls. The only pure free market economies are anarchic in nature, like Somalia's. That said, the idea of a "pure" free market is relative because one has never (arguably) been acheived before, anarchy aside. Laissez-faire capitalists still believe in strong public armed forces and police, even though those are services like anything else. Anyway, at least we can rely on the fact that America didn't have a free market economy before 1900. We still have one certainty to cling to. :-) --Onias 17:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government role in the economy 

message: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States
Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 02:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[United States]] article on featured candidate nominations list 

message: Using radically different definitions, two major groups of advocates have claimed variously that (a) the United States has eliminated poverty over the last century; or (b) it has such a severe crisis of poverty that it ought to devote significantly more resources to the problem. 
I have studied poverty for 3 years and have never heard even conservatives claim that "the US has eliminated poverty."  where is the citation?? --24.183.47.13 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poverty?

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

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

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

message: One of the sections begins with this statement: "The first ingredient of a nation's economic system is its natural resources." This is objectionable. The first ingredient of a nation's economic system is the degree of freedom an individual has to think and produce. Nations that have abundant natural resources (such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example) but are characterized by political and economic repression may be very poor; however, nations that don't have any natural resources (such as Hong Kong) but are economically free can be very prosperous. The key issues are whether or not the individual is free and whether or not the government has a burdensome presence in the economy.
:Agreed.  I removed the subjective statement (it read like a high school essay, anyway), but left the objective facts that followed.  The Hong Kong, example, by the way, is a very good one.--199.125.45.10 14:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This article has fallen under par. Way below par. There are so many points of contention with this article, I seriously suggest a peer review. it very much so needs one. I won't go into depth about it, but wow, this article is below standard according to me.
63.225.86.41 10:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious work needed! 

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

message: This article used to have a section that basically suggested the US economy was in some kind of debt crisis.  This really resembles a POV essay, and furthermore this view isn't supported by economists or real world evidence.  I therefore support its removal.  
US debt, though large in absolute terms is not large in size relative to the economy, either historically or in comparison to other countries. -- Mgunn 06:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm... 72.whateveritis seems to be getting a little wacky now...  (I'll have to take a look at this sometime this weekend.) -- Mgunn 06:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Debt and my Revert 

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

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

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

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