What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.160 Comments
- MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -10/+63The United States's economy accounts for 27% of the world's economy.. and is almost 3 times that of Japan, in 2nd place. If its going to fall, its going to be a long, slow death spiral. And judging from the consistent 3-5% growth the United States economy has had over the last 6-8 years, I wouldn't jump from the rooftop just yet.
- Matadon, on 10/12/2007, -21/+62I won't vote Libertarian, because the Libertarians, while their hearts are in the right place, are blinded by their own ideology.
Most libertarians seem to forget that the purpose of government is to protect and promote the governed citizens -- all of them. A government is supposed to protect and promote *all* of society; a government which does not do this
violates the social contract, and deserves to be overthrown. In a free society, this means that government interference in the lives of ordinary citizens is generally a bad thing.
This does not always mean that all government influence is bad.
Public schools, for everyone, rich and poor, serve the greater good of a society, by allowing anyone to get an education, regardless of how competent (or not) their parents were at gathering green pieces of paper. More importantly, without an educated society, liberty dies at the hands of propaganda, because the minds of the individuals have not been inoculated with the reasoning skills required to see past the lies.
Yet most Libertarians that I know what schools more-or-less privatized.
Public healthcare, for everyone, rich and poor, is more cost-effecitve than the current hodgepodge of HMOs, and provides for the greater benefit of society in a multitude of ways. People are more likely to go to a doctor if they can afford it, which helps greatly in the containment of disease. Supporting universal healthcare provides each individual with greater health, yet most Libertarians are opposed to this because it's 'socialist'.
Nevermind that we had public, universal healthcare for many years in the United States.
Economic regulation, vis-a-vis the SEC, is essential. They may not do the best job, but there's a reason that Enron and Worldcom just dented the market, rather than destroying it outright. The SEC may not be perfect, but it does the job.
Some sort of welfare system is also essential. Sure, giving money to people who have demonstrated a lack of ability to manage it is utterly stupid, but that's no reason not to have state-run homeless shelters and soup kitchens, providing food, shelter, and clothing. It doesn't cost much in the way of taxes, and it keeps the homeless off the streets.
We need police and fire services. Oversight over civil engineering projects. There are so many aspects of government which simply cannot be handled by lassez-faire, because it is flat out illogical to do so.
Libertarians do have it spot-on with the War on Drugs (we need to stop this farce), and with gun control (the 2nd Amendment guarantees all the others).
Our tax system does need to be reduced to something the average college grad can understand.
The military-industrial complex does need to be curtailed, and pork-barrel highway projects need to go away.
But this doesn't mean that nearly all government services need to be eliminated.
Until the Libertarians get off the high horse of 'less government is ALWAYS better', I will not vote Libertarian. - illynova, on 10/12/2007, -15/+40No empire last forever. The Egyptian empire, the Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, the English...
... in the end, the mighty fall and a new state will take its place in time. Its hard for the citizens to swallow, though. - Philodox, on 10/12/2007, -17/+39Because a political party with no governing experience will be guaranteed to magically turn everything around.
- Prelude76, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27@popcan
My wife delivered two daughters in past 2.5 years. cost to me, zero dollars.
Her friend in the states had 'complications' with delivery, needed c-section and extra tests and hospital stay. they now have a healthy baby boy, and a $15,000 loan for the health care. just what you need when you're starting a new family, a huge loan.
sure, you may have a waiting period to get into chemo, or to see a specialist, but it's free*.
* = heavily subsidized by our huge taxes. ;) - jgo6d, on 10/12/2007, -14/+35Yeah but...
"The stock market is close to its highest level ever, "
Yeah, but that has pretty much been the case since the Great Depression.
"the unemployment rate is near an all time low, "
Yeah, but median household income is going down relative to inflation.
"gas prices are declining"
Yeah, but two years ago, gas was around $1.50 a gallon. - jbenson2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+32What a crock!
Business taxes in the USA are lower than Finland - therefore the US economy is going downhill. What an idiotic article! - nullvector, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23And the stock market is due to hit record highs today? I wouldnt exactly say that our economy is in trouble.
- poxonyou, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Maybe it's just me, but if I was trying to make a judgement about what socioeconomic model is the best from these studies, I'm inclined to think it's the scandinavian (or nordic) economic model, not the Libertarian Party of the U.S.'s. The scandinavian model is a free-market with heavy taxes, but the taxes are used primarily for the good of the people of the country as opposed to the military or external projects. Somehow it works, and it has a proven history of working, despite what critics say. Again, maybe it's just me, but given the choice of following the Libertarian Party model or the scandinavian economic model if we were to radically restructuring the U.S. socioeconomic system, I would definitely choose the latter. Call me crazy.
Anyway, I know WIkipedia is not the most reliable and scholarly source for information, but it's a good starting point for most people, so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_welfare_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden - atstriker2000, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24I totally agree with MadDog, the sky isn't falling, and probably won't for a very long time.
This is just another example of sensationalism in the media, how much more can we hype a non-story? And then there's the spin in the description... "a decade of Republican rule" can you tell it's an election year?
/rant - warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23China and India are where we were at the end of World War 2. They have resources, they're ambitions, they have a population base willing to work for anything, and they are ingenious and resourceful. We have to learn to compete or be left in the dust like England, France, etc.....
- galore, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25"We have to learn to compete or be left in the dust like England, France, etc....."
Have you ever been to England or France?
For an interesting exercise:
Please drive through the US, e.g. Dallas to Chicago, and look at all the poverty, the run down small towns, the trailer shacks, the abandoned, deteriorating buildings.
And then drive from Nice, France to London, England. Then tell me who is left in the dust. - atarlecky, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17It's absolutely ridiculous to think that raising business taxes would improve the economy. Time and again, taxes are eventually filtered down to the person buying the product and the business never really pays any tax at all.
- repins, on 10/12/2007, -26/+38This is just more politically motivated FUD from the the "I hate Bush" crowd. The stock market is close to its highest level ever, the unemployment rate is near an all time low, gas prices are declining....but the Economy is in the toilet? please.....
- tom1018, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18So your point is, if taxes were increased, our economy would be more competitive? Hey, go pick up an Economics 101 textbook. Read it. Get a clue.
- dahat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Agreed. I’d love to hear a simple explanation of how low corporate taxes harm our economy.
Heaven forbid companies (and people) get to keep more of the money they earn so as to be able to put it back into the system through further hiring, expansion and general spending. - Aelbric, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13The article does make one compelling statement: "This isn't an economic argument so much as a political one."
Other than that the whole thing is garbage. The "burdens of regulation, taxation, litigation and health care are even greater than they were in 2002" yet a business policy of anti-government, anti-tax, anti-regulation will bury the US economy? I call shenanigans. - Brackhar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"...Having raised the issue, however, it is hypocritical for the business lobby to oppose any tax increase that might be used to socialize these costs. Their phony solution -- that average Americans should essentially fund their own pensions and health care, with no increase in wages -- is so unfair and unreliable that Americans have roundly rejected it."
So the writer makes the complaint that it's unfair to have workers choose and pay for their own pension and health care plans without an increase in pay, but he then argues for decreasing workers pay arbitrarily (by levying a new tax/ increasing old taxes) to force the worker to accept a plan without any choice?
Huh?
Very loaded article, in my view. Economics is not on the side of the writer, but as stated, "This is not so much an economic argument as a political one." - Popcan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"Business taxes, as a percentage of anything you want to measure, are at their lowest level in decades"
Why does everyone hate business so much? They employ just about everyone and produce just about everything you buy. Lets tax them out of existence and see how great the economy is then. - ElFredo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I live in France and I don't feel dusty, thank you.
- lebaige, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10That isn't a news aricle, it's an op-ed piece. Steve Pearlstein is a self admitted liberal and has written from the liberal point of view since his days at the Boston Globe. Doesn't exactly make him wrong, but it doesn't make his opinion news either.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12 "The United States of America has the best health care in the world. If you are sick, go to a hospital and i guarantee you will be treated. If you are in Canada, you will be put on a waiting list for chemotherapy. ( http://www.wcwl.org/ )"
Sorry to burst your propaganda bubble but this is not true in most cases (i.e. if you're not rich).
Putting aside some people in the US don't have any healthcare or go into debt when they are sick....in Canada since you have universal healthcare... people visit the doctor more often for checkups and minor health annoyances (since they are free). My guess is that this preventative measure alone is what explains why for DECADES they have statistically lived LONGER lives than Americans (the ultimate measure of a good healthcare system).... even though their demographics are quite similar to the US.
The truth is the US falls behind MANY MANY nations in actually life expectancy. Most of the developed world has universal healthcare.... and guess what... the US ranks 47th in the world. The number speaks for itself.
FORTY SEVENENTH!!!!
So much for extremist rightwing philosophy that less government is always better.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_tot_pop-life-expectancy-birth-total-population - rebelbranch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12A better indicator of competitiveness is what country has the best financial returns for the lowest amount of risk. And that country is, and has been since 1945, the United States. Granted we have a lot of debt, but one reason we do is because we can - other nations and foreign investors flock to US markets because their returns are higher and more stable invested in US Dollar based securities. This guy has a clear agenda, but it's not based in reality.
- Jawood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The only thing I would disagree with you on is that gas prices falling as being a symptom of a good economy. (Sorry if I misunderstood you) Petrol prices are based strictly on supply and demand - OPEC controlling supply of their crude to control prices, wars that stop shipment of oil from an oil producing country reduces supply will boost prices, etc...
Decreasing gas prices may help boost the economy because it reduces the cost of doing business and viceversa for increasing gas prices. In other words, gas prices are one of the many factors that contribute to the health of the economy.
Other than that, I agree with most of what you said.
I am not a Bush fan, but, if folks are going to criticize him, I'd wish they'd stick to what he's doing and what he has control over. Blaming him for things that he's not responsible for just gives his fan boys more reasons to discount the critics. - RickySan65, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"If you are sick, go to a hospital and i guarantee you will be treated."
Unless you are not insured.. wouldn't call that best healthcare in the world. but hey, if you think it's great, then all the power to you.. - SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@galore
"Have you ever been to England or France?
For an interesting exercise:
Please drive through the US, e.g. Dallas to Chicago, and look at all the poverty, the run down small towns, the trailer shacks, the abandoned, deteriorating buildings.
And then drive from Nice, France to London, England. Then tell me who is left in the dust."
be sure to stop by all those little suburbs around paris where all the north african/arabic people live with 30%+ unemployment, ummmkay?
just because the US doesn't beleive in spending huge amounts of money propping up the poor doesn't mean anything. Opportunities exist for those willing to seek them. - redhawkragnar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The description paragraph seems to imply that business taxes being low are the cause of the lack of competitiveness-- I'd say the opposite. The article urges business to compromise and make deals that aren't in the interest of business-- how would this make the economy more competitive exactly?
- secondmode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Biased.
- supergnome, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10It's slow economic growth *in spite of* lowest corporate tax that makes it an embarassment to the Republicans. They've always maintained that corporate tax slows down the economy, but they can't produce real growth even when that supposed burden isn't there.
- grizwald, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12BWAHAHA .. this is literally insane. I am convinced you have all lost your minds.
you guys are drunk on Bush hating .. - repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Jawood
Actually, gas prices falling are not a symptom of a good economy, but rather will aid the economy. Higher gas prices are a drag on the economy because it costs more to make and deliver goods as well as giving people less money to actually spend on other things. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is why the U.S. dropped:
http://www.weforum.org/en/fp/gcr_2006-07_highlights/index.htm
The United States, previously in first place, continues to enjoy an excellent business environment, efficient markets and is a global centre for technology development. However, its overall competitiveness is threatened by large macroeconomic imbalances, particularly rising levels of public indebtedness associated with repeated fiscal deficits. Its relative ranking remains vulnerable to a possible disorderly adjustment of such imbalances, including historically high trade deficits.
That isn't politically motivated, that's just sound business. The U.S. just like every other country is subject to international finance, bond market, etc. The U.S., with the largest trade imbalance, coupled with a very high debt load plus a sinking currency, is not a Special Case. The U.S. could pull an Argentina just like every other country in the world can.
Just look at what the fed is telling us: the want to raise rates badly in order to finance govt debt, but they can't currently. Unfortunately, with generals demanding more money and the printing presses reluctant to continue printing, the next option is the international bond markets, and that requires higher interest rates. We're facing a situation where we either continue reckless spending by the government and risk a recession(if we're not in one already) or we control spending. Instead we spend like a drunken sailor.
Iceland has also been penalized for exactly this. USA is no different. The global elite could easily abandon the USA. China exports more goods to Europe compared t othe USA. This report is a wakeup call, choose to ignore it if you wish. - cdog12, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This article is laughable at best. He only cites one "study" and all it is a ranking, now I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this ranking, but if it's anything like any other ranking, it's subjective. There are hundreds of great examples of how rankings don't really work well unless they are based on actual facts so I need not mention them.
The second "study" hadn't even come out yet and all it was saying that the outside factors facing businesses are greater than they were. You don't have to have an MBA to know that prices/taxes/government pressure will increase over four years. If anyone knows of four years when this didn't happened that weren't a depression then let the writer know.
This seemed like a political article with a hint of economics fiction thrown in to make it seem credible. Why not just write an editorial on his political views instead of trashing his credibility before the story even began? - canti32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yes, the stock market is doing fine, gas is coming down, and for the most part unemployment rates are dropping, but how long did it take for all of that to start happening?
Undoubtably, Bush probably could have been a better president if we didn't have to essentially re-think the way we make a living. With most other countries competing for jobs that were all but guaranteed to americans for many years, we need to step up our business practices and make it clear to both our citizens and the rest of the world that we are still the country to come to for production and service needs. However, the problem is twofold; other countries hire workers for inhumane wages, and most other countries despise us becaause of our crusade on the middle east. Therefore we need to pull out of the middle east, but slowly, so as not to completely collapse Iraq and Afghanistan, and focus on domestic affairs, such as tax reform, the social security issue, welfare and other government services. Once we have overhauled our government we should then make a return to the world stage and work with other countries to make the world a better place for all humans. I know that this is completely idealistic, but it's my opinion on what we should do to get the USA back on track. - sjbdallas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I don't even see what the criteria is for the WEF rankings. This is an OPINION piece using the one report the author could find that seemed to support his beliefs. As someone else stated: non-story.
- nightsweat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'd be a bit worried about our transition to an economy that doesn't make anything. If you take out health care jobs, there's been almost no job growth at all for the last 5 years, and 155,000 more workers getting added to the economy every month.
You don't get or stay rich as a nation giving each other appendectomies. - unibomber999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If you're worried about a Libertarian president killing off public schools and the like, don't bother. There is no way that any President is going to get that through congress. In spite of what this administration would have you believe, the President's power is largely one of influence.
The libertarian party seems more aligned with the views of the general populace these days, which is economically conservatice and socially liberal. As time goes on I see the corruption of the current 2 party system become more evident as they converge and their views become almost indistinguishable from one another.
I'm going to vote libertarian because I want the existing parties to recognize the support for the party and adopt their views, even if the Libertarian candidate doesn't win. - there, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6........
"lets provide guaranteed care for everyone philosophy" does nothing but drive up costs, or create health care shortages."
........
This is the problem with people that are ideologically driven rather than emperically driven. They ignore facts that don't suit them. Again in virually every developed nation on the planet that has universal healthcare.... they tend live longer AND spend less for healthcare. (don't let the facts interfere with your theories though :) For example In the UK they spend less than HALF as much as Americans do for healthcare and yet live longer.
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2006/05/us_versus_uk.html
My ideal system would be something like open source.
Everyone gets the basic product for free... if you want exceptional service (e.g. no waiting times that are typical of universal healthcare or say a private room) then you pay through the nose for the extra service (whose money gets pumped back into the system)
Universal healthcare works. America's system is what is busted. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Sooo, we tax the ***** out of businesses (who will pass on the cost to consumers), tax the ***** out of the populace and then let the government become the driving force of our economy? Did I read that correctly?
Hmm, ah, so we should become a socialist country. Our government has more than proven it is incapable of handling finances well. Whoops, now where did that 2.3 TRILLION go? Ah, who cares. We'll just print more.
So the cure would be to give the government more tax money to squander???
*****. - webXL, on 10/12/2007, -36/+40Good article, but this isn't news. We've never been even close to numero uno in the Economic Freedom index: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Unitedstates
The economy isn't stupid. It (everyone in it) knows we'll end up paying sooner or later for the massive gap in what it's been taking in and dishing out (for votes). If you want fewer taxes AND and a better economy, vote Libertarian. - nickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Gas prices always go down in the fall and winter. Then rise back up in the summer.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4 Rightwingers seem to have a very destorted view of the world.
England(60M) and France(60M) have a fraction of the population of the US (pop. 300M) this is why their economies aren't as big.... not because they are destitute. In fact.... if you compare all of Europe's GDP you'd actually discover they have greater output than the US.
Listen less to political propaganda and spend more time learning things for yourself. The US is generally a great place to live (other than that militaristic thing) but Europe is just as good. The US exceeds their output slighly per capita but better social services there lead them to live longer, healthier and happier lives then Americans (in fact some of the most socialist states in Europe actually have higher overall standards of living than the US)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Development_Index - warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I didn't mean offense to England or France (two of the few places in the world were I would live) but they don't hold the ecomonic sway they used to in the world. And yes, there is a lot of poverty and destitution here, we need to change that before we try to change everyone else...
- jgo6d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Sooo, we tax the ***** out of businesses (who will pass on the cost to consumers), tax the ***** out of the populace and then let the government become the driving force of our economy? Did I read that correctly?"
No, I don't think you did. I know that is what you wanted the article to say, because that makes the straw man all the more easy for you to attack. The article may have been biased, but that's sort of like the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?
Regardless, the benefits of laissez faire economics versus corporate responsibility are something that have to be weighed in a more pragmatic fashion. Your rhetoric does little to get us to an equitable solution.
What the article does is bring up some points that are worth some consideration: Do we want to sacrifice legal recourse and consumer rights in order to give business an unfettered path to fiscal success? What kind of responsibilty does business have to the country and people that it uses to succeed? Are we too quick to assume that incresed taxes necessarily hold back economic growth?
Your answers may differ from mine, but the questions are not nearly as asinine as you make them out to be. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Arrrrghhhh, there should be NO business taxes. Period!
A tax on a business is simply a hidden tax on the people!
Eliminate business taxes and let people see how much they are REALLY paying to the government! - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The original article was terrible and very biased. I'm not sure if I sounded biased but I tried not to be. Read up on "The Coming Generational Storm" if you want to read about this at a more in depth level. Another goodie is "And the Money Kept Rolling In" which details Argentina's latest downward spiral.
- tmgriggs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Man, you guys must still have peach fuzz on your butt. I have seen the market climb on many different scenarios only to fall again. It is a natural cycle. The market chases trends and that will cause fluctuations on its own. The market has nothing to do with how healthy the country is or how well the average American is doing financially.
Step back and think. Does the market really reduce deficit? No. Tax revenues reduce the deficit. The last true bull was based on the Internet bubble. We had the highest employment figures in history and a reasonable tax structure. We very nearly wiped out the deficits that Reagan and Bush senior left us. Then the bubble burst, 9/11, Bush Jr.'s tax cuts, war in Afghanistan and now disaster money pit war in Iraq.
When we raise taxes back to pre-Bush levels, stop the exportation of American jobs to other countries where support oppressive government regimes, close the border and demand taxes paid from illegal immigrants that are here and clean up the mess in Iraq then we will increase employment at home which increase tax revenues and pay off our debt so we can afford to fund a full prosecution of the war against the terrorists. You know the ones who really attacked us?
Stop listening to the conservative and liberal talking heads and use your minds. Matadon you are using your noggin. Canti you are thinking correctly but we should not pull out but increase our forces to ensure success. Popcan, I hope you never have a serious medical problem. Without insurance and even with it, it can destroy you financially.
Finally, everyone has to pay taxes, businesses and citizens. Remember a corporation is viewed by the law as a person. That person owes taxes just like I do. Do I wan to pay them? No. But my $600 tax cut would be better spent by reducing the deficit and supporting our war efforts.
- jgo6d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@TubaTechno
"Wow....its not because we're just coming out of a recession, is it? Think about it. Do some research, and THEN make an intelligent remark."
I'm wondering what kind of research you had to do to make that "intelligent remark." Here's some research about your "recession":
In terms of economic growth, this recovery ranks eighth for the four-year period after the official end of a recession, as measured by the National Bureau of Economic Research. This is out of the ten periods of economic recovery since 1950.
When measuring job growth from the end of the recession, this recovery is the slowest ever, up 2.6 percent in four years. The previous four year low was a 4 percent gain in the early 50s. - axxiom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"If business does not pay taxes, and rich people don't pay their fair share, and if you give everybody a tax cut."
I think you forgot to finish this thought.
It cannot be infrastructure. You don't need infrastructure to operate customer service positions.
China has horrible infrastructure. Their logistics are among the worst in the world. For the size of their economy their logistical structure is by far the worst. They're consuming the most concrete, which they import, because they are trying to improve their logistical infrastructure. They know it is bad and can be improved. US industry, and American workers, are helping them do that. It's one of our chief exports, brains and experience.
The US focuses a lot of education on college when in reality a lot of jobs are better served through trade schools. Private, for profit, schools like DeVry and ITT, have literally controlled the trade school market in the US because so few wish to compete with them. Other trade schools are very small, and/or regionally based to serve area industries that need skilled workers.
India and China both follow a european model that emphasizes trade schools as a means to increase the living standards of workers.
The US problem is our energy crisis. We're doing a poor job of putting our natural resources to work to solve our energy crisis. We have many sources of energy. We are just failing to grasp their power. When we start addressing our energy problems we will start to see a dramatic shift in the trade deficit, and budget deficit. - srodolff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You mean that we may no longer have to foot the bill for the world's ills????
Sign me up!!!! -
Show 51 - 100 of 159 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is