This is a factually untrue statement.
No it isn't.
The US has outperformed most of the world's economies over the last 25 years, especially most of the European economies.
That my be true, but it is in spite of, not because of the asinine tax code. You are arguing apples v. oranges. Most of the world's "advanced" economies face much worse taxation burden, regulatory, entitlement and demographic problems than we do.
That is true. But it is totally unrelated to the truthfullness of Mr. Linder's statement. Apples and oranges again.
code caused inefficiencies may at some point cause a decline in our global competitiveness, but it hasn't happened yet.
Oh, tht's right, we still produce a great big shate of the electronic products market, cars, aircraft parts, textiles, etc., etc., etc.
It may never happen ....
It already has.
... as a free market is remarkably adaptable.
Very true, but it can and has adapted to our stupid, confiscatory tax code by moving a very great percentage of our industry, and hundreds of thousands of our jobs, OUT OF OUR COUNTRY -- at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars annually to our economy.
Unless somebody can point out some large group of nations that is dramatically outperforming us, the claim is a bunch of hooey.
Just A couple -- take a trip to Wa;Mart and check out wht percentage of their goods is produced in the US versus foreign countries. MOST OF IT USED TO BE PRODUCED HERE.
On your way to WalMart, check out the number of cars ACTUALLY PRODUCED AND ASSEMBLED IN THIS COUNTRY v. those from out of country. All of that was not caused byu greedy union; a very large part of the blame goes to tax code theft by Uncle Sam. FWIW, the coming thing in Europe is an attempt to imitate economic vitality of the US. Thus the election of Merkel and Sarkozy.
FWIW I think you had better go bact to the article and read the part about Ireland.
We no longer produce many things in this country because they can be produced more cost-effectively overseas and imported.
This is not necessarily a problem.
In 1800 90% of our population was employed producing food. Today it’s <1%. Is this a problem?
In 1800 the wholesale price of a tonne of wheat, adjusted for inflation, was close to $1000 (which is why small inefficient family farms were viable, by the standards of the day). Today it’s near $20. Is this a problem? Would we be wealthier today if most people still worked producing food? Or does the less expensive food allow people to spend their greatly increased income on other goods and services, thereby providing others with entirely new, and realistically much more gratifying, types of employment?
The same applies to manufacturing. It went overseas because it could be produced for less there. If it had been restricted from doing so, the total wealth of our society would be much lower, and the total number of people employed in manufacturing would still have dropped precipitously. Manufacturers would have just invested more in labor saving equipment, productivity would have increased, and the number of workers would have dropped, although those remaining on the payroll would have been better compensated.
As long as the present worldwide system of trade continues in effect, we should continue to be good to go. There have been numerous claims that the US (and world) economy is about to collapse. I’ve been reading them since the 70s. Their historical accuracy rate is right up there with those predicting imminent environmental collapse.
If predicted long enough, will somebody probably be right eventually? Sure, but reimposition of draconian trade restrictions is perhaps the best of all possible ways to cause a world economic collapse.
With so much manufacturing overseas, will we be in a pickle in the event of a major war? You bet, but then so will all our potential enemies, although perhaps in different ways. No country is an island today.
I’m always amazed by the number of “conservatives” who seem to believe that the free market should stop at the water’s edge, that US citizens should be prohibited from doing business with someone if they live in Mexico or India.
The author made claims about the performance of our system as compared to that of other countries.
I am merely pointing out that other countries have their own problems competing. Most of these are considerably greater than those facing the USA.
We have a pretty good system compared to other countries.
I'm not claiming it's the best of all possible systems or that changes wouldn't improve it.
I'm claiming that other countries have even greater problems competing.