Talk:Economy of the United States
Archives: 1
some issues
It's a good article, but marred a little by the inclusion of numerous statements that apply to many economies nowadays. For example:
'Government also provides many kinds of help to businesses and individuals. It offers low-interest loans and technical assistance to small businesses, and it provides loans to help students attend college. Government-sponsored enterprises buy home mortgages from lenders 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)
GDP and quality of life
While it is accurate to point out at the end of Basic ingredients of the U.S. economy that money isn't everything, it doesn't belong in the middle of a discussion of GDP as it applies to the U.S. specifically, particularly as there is already a much more thorough discussion of this issue in Gross domestic product. I believe this is a special case of Tony's above comment. Stephen Compall 21:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Hidden Unemployment
While I don't suggest changing the figure of the US' official unemployment rate, I think it should be noted that the US has a significant problem with hidden unemployment, more so than smaller industrialised nations (with the exception of Finland ). This link here just shows some of the issues encountered, perhaps this deserves a mention, showing both sides of the argument, while not taking precedence over the official figure? --JDnCoke 10:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
I added a NPOV tag because 1) the article gives credit to Reagan's tax cuts for curing the US economy. This is debatable. 2) The article commits a similar error, crediting Bush 43's tax cuts for a recovery. This, too, is debatable.
so-called tax cuts
The Bush so-called "tax cuts" occured in 2003 and resulted in an increase in taxes collected by the federal government. Here are the totals from the Bureau of Economic Analysis:
- 2000: 3,125.9
- 2001: 3,113.1
- 2002: 2,958.7
- 2003: 3,018.1
- 2004: 3,208.2
- 2005: 3,576.0 (est. after 2 quarters)
2004 represents an all-time record high, as will 2005.
To claim that these so-called "tax cuts" caused the deficit is 100% factually absurd, since an increase in taxes cannot be responsible for a deficit. When tax receipts are rising to record levels, only increased spending can cause a deficit.