2006 Global competitiveness rankings out.

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: brandonbull
MHO is that Iraq will be the death knell of the US. 50 years from now, historians will look back and point to Iraq as the turning point to the US economy.

Iraq has become America's Stalingrad. Bush has committed a huge financial army for Iraq and refused to allow it to retreat while the economic forces of China and others are surrounding the US and are starting to tighten the noose America has put it's head in.

Iraq war cost= 300 billion over 3 years, or 100 billion a year.
US economy 11,750 billion a year

So Iraq war cost us less than 1% of our entire GDP, or 1 penny on the dollar.
During World War 2 we were spending over 30% of our GDP on war costs.
During Korea over 10% of GDP went to the military
Vietnam it was 8% plus
Today it is around 4% lower than any time in since world war 2, besides the mid 90's.
Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003

Too bad we are borrowing every penny of it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Sad.

Sad unless you are a Republican, then you are happy.

that doesnt make any sense whatsoever. The dropping of our ranking is upsetting regardless of who or what you are.

duh.

Really, show me Republicans in here not happy with this result.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: brandonbull
MHO is that Iraq will be the death knell of the US. 50 years from now, historians will look back and point to Iraq as the turning point to the US economy.

Iraq has become America's Stalingrad. Bush has committed a huge financial army for Iraq and refused to allow it to retreat while the economic forces of China and others are surrounding the US and are starting to tighten the noose America has put it's head in.

Iraq war cost= 300 billion over 3 years, or 100 billion a year.
US economy 11,750 billion a year

So Iraq war cost us less than 1% of our entire GDP, or 1 penny on the dollar.
During World War 2 we were spending over 30% of our GDP on war costs.
During Korea over 10% of GDP went to the military
Vietnam it was 8% plus
Today it is around 4% lower than any time in since world war 2, besides the mid 90's.
Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003

What was the economic landscape of the US pre-WW2 as compared to post WW2? Is every other industrilized nation in the world except for the US be bombed to rubble during Iraq?

How far in debt was the US pre-WW2, Korea, and Vietnam?

Was China, Japan, and Europe major economic powers pre-WW2, Korea, and Vietnam?

So how much in the last 5 years has the price of education, homes, and fuel risen as compared with incomes in the US?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.weforum.org/en/about/index.htm

Incorporated as a foundation in 1971, and based in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests. The World Economic Forum is under the supervision of the Swiss Federal Government.

You dont say

Yes, they put us at #1 just to knock us off the next year, what a plan! Attack the source, ignore the message, how new...

Well outside of the fact the Swiss govt apparently supervises this and the Swiss are #1 on the list. They contradict themselves by saying they are impartial and not tied to a political entity or national interests, but under the control of a govt entity.

I also found the list to be very EU centric which is another red flag considering their unemployment and slow gdp growth. While China is no beacon of liberty, they are the worlds 2nd largest country GPD in the world and India is no slouch either, both didnt even crack the top 40.

Funny how every time any study comes out that doesn't have the US as #1, it's deemed to be some type of vast global socialist conspiracy by certain poeple...

Isn't is easier to simply admit the truth, rather than go through these crazy mental contortions every time?

Either I didnt make my point well enough or people are glazing over it. I dont care if we are #1 or #300 in these studies. What I found more interesting is in every study the EU is always ranked very high despite their high unemployment , high regulation oppressing business growth, and even higher oppressive taxation.

Why is it when I question these studies the left on this board starts hurling insults immediately instead of debate the topic?

Because, as you've shown in your post, you 'question' these studies not by studying and judging their criteria, but by repeating tired old stereotypes. Nevermind that the EU is not some monolithic bloc, that most countries have normal unemployment (with quite a few of them having lower unemployment than the US) or that a lot of the regulation is meant to make companies and industries more competitive (a large, competitive single market is one of the cornerstones of the EU!). No, you just close your eyes, repeat your mantra and then get mad when people point this out to you.

Please have you bothered to read the EU's own unemployment figures for the region? The EU25's unemployment rate is about 8.1% or nearly double the United States.

And dont give me any crap about different measuring sticks either, the EU measures their unemployment rates exactly as the United States except they start counting at aged 15 where the United States does 16.

Over Regulation doesnt make the markets and business competitive, it creates a barrer of entry for new competition. Ine ssence it can protect the older inefficient business's in the region.

The EU's projected GDP growth is quite sad, they are looking at maybe breaking 2.0% for the first time in years, where the United States grows at 3-4% or nearly double. Or China who is coming in near 9% or 4.5x as fast. Which one do you think is more competitive? The one with double the unemployment and half the growth, or the ones with high growth and low unemployment?

That is why I question these studies, they put way too much value into the welfare state, a state that saps the actual productivity and growth of economies, but makes the left feel good for saving those people unemployed by their own policies.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.weforum.org/en/about/index.htm

Incorporated as a foundation in 1971, and based in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests. The World Economic Forum is under the supervision of the Swiss Federal Government.

You dont say

Yes, they put us at #1 just to knock us off the next year, what a plan! Attack the source, ignore the message, how new...

Well outside of the fact the Swiss govt apparently supervises this and the Swiss are #1 on the list. They contradict themselves by saying they are impartial and not tied to a political entity or national interests, but under the control of a govt entity.

I also found the list to be very EU centric which is another red flag considering their unemployment and slow gdp growth. While China is no beacon of liberty, they are the worlds 2nd largest country GPD in the world and India is no slouch either, both didnt even crack the top 40.

Funny how every time any study comes out that doesn't have the US as #1, it's deemed to be some type of vast global socialist conspiracy by certain poeple...

Isn't is easier to simply admit the truth, rather than go through these crazy mental contortions every time?

Either I didnt make my point well enough or people are glazing over it. I dont care if we are #1 or #300 in these studies. What I found more interesting is in every study the EU is always ranked very high despite their high unemployment , high regulation oppressing business growth, and even higher oppressive taxation.

Why is it when I question these studies the left on this board starts hurling insults immediately instead of debate the topic?

Because, as you've shown in your post, you 'question' these studies not by studying and judging their criteria, but by repeating tired old stereotypes. Nevermind that the EU is not some monolithic bloc, that most countries have normal unemployment (with quite a few of them having lower unemployment than the US) or that a lot of the regulation is meant to make companies and industries more competitive (a large, competitive single market is one of the cornerstones of the EU!). No, you just close your eyes, repeat your mantra and then get mad when people point this out to you.

Please have you bothered to read the EU's own unemployment figures for the region? The EU25's unemployment rate is about 8.1% or nearly double the United States.

And dont give me any crap about different measuring sticks either, the EU measures their unemployment rates exactly as the United States except they start counting at aged 15 where the United States does 16.

Over Regulation doesnt make the markets and business competitive, it creates a barrer of entry for new competition. Ine ssence it can protect the older inefficient business's in the region.

The EU's projected GDP growth is quite sad, they are looking at maybe breaking 2.0% for the first time in years, where the United States grows at 3-4% or nearly double. Or China who is coming in near 9% or 4.5x as fast. Which one do you think is more competitive? The one with double the unemployment and half the growth, or the ones with high growth and low unemployment?

That is why I question these studies, they put way too much value into the welfare state, a state that saps the actual productivity and growth of economies, but makes the left feel good for saving those people unemployed by their own policies.

Last I checked it does not say United States of Europe.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: brandonbull
MHO is that Iraq will be the death knell of the US. 50 years from now, historians will look back and point to Iraq as the turning point to the US economy.

Iraq has become America's Stalingrad. Bush has committed a huge financial army for Iraq and refused to allow it to retreat while the economic forces of China and others are surrounding the US and are starting to tighten the noose America has put it's head in.

Iraq war cost= 300 billion over 3 years, or 100 billion a year.
US economy 11,750 billion a year

So Iraq war cost us less than 1% of our entire GDP, or 1 penny on the dollar.
During World War 2 we were spending over 30% of our GDP on war costs.
During Korea over 10% of GDP went to the military
Vietnam it was 8% plus
Today it is around 4% lower than any time in since world war 2, besides the mid 90's.
Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003

What was the economic landscape of the US pre-WW2 as compared to post WW2? Is every other industrilized nation in the world except for the US be bombed to rubble during Iraq?

How far in debt was the US pre-WW2, Korea, and Vietnam?

Was China, Japan, and Europe major economic powers pre-WW2, Korea, and Vietnam?

So how much in the last 5 years has the price of education, homes, and fuel risen as compared with incomes in the US?

What are you driving at? Your contention is this war in Iraq is somehow going to bring down our economy when it consumes so little of it. When compared to WWII where we saw a huge % of our GDP gobbled up by the war machine, this is childs play. We didnt crumble from an economic collapse after WWII, what makes you think we will now?

If you want to see what will destroy this country in the next 20-40 years look at the huge social programs erected by our govt both Republican and Democrat alike.

SS
Medicare

Both expected to run into the trillions per year in deficits by 2040. How the hell will we fund those programs when we cant even balance the budget now?

 

[sandorski]

Is Employment/Unemployment even a criteria for this statistic?

Martin is 100% correct, just because the US isn't #1, doesn't mean bias/conspiracy is involved.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: brandonbull
MHO is that Iraq will be the death knell of the US. 50 years from now, historians will look back and point to Iraq as the turning point to the US economy.

Iraq has become America's Stalingrad. Bush has committed a huge financial army for Iraq and refused to allow it to retreat while the economic forces of China and others are surrounding the US and are starting to tighten the noose America has put it's head in.

Iraq war cost= 300 billion over 3 years, or 100 billion a year.
US economy 11,750 billion a year

So Iraq war cost us less than 1% of our entire GDP, or 1 penny on the dollar.
During World War 2 we were spending over 30% of our GDP on war costs.
During Korea over 10% of GDP went to the military
Vietnam it was 8% plus
Today it is around 4% lower than any time in since world war 2, besides the mid 90's.
Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003

What was the economic landscape of the US pre-WW2 as compared to post WW2? Is every other industrilized nation in the world except for the US be bombed to rubble during Iraq?

How far in debt was the US pre-WW2, Korea, and Vietnam?

Was China, Japan, and Europe major economic powers pre-WW2, Korea, and Vietnam?

So how much in the last 5 years has the price of education, homes, and fuel risen as compared with incomes in the US?

What are you driving at? Your contention is this war in Iraq is somehow going to bring down our economy when it consumes so little of it. When compared to WWII where we saw a huge % of our GDP gobbled up by the war machine, this is childs play. We didnt crumble from an economic collapse after WWII, what makes you think we will now?

If you want to see what will destroy this country in the next 20-40 years look at the huge social programs erected by our govt both Republican and Democrat alike.

SS
Medicare

Both expected to run into the trillions per year in deficits by 2040. How the hell will we fund those programs when we cant even balance the budget now?

The US was in an economic collapse before WW2. The US was not an energy importer before WW2.

So spending hundreds of billions on Iraq fixes that?

So is the cost of oil prices due to invading Iraq factored into any numbers?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: brandonbull
MHO is that Iraq will be the death knell of the US. 50 years from now, historians will look back and point to Iraq as the turning point to the US economy.

Iraq has become America's Stalingrad. Bush has committed a huge financial army for Iraq and refused to allow it to retreat while the economic forces of China and others are surrounding the US and are starting to tighten the noose America has put it's head in.

Iraq war cost= 300 billion over 3 years, or 100 billion a year.
US economy 11,750 billion a year

So Iraq war cost us less than 1% of our entire GDP, or 1 penny on the dollar.
During World War 2 we were spending over 30% of our GDP on war costs.
During Korea over 10% of GDP went to the military
Vietnam it was 8% plus
Today it is around 4% lower than any time in since world war 2, besides the mid 90's.
Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003

What was the economic landscape of the US pre-WW2 as compared to post WW2? Is every other industrilized nation in the world except for the US be bombed to rubble during Iraq?

How far in debt was the US pre-WW2, Korea, and Vietnam?

Was China, Japan, and Europe major economic powers pre-WW2, Korea, and Vietnam?

So how much in the last 5 years has the price of education, homes, and fuel risen as compared with incomes in the US?

What are you driving at? Your contention is this war in Iraq is somehow going to bring down our economy when it consumes so little of it. When compared to WWII where we saw a huge % of our GDP gobbled up by the war machine, this is childs play. We didnt crumble from an economic collapse after WWII, what makes you think we will now?

If you want to see what will destroy this country in the next 20-40 years look at the huge social programs erected by our govt both Republican and Democrat alike.

SS
Medicare

Both expected to run into the trillions per year in deficits by 2040. How the hell will we fund those programs when we cant even balance the budget now?

The US was in an economic collapse before WW2. The US was not an energy importer before WW2.

So spending hundreds of billions on Iraq fixes that?

So is the cost of oil prices due to invading Iraq factored into any numbers?

Your argument consists of dodging questions and ignoring the true issues behind our coming economic collapse. Spending a few hundred billion in the desert is nowhere near as much a hit as WWII was, and it is literally pennies on the dollar compared to what our social programs cost and will cost.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ayabe
20% tariff on China, starting today.


I have to say this once a week, thanks for giving me that forum.

You're a fool.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: brandonbull
MHO is that Iraq will be the death knell of the US. 50 years from now, historians will look back and point to Iraq as the turning point to the US economy.

Iraq has become America's Stalingrad. Bush has committed a huge financial army for Iraq and refused to allow it to retreat while the economic forces of China and others are surrounding the US and are starting to tighten the noose America has put it's head in.

Iraq war cost= 300 billion over 3 years, or 100 billion a year.
US economy 11,750 billion a year

So Iraq war cost us less than 1% of our entire GDP, or 1 penny on the dollar.
During World War 2 we were spending over 30% of our GDP on war costs.
During Korea over 10% of GDP went to the military
Vietnam it was 8% plus
Today it is around 4% lower than any time in since world war 2, besides the mid 90's.
Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003

What was the economic landscape of the US pre-WW2 as compared to post WW2? Is every other industrilized nation in the world except for the US be bombed to rubble during Iraq?

How far in debt was the US pre-WW2, Korea, and Vietnam?

Was China, Japan, and Europe major economic powers pre-WW2, Korea, and Vietnam?

So how much in the last 5 years has the price of education, homes, and fuel risen as compared with incomes in the US?

What are you driving at? Your contention is this war in Iraq is somehow going to bring down our economy when it consumes so little of it. When compared to WWII where we saw a huge % of our GDP gobbled up by the war machine, this is childs play. We didnt crumble from an economic collapse after WWII, what makes you think we will now?

If you want to see what will destroy this country in the next 20-40 years look at the huge social programs erected by our govt both Republican and Democrat alike.

SS
Medicare

Both expected to run into the trillions per year in deficits by 2040. How the hell will we fund those programs when we cant even balance the budget now?

The US was in an economic collapse before WW2. The US was not an energy importer before WW2.

So spending hundreds of billions on Iraq fixes that?

So is the cost of oil prices due to invading Iraq factored into any numbers?

Your argument consists of dodging questions and ignoring the true issues behind our coming economic collapse. Spending a few hundred billion in the desert is nowhere near as much a hit as WWII was, and it is literally pennies on the dollar compared to what our social programs cost and will cost.

And you are refusing to consider that unlike post WW2 the United States in not energy independent and the only surviving industrialized country. You also didn't not factor the added cost to the price of oil into your "pennies on the dollar". The US also ammased some of the highest personal savings levels during WW2.

S.S. is not effecient but it still collects more money than it pays out. Having a S.S. program didn't help to cause oil prices to more than double or cause tens of thousands of workers to be removed from the work force and become a drain on the economy instead of a contributing to it.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Genx87
Either I didnt make my point well enough or people are glazing over it. I dont care if we are #1 or #300 in these studies. What I found more interesting is in every study the EU is always ranked very high despite their high unemployment , high regulation oppressing business growth, and even higher oppressive taxation.

Why is it when I question these studies the left on this board starts hurling insults immediately instead of debate the topic?

You tell'em Genx!!

They rank high because they throw a bunch of other stats in there that balance out their problems with unemployments and low productivity etc.

Stats such as education levels, health care etc Things that semi-socialist countries like Europe do very well at since they spend so much money on social programs.
unemployment rates for top 5
Switz=3.8
Finland=7.9
Sweden=6.1
Denmark=5.5
Singapore=3.4
US=4.7
Those are official rates. If you think people bitch about out unemployment rate being bad you should read what they say about Sweden etc. The "real" figure for Sweden should be between 15-20% according to some including the NY Times.
Sweden=4.0 million (70% of adult population) in productive activity rate, 1.2 million (20%) living of welfare and Health or unemployment insurance alone.

Why should it matter if a large percentage of the population chooses to not work? Its certainly not for a lack of work. those that do work are just as productive as anyone else.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.weforum.org/en/about/index.htm

Incorporated as a foundation in 1971, and based in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests. The World Economic Forum is under the supervision of the Swiss Federal Government.

You dont say

Yes, they put us at #1 just to knock us off the next year, what a plan! Attack the source, ignore the message, how new...

Well outside of the fact the Swiss govt apparently supervises this and the Swiss are #1 on the list. They contradict themselves by saying they are impartial and not tied to a political entity or national interests, but under the control of a govt entity.

I also found the list to be very EU centric which is another red flag considering their unemployment and slow gdp growth. While China is no beacon of liberty, they are the worlds 2nd largest country GPD in the world and India is no slouch either, both didnt even crack the top 40.

Funny how every time any study comes out that doesn't have the US as #1, it's deemed to be some type of vast global socialist conspiracy by certain poeple...

Isn't is easier to simply admit the truth, rather than go through these crazy mental contortions every time?

Either I didnt make my point well enough or people are glazing over it. I dont care if we are #1 or #300 in these studies. What I found more interesting is in every study the EU is always ranked very high despite their high unemployment , high regulation oppressing business growth, and even higher oppressive taxation.

Why is it when I question these studies the left on this board starts hurling insults immediately instead of debate the topic?

Because, as you've shown in your post, you 'question' these studies not by studying and judging their criteria, but by repeating tired old stereotypes. Nevermind that the EU is not some monolithic bloc, that most countries have normal unemployment (with quite a few of them having lower unemployment than the US) or that a lot of the regulation is meant to make companies and industries more competitive (a large, competitive single market is one of the cornerstones of the EU!). No, you just close your eyes, repeat your mantra and then get mad when people point this out to you.

Please have you bothered to read the EU's own unemployment figures for the region? The EU25's unemployment rate is about 8.1% or nearly double the United States.

And dont give me any crap about different measuring sticks either, the EU measures their unemployment rates exactly as the United States except they start counting at aged 15 where the United States does 16.

Over Regulation doesnt make the markets and business competitive, it creates a barrer of entry for new competition. Ine ssence it can protect the older inefficient business's in the region.

The EU's projected GDP growth is quite sad, they are looking at maybe breaking 2.0% for the first time in years, where the United States grows at 3-4% or nearly double. Or China who is coming in near 9% or 4.5x as fast. Which one do you think is more competitive? The one with double the unemployment and half the growth, or the ones with high growth and low unemployment?

That is why I question these studies, they put way too much value into the welfare state, a state that saps the actual productivity and growth of economies, but makes the left feel good for saving those people unemployed by their own policies.

2% growth for an area with declining population is quite impressive if you ask me.

When you figure in that roughly 1/3 of our gdp growth is simply from population growth, they really aren't doing too bad, huh?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.weforum.org/en/about/index.htm

Incorporated as a foundation in 1971, and based in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests. The World Economic Forum is under the supervision of the Swiss Federal Government.

You dont say

Yes, they put us at #1 just to knock us off the next year, what a plan! Attack the source, ignore the message, how new...

Well outside of the fact the Swiss govt apparently supervises this and the Swiss are #1 on the list. They contradict themselves by saying they are impartial and not tied to a political entity or national interests, but under the control of a govt entity.

I also found the list to be very EU centric which is another red flag considering their unemployment and slow gdp growth. While China is no beacon of liberty, they are the worlds 2nd largest country GPD in the world and India is no slouch either, both didnt even crack the top 40.

Actually Japan is the worlds 2nd largest GDP (and Germany has a larger GDP than China as well), and this ranking isn't based on economy size or importance. If it did, the USA would be #1 without any challenge.

 

[Stunt]

Canada is down 3 points from last year; beat out by Israel.

But how can we ever aspire to the greatness of Israel...maybe if we start a civil war with our minorities :roll:

How the hell is Israel beating us? Military based, US slush fund, trigger happy...

 

[Stunt]

Anyone with half a brain knows Ireland is number one, followed by the US.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq war cost= 300 billion over 3 years, or 100 billion a year.
US economy 11,750 billion a year

So Iraq war cost us less than 1% of our entire GDP, or 1 penny on the dollar.
During World War 2 we were spending over 30% of our GDP on war costs.
During Korea over 10% of GDP went to the military
Vietnam it was 8% plus
Today it is around 4% lower than any time in since world war 2, besides the mid 90's.
Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003

Too bad we are borrowing every penny of it.

I am sure you have heard of the "war bond" right? World War 1 and World War 2 were paid for this way. The government borrowed the money from it citizens in order to pay for these two wars.
$185 billion was "borrowed" during World War 2.
Borrowed to pay for the war then, borrow to pay for the war now, nothing has changed.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.weforum.org/en/about/index.htm

Incorporated as a foundation in 1971, and based in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests. The World Economic Forum is under the supervision of the Swiss Federal Government.

You dont say

Yes, they put us at #1 just to knock us off the next year, what a plan! Attack the source, ignore the message, how new...

Well outside of the fact the Swiss govt apparently supervises this and the Swiss are #1 on the list. They contradict themselves by saying they are impartial and not tied to a political entity or national interests, but under the control of a govt entity.

I also found the list to be very EU centric which is another red flag considering their unemployment and slow gdp growth. While China is no beacon of liberty, they are the worlds 2nd largest country GPD in the world and India is no slouch either, both didnt even crack the top 40.

Read what the index measures... it's not about GDP, unemployement or growth rates. And the World Economic Forum is in no way controlled by the Swiss government. Apart of how funny this idea is, there would be no point in even doing so. The WEF has no policy power anywhere in the world.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.weforum.org/en/about/index.htm

Incorporated as a foundation in 1971, and based in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests. The World Economic Forum is under the supervision of the Swiss Federal Government.

You dont say

Yes, they put us at #1 just to knock us off the next year, what a plan! Attack the source, ignore the message, how new...

Well outside of the fact the Swiss govt apparently supervises this and the Swiss are #1 on the list. They contradict themselves by saying they are impartial and not tied to a political entity or national interests, but under the control of a govt entity.

I also found the list to be very EU centric which is another red flag considering their unemployment and slow gdp growth. While China is no beacon of liberty, they are the worlds 2nd largest country GPD in the world and India is no slouch either, both didnt even crack the top 40.

Funny how every time any study comes out that doesn't have the US as #1, it's deemed to be some type of vast global socialist conspiracy by certain poeple...

Isn't is easier to simply admit the truth, rather than go through these crazy mental contortions every time?

Either I didnt make my point well enough or people are glazing over it. I dont care if we are #1 or #300 in these studies. What I found more interesting is in every study the EU is always ranked very high despite their high unemployment , high regulation oppressing business growth, and even higher oppressive taxation.

Why is it when I question these studies the left on this board starts hurling insults immediately instead of debate the topic?

Because, as you've shown in your post, you 'question' these studies not by studying and judging their criteria, but by repeating tired old stereotypes. Nevermind that the EU is not some monolithic bloc, that most countries have normal unemployment (with quite a few of them having lower unemployment than the US) or that a lot of the regulation is meant to make companies and industries more competitive (a large, competitive single market is one of the cornerstones of the EU!). No, you just close your eyes, repeat your mantra and then get mad when people point this out to you.

And dont give me any crap about different measuring sticks either, the EU measures their unemployment rates exactly as the United States except they start counting at aged 15 where the United States does 16.

No.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq war cost= 300 billion over 3 years, or 100 billion a year.
US economy 11,750 billion a year

So Iraq war cost us less than 1% of our entire GDP, or 1 penny on the dollar.
During World War 2 we were spending over 30% of our GDP on war costs.
During Korea over 10% of GDP went to the military
Vietnam it was 8% plus
Today it is around 4% lower than any time in since world war 2, besides the mid 90's.
Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003

Too bad we are borrowing every penny of it.

I am sure you have heard of the "war bond" right? World War 1 and World War 2 were paid for this way. The government borrowed the money from it citizens in order to pay for these two wars.
$185 billion was "borrowed" during World War 2.
Borrowed to pay for the war then, borrow to pay for the war now, nothing has changed.

Yes it has: the possibility of central banks to operate expansionary monetary policies.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Republicans do not see that the U.S. is falling in just about every category there is???

That's okay. When the Republicans are in power we've got Jesus on our side. :roll:

 

[judasmachine]

wow, those darn socialist scandinavian societies just aren't working....

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
wow, those darn socialist scandinavian societies just aren't working....

It is one thing running a socialist government in a country of 5 million and another doing it in a country of 300 million.

 

[Mardeth]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.weforum.org/en/about/index.htm

Incorporated as a foundation in 1971, and based in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests. The World Economic Forum is under the supervision of the Swiss Federal Government.

You dont say

Yes, they put us at #1 just to knock us off the next year, what a plan! Attack the source, ignore the message, how new...

Well outside of the fact the Swiss govt apparently supervises this and the Swiss are #1 on the list. They contradict themselves by saying they are impartial and not tied to a political entity or national interests, but under the control of a govt entity.

I also found the list to be very EU centric which is another red flag considering their unemployment and slow gdp growth. While China is no beacon of liberty, they are the worlds 2nd largest country GPD in the world and India is no slouch either, both didnt even crack the top 40.

Funny how every time any study comes out that doesn't have the US as #1, it's deemed to be some type of vast global socialist conspiracy by certain poeple...

Isn't is easier to simply admit the truth, rather than go through these crazy mental contortions every time?

Either I didnt make my point well enough or people are glazing over it. I dont care if we are #1 or #300 in these studies. What I found more interesting is in every study the EU is always ranked very high despite their high unemployment , high regulation oppressing business growth, and even higher oppressive taxation.

Why is it when I question these studies the left on this board starts hurling insults immediately instead of debate the topic?

Because, as you've shown in your post, you 'question' these studies not by studying and judging their criteria, but by repeating tired old stereotypes. Nevermind that the EU is not some monolithic bloc, that most countries have normal unemployment (with quite a few of them having lower unemployment than the US) or that a lot of the regulation is meant to make companies and industries more competitive (a large, competitive single market is one of the cornerstones of the EU!). No, you just close your eyes, repeat your mantra and then get mad when people point this out to you.

Please have you bothered to read the EU's own unemployment figures for the region? The EU25's unemployment rate is about 8.1% or nearly double the United States.

And dont give me any crap about different measuring sticks either, the EU measures their unemployment rates exactly as the United States except they start counting at aged 15 where the United States does 16.

Over Regulation doesnt make the markets and business competitive, it creates a barrer of entry for new competition. Ine ssence it can protect the older inefficient business's in the region.

The EU's projected GDP growth is quite sad, they are looking at maybe breaking 2.0% for the first time in years, where the United States grows at 3-4% or nearly double. Or China who is coming in near 9% or 4.5x as fast. Which one do you think is more competitive? The one with double the unemployment and half the growth, or the ones with high growth and low unemployment?

That is why I question these studies, they put way too much value into the welfare state, a state that saps the actual productivity and growth of economies, but makes the left feel good for saving those people unemployed by their own policies.

Its great that you look at EU as whole and compare it like that and not as single countrys like the research. Really relevant.

Just look at the the countries above the US. Finland at least will have 4-5% GDP growth this year.

And stop nagging about unemployment. Its true that its high in a lot of european countries, but so what? More people available to work. A bad thing? We are more competitive in spite of it, is that what annoys you? All these steroetypes...

Now how you gonna act?

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: judasmachine
wow, those darn socialist scandinavian societies just aren't working....

It is one thing running a socialist government in a country of 5 million and another doing it in a country of 300 million.

And why in the world would that be harder?

If anything, it must be easier, you have much much more land available to every person than we have in denmark.

And 6th place is not bad, i don't know what' you re complaining about.