Why is the US so strong economically?

retard

hmmmm, why could it be?

Attached: 1499345367134.jpg (296x314, 22K)

Most currencies are backed by the US dollar which is backed by Oil.

The US dollar has no worth outside of its necessitated circulation throughout the World Economy.

The reason why people call for a 'Gold Standard' to be re-introduced is due to the fact that if the US dollar lost its use as a global currency then it would cause hyperinflation and implode the US economy and nation.

That's everywhere

but we have a lot of gold though. wouldn't gold hoarding nations still be rich as fuck.

youtube.com/watch?v=ILn85WKo0Qk

>Most currencies are backed by the US dollar
you what mate?

>backed by Oil
Do you have a single piece of factual evidence that supports this claim you're making.

Attached: Chief Neptune.jpg (300x400, 31K)

Because they have a continent sized nation of very productive land and an ethos of hard work

Hey retard who replied to me twice when he doesn't know anything. Learn what a reserve currency is, you inbred.

Fucking hell, you'd think you'd google before shitting up a thread with your retardation.

Theoretically there'd be zero trust in the US dollar regardless.

no, your shithole just have no nation and thus incapable of working togather for a common goal

It's something well documented and understood by anyone with any understanding of the World Economy.

I'll spoonfeed you: gao.gov/products/ID-79-7

Dutch genes

Large free trade area

usa doesnt do free trade, look at trump, its nothing new what he does, he puts american shit at an advantage so less developed countries have no choice but buy american shit
and they grew that much putting their shit tier products and services above everyone because europe was demolished by 2 world wars

They fake their numbers.

because fucking dollar
dollar is just paper
but usa make that fucking paper like gold
so we make another currency like euro

i wonder if crypto currencies change the world economy one day

Based and redpilled. What should be the next reserve currency Korea bro? Is yuan ok?

Argentina is a bigger mystery imo. They go bankrupt every decade yet they're still quite rich.

Diversity is our strength

fuck chink money

we make asia currency
but exclude subhuman chink

dictatership is cancer to mankind

>chinks are bad
>japs are bad
>burgers are bad
>north gooks are bad

Who do you want to make your common currency with, Papua New Guinea?

they got insanely rich selling shit in both world wars and also after each by having basically a monopoly on manufacturing for decades

It's best if we make up an entirely new currency whose only goal is to be the reserve and nothing else.

Deluded

Considering the size of their population and how much (how long) they work, they're not far from every other western country

also, you can't compare state gdp to country gdp, if the state were a country its gdp would be lower

>Due to economic liberalism, but don't worry that is soon to be scraped for globalism and Chinese domination

Attached: Squidward_Design_2.jpg (512x384, 29K)

What does it matter that they are strong economically since they can't provide their citizens with free healthcare and education. Not to mention there are tons of homeless and ghettos.

And who would like to invest in a currency that isn't supported by main world economies?

>free

Attached: you-keep-using-that-word1.jpg (500x420, 45K)

How can you be this rich but still have a country that has many times more problems in the country than poorer countries?

educated population+big population+big land+large amount of resources=wealthy nation

I don't need to pay 1000$ every time I broke my arm and I also had free education I even got books for free.

No, it's just paid for by Germany's money that is redistributed to you via the EU.

and what's the catch here? we are wealthier and pay more in taxes than you croatians do but we don't get books for free.
also, it is not free education. you pay through taxes

I don't know, like if a couple of countries got together and promised to only exchange using the new made up currency wouldn't it work?

Attached: 1528743920931.png (645x729, 105K)

>The top 1% of the country owns 40% of the wealth in the US

Attached: 1351583401018.jpg (488x488, 51K)

we?

Huge Population, A fuckton of natural ressources, basically a pirate-state, exploitation of its workers.

Well at least I can chose whichever I want school and got to proper college without having huge debt that would weight me down for years after college.

When I went to school we weren't in the EU.

He's right.
When black Wednesday happened the BoE sold a bunch of US dollars in order to devalue the USD in comparison to GBP, in other words the GBP's value was retained (for an hour) by the USD. This is common practice around the world, as the USD is the most held reserve currency in central banks.

"As rich as an Argentine" was a phrase at one point

The student loan disaster is the result of socialistic policies that mandated everyone should have access to college because grunt work would be done by brown and yellow people in the future.

Unless you're a burger flipper or working at walmart you would earn much more than in western europe

As long as you play the neoliberal game you never become poor. Even Turkey, Iran and UAE can be absolute authoritarian shitholes but since they are tied to global capitalism they are literally not allowed to fail.

>Iran
>tied to global capi...
What.

Their electronics don't materialize out of thin air buddy.

a) "access to " is more often than not the motto for privatized services that is supported heavily by republicans, look at the cruz vs sanders debate on healthcare a couple years ago
b) that doesn't sound like socialist policy to me, my province allows any resident to go to college for 1700/yr or uni for 3600/yr, and even then that's not very socialist, that's just subsidies
c) also why should anyone be denied access to schooling?

The argument against that is, since the government is giving out 1700/year to colleges, they have no incentive to lower costs. If it was an entirely free market maybe colleges would be forced to compete with each other and they would adopt newer technologies like internet to lower the cost of education.

Because of capitalism, free markets, and very little government interference in the economy + constant inflow of immigrants -- young, eager to work and start their own businesses. America is by far the wealthiest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world. Any European who has lived in America would tell you they are light years ahead of America in every possible aspect -- economy, society, culture, progress. Europeans, especially northwestern Europeans, in particular England are extremely jealous of America because they see them as the only country that is above them. Without America literally rebuilding Europe and Japan, 100% the rich European countries today would not have been rich at all, this is especially true for France, but also Italy, Scandinavia and Germany as well.

Attached: 4.png (1238x1554, 446K)

i meant to say ''light years ahead of Europe''.

>The argument against that is, since the government is giving out 1700/year to colleges, they have no incentive to lower costs.
except as long as these schools can manage to put the optimal amount of bodies in the optimal amount of classrooms, they will have no incentive to cut costs either
there isnt any incentive to lower costs as long as people are begging and throwing thousands of dollars around to get in, the unis are empowered rather than the students in these circumstances
it's the same reason why i said it isnt really a socialist policy, the government ends up paying a portion of the student's tuition to a private firm in order to compensate for the lower payments the firm offers its students

also, by definition, there is little to no possibility for free markets within educational institutions at least, as an entry barrier for these firms in our current society requires a certain degree of social capital and prestige, along with proper program accreditation in order for a firm to get customers, and there's also the fact that these institutions would have to be equally small enough to so that none of these single institutions are large enough to be able to single-handedly affect the price and supply of said g/s, which is near impossible for this market

When my dad went to college in the 70s, tuition was like $4000. He paid for it with a summer job.

Ameria is rated 18th for economic liberalism, behind Denmark and Sweden.

if the US' economy was made great by free markets and very little government interference, why is the entire history of the US containing countless trade tariffs and trade deals, circumventing the free market, and why was the largest single catalyst for economic growth in America's history caused by government interference in the markets (declaring war and restructuring the US' economy for wartime production)?

>Any European who has lived in America would tell you they are light years ahead of Europe in every possible aspect -- economy, society, culture, progress.
Do they really? America objectively flounders on many related metrics compared to their western european counterparts, and lets not even get started talking about culture which is a routine point of mockery for Americans.

Hm, we have the same system with you Croatia even before we were in the EU and furthermore Private Universities up until quite recently were forbidden from being established or recognized by Constitutional law.
Though the catch here is that the vacancies for each City University are very limited in comparison to the willing population of students and that is made even worse by our higher population and concentration in City Centers.
Thus even though everything is free, including books, many are forced to study in another City giving back money to the local state through house rents and living expenses.

america*

*have had

I see. You're right. So what is the catch? There has to be one. I really doubt governments giving away free education at the tax payers expense is a good thing. But I admit I don't know enough about it to say where the problem is.

>and why was the largest single catalyst for economic growth in America's history caused by government interference in the markets (declaring war and restructuring the US' economy for wartime production)
Bombing your economic rivals to rubble is a good way to ensure economic supremacy, but who wants to kill people and blow stuff up to do it.

>if the US economy was made great by free markets and very little government interference

The greatest economic growth and development in US history was in the 19th-early 20th centuries when there was total laisse-faire capitalism.

First of all, tariffs do not constitute government interference in the markets or the economy, or if they do, they are the least harmful form of interference.

Second, for most of US history, tariffs were the only source for government revenue, because there was no income tax, or any tax for that matter. All free market economists agree that, tariffs are a better way to fund the government rather than taxing income and production, not to mention the fact that.

Third, you need to provide my details what you mean by ''government caused single largest catalyst for economic growth''. The largest US economic expansion happened in the early 1900s after the end of the civil war, during that time, Europe still had internal wars, colonies, and later WW1. US did not participate in any of that, instead, focused on industrialization and rapid economic expansion. Non of that was caused by government action, but by government INaction. At one point, JP Morgan and Andrew Carnegie alone had more wealth than the entire federal budget.

Is that why you have much higher profits now than any other time in your history?

WW1 and WW2 might something to do with it.

When Galveston, Texas was devastated by a hurricane in 1886, President Cleveland declined to provide federal assistance because the Constitution did not grant the federal government the authority to do that. At that time, the only part of the federal government most people ever came into contact with was the post office.

>First of all, tariffs do not constitute government interference in the markets or the economy
first of all, there is no need to redefine government interference in the markets, as anyone who has taken at least one course in macroeconomics would understand that tariffs do indeed constitute government interference in the markets by definition
>Second, for most of US history, tariffs were the only source for government revenue, because there was no income tax, or any tax for that matter. All free market economists agree that, tariffs are a better way to fund the government rather than taxing income and production, not to mention the fact that.
that's ok, and that may be true in a mixed economy like the US, im not against government interference, it's just that the entire second point contradicts the first thing you said above
>The largest US economic expansion happened in the early 1900s after the end of the civil war
this time is indeed famous for not being a free market, as capitalists of the time tried their damndest to create monopolized markets such as rockefeller's oil dynasty, and the only thing that was able to make the markets more free and minimize the entry barrier was to break up Standard oil through government interference
also, i found it very difficult to find any data to show GDP growth previous to 1929, so idk where you get your statistics, but pic related itself shows that the very much not free market era of which you speak was far more of a slow burn than the rapid economic growth around the wartime years

Attached: gdp.jpg (1600x1213, 256K)

That is not communism, Neger.

the catch more often than not is that the government is often disconnected, by wealth or other means, from being directly accountable to their populace and often can screw over their constituents
other than that, not much of a catch, the one thing being that the goal of nationalized industries tends to veer away from the capitalist goal of maximizing profits by maximizing revenue and minimizing costs, which can be good or bad, depending on your position

well i mean
is a tad bit socialist, if not gommie, nothing wrong with that mind you

I think during the great chicago fire there was no government assistance as well, but instead neighboring states and cities provided assistance.

Back then, people just did not felt the presence of any government authority, so there was no expectation for help either. Today, people see the government as a neutral authority run by angels immune to human incentives of self-interest, whose heavenly wisdom to run society and economic affairs is more reliable than individual choices.

Forget about history, if only people studied basic economic laws in school..supply and demand, how are prices determined, how are wages determined, what is productivity, what is wealth..

>so idk where you get your statistics, but pic related itself shows that the very much not free market era of which you speak was far more of a slow burn than the rapid economic growth around the wartime year

The Dow Jones didn't reach its 1928 level again until the 50s.

Roosevelt's trust-busting was more bark than bite because Standard Oil immediately got around it by creating mini Standard Oils in every state.

>Forget about history, if only people studied basic economic laws in school..supply and demand, how are prices determined, how are wages determined, what is productivity, what is wealth..

It takes a lot of knowledge and reading to understand how an economy works. The entire appeal of Marxism has always been to dumb people who cannot into economics and rely more on emotion than reasoning.

The economy was a lot freer in the 19th century, but it was also more unstable. There were depressions and panics in 1819, in 1837, in 1857, in 1873, in 1893, in 1907, in 1921, and finally in 1929. This was because of (mostly) the gold standard and economic and financial systems that were primitive by modern standards.

>The entire appeal of Marxism has always been to dumb people who cannot into economics and rely more on emotion than reasoning.
m8 wot, the entire point of marxism is an educated critique of capitalism, founded by essentially followers of Hegel's philosophic literature which for sure isn't for dumb people
if you ever bothered to read up on marxism or marx, you would find he spent an absurd amount of time studying the data of western economies during their industrialization in order to critique this new economic system
just because cherrypicked marxist maymays show stupid people doing stupid things doesnt mean the ideology didnt take a thoughtful and considered approach in critiquing capitalism

sufficient amount of low and high skilled workers

I guess it's because the US has 2 million white people.

Marx proved that while it's very easy to criticize capitalism, coming up with a viable alternative is harder and it has yet to be done to date.

>that's ok, and that may be true in a mixed economy like the US, im not against government interference, it's just that the entire second point contradicts the first thing you said above

It doesn't if you have a sense of proportion. It's one thing to have a tariff instead of income tax to fund the government. It's whole another story to have wage controls, minimum wage, welfare distribution, licenses, department of commerce designed to regulate trade, department of whatnot, tons of regulations, tons of taxes and so on.

--

Having a monopoly does not mean you don't have a free market. Google is a monopoly, and yet everybody is free to compete with them. It's just that they are the best, so they beat all the other competition. The famous example of Oil and Railway monopolies of the 1900s that socialists love to use is largely misunderstood. There was a monopoly, but it was not a government-caused monopoly. The railway industry succeeded the shipping transportation industry, which too was a monopoly. And the oil industry broke the monopoly of rail transportation of oil, and made gas and kerosene cheaper, allowing millions of Americans in the undeveloped West to light their houses.

hard work, peace, democracy, freedom, legal certainty, low taxes, few reasonable regulations, big internal market, smart foreign policy, efficient and strong institutions, strong and efficient army

>1929
That's when the US minimum class began to emerge AS A RESULT of the wealth accumulated by the previous 30 years of rapid industrialization. Beginning of the 30s, new kind of industries emerged -- the Ford Company revolutionized the mass production of cars, invented the assembly line which allowed other industries to increase their productivity and lower the costs of their products. From 1900s to the 30s, it was an economy of Oil, infrastructure, railway and metal. Beginning from the 30s up, new industries of mass production of consumer goods began.

MIDDLE CLASS, NOT minimum class. I CAN'T SPELL TODAY.

>American opens a bakery
>calls it a startup

Keep moving those goalposts after spouting BS.

>Beginning of the 30s, new kind of industries emerged -- the Ford Company revolutionized the mass production of cars, invented the assembly line which allowed other industries to increase their productivity and lower the costs of their products

That happened a lot earlier. Ford had pioneered assembly line car manufacturing a good 20 years before that.

>Having a monopoly does not mean you don't have a free market. Google is a monopoly, and yet everybody is free to compete with them.
except it does mean that you don't have a free market, literally taught in any first year economics course
if a single firm is large enough to be able to influence the price of any good or service, or the market does not have a completely free entry barrier (i.e. Standard Oil dropping their prices temporarily in a specific region in order to put any small firms out of business in the area, as they did a lot), then it is BY DEFINITION not a free market
>It doesn't if you have a sense of proportion. It's one thing to have a tariff instead of income tax to fund the government. It's whole another story to have wage controls, minimum wage, welfare distribution, licenses, department of commerce designed to regulate trade, department of whatnot, tons of regulations, tons of taxes and so on.
yes, one is a more free market than the other, but neither by definition is a completely free market
>Google is a monopoly, and yet everybody is free to compete with them.
because government interference has made it illegal to do things like i mentioned above with standard oil, it is indeed more of a fair market, but not a free market
>There was a monopoly, but it was not a government-caused monopoly.
why do you assume that whether or not the monopoly was government-caused changes that it was a monopoly that inherently disqualifies said market from being "free"?
>peace
havent they not been at war for 4 years or so of their entire history?