<p>ha something to feast on</p>
<p>US is the first nation as far as i know in a long history to have people united together for a common purpose.</p>
<p>i know that sounds too trite and it is inaccurate, but it's definitely at least partially true.</p>
<p>actually i believe that we are living in what is now commonly referred to as 'a divided nation'... i wish we werent, americans unite!</p>
<p>UC-Benz, the UK and France have similar sized economies. Some years, France is larger (1980-2000), some years, the UK is larger (1950-1970). But never by more than 2% or 3% either way. But you are looking purely at GDP. France is actually much wealthier than the UK. If you go to Paris and London, they look very similar in terms of development, education etc.... But once you go to other towns around the country, you will quickly see that France is a wealthier country than the UK. </p>
<p>But I think I was unclear when I stated that Germany and France were the largest Economies in Europe. By "Europe", I meant integrated Europe. England is not yet part of Europe, nor does it seem to want to be. Although it is officially part of the EU, England is not a team player. The moment they decide to become team players, as I said above, they, along with Germany and France, will form the backbone of Europe. Spain, Italy and Poland are relatively large, but their populations are largely influenced by France and Germany...and in the case of Eastern Europe, Germany, France and the UK. That is why the EU needs the UK. Spain and Italy are already dependent on France. Roughly 20% of their GDPs are tied to the French Economy. Poland, Belgium, Holland and several other nations are mainly connected to Germany, but also to England (especially Holland) and France (especially Poland). </p>
<p>Also, Europe is developing a new breed of politician. Politicians that are more willing to accept others. France right now is led by Chirac. A great thinker, but very "French" and set in his ways (Chirac was already an adult when the EU was formed in 1957). His likely successor is Nicholas Sarkozy, a Hungarian born French diplomat who has real understanding of modern politics and economics, and is a man who's view of Europe is one that is post-Treaty of Rome. And Sarkozy is not unique. A whole breed of European politicians is emerging that is similar to him. </p>
<p>That is why I believe Europe is about 20 years away from becoming a Super Power, even though it is already the largest economic block on Earth (the EU currently has 25 nations, a total population of 450 million and a combined GDP of $14 Trillion...which is missleading because Europeans are not consumer societies). Over the next decade, England is going to grow closer to Europe because they will have no other option. Its traditional ally, the US, is becoming too set in its ways and its ways differ from those of the English population. At the moment, England is only starting to realize that its destiny is tied to Europe's, and in the coming years, it will act upon that realization. Once that happens, such concepts as a European Strike Forces and a European Security Council will be able to come into being. The UN is doomed because there are too many players and too many conflicting agendas. Now they are talking about adding more permanent members. That will make it even worse. What does Japan have in comon with India or France with Brazil? </p>
<p>But like I said, that will not happen for years...even decades.</p>
<p>bump. Though this thread doesnt need one</p>
<p>The reason that French government is so wealthy is because they can take up to 56% of your income through taxes! The average standard of living in France is actually lower than that of the UK because a large majority of the wealthy people move to England to escape that brutal tax brackets of France.</p>
<p>And I know this because a professional told me this the last time I was in London and Paris (which was only a few months ago).</p>
<p>and the average standard of living in BOTH those countries as a whole</p>
<p>is lower than the US...yet tons more expensive. i don't think any European country, even Germany, has anything to brag about in terms of their economies. But i still can't wait to go to Europe this summer. </p>
<p>Ex-World Powers, but they still have amazing art, culture, food, architecture ---beautiful past. While America is all about the future.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While America is all about the future.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL! If we're about the future why are we running massive defecits that are going to bankrupt us?</p>
<p>becuase the future of america is not determined by the amount of money the government owes or has. </p>
<p>it never has been. the future of America lies in the creativity of the individuals who have the freedom to pursue their interests, invent new things, etc...</p>
<p>we had deficits under Reagan and we still were developing into a more powerful and greater nation.</p>
<p>I hope the next world power is Ireland, lol, they're an economic power, but a nation with 4 million people is never going to be a super power.
I don't see how America could ever have a downfall from a military point of view, it would take a massive alliance vs us, and it would have to include China. The whole EU couldn't even take us. The only thing is that every world super power falls at some point (e.g. Rome, British empire).</p>
<p>Rome and Britain weren't suddenly taken in huge, overwhelming wars. They were worn down over a long period of expensive wars until they finally shrank away. Something to think about when we're fighting two major conflicts at once and running far into debt to do it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
becuase the future of america is not determined by the amount of money the government owes or has.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This statement shows you have absolutely ZERO understanding of how the world actually works.</p>
<p>The future of America is determined SOLELY by the amount of money the government has. That is, unless you'd like to become a military state.</p>
<p>"Rome and Britain weren't suddenly taken in huge, overwhelming wars. They were worn down over a long period of expensive wars until they finally shrank away. Something to think about when we're fighting two major conflicts at once and running far into debt to do it."
True. However, the wars that Britian and Rome fought were often on their home soil vs. invaders or insurgents, not wars half a world away.</p>
<p>UC_BENZ, you were misinformed about the relative wealth of French and British citizens. On average, the French are wealthier. I am neither French nor British, but I have lived in both countries as an investment banker. I have studied their respective economies. France has 28% of the EU's wealth, Germany has 24% and England has 18%. And France is the least populous of those three countries. </p>
<p>Pixiedanzer, the standard of living in France is actually roughly equal to that of the US. It is true that in terms of money, the average Frenchman earns, on average, 80 cents to each American dollar (After taxes and cost of living are accounted for), but in terms of quality of life, the French, and most of Europe, are certainly on par with the US. And the reason why the Europeans have slightly less cash is because as a society, they value different things. Americans do not mind working 50 weeks a year, 50 hours a week. The French and Europeans in general prefer working 46 weeks a year, 40 hours a week. That is why the US is more productivein the absolute sense. But in terms of productivity per hour, Europe actually exceeds the US. And one must also take into consideration the fact that the US is largely a consumer society. Europe isn't. Europeans would rather go to their country homes for the weekend. Americans are more prone to go to sporting events or the mall. But do not confuse differences in lifestyle with European weakness or poverty. Europe is neither weak not is it poor.</p>
<p>bump. Btw alexandre are you really in dubai? I thought you were at michigan</p>
<p>No, I lived in Michigan from 1992-1996 and from 2001-2004. But I moved to Dubai in March 2004. I also grew up in the UAE, from 1978-1992 (with the exception of 1986-1989).</p>
<p>California is going to break away...and rule the world</p>
<p>oh yeah. californai will drift away, attach itself to india and rule all jobs.</p>
<p>Lol UC_Benz got pwnd. I love this thread.</p>
<p>A major problem in Europe today is that all of these countries are social welfare states. They take more of your money in taxes, but in exchange everyone has health care and pension. However, the economy is stagnant, and these governments can no longer support the services that their citizens have gotten used to. It's a lot like our social security and health care problems here, except its a lot worse over there. The shortened work day and long vacations guarunteed to French workers will soon be gone, I predict. In Germany, the loss of jobs to Poland, which, now that its part of the EU free-trading network, has cheaper wages and land, has had a sour effect on the development of East Germany. Smaller countries in Europe seem stable for now, but they don't have large populations to deal with.</p>
<p>Eastern Europe is in the perfect position right now to expand their economies. Western Europe must adapt and change, or its governments will soon face massive budget deficits, similar to what America enjoys right now.</p>
<p>America is unique in that we have the land, people, resources, and political stability to be a super power. Other countries dont have the luxury of all four. Japan economically rules the world, but it has little room to expand, plus militarily it is dependent on us. UK, France, and Germany no longer have the colonies that made them world powers in the past (especially Britain). And with Russia, lets not even delve into the mess they've gotten themselves into. </p>
<p>For the next decade, America will be the sole superpower. Only India, China, and maybe Japan and Russia (any takers on Brasil?) have the potential to change that in the near future.</p>
<p>Lol there is a girl in my Lit Honors class who thinks the U.N. will take over the world. </p>
<p>=)</p>