NationStates Jolt Archive

well is it? looking over that 'American pride' thread i noted that Americans see their country's economic might as a great source of pride and strength... well duh, of course.... but it got me thinking as to whether this is really the truth? is the mighty USA really such a ridiculously advanced economic superpower as everyone seems to think?

the answer i've come up with after some research is...


*suspense*



no :eek:

well, kind of no anyway. economics and international statistics comparison is notoriously difficult and frought with problems, and different sources quote different numbers; different measures can show the same thing in opposite ways, and all sorts of other problems. however i endeavoured to find as impartial stats as i could, eventually getting them off this site (linky (http://earthtrends.wri.org/index.cfm)) which uses the World Bank and the United Nations Population Division as its statistical sources... largely so i didn't have to do the real hard work myself;)
(i did a 4 month long economics coursework for A-level which involved getting economic data from original sources, and i tell you, its a pain in the arse)

note that i have only compared the US with the EU. this is mostly because its a relativley easy set of countries to group together... i didn't know how to group asian or south american economies for example, so i left them out...


so here are my findings:

the EU as a whole has a higher Gross Domestic Product than the USA.
however the US has a higher GDP per capita than the EU
the US has a far, far more unequal distribution of income than the EU on average

population of the US: 288,530,000
population of the EU: 454,700,000 (including the new member states)


my graphs:

http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/econ/GDP%20total%201.jpg
http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/econ/GDP%20total%202.jpg
so in terms of GDP, the EU surpasses the US




http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/econ/GDP%20per%20capita%201.jpg
http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/econ/GDP%20per%20capita%202.jpg
but the US' GDP per capita is greater





http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/econ/GINI%201.jpg
- pie chart - (http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/econ/GINI%202.jpg)

but then the US has a far more inequal distribution of income... meaning some people will be much poorer than others. does this counteract the fact that the US' per capita GDP is greater than that of the EU?




http://earthtrends.wri.org/images/maps/5_m_GDPPPP_lg.gif
http://earthtrends.wri.org/images/maps/5_m_GDPPPP_key.gif



so not taking into account aspects like balance of trade, national debt, consumer debt (which is especially high in the UK at the mo), growth and a whole heap of other indicators that can also make a real difference to the economic welfare of a country, the EU surpasses the US in terms of sheer economic power, while the citizens of the US are individually richer (by some way), but then again the inequality in the US is far greater than that of the EU... so its a hard comparison to make.
yes i know per capita stats are what should be used and mean more for international comparisons, but i'm not specifically trying to be economically accurate, just finding out whether the US' economic might is indeed unparalleled... which it (kinda) is not


i'm probably going to be slated for not doing this properly or whatever, but hopefully this has been an education to some, informative to others, no doubt painstakingly obvious to others still, and mind-numbingly boring to yet more:p


also this is one reason why i think a Federal European Union would be a good idea, for Europe.


any comments? (i'm expecting plenty of criticism...)

Just because you can find statistics that show the EU (which is not a nationstate) has in some ways higher economic 'power' by your chosen methods of ratings than the US (a nationstate) does, does not in any way diminish the 'superpower' status of the US economy!

Do we not need to have some kind of consensus on what would qualify a state as an economic superpower, before we can set about examining whether one is or not.

GDP is not a good measure, as it is inflated by internal consumer borrowing (most of the EU and the USA have very high levels of this.)

Growth is no indicator of economic power, as the weakest economies have the most space to grow.

Balance of trade? This may be better, but I am sure that the USA would not accept this as an indicator.

Consumer confidence? This simply reflects attitudes, not actualities.

I don't know how to measure an economy, and it would appear from most of the articles and arguments in the journals and press, nor does anyone else.

Suggestions please.

I find it interesting that a researcher has to collect a large number of advanced industrial nations in order to find a match for US economic strength. More interesting is the fact that those nations feel the need to join an economic cooperative in order to compete with the US. That alone is all the evidence of American economic power I require.

Why is consumer borrowing a problem with the GDP?

Could we not just subtract defaulted debt from the GDP?

Just because you can find statistics that show the EU (which is not a nationstate) has in some ways higher economic 'power' by your chosen methods of ratings than the US (a nationstate) does, does not in any way diminish the 'superpower' status of the US economy!
"my chosen methods" is GDP and GDP per capita.

of course AB has already belittled those, but they ARE standard macroeconomic indicators used in international comparison.

i'm not sayin that the US is not a superpower by any means, simply that the attitude that comes accross from many, many americans, when talking about national pride, is that the US economy is a behemoth that cannot be rivalled. i'm not trying to play up the EU either, just i was curious as to whether this attitude is either the truth or deserved. economics isn't exactly a popular subject to study, nor a generally discussed issue by most people - so many people are uninformed on so many economic issues i simply took it upon myself to try and find out whether this attitude is warranted or not.

and as i said in the OP, it still kinda is, and then again its not.


Do we not need to have some kind of consensus on what would qualify a state as an economic superpower, before we can set about examining whether one is or not.
the consensus appeared to be evident in the opinions of those americans talking about national pride

GDP is not a good measure, as it is inflated by internal consumer borrowing (most of the EU and the USA have very high levels of this.)
thats true, but i vaguely accounted for that... especially if both the 'nations' (i use the word loosely) being compared have high levels. i'm not saying this comparison is economic truth or particularly accurate, just what i have found.

Growth is no indicator of economic power, as the weakest economies have the most space to grow.
true

Balance of trade? This may be better, but I am sure that the USA would not accept this as an indicator.
balance of trade changes far too much to be a decent economic indicator imo - it doesn't reflect the overall wealth or welfare of an economy, just its current health

I don't know how to measure an economy, and it would appear from most of the articles and arguments in the journals and press, nor does anyone else.

Suggestions please.

the UN has the Human Development Index which is an index consisting of modified GDP, GDP per capita, other macroeconomic indicators including balance of payments and consumer borrowing, and non-economic indicators of a countries' welfare including literacy rate, infant mortality rate, etc...

but there are problems with it... but now, food! :)

Economic power is a toughie to determine, just as AB said. There are so many measures that must be overcome.

Beyond that though, we must note that the EU is not a single nation as the US is. Current situation has it assuming more of a confederation of various sovereign states existing under a common, loose government. And if the Fench reject the Constitution, this may continue for some time.

I find it interesting that a researcher has to collect a large number of advanced industrial nations in order to find a match for US economic strength.

That's because the US is an advanced industrial nation. You'd rather it be compared to Ethiopia? It's compared to comparable nations. (duh!)

More interesting is the fact that those nations feel the need to join an economic cooperative in order to compete with the US. That alone is all the evidence of American economic power I require.

You do know that the US is a federation of states, don't you?

The UN has the Human Development Index which is an index consisting of modified GDP, GDP per capita, other macroeconomic indicators including balance of payments and consumer borrowing, and non-economic indicators of a countries' welfare including literacy rate, infant mortality rate, etc...


The HDI is not a measure of economic success, it is a measure of living conditions, on the basis of certain, in the American view, socialist assumptions. Where I live now the HDI is some 100 points lower than it is for the UK, but my standard of living is actually higher. I can not see the HDI value being a good indicator of economic health, let alone of "superpowerdom".

I have not been following the "American Pride" thread. (I am a bit sick of the us vs them discussion at the moment) So could you do me, and others the favour of explaining what you meant by the consensus was apparent in that thread.

I was asking for a consensus in how we measure superpower status, not in opinion that a country has this.

Its interesting to note that many nations have formed superstate entities besides the EU. If you look closely though, the US actually resembles such Superstates more than it doesn't. The US is comprised of states, literally equal partners in a Union of political, economic and military power.

The EU is not as expansive as the US's union, but the economic union is now taking shape. Since we are discussing the US's supposed status as an Economic "superpower" here, such joint-economies represent a significant counter-balance to US economic sway.

Perhaps if we all look towards the future, we may find that economic regional blocs will form, all of varying strength, unity, and purpose. This seems to be the general tread right now.

I wonder if US economic might will be seen as a partner or an opponent.

the UN has the Human Development Index which is an index consisting of modified GDP, GDP per capita, other macroeconomic indicators including balance of payments and consumer borrowing, and non-economic indicators of a countries' welfare including literacy rate, infant mortality rate, etc...


Actually, I think the HDI is composed of (yes, Iknow the formula off by heart):
One third PPP GDP per capita (modified with a logarithm)
One third life expectancy
One third "education" (composed of two thirds literacy rate and the remaining third primary, secondary and tertiary education attendance)

That's because the US is an advanced industrial nation. You'd rather it be compared to Ethiopia? It's compared to comparable nations. (duh!)

My point is that the US is one nation being compared to a large cooperative composed of many independent nations. I didn't think I'd have to explain it but...

You do know that the US is a federation of states, don't you?
I know you're retarded.

But the EU isn't a country... I think the "per capita" says more.

It seems quite likely that in the near future the US GDP will surpass the GDP of the EU. (At which point they will add more countries, probably).

If you're going to compare the EU, a set of contries, with the USA, one country, that's a bias again'st the US.

Try comparing the EU with the NAFTA, since the EU was set up to counter it.

Just because you can find statistics that show the EU (which is not a nationstate) has in some ways higher economic 'power' by your chosen methods of ratings than the US (a nationstate) does, does not in any way diminish the 'superpower' status of the US economy!

Not going to get into the economics of this (because its not my strong area) but thats a load of bull!

The US is the ANTI-Nationstate. Do you even know what 'nationstate' means?!:rolleyes:

The US is probably the clearest example of a multi-ethnic state existing today. 100% NOT A NATIONSTATE.

So now there are two prelimanary problrems to be resolved.

1. What measure is to be used (see post #3)?

and now

2. What is to be compared?

The USA is one country, but it is a continental scale country. It has the natural resources and land space that the whole of Western Europe has. To compare the USA to any one European country would be biased in favour of the USA due to the resources differential. However, on the other side, there is a lot of internal trade in the EU that helps drive the economy of each country, in a way that inter state trade does not do in the USA. It may be more reasonable to select a state in the USA and compare thius witrh a country in Europe. (Obviously, the selections would hve to be made carefully.) Another option is to take a European country and scale it's economy up in proportion to the population difference or the land area difference. Afgain this has to be agreed.

Conclusion: No valid comparison between the USA and Europe can be made. The measure to be used is not clear, the catchment area for the data is not clear. In my opinion, forget it. The USA people can carry on thinking that their economy is fine (even though internal borrowing repayments due are greater than the National Income figure), and the EU can carry on thinking that they are in good shape despite the excessively inflated cost of labour.

i.e. They both have problems, but different ones.

My point is that the US is one nation being compared to a large cooperative composed of many independent nations. I didn't think I'd have to explain it but...

That's because of your size, which was made apparent by my comment about the US being a federation of states. The largeness of the US (in terms of both population and geography vis-a-vis resources) makes it very hard to compare with other, similar nations, because the other similar nations happen to not be a federal union of comparable size. Hence the grouping of the EU into one economic area (which it by the way is), because that is the only way a comparison can be made in total figures.

I know you're retarded.

Shame on you for failing to understand and then lashing out with such a feeble personal attack. Shame on you!

The US is probably the clearest example of a multi-ethnic state existing today. 100% NOT A NATIONSTATE.
na·tion-state (nshn-stt)
n.

A political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people sharing a common culture, history, and language.

Common culture: check
Common history: check
Common language: check

What definition are you talking about?

The USA is one country, but it is a continental scale country. It has the natural resources and land space that the whole of Western Europe has.

Then compare the US to other continental-scale countries: Russia, China, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, India. How does the US stack up against those?

Try to keep in mind that vasts tracts of that land space are unusable. You can't build in many places in the Rockies, or get a road through, and you can't get enough water to the deserts in the Southwest. Most of California is given over to either desert or mountain. There is little (if any) desert in Western Europe.

Shame on you for failing to understand and then lashing out with such a feeble personal attack. Shame on you!
Shame on you for talking as if I were five years old, and doing such a poor job of communicating your point. Talk to me with the respect I deserve or go stick your head in a bucket. The choice is yours.

na·tion-state (nshn-stt)
n.

A political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people sharing a common culture, history, and language.

Common culture: check
Common history: check
Common language: check

What definition are you talking about?



Then compare the US to other continental-scale countries: Russia, China, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, India. How does the US stack up against those?


Let us look at those check marks in a little more detail.

Common culture: If the culture is to be commn then the cultural values should be at least similar. I fail, completely to see any cultural value similarity between the Amish, the Mormons, the latino street gangs in San Fransisco, and the Steel workers in Pittsburgh. (Selected at random from the multicultural range of group identities that can be found in the USA.)
I think this check has to be erased.

Common History: As the USA is a country of immigrants, demanding that they share a common history would be to demand that the immigrants all originated from the same nation. This is patently false. No common history, unless you consider a couple of hundred years to be sufficient to establish a historical commonality (I don't)
One more check bites the dust.

Common Language: Which is the most widespread first language in the USA? Is it English or Spanish? The last figures I saw showed English to still be in the lead, but it was something like 45% English, 41% spanish, 14% other. The language is not a unifying force.
The last check goes down fighting.

Let me be fair though. You mentioned six other continental sized countries. None of these could pass this test. Some would have one item or other checked (Russia and China have common history, Brazil has a common language, India has a common culture, Mexico I don't know enough about to judge, and I don't think Canada would pass any of them)

The USA is a country, but it is not particularly a nation in the very tight sense that nation is understood in Europe. The English will defend any eEnglishman, no matter what, against any Scotsman. Any Icelander will be supported by all other icelanders against a Dane. In the USA the citizens do show allegience to the idea of it as a nation, but they are very quick indeed to shift attitudes when inter regional disputes surface. (Red sox vs Yankees: If either team were to be playing a Japanese team, the supporters of the other would root for the Japanese, not for the Americans)

Shame on you for talking as if I were five years old, and doing such a poor job of communicating your point. Talk to me with the respect I deserve or go stick your head in a bucket. The choice is yours.

Your actions have proven that you warrant no respect, as you do not grant it yourself. Your further failure to understand was evident in your original post, and was revealed to exist beyond any shadow of a doubt by your subsequent dishonourable post, and now you wish to blame your own shortcoming on others.

I should not have expected anything else, and shall stop wasting my time on you.

Let us look at those check marks in a little more detail.

Common culture: If the culture is to be commn then the cultural values should be at least similar. I fail, completely to see any cultural value similarity between the Amish, the Mormons, the latino street gangs in San Fransisco, and the Steel workers in Pittsburgh. (Selected at random from the multicultural range of group identities that can be found in the USA.)
I think this check has to be erased.

Common History: As the USA is a country of immigrants, demanding that they share a common history would be to demand that the immigrants all originated from the same nation. This is patently false. No common history, unless you consider a couple of hundred years to be sufficient to establish a historical commonality (I don't)
One more check bites the dust.

Common Language: Which is the most widespread first language in the USA? Is it English or Spanish? The last figures I saw showed English to still be in the lead, but it was something like 45% English, 41% spanish, 14% other. The language is not a unifying force.
The last check goes down fighting.

Let me be fair though. You mentioned six other continental sized countries. None of these could pass this test. Some would have one item or other checked (Russia and China have common history, Brazil has a common language, India has a common culture, Mexico I don't know enough about to judge, and I don't think Canada would pass any of them)

The USA is a country, but it is not particularly a nation in the very tight sense that nation is understood in Europe. The English will defend any eEnglishman, no matter what, against any Scotsman. Any Icelander will be supported by all other icelanders against a Dane. In the USA the citizens do show allegience to the idea of it as a nation, but they are very quick indeed to shift attitudes when inter regional disputes surface. (Red sox vs Yankees: If either team were to be playing a Japanese team, the supporters of the other would root for the Japanese, not for the Americans)

Everything he said is right (except with Mexico, they share a common language and culture, not sure about history, but Mexico isn't nearly as large as the other countries mentioned)

However, western europeans have shown that they as independent nations can accumulate a vast ammount of wealth. Even after the age of imperialism, they're still very wealthy. And Swittzerland (unless I'm wrong which I might be) isn't even in the EU and it's economy is one of the best in the world.

Therefore, arguing based on how small the nations are can be prooven wrong by looking back at history alone.

It'd be unfair to compare gross national income, since the EU has almost twice the US's population.

How does California compare to Germany? I believe they are the largest economies among the groups of states.

How about this? If the U.S. is a nationstate, then I would like you to give a definition and describe an American by skin color, accents, etc.

Can't think of anything? That's what I thought..

:-)

the answer i've come up with after some research is...


*suspense*



no :eek:
Well I could have told you that. The economy fucking sucks!

Only a Republican could possibly believe that with the economy at a record high and unemployment very low, the economic system needs to be shaken up. Bush has the intelligence of a cupcake.

I honestly don't get the big deal in America being a nationstate or not. Is it honestly so bad that there's no definate majority of race or religion? The only thing thats wrong is while our history books will say it's not as hard as they can, regionalism is alive and well. It's not like the north south divide of the 19th century, but southern people still haven't forgotten the civil war and retian their own unique culture, as does the mid west, west, and north. America's a big place and to deny reigionalism exsist is just optomism at it's worst (not that its wrong, but in this case as it's bliding one from seeing the truth, it is) We're all Americas first and foremast, but after we say that, we whisper our state as well to a degree thats almost but not quite the same level as being American.

The Us is a relative super power because of the size to GDP ratio
All those with higher populations have a similar GDP, and thus GDP per person is lower.The power of the U.S. stems from the GDP to Population as it has high population and GDP.
The only countries that can really be compared to the US is Australia, Canada, China and Russia
Australia and Canada has a significantly lower GDP and population, therefore is not similar.
China and Russia has a similar GDP, but the population is far higher, therefore is not similar.

The Us is a relative super power because of the size to GDP ratio
All those with higher populations have a similar GDP, and thus GDP per person is lower.The power of the U.S. stems from the GDP to Population as it has high population and GDP.
The only countries that can really be compared to the US is Australia, Canada, China and Russia
Australia and Canada has a significantly lower GDP and population, therefore is not similar.
China and Russia has a similar GDP, but the population is far higher, therefore is not similar.

What have you got against India, Indonesia, Mexico and Brazil?

GDP does not measure the total economy as it accounts consumer borrowing as a positive when it is, in economic terms, a negative. The GDP of the USA is vastly inflated by this effect. (The ultimate credit society)

Let us look at those check marks in a little more detail.

Common culture: If the culture is to be commn then the cultural values should be at least similar. I fail, completely to see any cultural value similarity between the Amish, the Mormons, the latino street gangs in San Fransisco, and the Steel workers in Pittsburgh. (Selected at random from the multicultural range of group identities that can be found in the USA.)
I think this check has to be erased.

Common History: As the USA is a country of immigrants, demanding that they share a common history would be to demand that the immigrants all originated from the same nation. This is patently false. No common history, unless you consider a couple of hundred years to be sufficient to establish a historical commonality (I don't)
One more check bites the dust.

Common Language: Which is the most widespread first language in the USA? Is it English or Spanish? The last figures I saw showed English to still be in the lead, but it was something like 45% English, 41% spanish, 14% other. The language is not a unifying force.
The last check goes down fighting.

Let me be fair though. You mentioned six other continental sized countries. None of these could pass this test. Some would have one item or other checked (Russia and China have common history, Brazil has a common language, India has a common culture, Mexico I don't know enough about to judge, and I don't think Canada would pass any of them)

The USA is a country, but it is not particularly a nation in the very tight sense that nation is understood in Europe. The English will defend any eEnglishman, no matter what, against any Scotsman. Any Icelander will be supported by all other icelanders against a Dane. In the USA the citizens do show allegience to the idea of it as a nation, but they are very quick indeed to shift attitudes when inter regional disputes surface. (Red sox vs Yankees: If either team were to be playing a Japanese team, the supporters of the other would root for the Japanese, not for the Americans)

Err... if you're going to apply your standards in that way, then what European country meets all those tests? Spain? Nope... for starters they have Basques. Britain? Hardly... they're more culturally fragmented than the US. Germany? Barely united for the first time in the late 1800s, broken apart in 1945, and only just reunited. Italy was also a unified in the late 1800s. France has exchanged provinces with Germany off and on. Parts of Poland have belonged to other nations at various times. The Balkans are a cultural morass. What have we got left? A handful of nations too tiny to have been divided, and most of Scandinavia.

I would say that the sense of the word is a lot looser in Europe than you are led to believe.

As for your Red Sox-Yankees metaphor, I do believe you are wrong. Americans are happy to engage in inter-regional rivalries only so long as there isn't a national rivalry, which then takes precedence. Nothing unites this country like a foreign enemy. Anyway, a Sox fan would root for the Yankees because a Yanks loss would diminish the Sox. Every time the Yanks beat the Sox, it says by extension that the Japanese team beat the better team of the two.

Everything he said is right (except with Mexico, they share a common language and culture, not sure about history, but Mexico isn't nearly as large as the other countries mentioned)

However, western europeans have shown that they as independent nations can accumulate a vast ammount of wealth. Even after the age of imperialism, they're still very wealthy. And Swittzerland (unless I'm wrong which I might be) isn't even in the EU and it's economy is one of the best in the world.

Therefore, arguing based on how small the nations are can be prooven wrong by looking back at history alone.

Mexico does not share a common culture. There is still a civil war being raged in the southern part of the country. The Zapatistas still hold ground in Chiapas. In addition, there is a culture war of sorts against Native Americans there, similar to what has happened in the past in the US and Canada.

Due to the Native American populations, they cannot be said to have a history in common with their European conquerors.

Err... if you're going to apply your standards in that way, then what European country meets all those tests? Spain? Nope... for starters they have Basques. Britain? Hardly... they're more culturally fragmented than the US. Germany? Barely united for the first time in the late 1800s, broken apart in 1945, and only just reunited. Italy was also a unified in the late 1800s. France has exchanged provinces with Germany off and on. Parts of Poland have belonged to other nations at various times. The Balkans are a cultural morass. What have we got left? A handful of nations too tiny to have been divided, and most of Scandinavia.
In general I agree with you. The concept of nation is an artificial concept that is rarely, if ever, manifested in reality. The point was just that you claimed the USA was a Nationstate, and then claimed that it met those three criteria. I simply pointed out that it did not. You are right however to say that most European states (including the scandanavian ones) do not meet the standards required to be a nation according to your definition. There are a few exceptions: Hungary, Portugal, England, Scotland, Wales, Austria, and Greece are the ones that come to mind. Each of these has a common culture, language and history. The UK clearly does not, but the elements of the UK do tend to. (Northern Ireland is a long way off though.)

I would say that the sense of the word is a lot looser in Europe than you are led to believe.
Nationality in Europe is much more like the regionality that exists in the USA. A Southerner is a friend of any other Southerner in Boston. Likewise an Englishman is a friend of any other Englishman in the Czech Republic. It is much more a matter of identity of the individual than a property of the state.

As for your Red Sox-Yankees metaphor, I do believe you are wrong. Americans are happy to engage in inter-regional rivalries only so long as there isn't a national rivalry, which then takes precedence. Nothing unites this country like a foreign enemy. Anyway, a Sox fan would root for the Yankees because a Yanks loss would diminish the Sox. Every time the Yanks beat the Sox, it says by extension that the Japanese team beat the better team of the two. Are you a Red Sox or Yankee fan? If not, ask them about this. I you are, then I am suprised and stand corrected.

Well I could have told you that. The economy fucking sucks!

Only a Republican could possibly believe that with the economy at a record high and unemployment very low, the economic system needs to be shaken up. Bush has the intelligence of a cupcake.

I've lost my red ryder decoder ring, anyone able to translate this for me.

The USA is a country, but it is not particularly a nation in the very tight sense that nation is understood in Europe. The English will defend any eEnglishman, no matter what, against any Scotsman. Any Icelander will be supported by all other icelanders against a Dane. In the USA the citizens do show allegience to the idea of it as a nation, but they are very quick indeed to shift attitudes when inter regional disputes surface. (Red sox vs Yankees: If either team were to be playing a Japanese team, the supporters of the other would root for the Japanese, not for the Americans)

Will a Manchester United fan root for Arsenal against a Bundesliga team? Would an Inter Milan fan root for AC Milan against a Premiership team?

So what this graph is reall saying is that it takes 25 individual countries that have a history even to this day of not getting along. IE the european union can't seem to agree on anything except on making currency combined still barely goes toe to toe with the US's economic might???????????????? ???????
Thanks for the overwhelming support to our argument though.

Will a Manchester United fan root for Arsenal against a Bundesliga team? Would an Inter Milan fan root for AC Milan against a Premiership team?

In general yes they would. However there are some rivalries that transcend national boundaries. Man U and Liverpool for example. With Liverpool having qualified for the UCL final, some, and only some, Man U fans are supporting AC Milan. However these are people who see themselves as Red Devil supporters first and English second.

I can only speak for the English (or Brazilians) here, as that is what I know.

We are getting a little off the topic however. The whole discussion on the concept of nation started as PM compared the USA (A Nation apparently) to the EU (not a Nation). I questioned the measures used and the classification of the USA as a Nation. I still doubt that it is any more a nation, in the sense of the definition provided by Cabinia, than Northern Europe is. But I did suggest some alternative strategies that involved scaling figures proportionately between a smal nation and a continental one.

Yes, the European countries don't have a history of getting along, but they do a lot more now. (You can't judge it simply on Iraq - the EU has worked united on Kyoto, the ICC, all economic policy, negoications with Iran, on the arms embargo with China... they're a lot more united than any other group of independant states today).

It is fair to compare the US with the EU. Since the EU controls members economic policy (all economic treaties and decisions are taken/signed by the EU) and has a single market.

Also, the US is heavily in debt, while the EU is a net exporter of cash. The US depends on the EU and China and Japan to fund it's debt, while these 3 are carefully keeping their bank balances in check. When the US ages, socail security spending will skyrocket and unless action is taken, the debt will grow... and grow... Having said that, the EU will age slightly faster - but it will have more money to cope with it - it's up to the leaders to sort it out before the money, and time, runs out.

The US has the advantage of controlling the world's reserve currency (though oil companys are now looking at pricing their oil in Euros), which it can use to influence the world market.

[QUOTE=Niderintium]Yes, the European countries don't have a history of getting along, but they do a lot more now. (You can't judge it simply on Iraq - the EU has worked united on Kyoto, the ICC, all economic policy, negoications with Iran, on the arms embargo with China... they're a lot more united than any other group of independant states today).
Who said anything about Iraq?


We will eventually get someone in power to balance our budget. I know thats who I would like to vote for in the next election.
The world economy is comming out of a major flux right now. We shall see what the future holds.

In general I agree with you. The concept of nation is an artificial concept that is rarely, if ever, manifested in reality. The point was just that you claimed the USA was a Nationstate, and then claimed that it met those three criteria. I simply pointed out that it did not. You are right however to say that most European states (including the scandanavian ones) do not meet the standards required to be a nation according to your definition. There are a few exceptions: Hungary, Portugal, England, Scotland, Wales, Austria, and Greece are the ones that come to mind. Each of these has a common culture, language and history. The UK clearly does not, but the elements of the UK do tend to. (Northern Ireland is a long way off though.)
I was trying to illustrate that your criteria are too stringent. If you loosen up the definitions, then the US meets all three criteria. The US has a history all its own which is shared by its people in some fashion. The US has a very distinctive culture. And regardless of first languages, the US has a single national language that immigrants need to learn in order to enjoy the full range of opportunities available to them.

Nationality in Europe is much more like the regionality that exists in the USA. A Southerner is a friend of any other Southerner in Boston. Likewise an Englishman is a friend of any other Englishman in the Czech Republic. It is much more a matter of identity of the individual than a property of the state.

Regionality exists within Europe alongside nationality. Germans still describe themselves as Bohemians, or Prussians, or whatever, and yet are united by a common identity as Germans. England has its Yorkies, Scotland has its highlanders, and so on. It is not a unique American condition.

Bring together a Texan and a New Yorker in Las Vegas, and they would fall back on regional rivalry. Bring the same two together in Paris, and they would join together under national unity.

Are you a Red Sox or Yankee fan? If not, ask them about this. I you are, then I am suprised and stand corrected.
I'm an Angels fan, and there isn't an MLB team I wouldn't support against a Japanese team. Even the Brewers, who are horribly mismanaged by that joke of a Selig. Being on the left coast, there aren't a lot of Sox or Yanks fans here to ask.

For a personal parallel to the Yanks/Sox, I don't like basketball very much anymore, mostly because I don't like the average basketball player. They bring them in too young and immature, and it seems to me you get a lot more head-cases and lack of teamwork than another major team sport. And I thought the selection of Team USA for the last Olympics was a joke. I still rooted for them anyway (grudgingly, and obviously I wasn't interested in actually watching), and I was very disappointed in them when they lost.

I was trying to illustrate that your criteria are too stringent. If you loosen up the definitions, then the US meets all three criteria. The US has a history all its own which is shared by its people in some fashion. The US has a very distinctive culture. And regardless of first languages, the US has a single national language that immigrants need to learn in order to enjoy the full range of opportunities available to them.
You have to loosen up on the history criteria a great deal, not just a little. But that is from a European perspective, where history means a millenium or so. Likewise on the culture. The USA is explicitly multicultural, there is no attempt to create or encourage a generalised US culture. Language is the glue that holds the USA together, as far as I can see. Money may also be a major factor. There is no, official language however in the USA. Government publications, forms, information are all published in two languages at least, and in some areas more thant this if you count the Mandarin versions in parts of California. My objection was to your arguing that it was not reasonable to compare the USA to the EU as the USA is a nationstate when the EU is not. As far as economic figures go, the USA is as unified as the EU, as far as history and culture the same is true. The EU has more of a language problem than the USA, but this does not prevent the two being comparable. I do not see how having a particular political status applied to one economic region and not to another prohibits their comparison.

It is generally agreed that the EU as a whole is a slightly more powerful economic superpower than the USA. In subareas there is of course rivalry, the EU has more to say about trade while USA has more to say about produce for instance - but in total the EU wins. Slightly; the USA is a close number two.
However, since quite a lot of worldeconomies or now growing faster than both the EU and the states (take Africa for instance) this bipolar state might be replaced by a multipolar one in a few decades.

Where the second pillar of power - military might - is concerned,the US easily beats Europe, which is the number 2. That does not mean the EU is weak - it can in principle do everything the US does but it would take more time. In a direct confrontation of military power the US would however undoubtedly win.

Where the third pillar, political influence is concerned, the power is divided. Europe has more credibility, as for wanting "the right thing" in many countries, while the USA is often perceived to be having a hidden agenda (oil anyone ?). People tend to take the USA more seriously though.

I'm an Angels fan

That kind of fits in with the rest of the thread. Even they can't make up their mind what they are. Is it LA or Anaheim?

quote alma master (Where the second pillar of power - military might - is concerned,the US easily beats Europe, which is the number 2. That does not mean the EU is weak - it can in principle do everything the US does but it would take more time. In a direct confrontation of military power the US would however undoubtedly win.)

possibly, but last time i checked, China's: airforce, navy and army outnumber the USA greatly.

also you cant compare the EU to USA, europe is a lot older than America which is a realativly new country/nationstate/whatever.

am i wrong? im only going on the last set of stats i saw

oops i made a mistake i read it wrong, i also believe that the collective military power of the EU greatly out numbers USA. and its hard to compare military in open warfare because it depends where the war is placed, in america the USA would have tacticle advantages and would wiv and the other way around,

feed back please?

As for your Red Sox-Yankees metaphor, I do believe you are wrong. Americans are happy to engage in inter-regional rivalries only so long as there isn't a national rivalry, which then takes precedence. Nothing unites this country like a foreign enemy. Anyway, a Sox fan would root for the Yankees because a Yanks loss would diminish the Sox. Every time the Yanks beat the Sox, it says by extension that the Japanese team beat the better team of the two.
I would root for a Libyan baseball team before I would root for the Red Sox.

The US economy, one nationstate. The EU economy, 25 nationstates.

The USA's spending on defence, more than all of EU combined and then some

Speaking as a Englishman, its about bloody time Europe started spending more on defence, as a region we should at least equal what the Americans spend. We should not be cutting back in these current times.

Blair and Brown should not be cutting defence spending and abolitioning warships, planes, and regiments. If anything, we should be increasing spending in defence by a lot, seeing as how many times Blair likes to send our troops abroad.

The US economy, one nationstate. The EU economy, 25 nationstates.

The USA's spending on defence, more than all of EU combined and then some

Speaking as a Englishman, its about bloody time Europe started spending more on defence, as a region we should at least equal what the Americans spend. We should not be cutting back in these current times.

Blair and Brown should not be cutting defence spending and abolitioning warships, planes, and regiments. If anything, we should be increasing spending in defence by a lot, seeing as how many times Blair likes to send our troops abroad.

I think both sides of the Atlantic should stop spending so much on the military. What pointlessness, to spend my taxes on a military when you can't even use it for fear of U.N. disapproval.

putting the US against the EU isn't a contest because it's so many countries. However comparing the US to any individual country, the US would win.

I find it interesting that a researcher has to collect a large number of advanced industrial nations in order to find a match for US economic strength. More interesting is the fact that those nations feel the need to join an economic cooperative in order to compete with the US. That alone is all the evidence of American economic power I require.


TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS GUY ......... ok im a american and im not gonna be you know one sided on this issue but the fact that u have to find a country that has to have help from us meaning the united states just in order to compete with us tells you that we have more power than you wanna say ok.Ok im rich if u wanna say that and i can also say that for the fact that there is poor americans meaning not poor liveing on the street but can live in a home have a decent job sometimes but the reason we have so many poor americans is because of there education we have too many dropouts and not to be raceist im just gonna be blunt about this its mostly the mexican minority thats couseing this to happen i mean i know alot of successful mexican americans and they the mexican american community im sure by now knows that you cannot survive in the country at 9th grade teaching levels of learning...and the next people i say does this not ill just say it white americans are starting to dropout at a more rapid rate and that is stupid and agian they gotta know as well that u cannot survive in this counrty with a 9th grade teaching level of learning......next up would have to be the afican american community..... we got same here droping out ,gangs,killing eachother,drugs,for all three races come on look our country is being looked at all the time by other countrys and look this is what we have to offor look we gotta get our selves back on track look we gotta become a extreamly powerful nation oncemore....and now u see y there are so many poor americans and i think u can find out y there so many rich ones.. and when u think about it u cant even compare the U.S to the EU it has too many different countrys within it now if u compared it to just one country alone the U.S would win

TOTALLY AGREE WITH ..... the U.S would win

It would help if you could punctuate, use sentences and had some idea of spelling if you want us to read something that long.

This is for all y'all who keep saying the EU is blah blah blah than the US in everything.

What part of the US is one country verses at least 2 dozen countries don't you get? You're comparing a whole contenint composed of many different countries to one country.

If you did that in anytime period, it would go the same way.

100 years ago, if you did that to Britan or Germany, the two most powerfully wealthy and military countries in the world, they wouldn't stand a chance to 25 different countires, which is kind of how Germany lost World Wars I and II.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS THAT ONE VS 2 DOZEN WILL LOSE EVERYTIME!

You have to loosen up on the history criteria a great deal, not just a little. But that is from a European perspective, where history means a millenium or so. Likewise on the culture. The USA is explicitly multicultural, there is no attempt to create or encourage a generalised US culture. Language is the glue that holds the USA together, as far as I can see. Money may also be a major factor. There is no, official language however in the USA. Government publications, forms, information are all published in two languages at least, and in some areas more thant this if you count the Mandarin versions in parts of California. My objection was to your arguing that it was not reasonable to compare the USA to the EU as the USA is a nationstate when the EU is not. As far as economic figures go, the USA is as unified as the EU, as far as history and culture the same is true. The EU has more of a language problem than the USA, but this does not prevent the two being comparable. I do not see how having a particular political status applied to one economic region and not to another prohibits their comparison.

I think you're confusing the US and Canada. Canada is explicitly multicultural. The US is not. The US prefers that immigrants contribute the positives of their culture into the overall American culture, a byproduct of the melting pot. A unifying US culture has emerged as a result, along with regional subcultures which aren't much different from those found in European countries.

As far as economics goes, the USA is far more unified than the EU, due simply to time. The states have long been a free trade zone between each other, and the EU is just getting started. Additionally, a US company can pull up stakes in California and relocated to Arizona with ease. Is there no red tape involved in moving a corporate headquarters from France to Slovakia? I doubt that they're there yet. And ultimately, the corporation pays its taxes to the same government. Does the EU collect federal taxes?

As far as shared history, the last internal armed conflict in the US ended in the late 1800's, over a hundred years prior to the end of the the last internal armed conflict in the EU. Europe was divided by an ideological war that only ended in the 90's as well. What shared experiences can Spain and the Czech Republic claim?

This is for all y'all who keep saying the EU is blah blah blah than the US in everything.

What part of the US is one country verses at least 2 dozen countries don't you get? You're comparing a whole contenint composed of many different countries to one country.

If you did that in anytime period, it would go the same way.

100 years ago, if you did that to Britan or Germany, the two most powerfully wealthy and military countries in the world, they wouldn't stand a chance to 25 different countires, which is kind of how Germany lost World Wars I and II.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS THAT ONE VS 2 DOZEN WILL LOSE EVERYTIME!

What part of the USA is a continental scale country do you not get? The EU is not the whole continent (yet anyway). Let us compare a country with 350 million inhabitants to one with 100 million. Fair comparison: No. Should we compare the economy of California with the economy of Louisiana? Would that be fair? No.
Al I have been trying to do is to establish some kind of level playing field from which to make a comparison. The conclusion I drew was that this is not possible. DO you have any suggestion as to how to make a fair comparison?

That kind of fits in with the rest of the thread. Even they can't make up their mind what they are. Is it LA or Anaheim?
They're fielding a top-talent team while simultaneously maintaining bargain-basement ticket and concession prices at the stadium. In every other sport you have to hock your wedding ring to get close enough to nearly identify the players. If Arte Moreno had to call them the Total F*cktards of Anaheim Brought To You By Depends Undergarments to afford to keep it that way, I'd support him.

He thinks there is some corporate sponsorship money out there that he can get a piece of by associating the team with LA. I don't know if he's right or not. If he's not, then the ticket prices have to go up, and at least we got to go to a few affordable games.

And like I've said before, those tiny little european countries have shown that they have the power to be the most wealthy in the world.

Look at Switzerland, one of the smmer European countries. It has one of the most advanced economies in the world.

Size is a minor factor in it as I can cite so many examples to proove it.

I think you're confusing the US and Canada. Canada is explicitly multicultural. The US is not. The US prefers that immigrants contribute the positives of their culture into the overall American culture, a byproduct of the melting pot. A unifying US culture has emerged as a result, along with regional subcultures which aren't much different from those found in European countries.
If you google multicultural USA you get nearly a million hits. (At least I do using the Brazilian google.) Including a small city in Oregon of all things (http://www.woodburns-own.com/gateway/) No the USA is, and is proud to be, justifiably, multiucultural. You have no official language, you can get food from any corner of the world, you can meet immigrants from all continents. It is not a criticism, it is simply a recognition of the variety that exists there. Canada is actually less multicultural as it has to enct laws and enforce the cultural variety that comes naturally to the USA.

As far as economics goes, the USA is far more unified than the EU, due simply to time. The states have long been a free trade zone between each other, and the EU is just getting started. Additionally, a US company can pull up stakes in California and relocated to Arizona with ease. Is there no red tape involved in moving a corporate headquarters from France to Slovakia? I doubt that they're there yet. And ultimately, the corporation pays its taxes to the same government. Does the EU collect federal taxes? No argument here, except that a company can move with no more red tape from one country to another in the EU than there is involved in moving from one state to another in the USA. (Look at your state taxation system before you say it is red tape free). The EU does not collect direct federal taxes, but each member state passes on part of its tax revenue, so these taxes exist indirectly. (Like the US and the UN)

As far as shared history, the last internal armed conflict in the US ended in the late 1800's, over a hundred years prior to the end of the the last internal armed conflict in the EU. Europe was divided by an ideological war that only ended in the 90's as well. What shared experiences can Spain and the Czech Republic claim?
Conquest by at least three different invaders: Attila the hun, Charlesmange, and Bonaparte. They were both subject to the Holy Roman Empire, (not Rome as they never got to the Czech republic). They both went through the black death, they both went through the renaissance and the reformation, they both went through two land world wars in the 20th century. A lot, in other words. A lot more than the immigrants in the USA have in common. What is the common history of an Irish immigrant in Boston and a Chinese immigrant in San Fransisco?
What does the internal armed conflict history have to do with common history? Germany shares the history of both world wars with France and Holland for example. The same events happened, just they were experienced from different , but very personal perspectives.

By the standards of history and culture most of Europe is more of a single nation than the USA. However this is not the point I am trying to make.

What difference does it really make that the USA is one nation and the EU many? None at the end of the day. What makes a difference is the population and the available resources. Balance these if you want to compare, not the number of nations/states/countries/regions/cultures.

TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS GUY ......... ok im a american and im not gonna be you know one sided on this issue but the fact that u have to find a country that has to have help from us meaning the united states just in order to compete with us tells you that we have more power than you wanna say ok.

- snip -


putting the US against the EU isn't a contest because it's so many countries. However comparing the US to any individual country, the US would win.
well the US wasn't always a single federal state, right? it was made up of seperate autonomous sovereign states, right?
the EU is made up of such states right now & we're moving ever closer towards political and federal union (i hope), so in 200 years the EU might well be a nation as the US is now, just as 200 years ago the US was roughly where the EU is today...

besides the EU is a coherent economic union now with a common currency (for many) members and a central government. are these not hallmarks of some form of nation?


oh and bump, whynot