US is World's Most Competitive Economy for First Time in a Decade (wsj.com) 290
schwit1 shares a report: The U.S. is back on top as the most competitive country in the world, regaining the No. 1 spot for the first time since 2008 in an index produced by the World Economic Forum [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source], which said the country could still do better on social issues. America climbed one place in the rankings of 140 countries, with the top five rounded out by Singapore, Germany, Switzerland and Japan. All five countries' scores rose from 2017, with the U.S. notching the second-biggest gain after Japan's. [...] The Global Competitiveness Report this year assessed 140 countries on 98 indicators that measure business investment and productivity. The indicators are organized into 12 main drivers of productivity including the nations' institutions, tech savvy, infrastructure, education systems, market size and innovation.
We are tech savvy (Score:3)
Re: We are tech savvy (Score:5, Funny)
No we donâ(TM)t
Re: (Score:2)
This represent Slashdot's support of Unicode:
There's supposed to be a poop emoji at the end of my sentence above. It displays when I'm in the textarea but disappears when I click on preview.
Re: (Score:2)
This represent Slashdot's support of Unicode:
There's supposed to be a poop emoji at the end of my sentence above. It displays when I'm in the textarea but disappears when I click on preview.
Works fine for me.
We beat a country the size of California (Score:4, Funny)
Woo! Victory lap!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Also with the State of California (The Top State Economy in the US) carrying most of the country.
The United States is the 3rd most populated country and the 3rd/4th (Depending on how you measure it, and disputed border areas) largest in area country. We really shouldn't just be edging past these countries, we should be near dominate. The only other country with the resources to beat the US Economy would be China, Who is about the same size as the US in area however has a massive population.
For the most par
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I know the GOP Russians Trolls don't like research. But here is some data anyways [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, Russian communists are evil. But we need to vote in the domestic communists.
Re: (Score:2)
The religious child molestation problem
You seem to have blurred problems with Catholicism and Islam across all religions. Catholicism's problems seem to stem from the expectation of celibacy for priests, which attracts those with little interest in a conventional marriage, but Buddhism doesn't seem to have that problem, so that can't be the full answer.
Re: (Score:2)
"yellow diamond warning signs which read "CHURCH""
You kiiiiiiilllllll me!
Re: We beat a country the size of California (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We beat a country the size of California (Score:5, Insightful)
Also with the State of California (The Top State Economy in the US) carrying most of the country.
Is that what progressives tell themselves these days? Man, someone should add more robust programming to those NPCs, they're pretty repetitive.
Welcome to the Trump Economy. It's why Trump will be re-elected in 2024 and 2028. (2020 is a given.) You ready for the Red Tide in November?
Why wouldn't they? Seeing as how it's true. The Red states are mostly subsidised by the Blue ones (and Texas). Plus the country that sat at the top of the competitiveness scale over the las ten years was Switzerland so for the US to make it to the top once a decade is not really any kind of an achievement. Also, just to add insult to injury Socialist Sweden and Socialist Finland have been higher than the US on that competitiveness list for a good part of the last ten years.
P.S. There are term limits on POTUS. Unless Mitch McConnell manages to repeal amendment XXII to the US constitution orangutang-human hybrid* face will not be re-elected in 2028.
*If Trump can call women 'horse-face' it only seems fair that the rest of us can call him that, or 'orangutang face' for short.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read reports from ex-patriots of Sweden, Finland, Denmark and they call it "hell" because these countries cannot tolerate individualism. For example you buy yourself a BMW or Mercedes, your car will be keyed by your neighbors, to remind you "You are no better than we." If you try to express a contrary opinion, you get ostracized and home vandalized. Possibly arrested.
They are very oppressive societies.
I've read reports from ex-patriots of Sweden, Finland, Denmark and they call it "hell" because these countries cannot tolerate individualism. For example you buy yourself a BMW or Mercedes, your car will be keyed by your neighbors, to remind you "You are no better than we." If you try to express a contrary opinion, you get ostracized and home vandalized. Possibly arrested.
They are very oppressive societies.
That is a steaming load of horse shit, noting more, nothing less, just a big steaming pile of horse shit.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that a lot of people nowadays are ready for an emperor. 'Tis true that is how republics die. Reading through history I've always wondered if and when this "great experiment" that the US has been called would follow the path of other historical republics. I think we're well into oligarchy phase, and typically the next step is a civil war which enables all the power to be collected at the top, and people get tired of the war and follow someone, anyone, who can end it.
That will take a while, of course
Game Companies Never Update NPCs (Score:2)
The NPCs on slashdot will be using the same dialog trees until the site shuts down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Without the 16th amendment, any income tax must be sent to the states, proportional to population. (Same reason there's no federal sales tax today).
Corruption of the Senate seems perfectly optimized for the current system. Flipping back to appointment by the states would confuse all the lobbyists for a while, and give us many years until we come full cycle. Plus all those lobbyists would have to actually (gasp!) visit flyover red states in order to bribe all the state governments. Do them good to get ou
Re: (Score:2)
Back when the Senate was appointed directly by the States, many times the states just left seats empty. It was a broken setup & restoring what had previously not worked, would be illogical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for the 17th was that the huge corporations of the day has optimized fully on bribing the state governments t get the senators they wanted. Flipping over to direct election reset that for a few decades. Flipping back will help, for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, Alberta is communist by US political standards, with their public healthcare and environmental regulations. Ontario is off the charts!
MAGA bitch! (Score:1, Informative)
That's whats up!
Still a trade deficit (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has had a trade deficit since the '70s, and still does. What is the value of 'most competitive' if you have to borrow money from the rest of the world in order to pay for your imports ?
Re: (Score:2)
The US doesn't borrow, it prints.
Re: (Score:2)
1 BTC = USD$1,000,000 is coming sooner than we thought!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the money is printed as a result of a new loan.
Re:Still a trade deficit (Score:5, Insightful)
You realise you don't borrow money from the rest of the Worlds to pay for imports, don't you?
The trade deficit thing is a red herring. If the economy is doing well, people will buy more stuff and some of that comes from abroad.
Also, although money flows out of the country, goods flow in. For example, Trump seems very concerned about paying for Chinese steel. Well, yes, you've sent a load of cash to China, but they have sent you a load of steel and if they are dumping it at below cost, you've actually got a pretty good deal and it will benefit all of the industries in the USA that use steel. Everybody benefits except the US steel industry, which is actually a pretty small part of the economy compared to all the parts that will benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, although money flows out of the country, goods flow in
Money is nothing but a standardized form of IOU. The US dollar is valuable, only because it carries a promise to the recipient that they can give back the money to the US, in return for something (goods, labour) of equal value. If you keep promising for decade after decade, and never return goods of equal value, you're borrowing for imported goods, just like a drunk is borrowing from the bar when he lets the tab run up and never pays it back.
we will, we will ROC you (Score:2)
Apparently, you don't think America is renting machines that print money.
Apparently, you do think America is renting machines that spew giant piles of filth, that all has to be immediately carted off to the nearest landfill, at great expense.
Into which category goes a DVD? If it's a Gladiator DVD, soon enough it does go to the landfill, where it properly belongs (how did that abomination ever win Best Picture?)
However, if it's an instructional DVD titled "Machine Learning for Dummies"—though it might
Re: (Score:2)
US treasury bonds are the GOOD part of Chinese bank's reserves.
Let that sink in, their other debts are worse. That's what happens when the bank can't say no to children of central committee members.
Re: (Score:3)
Everybody benefits except the US steel industry, which is actually a pretty small part of the economy compared to all the parts that will benefit.
And the workers, whose wages have remained flat during this period. The corporations are making more money, and as usual, they are giving all the profit to executives and none of it to the workers. It's an outright lie to suggest that everyone benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't fix the deficit by fiat. You do it by making trade and production within your borders efficient so that it trends in the better direction.
China did a great job at that, they kept all the production to themselves, with low or non-existent export taxes they made themselves more competitive than any other country, attracting industry and lifting their own people out of poverty. Saudi-Arabia is currently trying to do the same thing for high-tech business because they know oil is inherently unstable, e
Re: (Score:2)
You do it by making trade and production within your borders efficient
Yes, and that's what I would call 'competitive'. The ability to create products that the rest of the world desires enough to buy them from you.
779 billion dollars deficit (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed... 779 billion dollars deficit for the first year of the Trump administration.
That's between tax breaks for the rich and spending even more on "defense".
Guess who's going to have to pay that back? I'll bet it won't be Trump's rich friends.
Re:779 billion dollars deficit (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama was VERY clever. He claimed that 2% GDP growth was the new normal, and then triggered the 4% GDP to only happen once he got out of office. I tip my hat for his forethought
http://www.aei.org/publication... [aei.org]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
There are no keynesians. Keynesians save during good times.
All we have is spenders with an excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed... 779 billion dollars deficit for the first year of the Trump administration.
That's between tax breaks for the rich and spending even more on "defense".
Guess who's going to have to pay that back? I'll bet it won't be Trump's rich friends.
Well, that isn't surprising since 'world's most competitive' economy has become a synonym for 'best at letting the rich screw the citizenry'.
Re: (Score:2)
A larger deficit is now considered a good thing. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: (Score:3)
You know there's a difference between a TRADE deficit, and the budget deficit, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Times are better than they ever have been before in terms of longevity, health, and average wealth. Our primary health problem is too much cheap, energetic food, a novelty for economists, who historically thought in tems of calories produced per person and dollars per calorie as measures of lifting fom dirt-floor poverty.
And yet we are spending as much per person as we did in 1943, the height of World War 2, when the US was engaged in a massive war on two fronts and was building one new major ship per week
Re: (Score:2)
you have to borrow money from the rest of the world in order to pay for your imports?
The US foreign debt situation is actually pretty good.
There is a persistent trope that the US owes tons of money to foreign governments, but it is incorrect. Most US debt is held by US citizens. Wikipedia lists foreign bond holders at 34% right now. That isn't huge, and it isn't a bad thing even if it was. The more invested foreign governments are in your currency the safer your currency becomes. It means everyone on the planet has a vested interest in the US economy doing well. It means if you want t
Re: (Score:2)
The ticking time bomb is the SS trust. Full of junk bonds.
When those can't be rolled over, we're screwed. Should have already happened, but the fed has been buying the bonds left at the end of every auction. Putting them on both sides of the transaction.
Re: (Score:3)
The language of "trade deficits" is exactly the wrong way around.
The rest of the world gives you *actual things which are useful* and you only have to give them a piece of paper (or even better, increment a number in a database) in return. I know who I think wins in that equation.
Re: (Score:2)
Chumps!
We can't possibly pay, without minting a few trillion dollar coins.
But yeah, the world in general has not saved for the baby boomers retirement. We might do OK, if another major currency goes pop first.
Meaningless (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like another of those bullshit evaluations in which you can make the order come out how you like depending what weight you attach to the measured parameters - even assuming they are measured correctly (or guessed) in the first place. For example, FTFA :
This year the WEF changed its methodology to better account for ... [blah blah, blah .....]
Re: (Score:3)
If it were one off, yes. But because this is standardised over time and the parameters are fixed over time, the metric travels well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
God clearly doesn't want us to burn oil, or he wouldn't have buried it almost entirely under assholes and terrorists.
You mean, here [bloomberg.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because my point was that even if burning oil has NO environmental harms, my follow up argument says that we should act in the exact same way for other reasons.
You're no fun. I am playfully reversing the reality for comical effect. The reality I speak of is that economies based on extr
No sense of irony whatever... (Score:2, Interesting)
From the first article:
"The last time the U.S. topped the list was 2008".
I rest my case.
Re:No sense of irony whatever... (Score:4, Insightful)
Change we can believe in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No sense of irony whatever... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Soooooooo (Score:5, Insightful)
Analogically speaking... That's like saying that the ONE olympic star on television winning medals is representative that everyone sitting on their couch eating potato chips watching them perform, are also winning medals.
What is a competitive economy really when for thirty or fourty years, the economy of the PEOPLE has been GUTTED by the corporations and politics supporting them?
Fucking hogwash!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Everybody is better off. Yes, the divide between the rich and poor is growing bigger, but all the US "poor" are pretty much nearing the middle class as far as the global economy is concerned. The poor are rich, they're just comparatively less rich than the very rich.
Pointing out the divide between rich and poor in the US is not about inequality or living in squalor conditions but about jealousy.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody is better off. Yes, the divide between the rich and poor is growing bigger, but all the US "poor" are pretty much nearing the middle class as far as the global economy is concerned. The poor are rich, they're just comparatively less rich than the very rich.
The "middle class" is not "the middle third of the nation". It's the middle of three classes, and Americans are dropping out of it [fool.com], not achieving it. The shrinkage has paused momentarily due to our energy costs plummeting as we move to natgas, but that increased natgas production is predicated upon fracking which is ultimately going to harm the lower and middle class.
Re: (Score:2)
Concentration of great power and resources has never been so fluent either. It's not the same aristocrat family anymore holding all the power and wealth, people traverse up and down that spectrum from poor to ultra rich.
Yes, your children and their children may be better off but beyond even your own generation it's not guaranteed anymore that all of them will stay rich.
Re: (Score:3)
Which of the poor have to die at 20 in a coal mine? That's what poor used to mean. Now poor just means you may have to skimp on your cell phone or cable plan or drive an old Toyota vs a new BMW.
Re: (Score:2)
We spend millions a year on free obesity related healthcare for the 'poor' in the USA.
Globally someone can be fat OR poor, not both.
Re: (Score:3)
I've had times in my life several times where I had no income, no money, no credit and no place to live. I know what being poor and homeless means, both in the US and the EU.
I also know that in many cases, those people living in those places are there for a reason, giving them more handouts doesn't help them. I came from a family like that, my abusive stepfather never wanted to work, always on some scheme to rip off the government whether it was disability or unemployment and running scams on everyone, incl
Federal Reserve Act (Score:5, Insightful)
With so many pretending that they actually know how the economy works please find US Federal Reserve Act [federalreserve.gov].
I'm still trying to figure it out myself. Somehow though, I think presidents are more the tail than they are the dog.
Weed is now legal in Canada (Score:2)
That should help our productivity! :)
All kidding aside, the takeaway I get from looking at the Canadian numbers, is that the lowest scores that hurt our "productivity" are the "ICT Adoption", which is basically the number of subscriptions per capita of cellular and internet services. Which isn't a huge surprise when you look at how expensive and noncompetitive our telecommunication industry is (Rogers, Bell, and Telus) compared to the rest of the world. To which Canadian's have been complaining about for ye
Re: But how much money is "wasted" (Score:2, Insightful)
LOL @ gender studies. Ohh the stupid hurts!
Re: Job creator in office = #MAGA (Score:2, Informative)
This seems relevant:
https://www.tni.org/en/publication/who-does-the-world-economic-forum-really-represent
Re:Job creator in office = #MAGA (Score:5, Informative)
If we enter a recession within the next 2 or 6 years, and especially if Obama-era stimulus isn't feasible due to already low interest rates and increased debt & deficits, will you assign any of the blame to Trump?
I'm guessing it'll all be democrats fault, even if they control only the house and can't pass legislation. Even if Republicans manage to hold onto the house and senate next month, will you somehow still try to assign the blame for any downturn to wild conspiracy theories involving Hillary Clinton?
If this current ~3% annual growth, which began back in mid-2009 during Obama's first term, continues with interruption for 6 more years, then Trump will indeed deserve substantial credit, regardless of how distasteful his personality and how childish his Twitter rants may be.
But at this moment, when the USA is most able to pay down its massive accumulated debt and put itself on a financially sound course, Trump and republicans (who repeatedly called for a balanced budget when democrats held power) are racking up huge deficits that are just piling on more debt. They're deregulating the financial sector, which has allowed massive buildup of consumer and student debt. Massive consumer debt, overly leveraged by the deregulated financial "industry" is what caused the great recession 10 years ago (near the end of Bush's tenure). Collectively we all should have learned a lesson, but sadly it seems we didn't.
Re:Job creator in office = #MAGA (Score:4, Informative)
If this current ~3% annual growth, which began back in mid-2009 during Obama's first term
It did? I don't see a single year [statista.com] that reached 3% since 2005.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the democrats fault for drinking the horrible koolaid of the fringe far left with their "privilege plus power" crap and getting the establishment terminator shaped like a old women to run.
If they purge those things from their side, they will annihilate trump in 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the US economy continues to grow without a substantial recession for the next 6 years, it will be in spite of Trump, not because of him. His war on trade has already caused serious, lasting harm to the US economy (short version: international trade relationships require that both companies and foreign countries can trust US behavior, but Trump's behavior is wildly erratic and unpredictable, meaning that the end result will likely be a large drop in US imports and exports, with the overall US trade defici
President vs. Economy Myth (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line is Presidents have a relatively small short-term impact on the economy. The boom/bust cycle has been showing its face for more than a 100 years and I doubt any President can stop the cycle; only tweak it around the edges (not always in good ways).
Economies are also affected by other nations' economies, OPEC decisions, and war.
Presidents do affect things like deficits and regulations, but these typically won't change the economy much in the short term.
(I suppose deregulation can act as a stimulus, but it's not fun to be poisoned even if it increases profits for somebody else. Birth defects and injuries do improve medical economies just as breaking windows increases repair jobs. But if enough people are poisoned with heavy metals or hurt on the job, our economy won't be competitive.)
Re: (Score:2)
Economies are also affected by other nations' economies, OPEC decisions, and war.
Agreed. The US president has a very significant say in the last of those 3 items. I submit that the "great recession" was directly caused (or at least exaggerated and lengthened) by Bush Jr wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Job creator in office = #MAGA (Score:5, Informative)
But yeah, keep harping on the unemployment figure, because that's what most important. And to still think Trump has any business savvy whatsoever, after he underperformed the market, lied about being self-made, got bailed out by his father countless times... ugh, the delusion.
Re:Job creator in office = #MAGA (Score:5, Insightful)
Plunged after the election? Are you blind or lying, that graph shows a nearly perfect linear decrease from 01/10 to 01/18; long before the election.
So GDP increased substantially but wage growth only beat inflation by 1%? And you think this is evidence against corporations reaping the benefits of the tax break without doing much for the rank and file why exactly?
DJIA/NASDAQ are up which is benefiting large investors, you're just making my point for me now.
You really want to argue that manufacturing is going to be anywhere near the levels it based on that growth? At the rate it grew it would take decades to reach where it was before the crash that started in 2000.
So let's see, your argument consisted of ignoring context, then lying, then listing 3 items that you didn't realize supported my complaint about the tax cuts, then made an argument that ignored absolute numbers, and to top it all off, insisted the facts actually supported your fantasy. Yup, that's a conservative argument. If you're already wealthy there's no doubt you're experiencing a great windfall in the Trump economy, but it's not trickling down this time either... shocker.
Re: (Score:2)
The economy was in bad shape when Bush left office because years earlier the Democrat-controlled Congress prevented financial reform that Bush wanted. (You can thank Barney Frank for that disaster.) The worst that can be honestly said of Bush is that he was a weak President who couldn't get around the opposition's obstructionism.
Obama's recovery merely got us back to where things were at their best under Bush, and it took 8 years to do that, because his policies retarded economic growth. That's not a good r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You believe in the market?
Yes? Then there is no "Job Creator". There are people who purchase products from people who make products. Those who make products would not make them ( and hence would not "create jobs" ) if it were not for those people purchasing products. All the "Job Creator" does is stand in the middle and collect.
Job creation is based on demand which is based on purchasing, which is based, by and large, on massive numbers of people.
Re:Job creator in office = #MAGA (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when you put a true entrapeneur, and verified job creator with business savvy and acumen, into office rather than the career politicians we are used to that simply are trying to stretch things out for a nice pension. Trump has brought old school competitive spirit and American agressiveness back into the White House. Say what you will about his personality or personal decisions but the man is a bulldog when it comes to business and all Americans are now reaping the rewards with record low jobless rates, more job openings than there are people to fill them, and record low taxes. It's simply amazing to me when I think about what is going to be possible with 6 more years of this environment.
You overestimate the amount of control a US president has over the economy. All that Trump did is lower taxes, and while this will always provide a short-term boost to any economy, at this current time I think it was a bad move.
The reason is that the economy is already showing signs of overheating. Look at the NASDAQ and DOW over the last 10 years: up, up, up. The economy was already improving greatly after the financial crisis during the Obama years. There is so much cash moving around, the stock markets have basically exploded and are overdue for a big correction. The last thing you want to do in a situation like this, is infuse even more money into the economy. It will just delay the correction and make the resulting crash and shock to the economy that much harder. Also, the tax cuts will further increase the already immense pile of debt. So what Trump is doing is buying a short-term economic boost that is not needed and actually detrimental over the medium term with more debt for future generations.
You can call that genius entrepreneurship, but really you don't need to be a genius to know that tax cuts boost the economy. What matters is the timing and the context, which in my opinion couldn't be worse right now.
But I'm sure we will see the results of that pretty soon. Maybe in time for Trumps reelection(?).
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when you put a true entrapeneur, ...
How does it go with the $779 bln budged deficit in 2018 - being competitive does not exclude being broke.
Re: (Score:3)
You’re repeating old fake news. Bush never said that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny how that gets repeated even though the last time we were number 1 was 2008.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice fiction. Under Obama, the economy added 11.6 million jobs, and brought employment down to below-average levels. In fact, by every metric I'm aware of, the economy did well under Obama.
Trump, apart from a lot of bluster and some ill-conceived tariffs, has done remarkably little to affect the economy, so it makes sense that it s continuing to improve as it did under Obama. Sometimes, the right thing to do is nothing.
Re: Job creator in office #MAGA (Score:4, Informative)
You might think these are just economist talking points but they have significant effect on economic growth and quality of life for each country, and Trump is clearly winning here.
Re: (Score:2)
Your patoine and lumber industries are healthy!
Too bad you're too far north to grow really good pot outdoors. It's really hard to cover costs under lights, much less make a profit (at typical wholesale price in legal states).
Re: (Score:2)
The Economy was rebounding under Obama due to the cyclical nature of the economy. There's nothing he could of done save launching the entire nuclear arsenal at his own citizens to stop this upturn.
Re: (Score:2)
The general consensus is that the economy takes a long time to change direction, and as such, any economic motion during the first year or two of any presidency is primarily due to momentum.
Or, to put it another way, we blamed the weak economy during Obama's first year or two on Bush. Why should Trump be held to a different standard just because the economy is going in a positive direction?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not entirely true. The President nominates someone to head the Federal Reserve, which is a position that wields a lot of power over the economy. Fortunately, Trump seems to have accidentally nominated somebody who he doesn't really agree with, so we're okay there. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
“Thermonuclear war not quite as imminent as it used to be” is still a long way from “reuniting Korea.”
Re: WHO built that? (Score:2)
The real answer is neither. The increased competiveness of the US economy has come from cheaper energy prices which has come from fracked gas. Even if you got rid of all the regulations on coal, fracked gas would still be cheaper. There is of course a time lag from the availability of the cheap fracked gas to the increase in competiveness but nothing either party or any president has done has had a bearing on it. Well other than allowing the fracking. The only way to bring back coal is to stop the fracking
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: The "Those jobs are never coming back" quote was from Steve Jobs when Obama asked him if iPhones can be made in the USA. It wasn't Obama who coined the phrase. Source: https://www.heraldtribune.com/... [heraldtribune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is our banks are significantly more capitalized (they have more cash and cash equivalent assets) and less leveraged (they have less debt per dollar) than in the last crash. If true, those are significant fixes to the major contributors to the 2007 financial crisis. What data are you looking at?