Socialist economies are competitive

[Kärnfysikern]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...I&refer=europe

Switzerland jumped from fourth place last year and Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Singapore all overtook the U.S. with Japan, Germany, the Netherlands and the U.K. rounding out the top ten in the study of 125 nations by the Geneva-based forum.

1. swiss
2. Finland
3. Sweden
4. Denmark

Now what does 2, 3 and 4 have in comon

[RA]

Sounds like more opinion than cold hard facts.



"The World Economic Forum, funded by more than 1,000 corporations and best known for its annual conference in the Swiss ski-resort of Davos, has published competitiveness reports since 1979. The rankings include grades for about 90 variables ranging from innovation to education as well as the results of a poll of 11,000 corporate executives."

[Kärnfysikern]

Sounds like more opinion than cold hard facts.



"The World Economic Forum, funded by more than 1,000 corporations and best known for its annual conference in the Swiss ski-resort of Davos, has published competitiveness reports since 1979. The rankings include grades for about 90 variables ranging from innovation to education as well as the results of a poll of 11,000 corporate executives."

Well denmark, sweden and finland are at the top when it comes to longest lifespans, highest living standards and most educated population in the world so evidently its working

[napoleon]

Let's not start a holy economic theory war here... Bottom line is. there are pro's and con's to each situation.

On your particular reference to the AMerican Economy. It's being "whored" out....which in the short term creates larger profit margins, but in the long-term results in less economic viability.

There was an economist, I forgot his name but he made a relatively profound simple statement. "a country in actuality is only as strong as what it can produce and sell at a profit".

[RA]

hmmm, I guess we're ok...


"The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $42,000. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to enter their rivals' home markets than foreign firms face entering US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. The war in March-April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. The rise in GDP in 2004 and 2005 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity. Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage in the Gulf Coast region in August 2005, but had a small impact on overall GDP growth for the year. Soaring oil prices in 2005 and 2006 threatened inflation and unemployment, yet the economy continued to grow through mid-2006. Imported oil accounts for about two-thirds of US consumption. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. "

[napoleon]

Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.

You read it right there. Inadequate investment in economic infrastructure means what to you?

Trade deficits, inevitable. But to the extent that they are now? Not wholly viable.

[Phreak101]

Well denmark, sweden and finland are at the top when it comes to longest lifespans, highest living standards and most educated population in the world so evidently its working

I'm not quite sure of the demographics in Sweden, but the US is heavily bogged down by welfare, illegal immigration, a failing health care system, etc. Something tells me that if we sent every person making under 18,000 a year and every illegal mexican to Sweden, things would probably change pretty drastically.

[Kärnfysikern]

I'm not quite sure of the demographics in Sweden, but the US is heavily bogged down by welfare, illegal immigration, a failing health care system, etc. Something tells me that if we sent every person making under 18,000 a year and every illegal mexican to Sweden, things would probably change pretty drastically.

sweden has a population of 9 million and one million of those are imigrants(13,3% to be exact) and a big chunk of those imigrants are unemployed and live on wellfare and so on. So we are not all blue eyes and blond hair. Sweden accept more imigrants than any other nation in the EU as far as I know.

Reason we can have the solid wellfare we have is our heavy taxes offcourse. But the nice thing is that those heavy taxes doesnt make our economy less competitive worldwide and thats the point of this thread If we lowered our taxes to american levels I assume we also would have failing healthcare and not enough money for wellfare.

[scriptfactory]

I'm not quite sure of the demographics in Sweden, but the US is heavily bogged down by welfare, illegal immigration, a failing health care system, etc. Something tells me that if we sent every person making under 18,000 a year and every illegal mexican to Sweden, things would probably change pretty drastically.

You act like countries outside of the US don't have to deal with illegal immigration or poor people. There is a reason there are so many people in the US that make less than $18k/year (i.e. higher education in the states sucks.) There is a reason that there are 8-9 million illegals living in the US. None of the reasons for the US's shitty social system has anything to do with Sweden...

[Kärnfysikern]

I have to add though that I am not pleased with the mass imigration to sweden, its to many to fast.

[Kärnfysikern]

You act like countries outside of the US don't have to deal with illegal immigration or poor people. There is a reason there are so many people in the US that make less than $18k/year (i.e. higher education in the states sucks.) There is a reason that there are 8-9 million illegals living in the US. None of the reasons for the US's shitty social system has anything to do with Sweden...

Yeah, not to mention we also have much more regulations on minimum wage ect so anyone with a job in sweden(I guess in most of EU) should be able to support themself just fine. No need for 2 or 3 jobs just to pay rent.

[scriptfactory]

Yeah, not to mention we also have much more regulations on minimum wage ect so anyone with a job in sweden(I guess in most of EU) should be able to support themself just fine. No need for 2 or 3 jobs just to pay rent.

Yeah, I forgot about that one. Companies have been raping the US workforce for a while now.

[Phreak101]

Yeah, I forgot about that one. Companies have been raping the US workforce for a while now.

That mindset is bad economics. Ask ANY economist on the planet, and they will tell you minimum wage is the bain of a productive society.

[Phreak101]

You act like countries outside of the US don't have to deal with illegal immigration or poor people. There is a reason there are so many people in the US that make less than $18k/year (i.e. higher education in the states sucks.) There is a reason that there are 8-9 million illegals living in the US. None of the reasons for the US's shitty social system has anything to do with Sweden...

Name one country that has bigger immigration issues AND more immigration per year than the U.S. I'll save you the the trouble, you can't.

As for higher education, why do people across the world come to our universities if they are so shitty? We have more than half the highest rated colleges in the world here in the states. Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Cal-Tech, Duke, etc. SECONDARY education here sucks, needs a lot of improvement on math, science, and MONEY MANAGEMENT! Our higher education is the best.

Not many people in the U.S. make less than $18,000 a year, our average income per GDP is $40,000. The problem is, again, managing money. When I see someone driving a car that has rims on it that cost more than the car, it leads me to believe that people need to learn to manage their money better. It has nothing to do with companies raping the workforce. I see people everyday buying smokes with their food stamps, welfare families with big screen TV's and empty fridges, etc. It's not hard to manage money!



Why so hard on the US?

[Kärnfysikern]

That mindset is bad economics. Ask ANY economist on the planet, and they will tell you minimum wage is the bain of a productive society.

So how can finland, denmark and sweden be all be in the topp 5 most competitive economies and having some of the best living standards in the world despite high minimum wages?

If that does slow down our economic growth somewhat I am more than pleased about that tradeoff. People beeing forced to work 2-3 jobs just to survive financialy is something that doesnt belong in developed societies.

Name one country that has bigger immigration issues AND more immigration per year than the U.S. I'll save you the the trouble, you can't.

according to this site
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back101.html

"As a percentage of the U.S. population, immigrants have more than doubled, from 4.7 percent in 1970 to 10.4 percent in 2000."

In that case there are more immigrants in sweden than in the usa...percentage wise offcourse.

As for higher education, why do people across the world come to our universities if they are so shitty? We have more than half the highest rated colleges in the world here in the states. Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Cal-Tech, Duke, etc. SECONDARY education here sucks, needs a lot of improvement on math, science, and MONEY MANAGEMENT! Our higher education is the best.

I got to agree with you. The american big universities have the best research facilities and the most money in the world no doubt. But I doubt the quality of the undergrad education is better or worse than in the big european universities. Its just that the grad students in particular has acces to better facilities over there.

Why so hard on the US?

I know you meant that towards script, but I started the thread only to show that high taxes and high minimum wage doesnt hinder the nordic economies Not as a america bash but. Just to show that there are certainly more humane options than the american capitalist modell since the nordic countries undoubtly take better care of those in need.

[death45456]

heres a good read on EU vs USA economies. all things considred, USA definitly edges out europe..thats not to say EU economy is bad, just not superior to USA. socialism isnt as efficient as capitalism.

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

[scriptfactory]

Name one country that has bigger immigration issues AND more immigration per year than the U.S. I'll save you the the trouble, you can't.

I don't think there is another country that has BIGGER immigration issues, but percentage-wise I know other countries have higher rates of illegal immigration. Still, there are like 8-9 million illegals in the US so...

As for higher education, why do people across the world come to our universities if they are so shitty? We have more than half the highest rated colleges in the world here in the states. Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Cal-Tech, Duke, etc. SECONDARY education here sucks, needs a lot of improvement on math, science, and MONEY MANAGEMENT! Our higher education is the best.

I should have worded what I wrote differently. Of course it's great, if you have the money for it. I just think higher education should be accessible to everyone.

Not many people in the U.S. make less than $18,000 a year, our average income per GDP is $40,000. The problem is, again, managing money. When I see someone driving a car that has rims on it that cost more than the car, it leads me to believe that people need to learn to manage their money better. It has nothing to do with companies raping the workforce. I see people everyday buying smokes with their food stamps, welfare families with big screen TV's and empty fridges, etc. It's not hard to manage money!

You see welfare families with big screen TV's and empty fridges on a regular basis? Where do you work?

Why so hard on the US?

Because I'm a US citizen and now that I live in Europe I've realized that socialism works, and quite effectively. Of course it isn't perfect, but since life is social, doesn't it make sense for our government to be as well?

[Kärnfysikern]

heres a good read on EU vs USA economies. all things considred, USA definitly edges out europe..thats not to say EU economy is bad, just not superior to USA. socialism isnt as efficient as capitalism.

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

Thanks, going to have to read that one. Especialy since it is written by a swede

[Kärnfysikern]

heres a good read on EU vs USA economies. all things considred, USA definitly edges out europe..thats not to say EU economy is bad, just not superior to USA. socialism isnt as efficient as capitalism.

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

I just read that one and it was great for someone like me that is very ignorant on economics. I dont know how accurate it is though because of that reson.

I guess it boils down to one thing. Is extensive wellfare systems, free public healthcare and so on worth a little less economic growth. IMO it is aslong as it doesnt go to far.

[scriptfactory]

heres a good read on EU vs USA economies. all things considred, USA definitly edges out europe..thats not to say EU economy is bad, just not superior to USA. socialism isnt as efficient as capitalism.

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

That article states...

THIS REPORT IS ABOUT THE FACT that per capita GDP is lower in most of the countries of Europe than in most of the states of the USA.

First of all, they are using data from like 1998-2000 in that article. Recent figures differ. Second they are basing their claim on product purchasing power as opposed to nominal figures. The real world (and taxes) operate based on nominal figures, not PPP...

2005 GDP per capita (nominal)
-------------------
1 Luxembourg $80,288
2 Norway $64,193
3 Iceland $52,764
4 Switzerland $50,532
5 Ireland $48,604
6 Denmark $47,984
7 Qatar $43,110
8 United States $42,000
9 Sweden $39,694
10 Netherlands $38,618

Then that article does things like compare the domestic appliance ownership for the US vs. the EU without taking into account the European lifestyle. European are more likely to wash dishes by hand, hang their clothes out to dry, and cook food instead of microwave it. I don't even know why they would do a comparison on something like that, it doesn't make much sense to me.

Then they go on to compare LIVING SPACE!!! What?! There is more space in America, plain and simple. Montana has less than 1 million people living in it and yet it is larger than Germany (population ~83 million).

Overall this article is basically a sham.

[Kärnfysikern]

script what is nominal figures?

[death45456]

these numbers you give script

1 Luxembourg $80,288
2 Norway $64,193
3 Iceland $52,764
4 Switzerland $50,532
5 Ireland $48,604
6 Denmark $47,984
7 Qatar $43,110
8 United States $42,000
9 Sweden $39,694
10 Netherlands $38,618

are way off, go on www.cia.gov world factbook for correct gdp per capita figures, i dont know where you got those numbers from.

[death45456]

Then they go on to compare LIVING SPACE!!! What?! There is more space in America, plain and simple. Montana has less than 1 million people living in it and yet it is larger than Germany (population ~83 million).
.

they were talking about housing space, not land area.

[scriptfactory]

script what is nominal figures?

Nominal figures are based on monetary currency as well as market changes. They take into account economical inflation/deflation. Real figures remove the effects of inflation from the equation and are only based on market conditions and values. Taxes, mortgages, etc. are all based on nominal values.

[scriptfactory]

are way off, go on www.cia.gov world factbook for correct gdp per capita figures, i dont know where you got those numbers from.

Because we all know the CIA World Factbook is the best source of information, right? The International Monetary Fund has different figures...

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...1.x=49&pr1.y=6

they were talking about housing space, not land area.

Most land area = more housing space. There just isn't as much space in Europe as there is in the US.

[death45456]

script what is nominal figures?

Nominal GDP
A gross domestic product (GDP) figure that has not been adjusted for inflation.

Notes:
It can be misleading when inflation is not accounted for in the GDP figure because the GDP will appear higher than it actually is. The same concept that applies to return on investment (ROI) applies here. If you have a 10% ROI and inflation for the year has been 3%, your real rate of return would be 7%. Similarly, if the nominal GDP figure has shot up 8% but inflation has been 4%, the real GDP has only increased 4%.

Also known as current dollar or chained dollar GDP.

[scriptfactory]

Nominal GDP
A gross domestic product (GDP) figure that has not been adjusted for inflation.

Exactly. It's the unadjusted value.

Notes:
It can be misleading when inflation is not accounted for in the GDP figure because the GDP will appear higher than it actually is. The same concept that applies to return on investment (ROI) applies here. If you have a 10% ROI and inflation for the year has been 3%, your real rate of return would be 7%. Similarly, if the nominal GDP figure has shot up 8% but inflation has been 4%, the real GDP has only increased 4%.

Also known as current dollar or chained dollar GDP.

You got that from investopedia, right? The reason it says that is because it is targeted at INVESTORS who need to figure in their real return on their investments, aside from inflation. The world doesn't work on real GDP numbers, though. A 10% ROI is still 10% even though the actual value is less because of inflation...

[Phreak101]

BOLD

I don't think there is another country that has BIGGER immigration issues, but percentage-wise I know other countries have higher rates of illegal immigration. Still, there are like 8-9 million illegals in the US so...

Care to name a few?

I should have worded what I wrote differently. Of course it's great, if you have the money for it. I just think higher education should be accessible to everyone.

Agreed

You see welfare families with big screen TV's and empty fridges on a regular basis? Where do you work?

I work at Countrywide Home Loans. I see section 8 people trying to refinance the home that our government gave them (in the name of socialism), and I see the insides of their homes all the time when the appraisal of the home is done. It's a joke.

Because I'm a US citizen and now that I live in Europe I've realized that socialism works, and quite effectively. Of course it isn't perfect, but since life is social, doesn't it make sense for our government to be as well?

No, it does not. In a society with people as uneducated in money such as the U.S., socialism will be abused. Which is the exact reason our welfare system is a joke, health care is broke, and the more we give, the more they take. It is creating a society of babies who need to be taken care of and cannot take the next step to being financially independent. We NEED capitalism and democracy to be able to carry these people along on the backs of the middle class. We do not have the social unity in this country necessary to be able to have people be working for the greater good.

[scriptfactory]

No, it does not. In a society with people as uneducated in money such as the U.S., socialism will be abused. Which is the exact reason our welfare system is a joke, health care is broke, and the more we give, the more they take. It is creating a society of babies who need to be taken care of and cannot take the next step to being financially independent. We NEED capitalism and democracy to be able to carry these people along on the backs of the middle class.

Do you realize what you are saying? Capitalism is necessary so that we can babysit these people? How about we FIX the problems instead of putting bandaids on them. Capitalism will never take care of the social problems in the US, I guarantee it.

We do not have the social unity in this country necessary to be able to have people be working for the greater good.

I'm not sure I understand you. "To be able to have people be working for the greater good?" That doesn't even make any sense.

[Phreak101]

Do you realize what you are saying? Capitalism is necessary so that we can babysit these people? How about we FIX the problems instead of putting bandaids on them. Capitalism will never take care of the social problems in the US, I guarantee it.


I'm not sure I understand you. "To be able to have people be working for the greater good?" That doesn't even make any sense.

You sound like a typical liberal my friend..."FIX THE PROBLEMS! THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG! FIX IT!" How about a SOLUTION to the problem for once?

You don't understand what the phrase "Have people working for the greater good" means? And you call yourself a socialist???

[scriptfactory]

You sound like a typical liberal my friend..."FIX THE PROBLEMS! THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG! FIX IT!" How about a SOLUTION to the problem for once?

You don't understand what the phrase "Have people working for the greater good" means? And you call yourself a socialist???

I've suggested solutions, I'm not just screaming "FIX IT." I say the US should adopt some of the social structures that are in place in Europe. The way things are going right now the social situation in the US will only get worse. Why not steal some ideas from countries that already have working social programs?

I still don't think you know what you are talking about with that "greater good" statement. It doesn't make any sense. What does "social unity" have to do with social reform?

[Phreak101]

I've suggested solutions, I'm not just screaming "FIX IT." I say the US should adopt some of the social structures that are in place in Europe. The way things are going right now the social situation in the US will only get worse. Why not steal some ideas from countries that already have working social programs?

I still don't think you know what you are talking about with that "greater good" statement. It doesn't make any sense. What does "social unity" have to do with social reform?

Now you're just talking out your ass. Violent crime is LOWER now than it was in the 60's and unemployment levels are below 5%, so I question where you get the idea that the social situation is "getting worse"

Are you serious?? Explain to me how there can be (peaceful) social reform without a universal opinion in favor of it?

Where is Logan when I need him....

[scriptfactory]

Now you're just talking out your ass. Violent crime is LOWER now than it was in the 60's and unemployment levels are below 5%, so I question where you get the idea that the social situation is "getting worse"

I'm talking out of my ass?! Did you even read my posts? I'm talking about education, fair wage and health system reform, not violent crime. When you get more money from welfare than from a McJob I think there is a problem. The child poverty rate is embarrassing for a major developed country, and it's on the rise. Hell, poverty rates as a whole are on the rise. Homelessness is on the rise. The poor need help...

Here is an example of what I am talking about: Frankfurt is a city with a population of around 650,000. When I walked through downtown Frankfurt recently guess how many homeless people I saw. Two. I'm not even sure if they were homeless, they just looked dirty. Could you imagine something like that happening in the States?

Are you serious?? Explain to me how there can be (peaceful) social reform without a universal opinion in favor of it?

So you are saying we can't achieve the "greater good" in this country because people don't care about it?

[Prada]

The two economic systems are very different. No one has a pure capitalist market economy or socialist economy. Somewhat of both is what most countries have. Obviously there is less governement intervention in the former over the latter. Naturally there are advantages and disadvantages to all. Obviously for educated professional the US is much more attractive then a lazy blue collar who gets a very decent living in a socially tilted economy

[Phreak101]

BOLD

I'm talking out of my ass?! Did you even read my posts? I'm talking about education, fair wage and health system reform, not violent crime. When you get more money from welfare than from a McJob I think there is a problem. The child poverty rate is embarrassing for a major developed country, and it's on the rise. Hell, poverty rates as a whole are on the rise. Homelessness is on the rise. The poor need help...

The poor need to be taught how to MANAGE MONEY. I see no problem with private donations to the poor, America, after all, IS the most charitable nation in the world. I refuse to support everyone around me. I'll say it again, minimum wage is the reason people make more with welfare than at jobs. Economically, it is incorrect, as I said, ask ANY economist. There is a reason all economists are Republican financially. Last I saw, education in this country was free, so was health care for the poor, as well as the welfare system. Oh wait, all those "socialistic" programs are going broke and do nothing. Better blame the big, bad, corporations that actually GIVE people jobs.

Here is an example of what I am talking about: Frankfurt is a city with a population of around 650,000. When I walked through downtown Frankfurt recently guess how many homeless people I saw. Two. I'm not even sure if they were homeless, they just looked dirty. Could you imagine something like that happening in the States?

Wow, not 650,000, holy crap! Chicago has 8 MILLION people in it. You wanna see a town with no homeless people, try Omaha, Nebraska, pop. 700,000. You'll get the same results as Frankfurt.

So you are saying we can't achieve the "greater good" in this country because people don't care about it?

That's exactly what I'm saying

You can't give me small, idealized examples like Frankfrut, Germany and expect me to take you seriously in this discussion. New York City has 14 MILLION people in it. Germany has 82,000,000 people in it. That means that L.A., New York, Chicago, Miami, and Dallas have almost HALF the population of Germany...and those are just 5 major cities.

Your small scale examples turn a blind eye to the biggest melting pot in history and the reprocussions of growing so quickly that are making themselves apparent. If we dumped every illegal alien coming into this country begging for welfare supprt, medical attention, and JOBS into Germany, your "socialistic economy" would collpase in a New York second...not to mention the current LEGAL citizens who are poor that have been forced into the lifestyle of poverty since the 1800's. Capitalism and democracy are the machines that fuel the system that allow all the socialistic programs that we DO have in this country, and they DON'T WORK! Throwing more money at them will accomplish NOTHING. Reforming them is necessary, I agree with you, but not at the expense of what has made this country the greatest superpower ever in record time.

[Phreak101]

Germany's affluent and technologically powerful economy - the fifth largest in the world - has become one of the slowest growing economies in the euro zone. A quick turnaround is not in the offing in the foreseeable future. Growth in 2001-03 fell short of 1%, rising to 1.7% in 2004 before falling back to 0.9% in 2005. The modernization and integration of the eastern German economy continues to be a costly long-term process, with annual transfers from west to east amounting to roughly $70 billion. Germany's aging population, combined with high unemployment, has pushed social security outlays to a level exceeding contributions from workers. Structural rigidities in the labor market - including strict regulations on laying off workers and the setting of wages on a national basis - have made unemployment a chronic problem.Corporate restructuring and growing capital markets are setting the foundations that could allow Germany to meet the long-term challenges of European economic integration and globalization, particularly if labor market rigidities are further addressed. In the short run, however, the fall in government revenues and the rise in expenditures have raised the deficit above the EU's 3% debt limit.

Yeah....go Socialistic Germany....

And just so I don't have to hear any of your nonsense about the CIA world factbook being "biased", let's post another description of another great example of capitalism and democracy at work!

Since the early 1960s, South Korea has achieved an incredible record of growth and integration into the high-tech modern world economy. Four decades ago, GDP per capita was comparable with levels in the poorer countries of Africa and Asia. In 2004, South Korea joined the trillion dollar club of world economies. Today its GDP per capita is equal to the lesser economies of the EU. This success through the late 1980s was achieved by a system of close government/business ties, including directed credit, import restrictions, sponsorship of specific industries, and a strong labor effort. The government promoted the import of raw materials and technology at the expense of consumer goods and encouraged savings and investment over consumption. The Asian financial crisis of 1997-99 exposed longstanding weaknesses in South Korea's development model, including high debt/equity ratios, massive foreign borrowing, and an undisciplined financial sector. GDP plunged by 6.9% in 1998, then recovered 9.5% in 1999 and 8.5% in 2000. Growth fell back to 3.3% in 2001 because of the slowing global economy, falling exports, and the perception that much-needed corporate and financial reforms had stalled. Led by consumer spending and exports, growth in 2002 was an impressive 7%, despite anemic global growth. Between 2003 and 2005, growth moderated to about 4%. A downturn in consumer spending was offset by rapid export growth. In 2005, the government proposed labor reform legislation and a corporate pension scheme to help make the labor market more flexible, and new real estate policies to cool property speculation. Moderate inflation, low unemployment, an export surplus, and fairly equal distribution of income characterize this solid economy.

[Kärnfysikern]

Phreak I would say germany has done extremely well considering the reunification of east and west germany. Remember that half the country was soviet poor not so long ago....

Like I said earlier aswell sweden has MORE imigrants than the usa percentage wise and we have more fleshed out social programs and higher unemployement. So that seems to indicate that imigrants in sweden is probably a bigger economic burden than imigrants in the united states.

[Kärnfysikern]

The poor need to be taught how to MANAGE MONEY. I see no problem with private donations to the poor, America, after all, IS the most charitable nation in the world. I refuse to support everyone around me. I'll say it again, minimum wage is the reason people make more with welfare than at jobs. Economically, it is incorrect, as I said, ask ANY economist. There is a reason all economists are Republican financially. Last I saw, education in this country was free, so was health care for the poor, as well as the welfare system. Oh wait, all those "socialistic" programs are going broke and do nothing. Better blame the big, bad, corporations that actually GIVE people jobs.

Why is minimum wage detrimental to the economy? I suck at economy

I mean Im sure alot of economists are republicans over there, but alot of economists are socialist over here...

[scriptfactory]

You can't give me small, idealized examples like Frankfrut, Germany and expect me to take you seriously in this discussion. New York City has 14 MILLION people in it. Germany has 82,000,000 people in it. That means that L.A., New York, Chicago, Miami, and Dallas have almost HALF the population of Germany...and those are just 5 major cities.

I've actually been to Omaha and it has plenty of bums so... I don't know what you are talking about. I just gave an example of a city close to me. When I visited Munich (I know it's not New York) I can't recall seeing any homeless people, either. There just isn't a big homeless population here.

Don't get me wrong, Germany has it's problems. International companies don't want to start new businesses and are closing existing here due to the high taxation rates, etc. However most of these problems would be remedied fairly "easily" by a good political leader. So what do these Germans do? They elect a woman (and she isn't even intelligent) to lead the country... She wants to increase the tax rate by like 9%...

If we dumped every illegal alien coming into this country begging for welfare supprt, medical attention, and JOBS into Germany, your "socialistic economy" would collpase in a New York second... not to mention the current LEGAL citizens who are poor that have been forced into the lifestyle of poverty since the 1800's. Capitalism and democracy are the machines that fuel the system that allow all the socialistic programs that we DO have in this country, and they DON'T WORK! Throwing more money at them will accomplish NOTHING. Reforming them is necessary, I agree with you, but not at the expense of what has made this country the greatest superpower ever in record time.

You really don't read what I am writing. Don't you think there is a reason they are not working? They tried to increase spending to these social programs and guess what happened, more people used these social programs. I'm saying CHANGE THE PROGRAMS. The ones we have right now obviously aren't working...

The poor need to be taught how to MANAGE MONEY. I see no problem with private donations to the poor, America, after all, IS the most charitable nation in the world. I refuse to support everyone around me. I'll say it again, minimum wage is the reason people make more with welfare than at jobs. Economically, it is incorrect, as I said, ask ANY economist. There is a reason all economists are Republican financially. Last I saw, education in this country was free, so was health care for the poor, as well as the welfare system. Oh wait, all those "socialistic" programs are going broke and do nothing. Better blame the big, bad, corporations that actually GIVE people jobs.

You keep talking about teaching the poor how to manage money. Did you just invent that by yourself? Do you know how much it would cost the US taxpayer to implement these programs? Too much with too little ROI. How about increasing minimum wage and aggressively deporting illegal immigrants? The US has around 7 million unemployed people and about 8 million illegal (mostly working) immigrants.

Force companies to pay fair wages, what is wrong with that? How do fair wages hurt the economy? Oh, wait. I see. The best thing for the economy would be to turn all blacks and hispanics into slaves. It worked in the past, right? It turned the US into the richest country in the world! Profit at the expense of the poor.

The usual argument is younger/uneducated workers will have a harder time getting jobs with a higher minimum wage. In 2000 a survey was made where they asked academic economists if they agreed with this statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers." 46% agreed, 28% were in partial agreement and 27% disagreed. They did the same survey in 1990 and the numbers were; 62% agreed, 19.5% partially agreed, and 17.5% disagreed. In 2010 I think the numbers will have shifted again. So, as you can see, economists have widely different views concerning minimum wage. Don't believe everything you see on Fox News.
http://www.indiana.edu/~econed/pdffi...l03/fuller.pdf

Card and Krueger wrote a book called Myth and Measurement (I think) in which they debunked the claims by economists that minimum wage laws reduce jobs, etc. You should read this article that investigated the factuality of the Card/Krueger research.
http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers...mw_bp_1996.pdf

[Phreak101]

You keep talking about teaching the poor how to manage money. Did you just invent that by yourself? Do you know how much it would cost the US taxpayer to implement these programs? Too much with too little ROI. How about increasing minimum wage and aggressively deporting illegal immigrants? The US has around 7 million unemployed people and about 8 million illegal (mostly working) immigrants.

Last I heard education here in the states was FREE. Curriculum adjustments in secondary education would not be diffficult to implement. If you think that teaching the public how to manage their money would not have a positive ROI over time, that leads me to believe you yourself know jack sh!t about managing money yourself. That also happens to be the idea of some of the best selling authors in the world regarding money management, so I'll take what you said as a compliment. The unemployemnt rate in Germany is higher than the U.S., you keep ignoring this fact. How can you have a higher unemployment rate than us, yet have 1/5 of the population, and expect me to take what you say seriously about OUR system?

Force companies to pay fair wages, what is wrong with that? How do fair wages hurt the economy? Oh, wait. I see. The best thing for the economy would be to turn all blacks and hispanics into slaves. It worked in the past, right? It turned the US into the richest country in the world! Profit at the expense of the poor.

Force companies to pay higher wages?? Why are we forcing the very entities that supply jobs to pay HIGHER wages? I recommend you take ECON 101. By forcing companies to raise the minimum wage, you are also forcing them to eliminate JOBS. Hence the reason why Germany's unemployment is probably so high. Don't get me wrong, no CEO deserves 30 million dollars for doing their job, but force?? I want government OUT of my business, not entangled in it. As for turning blacks and hispanics into slaves, save your nonsensical BS opinions for your NAACP meetings. I find that statement insulting and ignorant.

The usual argument is younger/uneducated workers will have a harder time getting jobs with a higher minimum wage. In 2000 a survey was made where they asked academic economists if they agreed with this statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers." 46% agreed, 28% were in partial agreement and 27% disagreed. They did the same survey in 1990 and the numbers were; 62% agreed, 19.5% partially agreed, and 17.5% disagreed. In 2010 I think the numbers will have shifted again. So, as you can see, economists have widely different views concerning minimum wage. Don't believe everything you see on Fox News.
http://www.indiana.edu/~econed/pdffi...l03/fuller.pdf

Hmm that's funny, I saw that study, and what you are neglecting to say is the wage increase would ONLY be for young, unskilled workers in minimum wage positions until they have gotten the skills necessary to survive. After that, economists are in favor of DECREASING the wages of hourly minumum wage jobs in order to allow these companies to compensate for the new workers while still maintaining a steady job supply. Nice try, don't believe everything you read either

Card and Krueger wrote a book called Myth and Measurement (I think) in which they debunked the claims by economists that minimum wage laws reduce jobs, etc. You should read this article that investigated the factuality of the Card/Krueger research.

Wow, one study, now search for the other 10,000 that refute it.

http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers...mw_bp_1996.pdf

I'm done arguing with you. Your country's exmployment rate is utter shit, and your SS program is just as broke as ours. You have no stance to point fingers, especially since you are an ex-patriate. When you can show numbers that prove your system works instead basing everything you say on opinionated communist theory, then we can argue some more. until then, I'm not going to convince you, and vice-versa, so let's agree to disagree.