Steyn on the world: best Canadian writer!!

[HOZ]

Honestly this guy is a gem for writers. Proudly Canadian and read world wide. Another Canuck to be proud of!!!!

Slamming those that need it! From Bush to Bananada!!!!!

Some quotes
of the ten richest countries in the world, only four have populations bigger than one million — the US (296 million), Switzerland (7 million), Norway (4.5 million) and Singapore (3 million). The Americans are the exception that proves the rule: they’re a highly decentralised federation. As Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spolaore observe in The Size Of Nations, if America were as centrally governed as France, it would have bust up decades ago.

Vladimir Putin, as befits an old KGB hand, was waxing nostalgic. ‘The demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,’ he declared. ‘For the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.’

Well, why don’t they come home? If there’s one thing Russia could use, it’s more Russians. The country is midway through its transition from ‘superpower’ to ghost town.


The Saudis are under a lot more pressure than they were back then — hence Abdullah’s feints towards faux ‘reform’. Nonetheless, only the other day the chief justice and big Abdullah sidekick was captured on video urging Saudi men to go to Iraq and fight the Americans — and still the Crown Prince gets ranch privileges from Bush.

His bet
Boy Assad will be gone before the end of Bush’s presidency; Crown Prince Abdullah will be lucky to ride out even his faux reforms; but even the naysayers have begun to accept that the Middle East is going Bush’s way. The real foreign-policy challenges in the immediate future are the stagnant EU, poor doomed Russia and China’s incoherent market-communism. If you were betting on only one happy ending, I’d take China

Steyn

[Agamemnon]

Boy Assad will be gone before the end of Bush’s presidency; Crown Prince Abdullah will be lucky to ride out even his faux reforms; but even the naysayers have begun to accept that the Middle East is going Bush’s way. The real foreign-policy challenges in the immediate future are the stagnant EU, poor doomed Russia and China’s incoherent market-communism. If you were betting on only one happy ending, I’d take China

So... this guy thinks the EU is 'stagnant'? That's a strange comment; the EU is the most dynamic and experimental of the world's transnational organizations. The level of integration it is pursuing (along a steady course) is unprecedented. The EU's diplomatic power has been increasing handily over the last decade. It is also 'coherent' enough to have representatives involved in all the major world issues, including Iran, Iraq, Africa, Fmr Yugoslavia, etc.

What is the basis of the 'richest' states at the top of his rant? Per capita? How many rich states under a million people are there? Monaco? Lichtenstein?

What's so great about this guy that makes him a 'gem'?

[Looger]

because he enters and leaves subjects at lightning pace, making him sound SMRT.

[dustygoon]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 10 2005, 02:15 PM

So... this guy thinks the EU is 'stagnant'? That's a strange comment; the EU is the most dynamic and experimental of the world's transnational organizations. The level of integration it is pursuing (along a steady course) is unprecedented. The EU's diplomatic power has been increasing handily over the last decade. It is also 'coherent' enough to have representatives involved in all the major world issues, including Iran, Iraq, Africa, Fmr Yugoslavia, etc.

What is the basis of the 'richest' states at the top of his rant? Per capita? How many rich states under a million people are there? Monaco? Lichtenstein?

What's so great about this guy that makes him a 'gem'?

The EU is the result of a French and German invasion of its neighbours without firing a shot.

The "stability and growth pact" is a load of shinguard. France and Germany set the 3% deficit to GDP target and warned of consequences to those states that could not meet the threshold, but when their own economies breached the target within 2 years enacting the target, they were quick to change laws to allow some mulligans.

The inability of Euro countries to implement meaningfull structural change to ridiculous subsidies to farmers is sickening. Euros love to wax poetic when it comes to African aid but these subsidized ag products render African agriculture unable to compete.

France's answer to the competitive advantage enjoyed by the UK is to tell the UK to enforce laws to cap the maximum work week at 35 hours!

Germany is facing deflation. They have had GDP growth over 2% ONCE in the last 10 years.

I love spending time in Europe but they have their problems too.

Oh ya......600 French doctor's are on strike and have gone to the UK.

French docs in camber sands

[Agamemnon]

The EU is the result of a French and German invasion of its neighbours without firing a shot.

You might think that, but most of Europe doesn't. In fact, nearly all of Eastern Europe is practically weeping with joy to be a part of this western, democratic institution (especially considering their histories). Also, Germany and France are large, powerful countries. I'd be surprised if Belgium and Greece were leading the group. It makes sense that, in an economic union, those with the largest economies should have significant sway. I haven't heard a lot of Euro's lamenting their being 'conquered' by France and Germany. If you want to see conquering, take a look at the Middle East. That's conquering.

The "stability and growth pact" is a load of shinguard. France and Germany set the 3% deficit to GDP target and warned of consequences to those states that could not meet the threshold, but when their own economies breached the target within 2 years enacting the target, they were quick to change laws to allow some mulligans.

Well, they instituted the policy to keep debt/deficit-spending under control. They hit a rocky time, and had to be flexible. If oil went to $5 a barrel, Alberta might have to go back into deficit spending, despite King Ralph's assurances that this would never happen again. Would he be a jerk? No. The price of oil would be low, necessitating flexibility. This is not a bad thing.

The inability of Euro countries to implement meaningfull structural change to ridiculous subsidies to farmers is sickening. Euros love to wax poetic when it comes to African aid but these subsidized ag products render African agriculture unable to compete.

Sure. Except when you say 'Euro', I think you mean, 'The First World', because Canadians and Americans are just as guilty of ridiculous agricultural subsidies. I don't see how the EU is responsible for the ills of the developed world. Part of the problem? Sure. The cause of it? No.

France's answer to the competitive advantage enjoyed by the UK is to tell the UK to enforce laws to cap the maximum work week at 35 hours!

The UK is (and always has been, as is every country) free to opt out of the EU. If they feel they'd do better on their own, thats their right. Notice, however, that they have not. Isn't that saying something?

Oh ya......600 French doctor's are on strike and have gone to the UK.

So? Nurses leave Canada in the droves for the States, employment shifts, and with increasing Globalization, the shifts are intra-country more and more over inter-country. Hardly a point against the EU.

Their a dynamic, re-born entity and they'll be huge players in this century. North America's decline will be simultaneous w/ Chinese and EU ascendancy. Should be fun to watch the 3-way!

[tjinaz]

Wow that is a pretty rosy picture.

Considering both France and Germany are at double digit unemployment numbers, have stagnant economies and are set to pay out more in pension benefits than they will take in from workers within the next 3 years and they are the stronger economies says alot.

I see the EU having to go through the same painful restructuring that the UK did under Thatcher. Except they face a revolt if they try to do make any changes to the social welfare model. Also look at the services model. I can guarantee that western Europe will not allow the workers from the eastern part of the EU to compete for work in their home countries. That would force efficiency and competition and that is not allowed to happen within the EU.

The real competition will be between China and the US. China is shaping up to be a very dynamic economy but they lack the infrastructure of the US and will not have it for many years. Also it remains to be seen what the effect of wealth will have on the Chinese people. Will they remain happy with Communism or will there be a large scale social upheaval as they raise their expectations.

[Agamemnon]

Wow that is a pretty rosy picture.

Considering both France and Germany are at double digit unemployment numbers, have stagnant economies and are set to pay out more in pension benefits than they will take in from workers within the next 3 years and they are the stronger economies says alot.

Yup. Same boat as the USA, it certainly says a lot.

I see the EU having to go through the same painful restructuring that the UK did under Thatcher. Except they face a revolt if they try to do make any changes to the social welfare model. Also look at the services model. I can guarantee that western Europe will not allow the workers from the eastern part of the EU to compete for work in their home countries. That would force efficiency and competition and that is not allowed to happen within the EU.

This assumes that the EU _must_ develop economically in the traditional model. Given that this is the 21st century, it is not _necessary_ that the EU follow traditional economics. The new service-based economy will mean very different avenues to economic growth and dominance than the Industrial Revolution sported.

I'd also really like to know how you 'guarentee' that worker fluidity will not take place. Its already in the works in the EU (hell, EU citizenship ring a bell?) and will be reality shortly. I'd like to collect on your guarentee.

The real competition will be between China and the US. China is shaping up to be a very dynamic economy but they lack the infrastructure of the US and will not have it for many years. Also it remains to be seen what the effect of wealth will have on the Chinese people. Will they remain happy with Communism or will there be a large scale social upheaval as they raise their expectations.

If there was going to be large scale social upheaval (above and beyond the current level), its news to the analysts. China seems to be developing very nicely, and has kept their incredibly rapid growth in check through measured, intelligent economic moves. There are already millionaires in China, so its not like Capitalism has yet to show its impact. It will be a top-down democratic revolution, led by the corporations that China fosters. I predict a fairly seemless transition from old-school Maoist Communism to New Age State-Centred Capitalism. Russia screwed it up by trying to reform everything at once. China is showing its wisdom in focusing solely on economic reform before tackling significant political change.

To ignore the EU as a major player in this century is to willingly wear blinders. No idea why someone would do that.

[tjinaz]

This assumes that the EU _must_ develop economically in the traditional model. Given that this is the 21st century, it is not _necessary_ that the EU follow traditional economics. The new service-based economy will mean very different avenues to economic growth and dominance than the Industrial Revolution sported.

I'd also really like to know how you 'guarentee' that worker fluidity will not take place. Its already in the works in the EU (hell, EU citizenship ring a bell?) and will be reality shortly. I'd like to collect on your guarentee.

If you don't believe me do a google search on the EU services model. The Unions and the protected workers in the West will not allow lower paid workers from the east to take their jobs. It is just that simple. They initially were going to allow a free exchange of services (Bolkestein directive) but just like the Growth and Stability pact and the Lisbon accords they went back on their word. The Western Europeans are too comfortable to allow open competition to occur, not to mention the power of the Unions politically in Germany and France. This issue by itself could sink the EU constitution in France.

You go on and on about the dynamic nature of the EU. I have to say I haven't seen that yet. The Lisbon accords were supposed to make them more competitive but in the years since it was signed Europe has actually become less competitive. Do you have any Idea how far Europe is behind the US as far as wealth and spending power? Here is a report from nice neutral Sweden. http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

True the US is undergoing the same type of problem with Social Security but they don't pay near the benefits as the European Governments. They effect will be significantly smaller and take much longer to reach critical mass. Not to mention the culture in the US is to fend for yourself and that of Europe is cradle to the grave care.

China will be interesting. As I said they are moving in the right direction but have a long way to go. Social upheaval is a definite possibility. You have people going from horse drawn wagons to DVD players. They are being wise in the way they do things but it will take time and as the Chinese make more money they will want more. The wage dumping that is currently going on will abate as wages increase in China other areas of the globe will become more cost effective.

[dustygoon]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 10 2005, 04:28 PM
They hit a rocky time, and had to be flexible. If oil went to $5 a barrel, Alberta might have to go back into deficit spending, despite King Ralph's assurances that this would never happen again. Would he be a jerk? No. The price of oil would be low, necessitating flexibility. This is not a bad thing.

Not my point. After laying down the law, Germany and France have gone easy on themselves. You think they would have gone easy on Holland if they breached the target? I doubt it. The situation you are describing involves Alberta going into a deficit because of the need to borrow to make up for lost oil revenues. This is after Alta has cut massive amounts from health spending. There are not too many areas left for cost cutting in alberta.

In France and Germany, the funds are staring them in the face in the form cost cutting......massive subsidies, massive bureaucracy, etc. Low hanging fruit. But they refuse to do it because of the political backlash. Alberta bit the bullet. France and Germany won't do it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by dustygoon@May 10 2005, 07:33 PM
Not my point. After laying down the law, Germany and France have gone easy on themselves. You think they would have gone easy on Holland if they breached the target? I doubt it. The situation you are describing involves Alberta going into a deficit because of the need to borrow to make up for lost oil revenues. This is after Alta has cut massive amounts from health spending. There are not too many areas left for cost cutting in alberta.

In France and Germany, the funds are staring them in the face in the form cost cutting......massive subsidies, massive bureaucracy, etc. Low hanging fruit. But they refuse to do it because of the political backlash. Alberta bit the bullet. France and Germany won't do it.

Well, it could be that our idea of what constitutes responsible social spending is not THE way to go. Alberta, while a very nice place, has not yet been declared by any world body as having set the model for social spending. Neither has the EU.

If having cradle-to-grave welfare/care is important to a society, how is it a bad thing that they implement it? Maybe running the best, hottest economy in the world is your goal, but it may not be their's. Hell, they might be so insane as to declare human welfare as more important than avoiding deficits! Can you believe it?

As for Germany and France 'going easy' on themselves, I think this still over-simplifies the incredibly complex political relationships in the EU. Its a consensus body on important issues. There are MANY checks and balances, as MANY small states were worried about being gobbled up by the larger ones.

Only time will tell as to exactly how the EU works out, and what its 'personality' looks like re: German/French domination. Personally, I see the world as US-dominated, so I don't see the big deal of the EU being German/French dominated. Drop in the bucket.

[dustygoon]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 10 2005, 08:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 10 2005, 08:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dustygoon@May 10 2005, 07:33 PM
Not my point. After laying down the law, Germany and France have gone easy on themselves. You think they would have gone easy on Holland if they breached the target? I doubt it. The situation you are describing involves Alberta going into a deficit because of the need to borrow to make up for lost oil revenues. This is after Alta has cut massive amounts from health spending. There are not too many areas left for cost cutting in alberta.

In France and Germany, the funds are staring them in the face in the form cost cutting......massive subsidies, massive bureaucracy, etc. Low hanging fruit. But they refuse to do it because of the political backlash. Alberta bit the bullet. France and Germany won't do it.

Well, it could be that our idea of what constitutes responsible social spending is not THE way to go. Alberta, while a very nice place, has not yet been declared by any world body as having set the model for social spending. Neither has the EU.

If having cradle-to-grave welfare/care is important to a society, how is it a bad thing that they implement it? Maybe running the best, hottest economy in the world is your goal, but it may not be their's. Hell, they might be so insane as to declare human welfare as more important than avoiding deficits! Can you believe it?

As for Germany and France 'going easy' on themselves, I think this still over-simplifies the incredibly complex political relationships in the EU. Its a consensus body on important issues. There are MANY checks and balances, as MANY small states were worried about being gobbled up by the larger ones.

Only time will tell as to exactly how the EU works out, and what its 'personality' looks like re: German/French domination. Personally, I see the world as US-dominated, so I don't see the big deal of the EU being German/French dominated. Drop in the bucket. [/b][/quote]
whatever. i am not talking about the benefits/drawbacks of free market vs socialized economies.

I am talking about the abuse of power by France and Germany. They are larger so should have a strong voice in the union. But I think they go to far. Do you seriously not see this?

New states are gagging to join the EU because of the hugely stupid hand outs that get redistributed to new members for "projects". It is like the PEI bridge times 10. Every little butt fata region gets a piece of infrastructure money for projects that are more of a bonus than a need. These hand outs are akin to buying support to join the EU. Who pays for these? The core EU states. They have the "give-them-some-appeasement-money-now-and-we'll-figure-out-how-to-pay-for-it-later" mentality to get states on board. Then when policy is made, the old core countries dictate terms. Kinda like how our Liberals buy the NDP, then Ontario and now maybe Sask.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 10 2005, 03:15 PM
So... this guy thinks the EU is 'stagnant'? That's a strange comment; the EU is the most dynamic and experimental of the world's transnational organizations.

Really?

"If we do not act immediately, our valued social and environmental model will become unaffordable. In the face of international competition and an ageing population, growth could soon decrease to 1% per year (more than half of today's growth).

We are now half-way through the process and the results are not very satisfactory."

Europa


"The European Commission adopted on Wednesday morning a package of proposals to revitalise the Lisbon process, which the Commission acknowledges to be still far from reaching its targets as it reaches its mid-way point.

Mr Barroso first stressed the progress that had been made: "The telecommunications and energy markets are more open, the Single European Sky is becoming a reality, the European transport networks are taking shape". But much remains to be done if Europe is become the most competitive economy in the world by 2010. "Let's be honest with ourselves", said Mr Barroso. "We know this progress is not enough…Major proposals are still on the table at Parliament and the Council. And sometimes there are those who drag their feet over implementing the rules adopted. Change has not been fast enough and members of the public do not yet feel the effects of the 'Lisbon factor' in their everyday lives."

Europarl


"By "refocusing" on job creation and growth, Mr Barroso has honestly acknowledged that the much-vaunted "Lisbon strategy", drawn up five years ago, and designed to turn Europe into the "world's most dynamic economy" by 2010, is damagingly over-ambitious.

On a day when German jobless figures reached a record of over 5 million, such realism is the only sensible course. Overall, EU unemployment is now 8.9% compared to 5.4% in the US."

The Guardian


"The recommendations of the European Commission for a new European Partnership for Growth and Employment gives the Lisbon Strategy the chance to get back on track. Putting the efforts on the real problems of Europe's economy, which are the lack of competitiveness and growth, makes the whole strategy more realistic and increase its credibility."

EU business


Eventhough the EU itself admits that it is in deep shat, Mr. Agamemnon keeps on insisting the sky is as rosy as ever. Your comrades must be proud of you.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by tjinaz@May 10 2005, 07:17 PM

If you don't believe me do a google search on the EU services model. The Unions and the protected workers in the West will not allow lower paid workers from the east to take their jobs. It is just that simple. They initially were going to allow a free exchange of services (Bolkestein directive) but just like the Growth and Stability pact and the Lisbon accords they went back on their word. The Western Europeans are too comfortable to allow open competition to occur, not to mention the power of the Unions politically in Germany and France. This issue by itself could sink the EU constitution in France.

You go on and on about the dynamic nature of the EU. I have to say I haven't seen that yet. The Lisbon accords were supposed to make them more competitive but in the years since it was signed Europe has actually become less competitive.

Exactly.

Originally, the EU was based on the idea of free flow of people, services, goods and capital. What is the reality?

Services market in the EU is so tightly regulated, that it cannot be considered as an open market by any means.

Only 4 old EU countries (the UK, Ireland, Sweden and one more I can’t think of now, probably Belgium) allow new EU citizens to work there w/out working visas. What an open labour market. Labour unions in old EU countries go nuts every time free labour movement is mentioned.

This new service/knowledge economy is nothing but a load of bullshinguard.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@May 11 2005, 01:45 PM
Eventhough the EU itself admits that it is in deep shat, Mr. Agamemnon keeps on insisting the sky is as rosy as ever. Your comrades must be proud of you.

It's funny to hear such realist talk from a Utopian, I thought you only dealt in idealism.

I think Stagnant/Deep Shat is a pretty harsh judgement of the EU's progress to date, and I think only time will tell (and prove you wrong).

Maybe you should introduce the EU to your Utopian-Anarchism. They might find dissolving their government and law, and relying on the natural goodwill of man to be more economically efficient... who knows? Maybe they can foster a flying-pig economy and export that?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 11 2005, 03:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 11 2005, 03:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame Of Liberty@May 11 2005, 01:45 PM
Eventhough the EU itself admits that it is in deep shat, Mr. Agamemnon keeps on insisting the sky is as rosy as ever. Your comrades must be proud of you.

It's funny to hear such realist talk from a Utopian, I thought you only dealt in idealism.

I think Stagnant/Deep Shat is a pretty harsh judgement of the EU's progress to date, and I think only time will tell (and prove you wrong).

Maybe you should introduce the EU to your Utopian-Anarchism. They might find dissolving their government and law, and relying on the natural goodwill of man to be more economically efficient... who knows? Maybe they can foster a flying-pig economy and export that? [/b][/quote]
Haha you are witty as ever. If someone does not want to live under the rule of marxists like yourself, he is utopian. That’s too funny.

BTW the EU admits that it is experiencing stagnation since 2001, I am not sure how much time you need to finally see the light.

[Agamemnon]

BTW the EU admits that it is experiencing stagnation since 2001, I am not sure how much time you need to finally see the light.

I classify stagnation as 0% increase in the sizes of their economies, in the simplest definition. Right now they are achieving much greater than 0% growth, so I'm of the opinion that they are not 'stagnant'. They're growth rates, being developed countries, are not expected to be Chinese-like. 10% growth for places like Europe and the US is next to impossible, given their current scopes.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Haha you are witty as ever. If someone does not want to live under the rule of marxists like yourself, he is utopian. That’s too funny.

You don't see the irony? I brought out the Utopian comment (again) because you called me comrade. My belief that the EU is going to be an economic success makes me a Communist?

One of us here supports government organization, the law, and social-welfare, (apparently, again, making me a Communist) and one of us supports the destruction of the nation-state, rejection of the rule of law, and a confidence that man's good nature is all we need to ensure order. Which one of us is the radical?

[tjinaz]

While I am with you on the wait and see, I will tell you it does not look good. With the over regulation of the market sectors and the extreme beauracracy of the EU, I don't see that as being condusive to high growth. Just this year IBM cut 13,000 jobs mostly from Europe because it is not seen as a high growth market.

Here is the latest on the French economy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...9Y&refer=europe
Doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Now here is the report on the US economy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/economy/economies.html
This should rule out any global economic differences

So with a growth rate of .05% and double digit unemployment are they in stagnation by your rules? If you took out the government owned businesses it would be much worse.

As I have said before, unless the EU adopts similar policies to those of the UK and goes through the pain of reducing there social welfare policies, they will never be able to compete against the US, India, Japan or China. Right now they are dying a slow death as there current positions are unsustainable.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by tjinaz@May 11 2005, 04:25 PM
While I am with you on the wait and see, I will tell you it does not look good. With the over regulation of the market sectors and the extreme beauracracy of the EU, I don't see that as being condusive to high growth. Just this year IBM cut 13,000 jobs mostly from Europe because it is not seen as a high growth market.

Here is the latest on the French economy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...9Y&refer=europe
Doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Now here is the report on the US economy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/economy/economies.html
This should rule out any global economic differences

So with a growth rate of .05% and double digit unemployment are they in stagnation by your rules? If you took out the government owned businesses it would be much worse.

As I have said before, unless the EU adopts similar policies to those of the UK and goes through that pain, they will never be able to compete against the US, India, Japan or China.

I hear ya. I can dredge up articles from post-911 that show the US economy as a train-wreck waiting to happen. It didn't. These articles are talking about last year and this year, not forecasting 10, 20, 50 year growth patterns (appropriately, its very hard to predict economic consequences that far into the future).

As I said earlier, time will tell. You think it doesn't look good for the EU, I think it doesn't look good for the US. At this point its a matter of opinion. Right now, the US is a bigger, better economy. Will it always be? I'd like to see more articles supporting long-term EU stagnation and failure, as I've not seen a whole lot of them. These ones point out current issues w/ the economy, but I don't see condemnation for an 'unworkable' union here. It takes time to integrate these things.

The EU's bureaucracy is probably one of the biggest issues in the way of efficiency. They're going to have to figure out how to cut through the massive red-tape. I think if you bet against them succeeding economically, you're going to lose your money.

None of us has a crystal ball, just opinions on how things will turn out. At least you seem rational about your ideological point of view, not everyone here is.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by tjinaz@May 11 2005, 04:25 PM
While I am with you on the wait and see, I will tell you it does not look good. With the over regulation of the market sectors and the extreme beauracracy of the EU, I don't see that as being condusive to high growth. Just this year IBM cut 13,000 jobs mostly from Europe because it is not seen as a high growth market.

Here is the latest on the French economy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...9Y&refer=europe
Doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Now here is the report on the US economy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/economy/economies.html
This should rule out any global economic differences

So with a growth rate of .05% and double digit unemployment are they in stagnation by your rules? If you took out the government owned businesses it would be much worse.

As I have said before, unless the EU adopts similar policies to those of the UK and goes through the pain of reducing there social welfare policies, they will never be able to compete against the US, India, Japan or China. Right now they are dying a slow death as there current positions are unsustainable.

In 2001, the US economy was in negative numbers. Were they spiralling out of control, or was it a fluctuation? Could we take these short-term #'s, and declare the US 'stagnant' or shrinking? Maybe for that month. But to put a period on the end of the sentence without qualifying it with 'right now' is a mistake. The US clearly rebounded, as the chart indicates. It had a lot of things going for it and against it.

Just like the EU. You can't take a super-state's 2 year economic history and brand it a success or failure, you have to give it more time. The EU (as we know it) has only been around for 5-10 years. It needs more time.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/d...harts/pi_9.pdf

I will concede that, _right now_, growth in the EU isn't that great. I don't know an economist in his right mind who would say, due to that recent poor growth, the EU isn't going to work.

This website, which is quite negative about EU growth, claims 2005 forecasts of 1.8%.

http://www.eubusiness.com/topics/Factsfig/...?b_start:int=20

This one claims the EU forecasts around 2.1% to 2.3% in 2006. 0.05% would be stagnation. These numbers are not.

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAc...&guiLanguage=en

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 11 2005, 04:14 PM
I classify stagnation as 0% increase in the sizes of their economies, in the simplest definition.# Right now they are achieving much greater than 0% growth, so I'm of the opinion that they are not 'stagnant'.# They're growth rates, being developed countries, are not expected to be Chinese-like.# 10% growth for places like Europe and the US is next to impossible, given their current scopes.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

2005-05-12 03:04:51 The eurozone economy grew 0.5 per cent in the first quarter of 2005 from the figure for the previous quarter, an initial estimate released on Thursday by the EU's statistics arm showed.

The growth marked an improvement from monthly growth of 0.2 percent in the final quarter of last year, data from Eurostat showed.

Over 12 months, the eurozone economy expanded by 1.4 percent in the first quarter.

In the 25-nation EU, the economy also grew 0.5 percent in the first quarter from previous quarter, when 0.3 percent growth was registered. Over 12 months, the region saw growth of 1.7 percent in the first quarter.

Looking ahead, the European Union's executive commission forecast that the eurozone economy would book quarterly growth in a range from 0.2 to 0.6 percent, revising its outlook down by 0.1 percentage point. It has the same forecast for the third quarter.

http://www.eubusiness.com/topics/Factsfig


stagnation

n 1: a state of inactivity (in business or art etc); "economic growth of less than 1% per year is considered to be economic stagnation"

http://www.dictionary.com


“the EU is the most dynamic and experimental of the world's transnational organizations.”

http://www.agamemnon.com

You changed your tune a bit, but you must agree that your "most dynamic" comment was out to lunch. That goes for your "much greater than 0.5 per cent" comment.