Study: U.S. Economic Status: Again, #1 in the World

Post Reply New Topic

In per capita economic growth, it is Asia that leads,not Luxembourg (which leads in per capita GDP). My point still stands - the US being at the top in this ranking doesn't put it at the top in growth (nor in actual GDP per capita, where Switzerland & Luxembourg are ahead) so either it's not measured very accurately or 'competitiveness' doesn't correlate that closely to growth (note that the welfare queens of US agribusiness are doing very well, though that is hardly a free market)

the economic stuff there is mostly conservative in its basis and is focused on a balanced budget and growth in the GDP.

To continue the tangent: "Cartago delenda est!" was Cato's favorite phrase (he ended every speech before the Roman Senate with it) and he was largely responsible for the Third Punic War in which the Romans killed every man, woman, child and animal they found and salted the Carthaginian fields so nothing could grow there again.

GDP growth does is not necessarily an indication of competitiveness in a large, developed economy. It is well known that large, developed economies tend to grow slower than "growing" ones (Japan after WW2 for example). The United States is #1 in the metric that matters probably more than those others, GDP. Japan had periods of high GDP growth that lasted for decades, have since slowed down and now still cannot match the overall size of the US GDP (the reason US GDP is so large is because of competition and free markets). Although, if you want an example of where competitiveness showed high growth rates, look at Ireland or Hong Kong.

Edit: What do you mean by per capita economic growth anyway, isn't that GDP per capita growth? Or do you just mean GDP growth?

America does not have a good economic system, no matter what anyone says. It's run by a secretive central bank that devalues our currency by printing more of it, then they give it to rich companies to use in investment while the average joe has to face higher prices.
The only reason the economy "grew" for the first quarter of 2008 is because of the stealth-taxed inflated currency that corporations used to spend on capital. It just happened to provide a tiny bit more of "growth" than consumer spending lost.
This is what the Fed does. It inflates the money supply, which when it ends up hitting consumers, they inflate it again for more temporary growth. So on and so on.

When the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates, it increases the money supply, which in turn causes inflation. It takes the market a while to readjust to all this new money, but we're definitely starting to feel the punch right now. Gas at the pumps here is up by about 60% from this time last year, all utilities are getting more expensive, and our public bus system is having to raise prices because of the gas.
Oil isn't shooting up because of price gouging. It's going up because of the rapid devaluation of the dollar. The Fed says it tries to "keep inflation down" which is a load of s**t. The greedy bankers behind it are doing this on purpose.

This is why we still need Social Security. The Fed keeps inflating the money supply so much, that if you try to save up for retirement, your money will just lose a good portion of its value anyway.
To me, America doesn't have a good economy until we get rid of our extremely flawed and corrupted monetary policy.

If America does not have a good economic system then how do you explain its current and past economic rankings compared to the rest of the world? Assuming this is supposed to be some sort of discussion, you should refrain from non-sequitur arguments. The Fed can encourage inflation indirectly, but that hardly translate them into them giving rich companies to invest while screwing "average joe". Also, the only ones who would benefit from the inflation tax is the government, not these "evil corporations". As we saw in the 70s, there are limits to how much people and businesses can be "tricked" into creating growth.

When the Fed cuts interest rates, it does not directly increase the money supply (although increases in the money supply can cause inflation, but not always) (it mostly increases the money supply indirectly by buying and selling securities anyway). Gas prices cannot be attributed to domestic inflation for several reasons (oil is sold on the world market, inflation in one country would not likely affect the world price, and there is a definite increase in demand for oil, which is why it is also more expensive in other countries). Because it is more expensive in all countries, you can't really attribute it to a declining dollar either (I don't know where this myth started, but it is rather annoying). You rant on greedy bankers, but how exactly do they benefit from all this? If inflation goes up, that means the return on their investments go down (if you take out a loan at a 7% fixed interest rate, and inflation goes up to 10%, they are the ones getting screwed). The logic does not follow for hardly any of your arguments, and you are just creating strawmen under the guise of "bankers" (who apparently are irrational and evil for the sake of being evil). Also, inflation indexed bonds exists in case you are unaware which you could use to save for retirement if you are so concerned about inflation.

I'm not an economist, unfortunately so I don't really understand the methodology outside his descriptions of the accounting tricks, I ran into the site in a post on a history/current events message board I frequent. Though recently I saw that he has made a few of his older articles free to the public.

His articles on his methodology are right here: http://www.shadowstats.com/section/primers

If Fox is far too liberal to you then you must be to the right of Mussolini! *GULP*

Because pretty much every other country in the world has the same B.S system as we do.


Commercial banks get this extra money, and loan it out. Businesses will spend more on loans for captial than normal people will for cars/houses/etc, because not everyone can afford to take out a loan. These secretly taxpayer funded loans are the Fed's way of trying to prevent a recession. The government isn't benefitting from any of this as far as I can tell.

And how does this not screw over the average person? The Fed prints money out of thin air, which devalues every dollar in your pocket. This makes prices go up, while your paycheck stays stagnant (or in my mom's case, decreases), which increases cost of living. The average worker's paycheck isn't going up at all while you see gas prices and all other prices shooting up. People are feeling the punch. I'm not blaming the companies for this, because they're not the ones who print out the money. They just have the most access to it.


I know. These Fed-created artificial booms are what cause our recessions.


What are you talking about? It's the Fed's job to directly affect the money supply.
And increasing the money supply will always cause inflation. I don't know where you have the idea that it doesn't. The question is how much inflation it'll cause.


Oil is priced in the US Dollar, so yes, our dollar's devaluing would make the price of oil higher for everyone. OPEC has not decreased production.


Have you ever read about the history of the Federal Reserve? The Federal Reserve Act was written up by the country's biggest bankers during a secret meeting on a private island. That itself is already pretty suspicious. Then, they had it rushed through our representatives very close to Christmas, because they knew not many people would be around to vote on it. That there is also very suspicious.
The Federal Reserve goes unchecked by the government. They're free to do as they please. They can print money whenever they want, in whatever quantity they want. Can they print a bunch of money for themselves and not get in trouble by the government? You bet, so why wouldn't they do that? These are extremely smart people. They know what they're doing, which is why they stay behind the scenes.

The US economy may be strong, but the strongest economy can still be affected by corruption, even while still remaining strong.

As with video games, i've noticed competitiveness only breeds idiocity in most cases. Oh and, i read something interesting about stable development according to a teacher at UQAM (university...quebec...at montreal) in sociology. Had a very interesting comparison : if you take a chessboard, put 1 grain of rice on the first case, 2 on the second, 4 on the third, and so on till the last, will you have enough space on the last case to fit enough rice grains?

1) Competition prevents stagnation and increases innovation... a company that has no competitors has no reason to innovate and develop new technologies, and if companies have to compete, it usually translates into lower prices and higher quality of service for the consumer.

2) As a gamer, I take offense to your "idiocity" label. If all gamers were idiots, why are there so many gamers in college (and performing quite admirably, i might add)?

Maybe because it fits with their program? -shrug- i,m going in archeology or anthropology, no need for me to be so defensive. (also,-points to "most cases"- i usually mean by that fps and the like, people that feel their e-peen get bigger when they defeat someone =.= is it clearer?). Hrm, the article for stable development said that maybe we should try to aim for a zero growth strategy, and start to think less of economy as quantitative data.

Sometimes, never understood why people want to change a good thing (like the human body with genetic manipulation?)...

USA ranked 97th most peaceful country in the world, below Libya, Serbia and Nicaragua

LONDON (AP) - The United States is ranked as a little less peaceful than it was last year and a lot more violent than Kuwait, Nicaragua and Libya, according to the Global Peace Index released Tuesday by Britain's Economist Intelligence Unit.

The index, now in its second year, ranks 140 countries according to their relative states of peace, based on factors such as military expenditure and respect for human rights.

The latest index released Tuesday ranked the United States at 97th, one place lower than last year and way below countries such as Costa Rica, Madagascar and Chile.

This year, Iceland is voted the most peaceful place, beating last year's winner Norway. The United Kingdom is at 49, just below Panama. Unsurprisingly, Sudan, Somalia and Iraq are at the bottom of the list.

The idea for the index came from Steve Killelea, an Australian businessman and philanthropist who wanted to identify just what creates a peaceful country.

He asked the Economist Intelligence Unit to look at a range of variables, from levels of homicides per 100,000 people - which drags down America and boosts Denmark - to corruption and access to primary education.

Full article here

Sorry, but to accept new numbers from one person who disagrees with the rest of his profession I need to see some hardcore quantitative analysis to back them up. He didn't provide that, so I have to reject his numbers. Also, his rejection of the measure of price-per-constant quality unit makes no sense at all. That's basic economics to factor that into inflation figures, and has the inverse effect of his hamburger/steak substitution example.

Well, there may be a case for a decrease if you're talking inflation-adjusted per-capita GDP, but I think he's referring just to GDP, in which case the -2% doesn't seem very reasonable.