NationStates Jolt Archive

Vote United States. Honestly, if you even consider voting for France on anything, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
:sniper:

I agree with you Nazi on that, wholly. That is an example of America with an ass hole party in charge.

But remember!

It can change, John Kerry isn't perfect, Noam Chomsky would be a better candidate IMO (if the democrats somehow shifted to communism and Chomsky joined them :) ), but hes still a promising candidate and offers alot more for the people than Bush does. Doubtless 10000's of Bush-Heads will run in here now slamming my 'attack' on 'our president' as being 'commie'. It's so sad that that theoretical situation happens every day on nation states. :D

Vote United States. Honestly, if you even consider voting for France on anything, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
:sniper:
Cause only America has freedom.

I'd like to take back this quote. Even though Reagan committed War Crimes the fact he was a 'Patriot' overrides this. Truly he is up in heaven now with Jesus and even considered an equal to God himself, and all because, deep down, he was a true Nationalist.

Hey, what were these war crimes you speak so much of, Nazi Weaponized Virus?

But remember!

It can change, John Kerry isn't perfect, Noam Chomsky would be a better candidate IMO (if the democrats somehow shifted to communism and Chomsky joined them :) ), but hes still a promising candidate and offers alot more for the people than Bush does. Doubtless 10000's of Bush-Heads will run in here now slamming my 'attack' on 'our president' as being 'commie'. It's so sad that that theoretical situation happens every day on nation states. :DYes there is the conservative wing for you. They can't take criticism, I invite you all to read my "How George Bush Jr. is like Hitler" thread I am working on.

But, Uzb3kistan, you're a Nazi aren't you? I remember I while back you completely spammed a regions forums with Hitler shit----you totally violated the terms of service. :mad:

In conclusion: let's round up all the socialists and shoot them in the head. That includes Nazis too, they're the same thing just with "nationalist" in the small print.

After the genocidial execution of the whole French nation we can then work on repopulating France with decent people and build an economy that would be the envy of even the Oilited.. sorry, UNITED States of Ameroilca.

In conclusion: let's round up all the socialists and shoot them in the head. That includes Nazis too, they're the same thing just with "nationalist" in the small print.

After the genocidial execution of the whole French nation we can then work on repopulating France with decent people and build an economy that would be the envy of even the Oilited.. sorry, UNITED States of Ameroilca.

Hmmmmmm, how about you shut youre pie hole? There is NOTHING remotely funny, cool, or entertaining about Genocide ass.

I believe the US has a better economy, our unemployment is about 5 and a half percent. I point out that most economists see 5% as full employment given that it is given that 5% are usually between jobs. The economy is growing at a robust rate of 4-8.1% each quarter and 1.5 million jobs were created in the last year. The stock market has climbed in the last year, but it has been slowed to some degree by Greenspan raising rates and high oil prices. The oil prices are temporary and shouldn't put too much of a damper on growth in the long term, but there will be more severe short term effects by drops in spending. The interest rate rises will help in the long run as it will cut inflation. Greenspan said he will only raise it .25% in the next 4 months which will allow some to relax. Greenspan predicts more growth in the US economy and forcasted even greater growth in coming months during a speech yesterday.

Socialist France on the other hand has unemployment about 10%. Their tourism industry has been hurting due to US boycotts. This also hurt exports to some degree. Their economy is in full blown recession and nearing depression. They plan to pass some tariffs soon. Tariffs will only worsen the economy as it leads to a trade war that France can't compete in. Prices will rise in France as a result of this. This will lead to a drop in spending and more layoffs just as the Smoot-Hartley tariff caused the US to go into a depression.
I really can't fathom why you thump your chest regarding the US economy. Considering that the US has the largest world economy, it is surprising that the US also has the highest rate of child poverty in the industrialized world.

http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/Documents/2004/snapshot20040623.gif

New York state has the highest rate of child poverty, with 26.3 percent of its children living in poverty. California ranks second with a 25.7 percent rate. There are 14 states—including Texas, Florida, Massachusetts and Illinois—where childhood poverty is above 20 percent.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/pov-m14.shtml

Add to that the fact that the US has 43.6 Million citizens without health insurance, and a total of 64.8 million children, or 88.4 percent of all U.S. children remained uninsured in 2002:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmedical/a/healthins.htm

Add to that, an unemployment rate that in reality is closer to 10% than 6%, when considering people who want work but are no longer looking for work (discouraged workers).

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Roll out the following tidbit and it appears that very few Americans have the MOST benefit from the economy:

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

Then of course there is Bush adding to the dilemna by increasing the US Debt by over $1.5 Trillion in the past 3.5 years (a big chunk of that chain goes to the above mentioned wealthiest), and one gets the picture that the US economy is not so great after all, for most Americans.

Well, shucks, I love the American economy.

My own father grew up quite poor, and after he worked himself through college, he has a 6-figure income and is able to support his family very easily.

The people who I know that have the nice cars, big houses, and fat wallets are the ones who have worked extremely hard for what they have. I'm encouraged everyday because I know that, if I work hard and follow my values, I can get anything I want.

Well, shucks, I love the American economy.

My own father grew up quite poor, and after he worked himself through college, he has a 6-figure income and is able to support his family very easily.

The people who I know that have the nice cars, big houses, and fat wallets are the ones who have worked extremely hard for what they have. I'm encouraged everyday because I know that, if I work hard and follow my values, I can get anything I want.
Well your dad was one of the few fortunate ones to be able to do so, and by default, you are in a better position than most. The good test would be to see if you could make it on your own as your father did before you?

I'm sure I could. Like every single other person on this planet, I have the ability to do whatever I want--even though, I'll admit, it helps when you're in a country like the US.

US has high child poverty as the families where kids are in poverty are mainly
A. ones where there are too many kids because the parents keep getting it on.
B. Immigrants, many grow up poor, but they also work hard and often work to achieve much, my Grandpa grew up poor and died a millionare.
C. Children of divorced parents, or single parents

This is not a bearing on the US economy

It is almost unfair to compare. The US has a lot more national resources to supply a plethora of industry. The US is also more of a capitalist state while France is closer to socialist.
Historically, however, natural resources have hurt a nation more than it's helped. The US, Chile, and other resource rich nations are lucky to turn into the healthy democracies they are. Even a hundred years ago, the richest area in natural resources (the American West) was one of the richest areas per capita, but Washington had a hard time exerting real control. Resource rich areas, like Saudi Arabia, fared worse.
It is almost a blessing for resource poor nations. All other major economies, such as Germany, Japan, and Singapore, have no natural resources.

Add to that the fact that the US has 43.6 Million citizens without health insurance, and a total of 64.8 million children, or 88.4 percent of all U.S. children remained uninsured in 2002:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmedical/a/healthins.htm

Add to that, an unemployment rate that in reality is closer to 10% than 6%, when considering people who want work but are no longer looking for work (discouraged workers).

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm


Well, I won't dispute you on the other facts, in light of the fact that you shun debate. However, I can say that in the July 26, 2004 edition of TIME magazine, it states that 88% of US children have health insurance. 83% of kids are also quite healthy, however, so part of me wonders if child health insurance is a necessary expense for most children. Then again, I can't influence how people spend their money, just as Bush can't influence the amount of personal debt as a percentage of income (but that's another issue).

Historically, however, natural resources have hurt a nation more than it's helped. The US, Chile, and other resource rich nations are lucky to turn into the healthy democracies they are. Even a hundred years ago, the richest area in natural resources (the American West) was one of the richest areas per capita, but Washington had a hard time exerting real control. Resource rich areas, like Saudi Arabia, fared worse.
It is almost a blessing for resource poor nations. All other major economies, such as Germany, Japan, and Singapore, have no natural resources.
What kind of resource does Chile have outside of saltpeter? And how did the bad oil hurt the Saudis? Or the US for that matter? And of course Japan and Germany have natural resources. They just don't have alot of them.

US has high child poverty as the families where kids are in poverty are mainly
A. ones where there are too many kids because the parents keep getting it on.
B. Immigrants, many grow up poor, but they also work hard and often work to achieve much, my Grandpa grew up poor and died a millionare.
C. Children of divorced parents, or single parents

This is not a bearing on the US economy
Has no bearing on the economy? The more poverty in a country, the less likely they are able to buy goods. Less goods purchased = slower economy.

Same thing for higher unemployment. More unemployment = less goods purchased = slower economy.

Well, I won't dispute you on the other facts, in light of the fact that you shun debate. However, I can say that in the July 26, 2004 edition of TIME magazine, it states that 88% of US children have health insurance. 83% of kids are also quite healthy, however, so part of me wonders if child health insurance is a necessary expense for most children. Then again, I can't influence how people spend their money, just as Bush can't influence the amount of personal debt as a percentage of income (but that's another issue).
Just watch what happens to the US economy when John Kerry puts more money into the hands of those that will spend it. Same with more money for the environment will be better than tons of depleted uranium shells in the Middle east. Same with spending more money on education. Higher education will lead to more quality tax paying citizens, which will greatly help the economy. And so on......

what kind of dumb question is this?

Like: Who has the better military? The US or Triandad and Tabago?

Of course the US has a better economy. Notice I didn't say we didn't have problems, the US has PLENTY of problems, more then I'm willing to admit, but it doesn't mean that we have a weaker economy, then oh say France. Hell, Swizerland has very few problems, but their economy is weak when compared to the US.

The more poverty in a country, the less likely they are able to buy goods. Less goods purchased = slower economy.

But this assumes that there is no trade nor investment.

What kind of resource does Chile have outside of saltpeter? And how did the bad oil hurt the Saudis? Or the US for that matter? And of course Japan and Germany have natural resources. They just don't have alot of them.
Chile has the world's largest copper reserves. In fact, it has been a decisive issue in Chilean politics for years.
As for oil and the Saudis, it has made them very rich, but little else. The structure of modern economies is not there. There is no liberal tradition found in other large economies. And unlike other large economies, Saudi Arabia is a largely rural and backwards soceity. Even other Gulf nations are better off.
BTW, Germany has natural resources, but again, not many. Japan, on the other hand, has few. In fact, it's nothing short of a miracle that Japan, an island with no resources, could maintain such a massive trade surplus in the eighties.

Just watch what happens to the US economy when John Kerry puts more money into the hands of those that will spend it. Same with more money for the environment will be better than tons of depleted uranium shells in the Middle east. Same with spending more money on education. Higher education will lead to more quality tax paying citizens, which will greatly help the economy. And so on......
Bush has increased the amount going toward Pell Grants since he was president, increasing acsess to community colleges. This article highlights his spending in 2002 alone.

http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i23/23a03302.htm
It increased a bit in 2003. As for your point about Kerry putting hands into Americans' wallets, I believe Bush has done the same thing. $600 go to married couples, $500 went to single mothers, and $300 to singles. The rebate was since expanded to even those who don't pay taxes (which I don't agree with). I believe that spreading the government's surplus does increase deficits in the short term, but that is highly superficial to be relying on for economic health. Whether the money was spent, saved, or invested, it helped the economy. If invested, it gave money to corporations, many of which increased dividends after the tax cut on them. If saved, it sends money to the bank, which invests it how it chooses. In the long run, it'll come to the government as higher tax revenue (provided that spending doesn't increase dramatically).
Also, can you refute me on my point that 88% of children are insured? Are you wondering if my facts are solid? Check the newsstand, page 53.

Bush has increased the amount going toward Pell Grants since he was president, increasing acsess to community colleges. This article highlights his spending in 2002 alone.

http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i23/23a03302.htm
It increased a bit in 2003. As for your point about Kerry putting hands into Americans' wallets, I believe Bush has done the same thing. $600 go to married couples, $500 went to single mothers, and $300 to singles. The rebate was since expanded to even those who don't pay taxes (which I don't agree with). I believe that spreading the government's surplus does increase deficits in the short term, but that is highly superficial to be relying on for economic health. Whether the money was spent, saved, or invested, it helped the economy. If invested, it gave money to corporations, many of which increased dividends after the tax cut on them. If saved, it sends money to the bank, which invests it how it chooses. In the long run, it'll come to the government as higher tax revenue (provided that spending doesn't increase dramatically).
Also, can you refute me on my point that 88% of children are insured? Are you wondering if my facts are solid? Check the newsstand, page 53.

BTW, I didn't say Kerry was putting his hands in Americans' wallets. Nice try. Cute too.

Bush is giving those who make $1 Million a year, a tax cut of $127,000!!!

That is not equitable at all. Meanwhile, 3,000,000 more Americans are impoverished since Bush took office.

Trickle down economics DO NOT WORK!! reagan tried it and even Bush sr. called it Voodoo economics.

Kerry will do nothing but increase taxes. Look at his voting record.

BTW, I didn't say Kerry was putting his hands in Americans' wallets. Nice try. Cute too.

Bush is giving those who make $1 Million a year, a tax cut of $127,000!!!

That is not equitable at all. Meanwhile, 3,000,000 more Americans are impoverished since Bush took office.

Trickle down economics DO NOT WORK!! reagan tried it and even Bush sr. called it Voodoo economics.
Okay then, you refuse to answer me on child health insurance. Well, at least I can say that real world debates aren't as slipshod as in here.
Anyhow, why did the wealthiest get the most tax cuts? Because they pay the most in taxes. When you have that much money, most of it is stowed away in the stock market, going back into the economy. In fact, since the richest tend to have more knowledge on complex investments (like futures, reverse mortgages and real estate partnerships), I am almost tempted to say that they are still more influencial to the economy than average people like you and me, even though more than half of Americans are shareholders.

Okay then, you refuse to answer me on child health insurance. Well, at least I can say that real world debates aren't as slipshod as in here.
Anyhow, why did the wealthiest get the most tax cuts? Because they pay the most in taxes. When you have that much money, most of it is stowed away in the stock market, going back into the economy. In fact, since the richest tend to have more knowledge on complex investments (like futures, reverse mortgages and real estate partnerships), I am almost tempted to say that they are still more influencial to the economy than average people like you and me, even though more than half of Americans are shareholders.
The gap between the haves and the have nots continues to grow at an alarming rate. More and more people are being marginalized and you can't see that? You need a long run of Democrats to bring things back into perspective.

The gap between the haves and the have nots continues to grow at an alarming rate. More and more people are being marginalized and you can't see that? You need a long run of Democrats to bring things back into perspective.
I don't think it's so much of a matter as a greedy middle class so much as there is among some in America a sense not to earn money. It exists in every culture on the planet, but with such liberal economic freedoms and welfare, some have no reason to get rich, while others do. The way to get everyone on the same page is to take more concrete steps to reduce the welfare state that exists in America. Welfare reform of 1996 was a positive step, but more needs to be done. Wellfare needs to be reduced to a total of one year in any given lifetime. The only other payments that should be made is if the former recipient can properly demonstrate that he/she can't afford to feed even him/her self, and is dying as a result.
Besides, that'd free up money for useful welfare, like vouchers, Head Start, and funding charities across the board.

Why is an economic question so emotive? I suspect that the crazed American nationalist IDF wanted to start a silly "France vs. America" argument to gather a gang to insult those "goddamn cheese-eating surrender monkeys."

US has high child poverty as the families where kids are in poverty are mainly
A. ones where there are too many kids because the parents keep getting it on.
Too many kids? Who are you, Chairman Mao?

The USA is not the only western country where some people have a lot of kids.

I don't think it's so much of a matter as a greedy middle class so much as there is among some in America a sense not to earn money. It exists in every culture on the planet, but with such liberal economic freedoms and welfare, some have no reason to get rich, while others do. The way to get everyone on the same page is to take more concrete steps to reduce the welfare state that exists in America. Welfare reform of 1996 was a positive step, but more needs to be done. Wellfare needs to be reduced to a total of one year in any given lifetime. The only other payments that should be made is if the former recipient can properly demonstrate that he/she can't afford to feed even him/her self, and is dying as a result.
Besides, that'd free up money for useful welfare, like vouchers, Head Start, and funding charities across the board.
I do not think that the middle class is greedy, it is those at the top. I think that there are many who want to earn money but the doors of opportunity get slammed in their faces. Lack of funding for quality education, and way too many minimum wage jobs exacts a huge toll. Many just give up in quiet desperation or turn to a life of crime.

If you advocate a one year welfare lifeline, you will end up with more crime and more disillusionment. There is too much greed at the top end and eventually the whole theory of capitalism will implode like a cheap deck of cards.

There is too much emphasis on war and military, not enough on education and workable solutions to break the dependency on welfare.

Speaking of welfare, what about multi-billion dollar corporations that face bankruptcy and apply for bankruptcy protection. What about the Enrons and DotComs. Too much corporate fraud, insider trading and stock market manipulation. Too much emphasis on wealth creation and not enough focus on the victims.

Oil companies bleed the public while making excessive profits. Too much emphasis on oil, hence Middle East intervention and wars. Not enough focus on renewable energy sources, or energy efficent cars. Too much destruction of the environment to meet the ever demanding needs of the "disposable society".

Socialism will be the ultimate answer.

I do not think that the middle class is greedy, it is those at the top. I think that there are many who want to earn money but the doors of opportunity get slammed in their faces. Lack of funding for quality education, and way too many minimum wage jobs exacts a huge toll. Many just give up in quiet desperation or turn to a life of crime.

If you advocate a one year welfare lifeline, you will end up with more crime and more disillusionment. There is too much greed at the top end and eventually the whole theory of capitalism will implode like a cheap deck of cards.

There is too much emphasis on war and military, not enough on education and workable solutions to break the dependency on welfare.

Speaking of welfare, what about multi-billion dollar corporations that face bankruptcy and apply for bankruptcy protection. What about the Enrons and DotComs. Too much corporate fraud, insider trading and stock market manipulation. Too much emphasis on wealth creation and not enough focus on the victims.

Oil companies bleed the public while making excessive profits. Too much emphasis on oil, hence Middle East intervention and wars. Not enough focus on renewable energy sources, or energy efficent cars. Too much destruction of the environment to meet the ever demanding needs of the "disposable society".

Socialism will be the ultimate answer.
So this is where we're getting at. You're a socialist. That clears the air a lot.
Enron and the Dot-Coms, btw, got little from the government. If you remember, Bush was very reluctant to ask for a bailout of Enron. It's been as obvious as the fact that the grass is green. If anyone, the airline industry has recieved the most bailouts, and now they aren't. They are falling, but there are a hundred smaller airlines to take their place.
But you raise a point about corporate fraud. I know of about ten major corporations that have wrongdoing, but there are hundreds more. Most are clean. As for oil companies, I'll not let this turn into a debate about Middle East policy, as you know where I stand, and vice versa. However, bear in mind that in addition to their excessive gains, they also have excessive losses. When Shell revealed they overestimated their reserves, their stock plummeted.
However, oil companies are, ironically, leading the way to an alternate economy. I'll tell you how tommarow, as right now, I'm tired. But I'd be happy to return to that point.
As for the elimination of welfare, it'd be great for society, especially a society as developed as the US. 12.6% of the US population is below the poverty line because they have no incentive to seek a better life, and thus, are economically inactive. A large part is do to the welfare state. However, more of it is from a dilaputated school system, filled with corruption, but also students who don't feel a need to learn.
As Ayn Rand noted, however, more kids could be sent to private schools if their parents didn't pay education taxes. This arguement has merit. Private schools often spend less per student, but their students often have higher grades, the teachers are of better quality, and a larger percentage of the kids go to college. Such a system, I feel, needs to be implemented here. The federal and state governments should give power to the districts, and some will preform better. However, some will fail. This will warrant the state and federal governments to use vouchers to subsidize private tuition, and for the government, this is the ultimate in long term investment. Kids will realize the value of education, and maybe even the value of a dollar. They can then be properly educated, and in a few generations, poverty should be even less than today, and the economy will benefit from 12.6% of the population fully engaged in it.
But the end to welfare will create a new demand for jobs. It may boost the unemployment rate, but also the workforce as well. Those enterprising and impoverished will find that the best way to earn money is through a small business. It may be a bakery that operates in a more affluent part of town, or a pawn shop. In any case, this will gurantee the flow of money into impoverished areas for at least a generation. If these recipients are wise enough with their money, and either invest it or put it in a saving's account, the money will only continue to role in. No developed nation has ever tried this before. I think that in the US, which has a strong market tradition, a stronger oppritunist state may have a great shot at working.

You know actually, I'll just write a thread about energy policy and its effects on the environment.

doesn't the u.s. government not count you as unemployed if you only work one hour a week though?

doesn't the u.s. government not count you as unemployed if you only work one hour a week though?
Who does, though? I mean, even part-timers recieve pensions if they work for 501 hours a year.

Right the orginall query before it got lost in all the natural arguments...

How has the better ecnomany the quesion depends on form whos point of view your looking

Form a companies point of view the US is the clear winner, as most of the satistics show no real argument expaniding economies with unepoloyment are ideal for large compaines, look at china.....

form a person point of view now the quesion is much more difficult, is suspect france wins out given the number and detail of the regulation protecting french working life. - most of the regulation demanded by the workers ( i have real trouble squaring that fact with the i want the state to do everything argument, infact i cant;)

and more valid quesion is what will happen in the long term.

france first i nation i know better (due to its enomic simialrity with the UK), difficult to say they like the rest of the EU have a large age gap problem with far more older people than younger, this may of course be solved by imigration for central euerope and other sources (theirs a kick in the teeth for all these anoying we should keep asylum seekers out people)

US, harder for me at least to predict, but thier are danger signs their as well, both the population problem the levels of consumer debt and a nasty and wroseing balance of trade problem.



Also i'd like an actually knowledge economist to explain precelisly why a small non negative growth rate is bad if the country already has a good standard of living as all the euerpoean/north ameircan nations do (and others)

Right the orginall query before it got lost in all the natural arguments...

How has the better ecnomany the quesion depends on form whos point of view your looking

Form a companies point of view the US is the clear winner, as most of the satistics show no real argument expaniding economies with unepoloyment are ideal for large compaines, look at china.....

form a person point of view now the quesion is much more difficult, is suspect france wins out given the number and detail of the regulation protecting french working life. - most of the regulation demanded by the workers ( i have real trouble squaring that fact with the i want the state to do everything argument, infact i cant;)

and more valid quesion is what will happen in the long term.

france first i nation i know better (due to its enomic simialrity with the UK), difficult to say they like the rest of the EU have a large age gap problem with far more older people than younger, this may of course be solved by imigration for central euerope and other sources (theirs a kick in the teeth for all these anoying we should keep asylum seekers out people)

US, harder for me at least to predict, but thier are danger signs their as well, both the population problem the levels of consumer debt and a nasty and wroseing balance of trade problem.



Also i'd like an actually knowledge economist to explain precelisly why a small non negative growth rate is bad if the country already has a good standard of living as all the euerpoean/north ameircan nations do (and others)
For workers, however, that can be a bit contentious. Part of France's high unemployment is a fear of hiring new laborers. There's a high minimum wage, 35 hour workweeks, and unless an employee bitch slaps a customer , he/she can't be fired. Some businesses are considering a move to Eastern Europe. It's still part of the EU, but they have less regulations on businesses. This will cause France to loose even more jobs. It's a little difficult to say which economy is more employee friendly, although I personally believe that France can get away with it, simply because of a Byzantine system that rewards laziness and punishes work ethic.

VIVE LA FRANCE!!!

France may be a socialist nation, but that's not a bad thing. A country that relies on capitalism is no better. For example, the US government stopped Microsoft's monopoly. Why? Because Microsoft is taking business away from other companies. That is why the US isn't completely capitalist........

Besides, the euro is stronger than the dollar now. Europe will grow in the future because all nations are more closely linked and united. UNITED WE STAND, now isnt that the motto of the US?

VIVE LA FRANCE!!!

France may be a socialist nation, but that's not a bad thing. A country that relies on capitalism is no better. For example, the US government stopped Microsoft's monopoly. Why? Because Microsoft is taking business away from other companies. That is why the US isn't completely capitalist........

Besides, the euro is stronger than the dollar now. Europe will grow in the future because all nations are more closely linked and united. UNITED WE STAND, now isnt that the motto of the US?
No. Our motto is e pluribus unum. Anyhow, the euro being stronger than the dollar means little. If anything, I see a strong euro, or yen or dollar or whatever, as a bad thing, as it doesn't allow for a nation to easily export its goods. In fact, I'm worried about how the dollar has risen slightly against the euro, as I feel that will hurt our economy.

Besides, the euro is stronger than the dollar now.
I'd wish that would change. Rather sooner then later.

It'll all even out when the new E.U. members adopt the Euro and its value goes down again. Which is good for export.

On topic: Economy isn't everything. Both the U.S. and France can be arrogant.

And I'll leave it at that.

How is the EU economy better? Why is it that the only good economy in Europe is Brittain? and they aren't in the EU.

You don't know much, do you? About EU I mean. UK is in EU but not in the EMU. Don't confuse those 2 things.

Well France does control the EU because well, let's face it, France has, since the end of WWII, wanted to be the third superpower in the world and since the Soviet Union collapsed, there is a power vacuum needing to be filled. Thus why the French have gone about the EU the way they have and in reality it's just them trying to set up a United States of Europe, which will be a step back in history as we will simply be repeating the mistakes we made just before World War II. But hey, humans never learn from history anyway so...

It'll all even out when the new E.U. members adopt the Euro and its value goes down again. Which is good for export.

On topic: Economy isn't everything. Both the U.S. and France can be arrogant.

And I'll leave it at that.
Quite true. But I worry about these new countries adopting the euro. If they do, it may be too strong for their economies to handle. Of course, they'd borrow from other sources, and that'll make the euro drop, but I'd worry about how far it'd drop. Would it go below some currencies, and force Europeans to withdraw some investments? Then again, should that happen, Britain and Sweden are around as a backup. They both have very strong currencies, and if they join the EU, they can raise the value of the euro to a safe level again.