Why Has the US Dropped to 6th As Most Globally Competitive ?

Depends on how competitiveness is measured.

Sounds like competitive in that study is based on how many social programs exist.

If those countries are so competitive, why do they produce so little? Finland has Nokia. Denmark has..what?  Switzerland makes what? Do they even have an industrial base at this point?

Switzerland doesn't have to. No one can match them on the efficiency of their banking services. Denmark and Finland do seem a little odd though.

Maybe it's based on open markets for financial services or prices for financial services?

EDIT: Here's why. From the article:

"With a low savings rate, record-high current account deficits and a worsening of the U.S. net debtor position, there is a non-negligible risk to both the country's overall competitiveness and, given the relative size of the U.S. economy, the future of the global economy."

lmao... Finland? Funny study, methinks it is highly skewed. I can't really begin to see a day when the US would consider nations with the populations of large metropolitan areas as being "competition" for anything much.

Finland had a 2.2% growth rate in 2005. Their GDP is a fraction of California's. Scandinavia in general has a problem with declining population and immigration of their people to other nations.

So, I think to answer your question, the US hasn't become the 6th most competitive, Walter Middy-Knutsen is just having his little fantasy. If you want to look at competitive, look at China, though most people wouldn't be able to stomach what makes them successful.

"With a low savings rate, record-high current account deficits and a worsening of the U.S. net debtor position, there is a non-negligible risk to both the country's overall competitiveness and, given the relative size of the U.S. economy, the future of the global economy."

That is pretty specious reasoning on their part.

From a PRIDE point of view, I don't like a trade deficit. But it doesn't make the US less competitive (IMO).

The low savings rate I don't see how that affects US competitiveness either.

I don't really understand their metrics.

It seems to me that competitiveness has to do with a country's ability to produce products, goods, and services profitable relative to other countries trying to produce the same thing. And I don't see a scenario where Denmark is at the top of such a list.

I wouldn't put the US at the top of such a list either. But I'd put it way above any European country.

If investment is a factor then I can see why current accounts deficits and and debt status would be influential. Those can lead to to instability or a fall in the dollar and that would devalue your investments, making the US less globally competitive compared to more stable economic arenas like Switzerland.

I think we'd have to see the figures to really get behind the whys and wherefores of this decision, but I think Bakerstreet was right about one thing - it's probably as much a result of the compiler's desire to tweak the US.

I think Europeans who desire to tweak the US vastly underestimate American arrogance. 

Americans, generally, really and truly don't care what other countries think about it.

American ignorance combined with its own self-confidence is sometimes an interesting combination: Oh no, some guy I've never heard of from a country I've never heard of thinks the US isn't as competitive as some tiny little country down there in Europe...

Depends on how competitiveness is measured.

Funny study, methinks it is highly skewed.

That is pretty specious reasoning on their part.

Americans, generally, really and truly don't care what other countries think about it.

Yep, these about sum it up. It's a bullshit "study".

Americans, generally, really and truly don't care what other countries think about it.

Unless it's the French, and then they care beyond all rationality. Odd, that.

Yep, these about sum it up. It's a bullshit "study".

Not necessarily. None of us are experts in international business. The findings could be completely valid given the criteria of the research. But it might not be a very useful study if it thinks the US is a greater investment risk than Denmark.

To be big in business you have to have business in the US - it's the largest market in the world. It may be easier in Denmark, but you don't make trillions that way. So the study becomes less useful.

Not necessarily. None of us are experts in international business. The findings could be completely valid given the criteria of the research. But it might not be a very useful study if it thinks the US is a greater investment risk than Denmark.

Nope. It's a bullshit study.

Unless it's the French, and then they care beyond all rationality. Odd, that.

Who gives a rat's ass what the Frogs think?

With all the above comments, so far, if I were to summarize, the study is just..a European conspiracy (?) Is that it ?

The only thing disturbing is that this WEF Global Competitiveness Index was the same one that placed the US as No. 1 for more than a decade . During those times, we never viewed this Index as" a result of the compiler's desire to tweak the US." What factors played in during this recent period that shook the US position to be an investment risk ?

Unless it's the French, and then they care beyond all rationality. Odd, that.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you believe Americans care what the French think? (Was it perchance the "freedom fries?" )

(My take on American Zeitgeist is that we think the French are a joke -- you know, now that we're all buddy-buddy with the English again. )

Not necessarily. None of us are experts in international business.

Speak for yourself.

Not necessarily. None of us are experts in international business. The findings could be completely valid given the criteria of the research. But it might not be a very useful study if it thinks the US is a greater investment risk than Denmark.

I am reminded of the quote: Statistics dont lie, but liars use statistics. Yes, one can take a peek at any numbers they want to prove their point. It is all in how you define the claim.

"Statistics dont lie, but liars use statistics. Yes, one can take a peek at any numbers they want to prove their point. It is all in how you define the claim." - Dr. Guy

In this particular case (WEF Global Competitive Index), would you then say that their statistics "lied" too when they made the US the most (No. 1)globally competitive nation for more than a decade before their most recent official survey ? If the answer is "no", but we say that their statistics are "lying" now, would that not just dismiss the whole thing as a "European conspiracy"?

would that not just dismiss the whole thing as a "European conspiracy"?

Sure, why not?