NationStates Jolt Archive

Although Bush is clearly a buffoon, with politics and a support base which I find pathetic rather than infuriating, a large part of me will be hoping that he wins the election.

Strange thing for a European centrist to say, but then I am perhaps living up to my reputation for cynicism when I say that today, America's misfortune is Europe's opportunity. If Bush is elected, the US stands to lose out, in the fields of security, diplomacy and international reputation, not to mention economically. Europe is now a huge and growing trade block, and while political unity is a far more distant prospect than the economic unity which is pretty much upon us, there can be no doubt that it is now an effective competitor with the US in many world arenas.

Thus, the likely detrimental effects of a second Bush presidency on the US will provide Europe with opportunities that it can turn to its advantage. It is by no means a given that Europe will be able to exploit the situations which will present themselves to their fullest, but from a cold self-interested point of view, having the US burdened with an inept administration can only be good for any competitors.

And so, to any European instinctively anti-Bush people out there, I say, maybe their loss is our gain? How altruistic do we really want to be with regard to an entity which is now as much an economic and geostrategic competitor as a partner? Having the Bush administration remain in power may be a negative thing, but if it is to be so, we may yet find that the situation can be usefully exploited.

I would say 'run, tactical grace, run'! ;)

but yes. i partly agree with you.

Thanks. We wretched Americans deserve to suffer. We're evil fascists and should commit suicide on international television for Europeans to masturbate to and make profits off.

speaking of which...

Maybe you're right, but I would prefer a healthy alliance with the USA. The best hope for that is with a Kerry administration.

I agree. In fact, I have already promised that if bush wins, I will be moving to France when I turn 18.

I agree. In fact, I have already promised that if bush wins, I will be moving to France when I turn 18.




How old are you now then, if you don't mind me asking?

I agree with your thesis Tactical Grace. America's loss certainly could become Europe's gain. Zeppistan and I have had this conversation many times over the last year or two. It's a double edge sword for me though. I do want Americans to do well on one hand because I know so many really bright and wonderful American friends. I also on the other hand have had the sad occasion to talk with what appears to represent at least 50% of America that is not so nice and certainly not so bright.

I agree without doubt that another Bush administration will do more damage to the United States then was done in the first 4 years. It will not serve the American people well in the world to say the very least. However on the other hand, there is also a lot good about the United States too and for those people I wish for them to have Kerry win to get back to some sanity and perhaps start to rebuild the damage in the world and with allies that Bush has done.

I believe we are stronger as one then we are divided in the world. However, with Bush elected to 4 more years, I fear that won't be possible and if Europe does exploit it, I believe it's their right to do so. The American people will have made their bed and I suppose they should lay in it. It will not be looked back on as a good time in American history.

Just a thought. What is everyone going to say if, by some chance, under Bush's administration, the US grows economically by leaps and bounds?

They'll attribute it to the sagacity of the infalliable UN. And the NeoCons in America will attribute it to the limitation of civil liberties that allowed the government to forcibly stimulate the free market.

Just a thought. What is everyone going to say if, by some chance, under Bush's administration, the US grows economically by leaps and bounds?
I'm pretty sure most of us would be speechless.

Why hasnt anyone posted that the reason why foreigners hate bush is that hes a strong president? (steel tariff anyone)

If you look at other measures of the economy, besides jobs, such as GDP growth, the US has had quite steady growth (3.7% this past quarter) since the 3rd Quarter of 2001 (Sept 11th).

http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/gdp304a_fax.pdf

I too plan on moving when i turn 18... to germany, or denmark, or perhaps switzerland, the german section

I once had a friend from french switzerland, and i asked him if he has ever been to the german section

He said "no", i asked him why, he said "i dont know, we just dont go there, nobody goes there"
Was he just weird or does this happen, anybody know?

Why hasnt anyone posted that the reason why foreigners hate bush is that hes a strong president? (steel tariff anyone)





No, he's pissed off most of the world and most of it see's him as a terrible leader, which he is.

Why hasnt anyone posted that the reason why foreigners hate bush is that hes a strong president? (steel tariff anyone)
This reminds me of an ali G quote

"He is strong... like stalin... if you dont vote for him, he will find you... and your family"

Just a thought. What is everyone going to say if, by some chance, under Bush's administration, the US grows economically by leaps and bounds?
Given current trends and dynamics not yet translated into trends, it would take a true miracle. The best he can hope for is stagnation. And this is not considering political factors. Every enemy the US makes, is someone with whom the EU can get friendly. Like the excellent British diplomatic relations with Iran in the face of US criticism, and the Russians and French helping them advance their nuclear technology, ironically enough, under the auspices of the IAEA (until, that is, the US panicked about how far they had got). Also, with the Kyoto Treaty now poised to go into effect, Europe, Russia and much of the rest of the world can participate in the carbon trading market the Americans themselves designed and pushed for - but the very architects of this market are now locked out of it.

There is a lot more to this than whether Bush's tax cuts will eventually pay off. What we are seeing is the Bush administration slamming a lot of doors shut, and the EU, Russia and China, if they have any sense, will continue to move in and occupy those rooms, one by one.

This is what you get when you limit your options, effective competition. And not the healthy sort that encourages you to become more efficient, the sort that squeezes you out of places permanently.

I'm also curious if all these people who are going to move out of the US on the basis of an election will really do it this time. I mean, last time, in 2000, all kinds of people, including celebreties said they would move if Bush won, or they were so pissed off that Bush won / stole the election that they were moving.

I can't think of but one or two that actually did. Everyone else said it was too much money to move (yeah, all of about $400 and the cost of finding a job, I've done it before when I moved to England for a short time), or they simply stopped talking about it.

So is everyone just blowing smoke again? Does anyone actually have a plan to move if Bush wins? I even offered to pay for some folks to move away last time ... no one took me up on it.

The American people will have made their bed and I suppose they should lay in it.
Objection!

I opposed the making of this bed, and I want no part in laying in it!

/me is fighting, kicking, and screaming: "Lemme go! I said lemme go! No, you can't make me get in that bed! RAPE! RAPE! I'M BEING RAPED!"

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

...

Okay, I suppose that now I've posted that humorous bit, I should probably post something a bit more serious.

I agree with Tactical Grace and Stephistan. A second Bush Presidency is not going to help the United States. I have no idea what that man is thinking, but I am far less than satisfied with how he has handled foreign affairs. Don't get me wrong: I'm glad Saddam Hussein is out of power, but I'm sure* that there are lots of other dictators out there who also need to be removed. However, wars are expensive and, as great as the United States is, we can't be everywhere at once.

I am also strongly dissatisfied with that "gay marriage ban amendment" stunt of his; that's a matter that should be left to the States. Not even murder is a federal crime (unless you're talking about the murder of a government official or an act on federal property); murder is a state crime. What makes homosexual union so much worse than death that it needs to be legisated on a federal level?

Anyway, I'm more spouting opinions than presenting logical arguments, so I'm going to stop here.

* Okay, so I'm being lazy and I'm not looking them up. However, I assume that there are plenty of places with human rights violations still going on.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

I think, either way, Europe will benefit from the last 4 years of Bush blundering. A weaker US is a stronger Europe. With the constitution ready and more candidates looking to join, we'll have a nice trade union in Europe soon (already have it actually), more freedoms than the Americans (thanks to their Patriot Act *cough* Guantanamo Bay *cough) and then we will take over as the leaders of the free world and avoid the traps the Americans have fallen into, which resulted in Al Qaida hating them.

Yeah, let's get a stronger Europe... that way the world can criticize Europe the same way they criticize America. Also European Nations can then send help, money and resources to an ailing America... hey, did the European Nations ever pay back the USofA for all the resources we sent to them in the past?... I dunno, maybe they did. Oh I really love that idea. Hey, maybe you can move the UN to Europe as well. then we can use the land for something usefull and you can deal with all this diplomatic immunity s##t and worry about their security for a change.

To all those wanting to jump ship should Bush win?... hmmm, heard alot of Hollywood actors say the same thing in 2000... Guess what, I'm still waiting for their great Exodus! To abandon your country just because your man didn't win is being a poor loser. I didn't leave when Clinton was re-elected, I won't leave no matter what the outcome.

Yeah, let's get a stronger Europe... that way the world can criticize Europe the same way they criticize America. Also European Nations can then send help, money and resources to an ailing America... hey, did the European Nations ever pay back the USofA for all the resources we sent to them in the past?... I dunno, maybe they did. Oh I really love that idea.
:D
Refund the Marshall Plan!

It's interesting that people seem to think that one man will make the world turn on a people and basically spell the end of a nation.

The Shrub is a low point but the end of the United States militarily and econcomically?

Sure the EU probably will make some gains. But the problem with econcomics, gains are not always perminant. The US is too large of a market to pass on.

People can spout morlistic platitudes all they want. They can say the US is evil. But all claims seem to vanish when there is money to be made. I don't hear about Europeans quitting American companies because of American govermental policies. I don't hear Arab nations telling American companies to get the hell out.

Nations have forgiven Germany for Hitler and Japan for Tojo. People will forgive the US for the shrub.

When you have such a large deficit as the US, any sort of economical growth comes with an asterix next to it.

No country can hold itself with such a large hole in it's budget, a national debt reaching unbelieveable numbers, tax cuts, and increased goverment spending.

Wich means, that by the time the whole federal structure collapses because of it's lack of fund, the 200 dollars you saved from the tax cuts will turn into thousands of dollars in debts. The US is slowly becoming an investment hell, and you are starting to see the first steps before a complete runaway from private investors, because nobody is going to want to be the one paying for the broken plates, once the US economy collapses.

Tax cuts are great! but not while the goverment is spending a lot more money than what it was supposed to do to balance out the cuts.

But, like it's been said, more power to the EU.

Well I remember the same exact things being said about our debts before Clinton.

Rumors of our collapse are over rated. Other nations want to see us knocked down a few pegs but collapse? Nope.

The US national debt, relative to the size of the economy is smaller than many European countries. Likewise our 04-05 defecits.

Also the US economy grows a faster rate than Europe's.

So I don't see europe storming ahead - unless thay abandon their socialist ideas

The US national debt, relative to the size of the economy is smaller than many European countries. Likewise our 04-05 defecits.

Indeed. Sweden checks in at #5 in the world in terms of debt per *capita. Greece #12, Slovenia at #18, Denmark #19, Hungary #25, and then the US at #26.

*Not per $100 GDP, per capita. In per $100 GDP, the US does even more favorable :

Greece is the first EU country, I think, at #56, followed by Sweden, 62, Hungary, 77, Slovenia, 82, Estonia, 83, Lithuania, 92, Poland, 102, Latvia, 106, Czech Republic, 110, Slovakia, 119, Denmark, 121, Spain, 139, Ireland, 141, Belgium, 143, US : 152.

poor poor europe. not the big dog on the block any more? all empires and kingdoms fall eventually, and your time is long gone. ours is now. who comes after us? hell if i know.

Whoever it is that comes after the US, one thing's for certain, it's not going to be Europe.

With their feeble rate of economic growth, they are getting relatively poorer every day. About the only decent economy in the whole system is the UK, and that's only because of Thatcher's reforms.

ahh thatcher, what a gal

I agree... I miss 'Ole Iron Britches She had balls. I can just see if she was Queen when America wanted their Revolution... can you just imagine. :rolleyes:

Whoever it is that comes after the US, one thing's for certain, it's not going to be Europe.

With their feeble rate of economic growth, they are getting relatively poorer every day. About the only decent economy in the whole system is the UK, and that's only because of Thatcher's reforms.



I would prefer to not get into the stale EU v US argument but I recently watched an American economist (sorry, forget the name, he was on Newsnight, Thursday) stating that the US is making a big mistake in not watching 'Europe' as closely as it should. Maybe some parts of the US sytem are, witness the panic and outrage over Europes GPS network, and the news that it is to place 'killer' satellites in orbit 'just in case' they become a threat..............scary stuff, a new low between America and Europe.

Anyway, I decided to do some research myself.

Of the 150 top global companies, by capitalisation (value), 75 are American and 53 are European.
This list omits countries like Japan, Korea, Cananda, Australia etc.

If you rank these same top 150 companies by sales, the figure is, 53 American and 77 European.

The United Kingdom and Germany alone both invest (year 2000 statistics) about 20% each of total US inward investment, equalling (obviously) 40%.

The flow of R & D between US & UK is larger than any two countries.

I will bore you no more with this stuff, I will simply say that if the US continues in its diplomatic and political path, the consequences for the American economy will eventually be huge. Yes, it's another King George bash. But he deserves bashing.
Of course only Americans have the right to vote next month, and it's no secret that nations do not like being told who they should elect as their leaders, but I hope thinking Americans take a bigger view than the largely false fear of terrorism and especially the murdurous adventure into Iraq.
Here is a list of the top 150 non US companies. Please Americans, remember this is a small, shrinking world and whether we like it or not, we are all interdependent.


Forbes

Each year we identify the largest companies, in terms of revenue, based outside the U.S. Based on 2002 results, the International 500 posted aggregate sales of $9.1 trillion, up 3% from the previous year. In contrast, the total sales of America's 500 largest companies, by sales, amounted to $6.7 trillion in 2002


Rank Company Country Industry Revenues ($mil) Enterprise Multiple
1 Royal Dutch/Shell Group Netherlands oil & gas 179,431 8
1 Royal Dutch/Shell Group United Kingdom oil & gas 179,431 8
2 BP United Kingdom oil & gas 178,721 10
3 DaimlerChrysler Germany automobile 140,777 6
4 Toyota Motor Japan automobile 131,616 7
5 Mitsubishi Japan trading & distribution 109,271 30
6 Mitsui & Co Japan trading & distribution 108,517 32
7 Allianz Worldwide Germany insurance 101,466 NA
8 Total SA France oil & gas 96,504 7
9 Nippon Tel & Tel Japan telecom services 89,550 4
10 ING Group Netherlands diversified finance 87,754 21
11 Itochu Japan trading & distribution 85,787 19
12 Volkswagen Group Germany automobile 84,707 4
13 Siemens Group Germany multi-industry 77,013 8
14 Sumitomo Japan trading & distribution 75,666 35
15 Marubeni Japan trading & distribution 72,089 19
16 Hitachi Japan electronic equipment 67,157 7
17 Honda Motor Japan automobile 65,352 7
18 Carrefour Group France food & drug retail 64,683 10
19 AXA Group France insurance 61,768 7
20 Sony Japan household durables 61,270 4
21 Matsushita Electric Indl Japan household durables 60,681 6
22 Ahold Netherlands food & drug retail 59,184 NA
23 Nestle Switzerland food products 57,204 10
24 Nissan Motor Japan automobile 55,982

Rank Company Country Industry Revenues ($mil) Enterprise Multiple
25 Nissho Iwai-Nichimen Japan trading & distribution 54,518 NA
26 Credit Suisse Group Switzerland diversified finance 53,649 88
27 Deutsche Bank Group Germany diversified finance 52,731 18
28 Fiat Group Italy automobile 52,164 14
29 Peugeot Groupe France automobile 51,231 5
30 BNP Paribas France bank 50,881 21
31 Deutsche Telekom Germany telecom services 50,528 8
32 Metro Germany food & drug retail 48,493 6
33 Aviva United Kingdom insurance 48,441 7
34 Generali Group Italy insurance 48,052 NA
35 Samsung Electronics South Korea semiconductor equip & prods 47,613 5
36 Vodafone United Kingdom wireless telecom svcs 46,947 11
37 Toshiba Japan electronic equipment 46,367 8
38 ENI Italy oil & gas 46,117 6
39 Unilever Netherlands food products 45,428 10
39 Unilever United Kingdom food products 45,428 10
40 Fortis Netherlands diversified finance 44,174 26
41 France Telecom France telecom services 43,885 9
42 Suez Group France diversified utility 43,377 7
43 UBS Switzerland diversified finance 43,371 39
44 Credit Agricole France bank 42,817 NA
45 HSBC Group United Kingdom bank 41,151 NA
46 RWE Group Germany diversified utility 40,927 7
47 Munich Re Germany insurance 40,708 32
48 Zurich Financial Services Switzerland insurance 40,448 NA

Rank Company Country Industry Revenues ($mil) Enterprise Multiple
49 Tesco United Kingdom food & drug retail 40,353 10
50 Tokyo Electric Power Japan electric utility 40,328 8
51 BMW-Bayerische Motor Germany automobile 39,793 8
52 China Petroleum & Chem China oil & gas 39,167 8
53 NEC Japan computers & peripherals 38,491 8
54 Fujitsu Japan computers & peripherals 37,856 6
55 Deutsche Post Germany air freight & couriers 36,944 14
56 Bayer HypoVereinsbank Germany bank 36,190 28
57 ABN-Amro Holding Netherlands bank 35,737 14
58 Tyco International Bermuda multi-industry 35,644 44
59 Prudential United Kingdom insurance 35,635 39
60 Royal Bank of Scotland United Kingdom bank 35,267 14
61 Legal & General Group United Kingdom insurance 35,131 14
62 Renault Group France automobile 34,197 11
63 E.On Germany electric utility 33,999 9
64 ThyssenKrupp Group Germany metals & mining 33,639 4
65 Samsung South Korea trading & distribution 32,965 8
66 Mitsubishi Motors Japan automobile 31,849 5
67 GlaxoSmithKline United Kingdom pharmaceuticals 31,845 12
68 Societe Generale Group France bank 31,827 21
69 Statoil Group Norway oil & gas 30,334 3
70 BASF Group Germany chemicals 30,319 5
71 HBOS United Kingdom bank 30,234 30
72 Philips Group Netherlands multi-industry 29,947 11
73 Mitsubishi Electric Japan electrical equipment 29,834 6

Rank Company Country Industry Revenues ($mil) Enterprise Multiple
74 Olivetti Group Italy telecom services 29,559 4
75 PetroChina China oil & gas 29,531 4
76 Aegon Insurance Group Netherlands insurance 29,311 5
77 Repsol-YPF Spain oil & gas 29,136 6
78 BT Group United Kingdom telecom services 28,944 6
79 Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Japan bank 28,746 NA
80 Saint-Gobain France building products 28,492 5
81 Veolia Environnement France water utility 28,308 7
82 Nokia Finland communications equipment 28,249 12
83 ENEL Italy electric utility 28,212 9
84 EADS Netherlands aerospace & defense 28,141 5
85 Mizuho Financial Japan bank 28,114 NA
86 Bayer Group Germany chemicals 27,253 7
87 Ito-Yokado Japan food & drug retail 27,171 5
88 Banco Santander Central Spain bank 27,120 10
89 J Sainsbury United Kingdom food & drug retail 26,939 6
90 Telefonica Spain telecom services 26,739 7
91 Barclays United Kingdom bank 26,565 14
92 Vivendi Universal France media 26,457 10
93 Nippon Oil Japan oil & gas 26,437 9
94 Pinault-Printemps-Redoute France diversified retail 25,764 8
95 Aeon Japan diversified retail 25,087 8
96 Millea Holdings Japan insurance 24,013 NA
97 LG Electronics South Korea household durables 23,785E NA
98 Canon Japan office electronics 23,448 8

Rank Company Country Industry Revenues ($mil) Enterprise Multiple
99 Arcelor Luxembourg metals & mining 23,089 7
100 KDDI Japan wireless telecom svcs 22,835 6
101 Mitsubishi Tokyo Finl Japan bank 22,730 NA
102 Petrobras-Petroleo Brasil Brazil oil & gas 22,612 4
103 Nippon Steel Japan metals & mining 22,539 8
104 Lloyds TSB Group United Kingdom bank 22,370 20
105 Rallye France specialty retail 22,287 8
106 Swiss Re Group Switzerland insurance 22,080 36
107 Centrica United Kingdom gas utility 21,490 8
108 Kansai Electric Power Japan electric utility 21,439 8
109 LG International South Korea trading & distribution 21,398 6
110 BBVA-Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Spain bank 21,384 10
111 CNP Assurances France insurance 21,350 11
112 Mitsubishi Heavy Inds Japan machinery 21,264 9
113 Alstom France electrical equipment 21,135 NA
114 Toyota Tsusho Japan trading & distribution 21,122 13
115 Hyundai Motor South Korea automobile 21,051 3
116 East Japan Railway Japan road & rail 21,034 9
117 Bouygues Group France construction & engineering 20,937 6
118 Indian Oil Corp India oil & gas 20,910P 7
119 Novartis Group Switzerland pharmaceuticals 20,795 14
120 UFJ Holdings Japan bank 20,665 NA
121 Fuji Photo Film Japan leisure products 20,542 5
122 Norsk Hydro Norway multi-industry 20,408 4
123 JFE Holdings Japan metals & mining 19,896

Rank Company Country Industry Revenues ($mil) Enterprise Multiple
124 Commerzbank Germany bank 19,704 63
125 Dexia Belgium bank 19,561 49
126 Delhaize Group Belgium food & drug retail 19,471 5
127 Aventis France pharmaceuticals 19,408 8
128 Mazda Motor Japan automobile 19,385 9
129 Gazprom Russia oil & gas 19,205 7
130 Denso Japan auto components 19,124 5
131 Volvo Group Sweden machinery 19,122 10
132 TUI Group Germany hotel & restaurant 19,107 5
133 Roche Group Switzerland pharmaceuticals 19,071 21
134 Royal & Sun Alliance United Kingdom insurance 19,037 NA
135 ABB Group Switzerland electrical equipment 18,295 10
136 Bridgestone Japan auto components 17,926 5
137 Sanyo Electric Japan household durables 17,893 9
138 Daiei Japan diversified retail 17,861 15
139 AstraZeneca United Kingdom pharmaceuticals 17,841 14
140 Chubu Electric Power Japan electric utility 17,840 8
141 Nippon Mining Japan oil & gas 17,733 11
142 Credit Lyonnais Group France bank 17,706 32
143 George Weston Canada food & drug retail 17,489 11
144 Celesio Germany health care providers 17,301 9
145 Almanij Belgium diversified finance 17,223 NA
146 Banca Intesa Italy bank 17,205 NA
147 SK Global South Korea trading & distribution 17,155 NA
148 Japan Airlines Sys Japan airline 17,081 13

Okay, it's 148.......................

I would prefer to not get into the stale EU v US argument but I recently watched an American economist (sorry, forget the name, he was on Newsnight, Thursday) stating that the US is making a big mistake in not watching 'Europe' as closely as it should. Maybe some parts of the US sytem are, witness the panic and outrage over Europes GPS network, and the news that it is to place 'killer' satellites in orbit 'just in case' they become a threat..............scary stuff, a new low between America and Europe.

Anyway, I decided to do some research myself.

Of the 150 top global companies, by capitalisation (value), 75 are American and 53 are European.
This list omits countries like Japan, Korea, Cananda, Australia etc.

If you rank these same top 150 companies by sales, the figure is, 53 American and 77 European.

The United Kingdom and Germany alone both invest (year 2000 statistics) about 20% each of total US inward investment, equalling (obviously) 40%.

The flow of R & D between US & UK is larger than any two countries.

I will bore you no more with this stuff, I will simply say that if the US continues in its diplomatic and political path, the consequences for the American economy will eventually be huge. Yes, it's another King George bash. But he deserves bashing.
Of course only Americans have the right to vote next month, and it's no secret that nations do not like being told who they should elect as their leaders, but I hope thinking Americans take a bigger view than the largely false fear of terrorism and especially the murdurous adventure into Iraq.
Here is a list of the top 150 non US companies. Please Americans, remember this is a small, shrinking world and whether we like it or not, we are all interdependent.


Forbes

Each year we identify the largest companies, in terms of revenue, based outside the U.S. Based on 2002 results, the International 500 posted aggregate sales of $9.1 trillion, up 3% from the previous year. In contrast, the total sales of America's 500 largest companies, by sales, amounted to $6.7 trillion in 2002


Rank Company Country Industry Revenues ($mil) Enterprise Multiple
1 Royal Dutch/Shell Group Netherlands oil & gas 179,431 8
1 Royal Dutch/Shell Group United Kingdom oil & gas 179,431 8
2 BP United Kingdom oil & gas 178,721 10
3 DaimlerChrysler Germany automobile 140,777 6
4 Toyota Motor Japan automobile 131,616 7
5 Mitsubishi Japan trading & distribution 109,271 30
6 Mitsui & Co Japan trading & distribution 108,517 32
7 Allianz Worldwide Germany insurance 101,466 NA
8 Total SA France oil & gas 96,504 7
9 Nippon Tel & Tel Japan telecom services 89,550 4
10 ING Group Netherlands diversified finance 87,754 21
11 Itochu Japan trading & distribution 85,787 19
12 Volkswagen Group Germany automobile 84,707 4
13 Siemens Group Germany multi-industry 77,013 8
14 Sumitomo Japan trading & distribution 75,666 35
15 Marubeni Japan trading & distribution 72,089 19
16 Hitachi Japan electronic equipment 67,157 7
17 Honda Motor Japan automobile 65,352 7
18 Carrefour Group France food & drug retail 64,683 10
19 AXA Group France insurance 61,768 7
20 Sony Japan household durables 61,270 4
21 Matsushita Electric Indl Japan household durables 60,681 6
22 Ahold Netherlands food & drug retail 59,184 NA
23 Nestle Switzerland food products 57,204 10
24 Nissan Motor Japan automobile 55,982

Rank Company Country Industry Revenues ($mil) Enterprise Multiple
25 Nissho Iwai-Nichimen Japan trading & distribution 54,518 NA
26 Credit Suisse Group Switzerland diversified finance 53,649 88
27 Deutsche Bank Group Germany diversified finance 52,731 18
28 Fiat Group Italy automobile 52,164 14
29 Peugeot Groupe France automobile 51,231 5
30 BNP Paribas France bank 50,881 21
31 Deutsche Telekom Germany telecom services 50,528 8
32 Metro Germany food & drug retail 48,493 6
33 Aviva United Kingdom insurance 48,441 7
34 Generali Group Italy insurance 48,052 NA
35 Samsung Electronics South Korea semiconductor equip & prods 47,613 5
36 Vodafone United Kingdom wireless telecom svcs 46,947 11
37 Toshiba Japan electronic equipment 46,367 8
38 ENI Italy oil & gas 46,117 6
39 Unilever Netherlands food products 45,428 10
39 Unilever United Kingdom food products 45,428 10
40 Fortis Netherlands diversified finance 44,174 26
41 France Telecom France telecom services 43,885 9
42 Suez Group France diversified utility 43,377 7
43 UBS Switzerland diversified finance 43,371 39
44 Credit Agricole France bank 42,817 NA
45 HSBC Group United Kingdom bank 41,151 NA
46 RWE Group Germany diversified utility 40,927 7
47 Munich Re Germany insurance 40,708 32
48 Zurich Financial Services Switzerland insurance 40,448 NA

Rank Company Country Industry Revenues ($mil) Enterprise Multiple
49 Tesco United Kingdom food & drug retail 40,353 10
50 Tokyo Electric Power Japan electric utility 40,328 8
51 BMW-Bayerische Motor Germany automobile 39,793 8
52 China Petroleum & Chem China oil & gas 39,167 8
53 NEC Japan computers & peripherals 38,491 8
54 Fujitsu Japan computers & peripherals 37,856 6
55 Deutsche Post Germany air freight & couriers 36,944 14
56 Bayer HypoVereinsbank Germany bank 36,190 28
57 ABN-Amro Holding Netherlands bank 35,737 14
58 Tyco International Bermuda multi-industry 35,644 44
59 Prudential United Kingdom insurance 35,635 39
60 Royal Bank of Scotland United Kingdom bank 35,267 14
61 Legal & General Group United Kingdom insurance 35,131 14
62 Renault Group France automobile 34,197 11
63 E.On Germany electric utility 33,999 9
64 ThyssenKrupp Group Germany metals & mining 33,639 4
65 Samsung South Korea trading & distribution 32,965 8
66 Mitsubishi Motors Japan automobile 31,849 5
67 GlaxoSmithKline United Kingdom pharmaceuticals 31,845 12
68 Societe Generale Group France bank 31,827 21
69 Statoil Group Norway oil & gas 30,334 3
70 BASF Group Germany chemicals 30,319 5
71 HBOS United Kingdom bank 30,234 30
72 Philips Group Netherlands multi-industry 29,947 11
73 Mitsubishi Electric Japan electrical equipment 29,834 6

Rank Company Country Industry Revenues ($mil) Enterprise Multiple
74 Olivetti Group Italy telecom services 29,559 4
75 PetroChina China oil & gas 29,531 4
76 Aegon Insurance Group Netherlands insurance 29,311 5
77 Repsol-YPF Spain oil & gas 29,136 6
78 BT Group United Kingdom telecom services 28,944 6
79 Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Japan bank 28,746 NA
80 Saint-Gobain France building products 28,492 5
81 Veolia Environnement France water utility 28,308 7
82 Nokia Finland communications equipment 28,249 12
83 ENEL Italy electric utility 28,212 9
84 EADS Netherlands aerospace & defense 28,141 5
85 Mizuho Financial Japan bank 28,114 NA
86 Bayer Group Germany chemicals 27,253 7
87 Ito-Yokado Japan food & drug retail 27,171 5
88 Banco Santander Central Spain bank 27,120 10
89 J Sainsbury United Kingdom food & drug retail 26,939 6
90 Telefonica Spain telecom services 26,739 7
91 Barclays United Kingdom bank 26,565 14
92 Vivendi Universal France media 26,457 10
93 Nippon Oil Japan oil & gas 26,437 9
94 Pinault-Printemps-Redoute France diversified retail 25,764 8
95 Aeon Japan diversified retail 25,087 8
96 Millea Holdings Japan insurance 24,013 NA
97 LG Electronics South Korea household durables 23,785E NA
98 Canon Japan office electronics 23,448 8

Rank Company Country Industry Revenues ($mil) Enterprise Multiple
99 Arcelor Luxembourg metals & mining 23,089 7
100 KDDI Japan wireless telecom svcs 22,835 6
101 Mitsubishi Tokyo Finl Japan bank 22,730 NA
102 Petrobras-Petroleo Brasil Brazil oil & gas 22,612 4
103 Nippon Steel Japan metals & mining 22,539 8
104 Lloyds TSB Group United Kingdom bank 22,370 20
105 Rallye France specialty retail 22,287 8
106 Swiss Re Group Switzerland insurance 22,080 36
107 Centrica United Kingdom gas utility 21,490 8
108 Kansai Electric Power Japan electric utility 21,439 8
109 LG International South Korea trading & distribution 21,398 6
110 BBVA-Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Spain bank 21,384 10
111 CNP Assurances France insurance 21,350 11
112 Mitsubishi Heavy Inds Japan machinery 21,264 9
113 Alstom France electrical equipment 21,135 NA
114 Toyota Tsusho Japan trading & distribution 21,122 13
115 Hyundai Motor South Korea automobile 21,051 3
116 East Japan Railway Japan road & rail 21,034 9
117 Bouygues Group France construction & engineering 20,937 6
118 Indian Oil Corp India oil & gas 20,910P 7
119 Novartis Group Switzerland pharmaceuticals 20,795 14
120 UFJ Holdings Japan bank 20,665 NA
121 Fuji Photo Film Japan leisure products 20,542 5
122 Norsk Hydro Norway multi-industry 20,408 4
123 JFE Holdings Japan metals & mining 19,896

Rank Company Country Industry Revenues ($mil) Enterprise Multiple
124 Commerzbank Germany bank 19,704 63
125 Dexia Belgium bank 19,561 49
126 Delhaize Group Belgium food & drug retail 19,471 5
127 Aventis France pharmaceuticals 19,408 8
128 Mazda Motor Japan automobile 19,385 9
129 Gazprom Russia oil & gas 19,205 7
130 Denso Japan auto components 19,124 5
131 Volvo Group Sweden machinery 19,122 10
132 TUI Group Germany hotel & restaurant 19,107 5
133 Roche Group Switzerland pharmaceuticals 19,071 21
134 Royal & Sun Alliance United Kingdom insurance 19,037 NA
135 ABB Group Switzerland electrical equipment 18,295 10
136 Bridgestone Japan auto components 17,926 5
137 Sanyo Electric Japan household durables 17,893 9
138 Daiei Japan diversified retail 17,861 15
139 AstraZeneca United Kingdom pharmaceuticals 17,841 14
140 Chubu Electric Power Japan electric utility 17,840 8
141 Nippon Mining Japan oil & gas 17,733 11
142 Credit Lyonnais Group France bank 17,706 32
143 George Weston Canada food & drug retail 17,489 11
144 Celesio Germany health care providers 17,301 9
145 Almanij Belgium diversified finance 17,223 NA
146 Banca Intesa Italy bank 17,205 NA
147 SK Global South Korea trading & distribution 17,155 NA
148 Japan Airlines Sys Japan airline 17,081 13

Okay, it's 148.......................


Well that's just a list of US v. the rest of the world. The fact that the US alone produces 2/3 the revenue of the rest of the world in a comparison of top companies is actually incredibly impressive.

Plus the fact remains. The US economy is, and has, grown at a much faster rate than europe's. Plus the US unemployment rate is lower than europe, ect.

Also the size of the budget defecit and national debt as a %tage of GDP is lower than Europe's.

So even under George Bush europe hasn't made up any ground or gotten any more powerful, so I don't see it happening whoever is elected.

The same claims were bandied around in the early nineties too. You'd here all the time that europe was about to become a super-power etc., but during the 1990s the Europe just continued to fall further behind the US economically. Probably the closes europe came to econmic parity with the US was the late 70s. (And look, if it achieves politcal union, there is no denying that it will be a super power, I'm not arguing that. I just don't see this great increase in power at the expense of the US)

being canadian, i would rather bush lose so that he and his cronies will stop pressuring martin to go along and pump millions into the damn missile defense thing.

i'd rather my tax money go to health care and education and eliminating our debt.

Yes missile defense is stupid, given the cost. Plus after spending billions to develop it the history of the US shows some spy will just steal it the next day. I say why bother. Let some else develop it, and we should just steal it for a change.

All I was pointing out above was that it doesn't matter who the president is with regards to europe's economy.

This reminds me of an ali G quote

"He is strong... like stalin... if you dont vote for him, he will find you... and your family"
No he won't. Dont be paranoid.

oder, wenn du Deutsch bist, hab keine Angst!

Well that's just a list of US v. the rest of the world. The fact that the US alone produces 2/3 the revenue of the rest of the world in a comparison of top companies is actually incredibly impressive.

Plus the fact remains. The US economy is, and has, grown at a much faster rate than europe's. Plus the US unemployment rate is lower than europe, ect.

Also the size of the budget defecit and national debt as a %tage of GDP is lower than Europe's.

So even under George Bush europe hasn't made up any ground or gotten any more powerful, so I don't see it happening whoever is elected.

The same claims were bandied around in the early nineties too. You'd here all the time that europe was about to become a super-power etc., but during the 1990s the Europe just continued to fall further behind the US economically. Probably the closes europe came to econmic parity with the US was the late 70s. (And look, if it achieves politcal union, there is no denying that it will be a super power, I'm not arguing that. I just don't see this great increase in power at the expense of the US)


We've possibly alienated the French and Germans (more than previously), the middle east, it doesn't matter how much more we alienate them, they've hated us for ages, chiefly due to fears that we'll install the same colonial regimes as...the European imperialist powers (I'm looking at you France, you and your foreign legion). And the Middle East is a bunch of oil-tin dictators (besides Turkey, and Iraq can be out of this for now) so who should care about what dictators think anyways.

We have tightened our bonds with Japan and China, maintained bonds with Mexico, gotten concessions out of Libya, maintained the sttus quo with latin america, made fun of Cuba and Castro the requisite number of times. Gotten the Poles in our camp (if I had the patience, I'd write the Polish submarine joke, but I'm too tired right now, so there).

Even if Russia is sliding back down the road to dictatorship, we haven't gotten into a nuclear showdown with them.

America's misfortune is Europe's opportunity.

This is out dated mercantilist zero sum thinking. In the 18th century mercantilist nations believed wealth was fixed and another country’s gain was their country's loss.

We can no longer afford to think in those terms. The 20th century demonstrated that the best way for one country to grow is for all countries to grow (i.e. the Marshall Plan). A strong long term relationship requires both parties to gain. Europe and the United States have had a close relationship, beneficial to both for a half century. While a united Europe is third only to China and India in population and is second only to the United States as an economic power, Europe and the U.S. still need each other as partners.

One need only look at the 1990s crisis in Kosovo to see that Europe still lacks leadership to act decisively on the world stage. The new European constitution is so general and full of loop holes it is practically meaningless. And even as weak as it is there is a good chance it will not be adopted by many countries. Also, many European countries have still not adopted the Euro, including one of the major partners, Great Britain. On the horizon is the difficulty of integrating the weaker East European economies. And while not Europe's biggest problem, the EU is still trying to figure out what to do with Turkey.

Certainly the days of Europe as a client of the U.S. are over and the United States must begin to deal with Europe with more respect as an equal partner. I believe the European Union can be a model for a greater worldwide union of nations in the distant future.

As an American I would hate to see a split in such a successful partnership.

I don't hear Arab nations telling American companies to get the hell out.

Nations have forgiven Germany for Hitler and Japan for Tojo. People will forgive the US for the shrub.
Regarding the first point, that is because America has spent a great deal of money making sure that anyone who calls for sych a thing, gets dragged off by the local secret police.

Regarding the second point, yes of course, but then, do you want to end up having been in that sort of position in the first place?

Well that's just a list of US v. the rest of the world. The fact that the US alone produces 2/3 the revenue of the rest of the world in a comparison of top companies is actually incredibly impressive.

Plus the fact remains. The US economy is, and has, grown at a much faster rate than europe's. Plus the US unemployment rate is lower than europe, ect.

Also the size of the budget defecit and national debt as a %tage of GDP is lower than Europe's.

Europe isn't one country there are countries that have much higher national debt and unemployment rates than the us and there are countries that really don't.
(not trying to be smart here, im sure you know that, too ;) I just felt like adding this).

Regarding the first point, that is because America has spent a great deal of money making sure that anyone who calls for sych a thing, gets dragged off by the local secret police.

Regarding the second point, yes of course, but then, do you want to end up having been in that sort of position in the first place?


SECRET POLICE??? WITH ALL THE WORLD'S EYES WATCHING??? I think you give Bush too much credit. Not even Saddam could hide his secret police, and he had Iraq's media in his hands.

Why hasnt anyone posted that the reason why foreigners hate bush is that hes a strong president? (steel tariff anyone)
I don't want to go into the reasons why he's so unpopular here, but that's not it.

And the steel tariff was a hypocritical flip-flop. He said he believed in free trade.

I speak not of American economic collapse under a second Bush presidency, but decline. The US economy is growing faster than Europe's now, but if it starts shrinking, then it will be in trouble.

Just how attractive to investment will the US be as its debt and deficit continue to grow? If the Chinese do not do as they're told, and revalue their currency (what an imperialist notion that is)? If the ME Gulf states, increasingly desperate for revenue with which to appease their rapidly growing and oppressed populations, get fed up with selling their oil in falling US dollars?

I say these as ifs, but they are not ifs, this is what is happening now. Bush's economic mismanagement and offensive treatment of the world on the diplomatic stage, have stored up a lot of problems for the US, and will continue to do so, even as the current crop matures. Europe, as I said in my first post, is still a long way from political unity, so all this BS some people have written about European military supremacy (WTF did that idea come from?) is beside the point. Its biggest strength lies as a trading block which rivals the US in size, to which the US market is of rapidly decreasing importance. A second term of Bush will only encourage it to seek out closer ties with Russia, China and the Middle East, and while the world will remain interdependent, Europe's role in the American market will not be so great that a crisis there will affect it as much.

This is what I mean when I say that America's misfortune is Europe's gain. For in spite of all the interdependency that globalisation has brought, the repulsive nature of the new form the US has taken is such, that Europe is maneuvering itself into a position where America's problems are not going to be its problems. This, from any nationalist European viewpoint, is progress.

(As an aside, if what the future holds is a pre-emptive strike on Iran or the shooting down of European GPS satellites, then talk of economic competition becomes tame. The US will not survive something like that.)

Europe isn't one country there are countries that have much higher national debt and unemployment rates than the us and there are countries that really don't.
(not trying to be smart here, im sure you know that, too ;) I just felt like adding this).

I think the UK is the only country that has parity in debt and deficit. The other are all higher. Some much higher like italy. Therefore as an aggregate it works out to be more. Now its a euro zone, the national debts over there are a biiger concern to global stability than the US's. Not that the europeans will ever admit their spendthrift ways are causing problems.

Also because of the stagnant growth, its only going to get worse for them.

SECRET POLICE??? WITH ALL THE WORLD'S EYES WATCHING??? I think you give Bush too much credit. Not even Saddam could hide his secret police, and he had Iraq's media in his hands.
:rolleyes: Clearly, no secret police is secret, because everyone knows they exist when they do. But seriously, try walking through a Saudi city with an Americans Out placard and see where that gets you. That's the only reason the US hasn't been thrown out yet.

:rolleyes: Clearly, no secret police is secret, because everyone knows they exist when they do. But seriously, try walking through a Saudi city with an Americans Out placard and see where that gets you. That's the only reason the US hasn't been thrown out yet.

wellll... I'll pass on that activity... hey maybe we can get Tom Greene to do it... he'll do anything. ;)

Mac the Man:
Just a thought. What is everyone going to say if, by some chance, under Bush's administration, the US grows economically by leaps and bounds?

I don't think a president can influence the economy that much. He can't just enact a law banning outsourcing jobs to India, or lowering wages to make the economy more competitive. Bush has allready done what's in his power to do: screw up the oil market and let the wheels of the war-industry turn..

Ogiek:
Certainly the days of Europe as a client of the U.S. are over and the United States must begin to deal with Europe with more respect as an equal partner. <..> As an American I would hate to see a split in such a successful partnership.

I completely agree. No alliance has ever brought so much stability and prosperity to itself and the rest of the world. There may be differences in opinion between Europe and the US, but they are so small if you compare them with our differences with other regions. But you know how it always goes: only once something is gone people can realise it's true value.

I think the source of the recent tensions in the Europe-US relations is mostly the result of that we don't feel being taken seriously by the US. We said, in all honesty, that the war against Iraq would do a lot more harm than good: the US didnt listen. We are still saying that global warming is a real threat: the US rejects kyoto.
We really don't try to harm you economy (kyoto), or expose you to wmd's (iraq). We just say that some of your policies are flawed. Real friends don't just applaud everything the other does, but honestly tell eachother when mistakes are being made.

People probably won't agree with my views here, but I'm not really bothered who America elects. All I'm concerned with is British troops pulling out of Iraq. As soon as that happens, the outcome of the US elections are of no concern to me and they can elect who they like.

People probably won't agree with my views here, but I'm not really bothered who America elects. All I'm concerned with is British troops pulling out of Iraq. As soon as that happens, the outcome of the US elections are of no concern to me and they can elect who they like.
you're right, you're on the safe side. at least, whoever gets elected won't even dream of attacking G.B. So why would you care ;)

We've possibly alienated the French and Germans (more than previously), the middle east, it doesn't matter how much more we alienate them, they've hated us for ages, chiefly due to fears that we'll install the same colonial regimes as...the European imperialist powers (I'm looking at you France, you and your foreign legion). And the Middle East is a bunch of oil-tin dictators (besides Turkey, and Iraq can be out of this for now) so who should care about what dictators think anyways.

We have tightened our bonds with Japan and China, maintained bonds with Mexico, gotten concessions out of Libya, maintained the sttus quo with latin america, made fun of Cuba and Castro the requisite number of times. Gotten the Poles in our camp (if I had the patience, I'd write the Polish submarine joke, but I'm too tired right now, so there).

Even if Russia is sliding back down the road to dictatorship, we haven't gotten into a nuclear showdown with them.

Come on, what about Canada? You know when the United States has alienated Canada there is some thing terribly wrong. Given until Bush decided Blair and the UK were his best friends it was Canada. Despite the fact that no country did more to help America on 9/11 then Canada and NO Bush never even thanked us.. Believe me, with the exception of Poland, find me one country in the free world were the people don't hate Bush?

"You know when the United States has alienated Canada there is some thing terribly wrong." I have to agree.

Here is an article about how bad it is here in the US:

Arabs Worried About the Impact of ‘Second US Civil War’
Amir Taheri, Arab News

JEDDAH, 25 October 2004 — Normally it is Washington that worries about stability in Arab countries.
These days, however, there is much official nail biting in Arab capitals over the threat of instability in the United States.
“What we are witnessing in the United States is their second civil war,” says an Arab diplomat posted to Washington. “The difference is that this war is waged in the media, in churches, on the hustings, and inside many American homes.”
That next week’s presidential election is the closest in US history seems certain. What is causing concern in Arab and other capitals is that the intense passions unleashed by both sides could provoke instability and violence regardless of who wins.
Arab diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, claim that the Democrats, many of whom believe their party was robbed of victory in 2000, are determined to fight hard to dislodge President George W. Bush from the White House.
Fears that the “American street” might explode, in the fashion often attributed to the “Arab street,” may well be exaggerated. But the possibility of US government becoming paralyzed for weeks, if not months, as a result of disputes over election results cannot be discounted.
Both President Bush and his Democrat challenger Sen. John Kerry start from a solid support base of around 40 percent of the electorate each. The remaining 20 percent consists of undecided or floating voters whose decision could affect the outcome in 12 states still up for grabs.
In the 2000 presidential election the closeness of the results in the state of Florida provoked a legal duel that was ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court. This time the experience of Florida could be repeated in many other states.
Both Republicans and Democrats have already set up legal headquarters in Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia and New Hampshire. Most polls show the two candidates neck-and-neck in those states. That means the outcome could be decided by a few dozen or a few hundred votes. Some of the states have laws under which if the margin of victory is less than half of one percent a recount is automatically conducted. Others have no such laws, forcing the loser to take the matter to court on other grounds such as possible fraud.
The Florida fight in 2000 dragged on for more than a month. Similar fights in a dozen or more states could last longer. And that could put American decision-making on autopilot, so to speak.
“The prospect of the US being unable to take urgent decisions for months cannot be taken lightly,” suggests an Arab diplomat. “Such paralysis could be dangerous in our region where the situation remains volatile. The war in Iraq, the dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the UN fight with Syria over Lebanon, and the Israeli plan to withdraw from Gaza cannot be put on the backburner for months.”
The calendar of events for the three months ahead is unusually full in the region.
• Three weeks after the American election Egypt will host an international conference, in Sharm al-Sheikh on the future of Iraq. A lame-duck US administration bogged down in domestic electoral disputes would lack the clout and he credibility to provide leadership.
• A few days after that the International Atomic Energy Agency will have to decide whether to refer Iran to the United Nations’ Security Council for an allegedly illegal nuclear program.
• Also in November Hamed Karzai is scheduled to be sworn in as the first directly elected president of Afghanistan, and to form a new Cabinet. Again, the US is required to play a central role in bringing the rival factions together to ensure a smooth transition to a pluralist system in Kabul.
• Early in December UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is scheduled to report on Syria’s compliance with resolution 1559 that requires the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon. Political paralysis in Washington could render action impossible, thus deepening the crisis in Lebanon.
• In January, Iraq is scheduled to hold elections for a Constituent Assembly to approve the draft of a new constitution for submission to popular vote in a referendum. The perception that the US is too pre-occupied with domestic electoral disputes to focus on Iraqi elections could encourage the forces that are fighting to disrupt the process of democratization in Baghdad.
• In February, Israel is expected to start withdrawing troops from Gaza. This would require American leadership in forming an international peacekeeping force.
If Bush wins the Democrats are certain to do all they can to delay the finalization of the results through litigation.
But even if Kerry wins, the transition might not be as smooth as in 2000. The Republicans are likely to retain control of the Senate; and that would give them the possibility of delaying the formation of a Kerry administration by vetoing his nominees for key posts.
“It may be exaggerated that we are biting our nails in worry,” says an Arab official. “But we need contingency plans to cope with a situation in which the US is busy with its domestic fights.”

Come on, what about Canada? You know when the United States has alienated Canada there is some thing terribly wrong. Given until Bush decided Blair and the UK were his best friends it was Canada. Despite the fact that no country did more to help America on 9/11 then Canada and NO Bush never even thanked us.. Believe me, with the exception of Poland, find me one country in the free world were the people don't hate Bush?
Israel and Russia would elect Bush over Kerry.

Just a thought. What is everyone going to say if, by some chance, under Bush's administration, the US grows economically by leaps and bounds?

well, nobody will be saying anything, since well all be riding flying pigs in an ice-paved hell.

Why hasnt anyone posted that the reason why foreigners hate bush is that hes a strong president? (steel tariff anyone)
As a foreigner, I can honestly say that that's got nothing to do with why I hate him.

Although Bush is clearly a buffoon, with politics and a support base which I find pathetic rather than infuriating, a large part of me will be hoping that he wins the election.

Strange thing for a European centrist to say, but then I am perhaps living up to my reputation for cynicism when I say that today, America's misfortune is Europe's opportunity. If Bush is elected, the US stands to lose out, in the fields of security, diplomacy and international reputation, not to mention economically. Europe is now a huge and growing trade block, and while political unity is a far more distant prospect than the economic unity which is pretty much upon us, there can be no doubt that it is now an effective competitor with the US in many world arenas.

Thus, the likely detrimental effects of a second Bush presidency on the US will provide Europe with opportunities that it can turn to its advantage. It is by no means a given that Europe will be able to exploit the situations which will present themselves to their fullest, but from a cold self-interested point of view, having the US burdened with an inept administration can only be good for any competitors.

And so, to any European instinctively anti-Bush people out there, I say, maybe their loss is our gain? How altruistic do we really want to be with regard to an entity which is now as much an economic and geostrategic competitor as a partner? Having the Bush administration remain in power may be a negative thing, but if it is to be so, we may yet find that the situation can be usefully exploited.Well, that's as may be, but personally I'd be worried about the worldwide impact of the recession that America is heading into, not to mention the fact that we're sitting not too far above this little hotspot called the Middle East, which Bush seems to be poking at like a kid at an ants nest.

The UN also, the only practical force for peace, democracy and freedom from tyranny, is being weakened by America's actions. That's not good for anyone.

SECRET POLICE??? WITH ALL THE WORLD'S EYES WATCHING??? I think you give Bush too much credit. Not even Saddam could hide his secret police, and he had Iraq's media in his hands.
I'm not a nut, but I find it incredibly naive that you don't believe there are organisations or divisions of organisations in the US government who work very much outside of the public eye.

Why hasnt anyone posted that the reason why foreigners hate bush is that hes a strong president? (steel tariff anyone)
Or that he's a idiout who is going to start World War 3, your choice.

Although Bush is clearly a buffoon, with politics and a support base which I find pathetic rather than infuriating, a large part of me will be hoping that he wins the election.

Strange thing for a European centrist to say, but then I am perhaps living up to my reputation for cynicism when I say that today, America's misfortune is Europe's opportunity. If Bush is elected, the US stands to lose out, in the fields of security, diplomacy and international reputation, not to mention economically. Europe is now a huge and growing trade block, and while political unity is a far more distant prospect than the economic unity which is pretty much upon us, there can be no doubt that it is now an effective competitor with the US in many world arenas.

Thus, the likely detrimental effects of a second Bush presidency on the US will provide Europe with opportunities that it can turn to its advantage. It is by no means a given that Europe will be able to exploit the situations which will present themselves to their fullest, but from a cold self-interested point of view, having the US burdened with an inept administration can only be good for any competitors.

And so, to any European instinctively anti-Bush people out there, I say, maybe their loss is our gain? How altruistic do we really want to be with regard to an entity which is now as much an economic and geostrategic competitor as a partner? Having the Bush administration remain in power may be a negative thing, but if it is to be so, we may yet find that the situation can be usefully exploited.


TG an interesting point: You, the EU may take over as the worlds police force, but, Like i have said on the USAs empire: All will fall.

And is it not funny, that the EU tries to become like the US?

TG an interesting point: You, the EU may take over as the worlds police force, but, Like i have said on the USAs empire: All will fall.

And is it not funny, that the EU tries to become likethe US?
Of course, these things are cyclical. All civilisations have their moment, then decline and fall. The universal inevitability of that fate is undeniable.

Of course, these things are cyclical. All civilisations have their moment, then decline and fall. The universal inevitability of that fate is undeniable.

We have had the best Idea so far; USA And EU.

Anyone missed the "United" yet?

Communism anyone?

This view is based on two things I believe are wrong. First, that the Bush administration is bad for America. I have done so much typing on why he's good that I could write a book with it. But secondly, you believe that success for one group is defeat for another. I disagree. In this global society, world governments are not in two or three competing camps, like they were in the Cold War. Rather, cooperation is key. You also say that this is an economic oppritunity for Europe, but I can't understand why. The three most important economies are the US, Japan, and China. If one of those three fall, so does the rest of the global economy. It is foolish to assume that anyone can profit from it.

This view is based on two things I believe are wrong. First, that the Bush administration is bad for America. I have done so much typing on why he's good that I could write a book with it.. The three most important economies are the US, Japan, and China. If one of those three fall, so does the rest of the global economy. It is foolish to assume that anyone can profit from it.

If you had a brain anthrax, you'd be dangerous. Please go ahead and write that book, comedies are hard to find. You are to economics and politics what Mike Tyson is to equal rights for women.

If you had a brain anthrax, you'd be dangerous. Please go ahead and write that book, comedies are hard to find. You are to economics and politics what Mike Tyson is to equal rights for women.
Well, the government's economic policies do keep the dollar nice and weak, meaning more foreign investment. The central banks of China, actually, buy enough T-bonds to finance the trade deficit we have, and then some.

Well, the government's economic policies do keep the dollar nice and weak, meaning more foreign investment.

Okay Einstein, as you habitually don't read the full threads you post in I'll remind you of just one little fact I posted. 40% of all inward US investment is from UK and Germany. Read carefully.............that's almost half from just two European countries. You remember Europe don't you?, that little backwater whos economy is now bigger than the US, whos currency (it's the Euro.....just so you don't have to look it up) is taking up the dollar slack and usurping it as the world currency.
Europe, that place that comes in as a footnote to your US, Japan and China trio.
You did say that foreign investment is good didn't you?

What does it matter? Foreign nations own much of our country. Japan practicly owns Hawaii and a chunck of California. Nothing is made here but shipped from overseas. America doesn't make anything anymore but gets parts from Asia.

What does it matter? Foreign nations own much of our country. Japan practicly owns Hawaii and a chunck of California. Nothing is made here but shipped from overseas. America doesn't make anything anymore but gets parts from Asia.

It's a misconception that foreign investment equals foreign 'ownership' of a nations economy. It is also a misconception that Japan leads in US investment.





Despite the notoriety of Japanese investors, the British have the largest U.S. direct investment holding—with the Dutch not far behind—as has been the case since colonial times. In 1990 the United Kingdom held about 27 percent of foreign direct investment in the United States, significantly greater than Japan's 21 percent. The European Economic Community (EC) collectively holds about 57 percent. Moreover, according to research by Eric Rosengren, between 1978 and 1987, Japanese investors acquired only 94 U.S. companies, putting them fifth behind the British (640), Canadians (435), Germans (150), and French (113).

Foreign investment increases the amount of capital—equipment, buildings, land, patents, copyrights, trademarks, and goodwill—in the host economy. The increase in the quantity and quality of tools for labor's use in converting one set of goods (labor and other inputs) into another (finished output) raises labor productivity and GDP. Because about two-thirds of GDP goes to labor as wages, salaries, and fringe benefits, rising output means higher wages or more employment. Thus, foreign investment raises labor productivity, income, and employment. Workers are better off with more capital than with less and are usually indifferent to the nationality of the investor.
Politicians generally overlook labor's benign attitude toward foreign capital, sometimes at their peril. In the 1988 presidential campaign the Democratic candidate, Michael Dukakis, told a group of workers at a St. Louis automotive parts plant: "Maybe the Republican ticket wants our children to work for foreign owners... but that's not the kind of a future Lloyd Bentsen and I and Dick Gephardt and you want for America." Dukakis's advance staff failed to tell him that the workers Dukakis was addressing had been employed by an Italian corporation for eleven years.
Mack Ott is an economist with the Barents' Applied Economics Group. He was previously a research economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Okay Einstein, as you habitually don't read the full threads you post in I'll remind you of just one little fact I posted. 40% of all inward US investment is from UK and Germany. Read carefully.............that's almost half from just two European countries. You remember Europe don't you?, that little backwater whos economy is now bigger than the US, whos currency (it's the Euro.....just so you don't have to look it up) is taking up the dollar slack and usurping it as the world currency.
Europe, that place that comes in as a footnote to your US, Japan and China trio.
You did say that foreign investment is good didn't you?
Very good. I think that foreign investment is good for any economy. In fact, I see a bright future for America if more countries invest in it.
The UK, btw, is extremely important, but I guess they are just short of my trio because their base of production and consumption market isn't as big as the other three (but it is no less important). Germany, while once a behemoth, is a slow economic engine that's pretty much not gonna do much until at least Gerhard Schroeder is thrown out of office, but its hurdles are, of course, bigger than that.
As for the Eurozone being that strong, I salute them. It is always nice to see that so much capital exists. But as they are already a predominatly urban continent, they'd be best off to use that capital for either consumption or investment, in hopes of creating even more capital. I see no loosers in the global economy, only winners.

Eh,

May I remind you that the European Union is one which bases its power on alliances? We don't have the luxury of going it alone. United we stand, divided we fall and all that. Yes there is oppertunity to push ourselves further on the world front-trade wise-I'm all for but diplomactically the EU isn't ready or able to start becoming more involed in Palestine, Iraq-while EU countries are involved in peace keeping for want of abetter word in Iraq there isn't a definite EU army. Unitl we have a more united EU, we're gonna suffer if Bush gets in again which he well :( It's only a matter of time be Madrid or 9/11 happen again on european soil. Kerry can't absolutly prevent this but his proposal of a security summit to maintain and forge peace alliances works. Since WW2 or the Cold War(we'll ignore Viet Nam for the time being) alliances is what has prevented WW3..I know it's only a matter of time but I'm a hopeless political optimist and say education coupled with allicances and a genuine belief in peace will keep this at bay and also..are idiots really going to use nuclear weapons...they'll destroy the entire world?? Oh Lord, I am to optimistic ah well....

Originally Posted by New Anthrus

This view is based on two things I believe are wrong. First, that the Bush administration is bad for America. I have done so much typing on why he's good that I could write a book with it.. The three most important economies are the US, Japan, and China. If one of those three fall, so does the rest of the global economy. It is foolish to assume that anyone can profit from it.


What the hell are you on? Ya down with Bush and all that. The global economy would suffer yes, not fall. There are too may measures in place. Ever wonder why American economy fall after 9/11? All governments have to have a procedure to combat this

. I see no loosers in the global economy, only winners.

Try Africa, and parts of South America and Asia.

https://secure.worldvision.org.uk/presscentre/pressreleases/?ExpandMode=ExpandAll

Try Africa, and parts of South America and Asia.

https://secure.worldvision.org.uk/presscentre/pressreleases/?ExpandMode=ExpandAll
Asia and Latin America have had tremendous sucesses in the past twenty years. The only reason Africa is still a holdout is because of war, and illiberal regimes. As the Middle East inevitably improves in the next fifty years, the world's attention will have to turn to Africa, as I believe that the situation there will be as dangerous to the world as the Middle East is today. However, there is some successes. South Africa's economic growth continues to outpace its population growth, even though apartheid ended, as many feared that it may stunt South African growth.

I hate people calling Europe *us*. There's England and the rest of it...

No, seriously, i cant see any benefit for Britain, (altohugh I cant speak for the rest of Europe - which, thinking about it, is probably why america is richer) with bush continuing. At least good ol' tony wont have to suck up to him anymore. Why would a company leave america and set up shop here? Would we let them? maybe im wrong, i accept that. I personally dont like the thought of a moron controlling the worlds biggest destructive forces, so at least we could have someone capable of independent thought

Arent the euro and the pund going up against dollars anyway?

I hate people calling Europe *us*. There's England and the rest of it...

No, seriously, i cant see any benefit for Britain, (altohugh I cant speak for the rest of Europe - which, thinking about it, is probably why america is richer) with bush continuing. At least good ol' tony wont have to suck up to him anymore. Why would a company leave america and set up shop here? Would we let them? maybe im wrong, i accept that. I personally dont like the thought of a moron controlling the worlds biggest destructive forces, so at least we could have someone capable of independent thought

Arent the euro and the pund going up against dollars anyway?

Thou art well named Moron.

You are European.

You may not see benefit but many who can spell, write with half decent grammar, and can understand an argument bigger than who's gonna win 'Millionaire' do.

America is not 'richer', EU (and it's the EU we're talking about buddy-boy) is larger than US and ..gosh......has a bigger economy.

'Good old Tony' will suck up to the next pres too. At least using your stupid terms. It's called Anglo-American co-operation and it's stood us and the US and Europe in good bloody stead for 70 years or so.

Company leave America and set up shop here? I can only presume you're refering to inward and outward investment and so are a fool.

You and I and millions of others may not like King George, but he's not a moron. Morons are people who call better educated people morons on the web...........just read it a few times, it'll make sense to you eventually.

As for independent thought...........................

.........................................Try it.

Globes R Us, do not flame or bait people. Consider yourself warned.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

Just a thought. What is everyone going to say if, by some chance, under Bush's administration, the US grows economically by leaps and bounds?
What? Wh? WOUAHAHAHAHAHA

When you have such a large deficit as the US, any sort of economical growth comes with an asterix next to it.


Debt leveraging. Deficits are meaningless if the increased economic output is greater than the interest payments.

Okay Einstein, as you habitually don't read the full threads you post in I'll remind you of just one little fact I posted. 40% of all inward US investment is from UK and Germany. Read carefully.............that's almost half from just two European countries. You remember Europe don't you?, that little backwater whos economy is now bigger than the US, whos currency (it's the Euro.....just so you don't have to look it up) is taking up the dollar slack and usurping it as the world currency.
Europe, that place that comes in as a footnote to your US, Japan and China trio.
You did say that foreign investment is good didn't you?

So, they have no worthwhile investments in their own countries? Thanks, keep giving us money. The decline of the dollar is leaving the EU in a panic.

Although Bush is clearly a buffoon, with politics and a support base which I find pathetic rather than infuriating, a large part of me will be hoping that he wins the election.

Strange thing for a European centrist to say, but then I am perhaps living up to my reputation for cynicism when I say that today, America's misfortune is Europe's opportunity. If Bush is elected, the US stands to lose out, in the fields of security, diplomacy and international reputation, not to mention economically. Europe is now a huge and growing trade block, and while political unity is a far more distant prospect than the economic unity which is pretty much upon us, there can be no doubt that it is now an effective competitor with the US in many world arenas.

Thus, the likely detrimental effects of a second Bush presidency on the US will provide Europe with opportunities that it can turn to its advantage. It is by no means a given that Europe will be able to exploit the situations which will present themselves to their fullest, but from a cold self-interested point of view, having the US burdened with an inept administration can only be good for any competitors.

And so, to any European instinctively anti-Bush people out there, I say, maybe their loss is our gain? How altruistic do we really want to be with regard to an entity which is now as much an economic and geostrategic competitor as a partner? Having the Bush administration remain in power may be a negative thing, but if it is to be so, we may yet find that the situation can be usefully exploited.
You mean the german economy hasn't been limping along since it adopted a currency stronger than the dollar? Interesting.

Although Bush is clearly a buffoon, with politics and a support base which I find pathetic rather than infuriating, a large part of me will be hoping that he wins the election.

Strange thing for a European centrist to say, but then I am perhaps living up to my reputation for cynicism when I say that today, America's misfortune is Europe's opportunity. If Bush is elected, the US stands to lose out, in the fields of security, diplomacy and international reputation, not to mention economically. Europe is now a huge and growing trade block, and while political unity is a far more distant prospect than the economic unity which is pretty much upon us, there can be no doubt that it is now an effective competitor with the US in many world arenas.

Thus, the likely detrimental effects of a second Bush presidency on the US will provide Europe with opportunities that it can turn to its advantage. It is by no means a given that Europe will be able to exploit the situations which will present themselves to their fullest, but from a cold self-interested point of view, having the US burdened with an inept administration can only be good for any competitors.

And so, to any European instinctively anti-Bush people out there, I say, maybe their loss is our gain? How altruistic do we really want to be with regard to an entity which is now as much an economic and geostrategic competitor as a partner? Having the Bush administration remain in power may be a negative thing, but if it is to be so, we may yet find that the situation can be usefully exploited.

Forget it. Our leaders are way too dumb, short-sighted and USAss-kissing to take advantage of this situation on the international political & economic stage. However, I did go thru the same reasoning when I came to the conclusion that I wanted Bush to win.

What does it matter? Foreign nations own much of our country. Japan practicly owns Hawaii and a chunck of California. Nothing is made here but shipped from overseas. America doesn't make anything anymore but gets parts from Asia.

Yeah, but America practically owns many third world countries the same way Japan, China and the EU own America. So its all an intricate web. The only side who would really only lose out if shit hit the fan would of course be the 3rd world :( poor bastards.

Mac the Man:


I don't think a president can influence the economy that much. He can't just enact a law banning outsourcing jobs to India, or lowering wages to make the economy more competitive. Bush has allready done what's in his power to do: screw up the oil market and let the wheels of the war-industry turn..

Ogiek:


I completely agree. No alliance has ever brought so much stability and prosperity to itself and the rest of the world. There may be differences in opinion between Europe and the US, but they are so small if you compare them with our differences with other regions. But you know how it always goes: only once something is gone people can realise it's true value.

I think the source of the recent tensions in the Europe-US relations is mostly the result of that we don't feel being taken seriously by the US. We said, in all honesty, that the war against Iraq would do a lot more harm than good: the US didnt listen. We are still saying that global warming is a real threat: the US rejects kyoto.
We really don't try to harm you economy (kyoto), or expose you to wmd's (iraq). We just say that some of your policies are flawed. Real friends don't just applaud everything the other does, but honestly tell eachother when mistakes are being made.

How did the Euro-American alliance bring prosperity to the rest of the world?

Come on, what about Canada? You know when the United States has alienated Canada there is some thing terribly wrong. Given until Bush decided Blair and the UK were his best friends it was Canada. Despite the fact that no country did more to help America on 9/11 then Canada and NO Bush never even thanked us.. Believe me, with the exception of Poland, find me one country in the free world were the people don't hate Bush?

Now I dont know whether the Polish people hate Bush, but the majority of Poland's population was against Bush's conquest of Iraq.

Although Bush is clearly a buffoon, with politics and a support base which I find pathetic rather than infuriating, a large part of me will be hoping that he wins the election.

Strange thing for a European centrist to say, but then I am perhaps living up to my reputation for cynicism when I say that today, America's misfortune is Europe's opportunity. If Bush is elected, the US stands to lose out, in the fields of security, diplomacy and international reputation, not to mention economically. Europe is now a huge and growing trade block, and while political unity is a far more distant prospect than the economic unity which is pretty much upon us, there can be no doubt that it is now an effective competitor with the US in many world arenas.

Thus, the likely detrimental effects of a second Bush presidency on the US will provide Europe with opportunities that it can turn to its advantage. It is by no means a given that Europe will be able to exploit the situations which will present themselves to their fullest, but from a cold self-interested point of view, having the US burdened with an inept administration can only be good for any competitors.

And so, to any European instinctively anti-Bush people out there, I say, maybe their loss is our gain? How altruistic do we really want to be with regard to an entity which is now as much an economic and geostrategic competitor as a partner? Having the Bush administration remain in power may be a negative thing, but if it is to be so, we may yet find that the situation can be usefully exploited.

well, if all these things are true why the hell didn't this happen four years ago

cause your wrong

what makes you think the next four years will be drastically different?

So, they have no worthwhile investments in their own countries? Thanks, keep giving us money. The decline of the dollar is leaving the EU in a panic.

Warning taken Grace.

Force, you forget it's a two-way street. Think of the American investment in Europe, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Heinz etc. We support each other, isn't that the point?