Study: U.S. economy not most competitive

[NeoConsSuck]

GENEVA (Reuters) - Nordic countries have some of the world's most competitive economies, despite high taxes and extensive social security systems, with Finland in the lead, according to a study issued Wednesday.

In the study, the Geneva-based World Economic Forum set the United States second after Finland in its annual competitiveness league but recorded growing business concern over the Bush administration's handling of the nation's finances.

<snip>
The study, based on hard economic data and business opinion surveys in 117 countries, said the north European nations "are challenging the conventional wisdom that high taxes and large safety nets undermine competitiveness."

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/international/competitiveness.reut/index.htm

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. We have a HUGE SAFETY NET..... unfortunately it is set up

to nurse the military industrial complex and not American citizens. Corporate welfare good... social programs bad. How many prisons have been built in California in the last couple of decades and how may universities have been built.... you'd be surprised.

[krkaufman]

5. Nice!! Well said. n/t

[salin]

2. Soon, we too will have to have very high taxes - butwe will not

have extensive social security systems - bushco is seeing to this on both fronts (raising our debt level so high that much higher taxes in the future is inevitable, and due to said high debt level ensuring that our services continue to be slashed so that we get very little value from said taxes compared to the Nordic countries referred to in this article.

[tainowarrior]

3. I'm sending this article to every

"the hidden hand of the market" "the market will solve everything" "private economies are more efficient than public ones" bastards I know.

[demo dutch]

4. I had this very argument with my husband,, Scandinavian countries are

way ahead of us in every aspect!

[gratuitous]

6. "Despite high taxes and extensive social security"

What is that supposed to mean? That equipping the government with the money to take care of its citizens and making sure that the citizenry is well-cared for are supposed to make an economy less competitive?

Is the writer of the article trying to say that money and government effort spent on the general welfare doesn't make the country and its economy stronger? Sure, people that are starving and desperate will only survive by making the most efficient choices, but any slip means extermination. A citizenry that is comfortable and confident can work harder for a longer period of time. That may mean that next quarter's profits aren't as high as high can be, but the company will almost surely be there 10 or 20 years from now, producing, serving, and strengthening the community.