2006 Global competitiveness rankings out.

[straightalker]

Nations today in the global trade game are just the parking lots for the buildings of the Trans National Corporations and their cartels that do the bulk of the "global" trade. China parks it's big fat asss now in places like The Bahamas. Where they have the world's largest trans-shipping container port.

So naturally, the Nations that have the most to offer Big Business get to be labelled the most compeditive. Switzerland. which was the banker for Hitler during WWII is of course more than willing to accomodate literally any profitable venture. Including smelting into gold bars the knocked out gold teeth and jewelery from Auchwitz victims.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Genx87
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.

You question them because its infinitely easier to dismiss them than admit the US isn't #1 at something. So to try and sound convincing, you cherry picked whatever economic indicators make the US look good and ran with it.

On the other hand, we have a very reputable organization (this is the same WEF where world leaders gather every year, you know... the one that's regularly denounced as some evil capitalistic gathering...) constructing a very detailed study that takes A LOT of factors into considerations. You may dismiss it as "putting too much value into the welfare state", but were you to take a few mins, RTFA and think before sprouting your bullshit, you'd find out that of the 9 categories of indecies they look at, only 2 are 'social' ones - namely health and education. Now, you may think that the education of a country's workforce is irrelevant to its economic well being, but you would be wrong, plain and simple.

 

[freegeeks]

Belgium should be n°1 because we have the best beer

 

[sandorski]

Canada should be #1 cause we got the best Hockey Players!! ... and Curlers!!!

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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

We learned it watching the right in the last election.



Seriously though, how and what are they defining as competitiveness? The ability to attract large corporate investment, welfare, public image, growth, actual dollars and cents (euros and eurocents?)? I find it to be a somewhat vague term to begin with.

 

[brandonbull]

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.

Except during WW2, the war bonds were from the American people not debt from other countries.

The cost in extra interest has to be calculated on top of the $300 billion. That money could have been used to pay our debt down.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Genx87

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

Seriously though, how and what are they defining as competitiveness? The ability to attract large corporate investment, welfare, public image, growth, actual dollars and cents (euros and eurocents?)? I find it to be a somewhat vague term to begin with.

Here's a breakdown of their definition.

1st Pillar: Institutions

A. Public institutions
1. Property rights
1.01 Property rights
2. Ethics and corruption
1.02 Diversion of publics funds
1.03 Public trust of politicians
3. Undue influence
1.04 Judicial independence
1.05 Favoritism in decisions of government officials
4. Government inefficiency (red tape, bureaucracy and waste)
1.06 Wastefulness of government spending
1.07 Burden of government regulation
5. Security
1.08 Business costs of terrorism
1.09 Reliability of police services
1.10 Business costs of crime and violence
1.11 Organized crime
B. Private institutions
1. Corporate ethics
1.12 Ethical behavior of firms
2. Accountability
1.13 Efficacy of corporate boards
1.14 Protection of minority shareholders? interests
1.15 Strength of auditing and accounting standards


2nd Pillar: Infrastructure

2.01 Overall infrastructure quality
2.02 Railroad infrastructure development
2.03 Quality of port infrastructure
2.04 Quality of air transport infrastructure
2.05 Quality of electricity supply
2.06 Telephone lines (hard data)



3rd Pillar: Macroeconomy

3.01 Government surplus/deficit (hard data)
3.02 National savings rate (hard data)
3.03 Inflation (hard data)
3.04 Interest rate spread (hard data)
3.05 Government debt (hard data)
3.06 Real effective exchange rate (hard data)

4th Pillar: Health and primary education

A. Health
4.01 Medium-term business impact of malaria
4.02 Medium-term business impact of tuberculosis
4.03 Medium-term business impact of HIV/AIDS
4.04 Infant mortality (hard data)
4.05 Life expectancy (hard data)
4.06 Tuberculosis prevalence (hard data)
4.07 Malaria prevalence (hard data)
4.08 HIV prevalence (hard data)
B. Primary education
4.09 Primary enrolment (hard data)


5th Pillar: Higher education and training

A. Quantity of education
5.01 Secondary enrolment ratio (hard data)
5.02 Tertiary enrolment ratio (hard data)
B. Quality of education
5.03 Quality of the educational system
5.04 Quality of math and science education
5.05 Quality of management schools
C. On-the-job training
5.06 Local availability of specialized research and training
services
5.07 Extent of staff training


6th Pillar: Market efficiency

A. Good markets: Distortions, competition, and size
1. Distortions
6.01 Agricultural policy costs
6.02 Efficiency of legal framework
6.03 Extent and effect of taxation
6.04 Number of procedures required to start a business
(hard data)
6.05 Time required to start a business (hard data)
2. Competition
6.06 Intensity of local competition
6.07 Effectiveness of antitrust policy
6.08 Imports (hard data)
6.09 Prevalence of trade barriers
6.10 Foreign ownership restrictions
3. Size
0.00 GDP ? exports + imports (hard data)
6.11 Exports (hard data)
Appendix A: Composition of the Global Competitiveness Index
49
1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index
B. Labor markets: Flexibility and efficiency
1. Flexibility
6.12 Hiring and firing practices
6.13 Flexibility of wage determination
6.14 Cooperation in labor-employer relations
2. Efficiency
6.15 Reliance on professional management
6.16 Pay and productivity
6.17 Brain drain
6.18 Private sector employment of women
C. Financial markets: Sophistication and openness
6.19 Financial market sophistication
6.20 Ease of access to loans
6.21 Venture capital availability
6.22 Soundness of banks
6.23 Local equity market access


7th Pillar: Technological readiness

7.01 Technological readiness
7.02 Firm-level technology absorption
7.03 Laws relating to ICT
7.04 FDI and technology transfer
7.05 Cellular telephones (hard data)
7.06 Internet users (hard data)
7.07 Personal computers (hard data)


8th Pillar: Business sophistication

A. Networks and supporting industries
8.01 Local supplier quantity
8.02 Local supplier quality
B. Sophistication of firms? operations and strategy
8.03 Production process sophistication
8.04 Extent of marketing
8.05 Control of international distribution
8.06 Willingness to delegate authority
8.07 Nature of competitive advantage
8.08 Value-chain presence


9th Pillar: Innovation

9.01 Quality of scientific research institutions
9.02 Company spending on research and development
9.03 University/industry research collaboration
9.04 Government procurement of advanced technology
products
9.05 Availability of scientists and engineers
9.06 Utility patents (hard data)
9.07 Intellectual property protection
9.08 Capacity for innovation

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Genx87

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

Seriously though, how and what are they defining as competitiveness? The ability to attract large corporate investment, welfare, public image, growth, actual dollars and cents (euros and eurocents?)? I find it to be a somewhat vague term to begin with.

Here's a breakdown of their definition.

1st Pillar: Institutions

A. Public institutions
1. Property rights
1.01 Property rights
2. Ethics and corruption
1.02 Diversion of publics funds
1.03 Public trust of politicians
3. Undue influence
1.04 Judicial independence
1.05 Favoritism in decisions of government officials
4. Government inefficiency (red tape, bureaucracy and waste)
1.06 Wastefulness of government spending
1.07 Burden of government regulation
5. Security
1.08 Business costs of terrorism
1.09 Reliability of police services
1.10 Business costs of crime and violence
1.11 Organized crime
B. Private institutions
1. Corporate ethics
1.12 Ethical behavior of firms
2. Accountability
1.13 Efficacy of corporate boards
1.14 Protection of minority shareholders? interests
1.15 Strength of auditing and accounting standards


2nd Pillar: Infrastructure

2.01 Overall infrastructure quality
2.02 Railroad infrastructure development
2.03 Quality of port infrastructure
2.04 Quality of air transport infrastructure
2.05 Quality of electricity supply
2.06 Telephone lines (hard data)



3rd Pillar: Macroeconomy

3.01 Government surplus/deficit (hard data)
3.02 National savings rate (hard data)
3.03 Inflation (hard data)
3.04 Interest rate spread (hard data)
3.05 Government debt (hard data)
3.06 Real effective exchange rate (hard data)

4th Pillar: Health and primary education

A. Health
4.01 Medium-term business impact of malaria
4.02 Medium-term business impact of tuberculosis
4.03 Medium-term business impact of HIV/AIDS
4.04 Infant mortality (hard data)
4.05 Life expectancy (hard data)
4.06 Tuberculosis prevalence (hard data)
4.07 Malaria prevalence (hard data)
4.08 HIV prevalence (hard data)
B. Primary education
4.09 Primary enrolment (hard data)


5th Pillar: Higher education and training

A. Quantity of education
5.01 Secondary enrolment ratio (hard data)
5.02 Tertiary enrolment ratio (hard data)
B. Quality of education
5.03 Quality of the educational system
5.04 Quality of math and science education
5.05 Quality of management schools
C. On-the-job training
5.06 Local availability of specialized research and training
services
5.07 Extent of staff training


6th Pillar: Market efficiency

A. Good markets: Distortions, competition, and size
1. Distortions
6.01 Agricultural policy costs
6.02 Efficiency of legal framework
6.03 Extent and effect of taxation
6.04 Number of procedures required to start a business
(hard data)
6.05 Time required to start a business (hard data)
2. Competition
6.06 Intensity of local competition
6.07 Effectiveness of antitrust policy
6.08 Imports (hard data)
6.09 Prevalence of trade barriers
6.10 Foreign ownership restrictions
3. Size
0.00 GDP ? exports + imports (hard data)
6.11 Exports (hard data)
Appendix A: Composition of the Global Competitiveness Index
49
1.1: The Global Competitiveness Index
B. Labor markets: Flexibility and efficiency
1. Flexibility
6.12 Hiring and firing practices
6.13 Flexibility of wage determination
6.14 Cooperation in labor-employer relations
2. Efficiency
6.15 Reliance on professional management
6.16 Pay and productivity
6.17 Brain drain
6.18 Private sector employment of women
C. Financial markets: Sophistication and openness
6.19 Financial market sophistication
6.20 Ease of access to loans
6.21 Venture capital availability
6.22 Soundness of banks
6.23 Local equity market access


7th Pillar: Technological readiness

7.01 Technological readiness
7.02 Firm-level technology absorption
7.03 Laws relating to ICT
7.04 FDI and technology transfer
7.05 Cellular telephones (hard data)
7.06 Internet users (hard data)
7.07 Personal computers (hard data)


8th Pillar: Business sophistication

A. Networks and supporting industries
8.01 Local supplier quantity
8.02 Local supplier quality
B. Sophistication of firms? operations and strategy
8.03 Production process sophistication
8.04 Extent of marketing
8.05 Control of international distribution
8.06 Willingness to delegate authority
8.07 Nature of competitive advantage
8.08 Value-chain presence


9th Pillar: Innovation

9.01 Quality of scientific research institutions
9.02 Company spending on research and development
9.03 University/industry research collaboration
9.04 Government procurement of advanced technology
products
9.05 Availability of scientists and engineers
9.06 Utility patents (hard data)
9.07 Intellectual property protection
9.08 Capacity for innovation

[USA n° 1] definately a left wing conspiracy when you look at these topics [/USA n°1]

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Genx87

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

Seriously though, how and what are they defining as competitiveness? The ability to attract large corporate investment, welfare, public image, growth, actual dollars and cents (euros and eurocents?)? I find it to be a somewhat vague term to begin with.

Here's a breakdown of their definition.

I saw the breakdown, but I would like to see a list of where each country scores in each major category.
Does say our low score on "health" bring down our high scores on "infrastructure"??

Remember the riots in France about chronic unemployment? One of the things we learned from that story is that it is almost impossible for a company in France to fire an employee once they have been employed with them for so long. Now I am certain that policies like that hurt "competitiveness" greatly.

The point Genx87 seems to be trying to make, and a lot of people are ignoring, is how did they put this list together?
Who determined what to rank and how to rank one thing compared to another. I do not think it is to much of a stretch to think that they may have made the criteria fit within their views of a "good" economy.

No mater what, being 6th is not a bad place to be, especially because we rank above every other MAJOR industrial country in the world. A bunch of countries with 5 million people each beat us, big deal.

BTW: we are on the right track to bring our deficits down again, so when that happens we can jump back to the top of the list

 

[Finality]

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually I have to agree with that statement.

However I would implement it differently. 1% tarriff increase per month (from zero) as long as Chinas currency remains within a fixed trading band. If the currency becomes floatable then 0% tarriff would apply.

For logical reasons I'd probably give the Chinese 18 months to fix the currency system after that it would need to be fully flexible.

It would be stupid to put a tarriff simply because of a trade defecit with China though. Keep in mind Chinas has kept US inflation low as well as lowered interest rates throughout the US which has been pretty good over the past few years.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Genx87

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

Seriously though, how and what are they defining as competitiveness? The ability to attract large corporate investment, welfare, public image, growth, actual dollars and cents (euros and eurocents?)? I find it to be a somewhat vague term to begin with.

Here's a breakdown of their definition.

I saw the breakdown, but I would like to see a list of where each country scores in each major category.
Does say our low score on "health" bring down our high scores on "infrastructure"??

Remember the riots in France about chronic unemployment? One of the things we learned from that story is that it is almost impossible for a company in France to fire an employee once they have been employed with them for so long. Now I am certain that policies like that hurt "competitiveness" greatly.

The point Genx87 seems to be trying to make, and a lot of people are ignoring, is how did they put this list together?
Who determined what to rank and how to rank one thing compared to another. I do not think it is to much of a stretch to think that they may have made the criteria fit within their views of a "good" economy.

No mater what, being 6th is not a bad place to be, especially because we rank above every other MAJOR industrial country in the world. A bunch of countries with 5 million people each beat us, big deal.

BTW: we are on the right track to bring our deficits down again, so when that happens we can jump back to the top of the list

How are things going with your shrink lately? Seeing less socialist conspiracies?

Just deal with the fact, that even though you have more land, more natural resources, and a head start, we're still more competitive than you are (denmark).
And we don't have your insanely high child mortality rate.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Remember the riots in France about chronic unemployment? One of the things we learned from that story is that it is almost impossible for a company in France to fire an employee once they have been employed with them for so long. Now I am certain that policies like that hurt "competitiveness" greatly.

Maybe that is why France comes in at 18th ...

 

[martinez]

An economic contest that takes into account poor people too? Please, these left wing nut jobs will stoop to any level. /SARCASM

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Genx87

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

We learned it watching the right in the last election.



Seriously though, how and what are they defining as competitiveness? The ability to attract large corporate investment, welfare, public image, growth, actual dollars and cents (euros and eurocents?)? I find it to be a somewhat vague term to begin with.

I haven't received a copy of the new report yet, but I can tell you what were the things lowering the US score in the previous one.

*Macroeconomic Environment Index (Key index components: Macro Stability, Country Credit Ratings, Government Efficiency)

United States: 15

* Corruption Index (less corrupt countries)

United States: not in the Top 15

* Transparency International Index, Corruption Perception

United States: not in the Top 15

* Public Institution Index (Rule of Law, Corruption, Quality of Public Procurement, Judiaciary Independence)

United States: not in the Top 15

* Information and Communication Technology

United States: 5

A note in the 2006-2007 says the Macro part played a big role in the US loss of rank, but until I get the complete report I can't see any quantitative measure.