I hear some americans dont like France

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Starbucks
Geroge Orwell was one predictive fellow

True dat, brother.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
True dat, brother.

First post for some time on any vaguely interesting board, and this is what you give me.

For the love of god

[Judge]

Originally posted by queball
Say you need a new washing machine, and an equivalent model costs £100 from a British company or £90 from a French company. You have £100 in your pocket and see "I Hate France" posters on sale for £10, by a young British entrepreneur. What would you do?

Buy the British washing m/c.

by your criteria I would have a need for a washing machine, a poster I can live without.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Emperorn
I agree UK isn't the real problem (though Blair's behaviour is kinda disappointing) and I don't actually intend to start boycotting british products. I just started to wonder how I would go about doing such a thing, hypothetically.

if things like this or this become worse ill start some campaign for buying european and even if they dont want to admit it uk is part of europe

[Proteus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
if things like this or this become worse ill start some campaign for buying european and even if they dont want to admit it uk is part of europe

Europe is just an arbitrary division of an enormous land mass. We are as close to France as Morocco is to Spain, yet no-one claims Morocco is part of Europe. Surely we should go by culture, language and customs (in which case we are far closer to the US) than by some random "continent" system, especially now inter-continental travel and communications are so easy?

[Zapman]

Originally posted by Tactitus
That would be kind of silly, as it would turn our foreign policy disputes--which we mostly ignore--into domestic disputes--which we have to pay attention to (at least during elections).

Frankly, it's just a whole lot easier to ignore you--or bomb you--than to annex you.

If you don't pay any attention to the rest of the world then, why even bother with the UN at all?

[menth0l]

Originally posted by Zapman
If you don't pay any attention to the rest of the world then, why even bother with the UN at all?

It's to show they're willing to at least TRY to stand us.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Proteus
Europe is just an arbitrary division of an enormous land mass. We are as close to France as Morocco is to Spain, yet no-one claims Morocco is part of Europe. Surely we should go by culture, language and customs (in which case we are far closer to the US) than by some random "continent" system, especially now inter-continental travel and communications are so easy?

that is indeed kind of a problem, but we dont have to stay as divided as we are now, do we? and that extrenal threat by this idiot in white house might even be usefull to create some feeling of unity acr4oss europe

[JonnyBGood]

It's times like this that make one wonder when the ghosts of 1914 will form a conga line and dance around the place singing "jingo, jingo, jingo!" Or perhaps it's just me.

[Fifth_teletubbie]

Originally posted by Kurashima
How long before America decides "**** It" and starts Annexing nations which dont agree with them.

the US doesnt annex or colonize like evil european imperialist countries, they liberate instead.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

isnt northern france full of those grave yards? they will probably be quite happy to lose a few - more space for supermarkets etc.

[SPQR]

Originally posted by Proteus
Surely we should go by culture, language and customs (in which case we are far closer to the US)

(Apart from the same language) why are you soooo much closer to the US than to Europe ???

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by SPQR
(Apart from the same language) why are you soooo much closer to the US than to Europe ???

They're both about to get condemned by the UN for slaughtering Iraqi citizens. BMAO!



Seriously though the UK is closer to the US than it is to Europe in terms of prevailing ideology.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Seriously though the UK is closer to the US than it is to Europe in terms of prevailing ideology.

What is the prevailing idealogy of the UK?

[Lord Zor]

I have an idea why doesn't America make all the europen nations that owe it money pay up? I bet you'll be singing a different tune because it ammouts to over 56 tillrion dolalrs

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Nodrog
What is the prevailing idealogy of the UK?

"Stay out, commies!"?

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Lord Zor
I have an idea why doesn't America make all the europen nations that owe it money pay up? I bet you'll be singing a different tune because it ammouts to over 56 tillrion dolalrs

You are aware that the US is the worlds largest debtor nation, and it is most dependant on foreign loans to keep it's economy going?

In 2001, the US will run a current account trade deficit of about $400 billion, a sum balanced by a very high level of inward investment flows. This means that the US imports far more goods than it exports, living at a level of consumption sustained by generous foreign investors. As of December 7, the net US foreign debt stood at $2.6 trillion - a per capita level almost three times as high as debt-wracked Argentina. Any other country in such a condition would suffer a currency collapse, an IMF intervention or some other painful adjustment. But the US's superpower subsidy allows it to float along on "confidence" like the dot coms of the 1990s, oblivious (for the moment at least) to financial laws of gravity.

[Starbucks]

Originally posted by Lord Zor
I have an idea why doesn't America make all the europen nations that owe it money pay up? I bet you'll be singing a different tune because it ammouts to over 56 tillrion dolalrs

How about France take its statue of liberty back
How about the US pay its national debts back
How about we dont let you station your troops here
How about we try your faitful leader for war crimes at the Huage
How about you guys start looking at the bigger picture

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
What is the prevailing idealogy of the UK?

Sheer idiocy. Told you it was close lol.




It's the concept of moral superiority, only the US, China and the UK still think they have it nationally. The US and Britain also have democracy, pretensions to free trade, a general adherence to lawful rule, anglo-saxon heritage and a mostly rationalist philosophical (it's not really but I can't think of the word I want, perhaps ethical) tradition. Also strategic isolation is an omnipresent part of both their histories, a lack of devastating social upheaval and revolutions and a history over the past hundred years of various alliances etc. Not to mention the shaping of the post-WWII era from the Atlantic charter.


Prevailing ideology morally democratic capitalism (I just made that up heh, but it seems to include the three most vital).

[queball]

Now you need to analyse a selection of European nations and compare to the UK/US to support your conclusions.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Starbucks
How about France take its statue of liberty back
How about the US pay its national debts back
How about we dont let you station your troops here
How about we try your faitful leader for war crimes at the Huage
How about you guys start looking at the bigger picture

How about the French Repay all the lives it took to liberate them twice?
How about the French grow a spine?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Judge
How about the French Repay all the lives it took to liberate them twice?
How about the French grow a spine?

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinio...-7092269c.html

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Emperorn
You are aware that the US is the worlds largest debtor nation, and it is most dependant on foreign loans to keep it's economy going?
"In 2001, the US will run a current account trade deficit of about $400 billion, a sum balanced by a very high level of inward investment flows. This means that the US imports far more goods than it exports, living at a level of consumption sustained by generous foreign investors. As of December 7, the net US foreign debt stood at $2.6 trillion - a per capita level almost three times as high as debt-wracked Argentina. Any other country in such a condition would suffer a currency collapse, an IMF intervention or some other painful adjustment. But the US's superpower subsidy allows it to float along on "confidence" like the dot coms of the 1990s, oblivious (for the moment at least) to financial laws of gravity. "

thats the really funny thing about the economical situation. the dollar will collapse sooner or later and after that cheap us-exports will flood the market and ruin the world economy or, other option, resource imports become too expensive, the people in the us cant effort their own goods any more and the us economy collapse (which will pull down a large part of the world aswell.)
its almost certain that the dollar will completly collapse in the next years, unless their is a really strong economical recovery that will attract foreign direct investments, but i doubt that will happen, because you cant calculate yourself richer than you are forever.

[SPQR]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
It's the concept of moral superiority, only the US, China and the UK still think they have it nationally.

Oh, France has it, too. And some other european countries as well.

The US and Britain also have democracy, pretensions to free trade, a general adherence to lawful rule,

Most european countries luckily have it, too.

anglo-saxon heritage

The US is a melting pot of people with a lot of different origins, people with anglo-saxon heritage are just one part. The

fact in both countries people speak English means not that much either (a little reminder: the US could be german speaking

now as well if it wasn't for a few voices when they decided about their language).

Also strategic isolation is an omnipresent part of both their histories

For completely different reasons. And you could also say such things about other nations, too.

a lack of devastating social upheaval and revolutions

Debatable. And it also concerns other european nations.

and a history over the past hundred years of various alliances etc. Not to mention the shaping of the post-WWII era

from the Atlantic charter.

They were also allied with France for the whole time. And also with Germany for the last 60 years already.
The United States's interest in helping Great Britain was also mostly more economical than "helping their 'brothers' in England!"


All in all you are of course right that they have a lot common, but so they do with most of the Western Civilization.

[acropolis]

In 2001, the US will run a current account trade deficit of about $400 billion, a sum balanced by a very high level of inward investment flows. This means that the US imports far more goods than it exports, living at a level of consumption sustained by generous foreign investors. As of December 7, the net US foreign debt stood at $2.6 trillion - a per capita level almost three times as high as debt-wracked Argentina. Any other country in such a condition would suffer a currency collapse, an IMF intervention or some other painful adjustment. But the US's superpower subsidy allows it to float along on "confidence" like the dot coms of the 1990s, oblivious (for the moment at least) to financial laws of gravity.

I would guess that whoever wrote this drivel can't even spell 'economics'.

First, under the correct conditions (which are generally in existence right now) a country can run with a vast trade deficit for eternity without ever encountering any balooning debt. Depending on how you define 'trade deficit.'

Second, the comparison between the US and Argentina is beyond idiotic. As any banker knows, the issue in giving a loan to someone is not how much they are in debt already, but the ratio of their income to their debt. the US economy is greater than 10 trillion dollars, and with a 2.6 trillion dollar foreign debt, that is on the order of a person that makes $50,000 a year being in debt $12,000. Certainly not a non-issue, but only an idiot would claim (as this piece does) that that person making $50,000 and owing 12K is soon going to have to file bankruptcy:/

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by queball
Now you need to analyse a selection of European nations and compare to the UK/US to support your conclusions.

****s sake.


Germany, one 12 year fascist dictatorship, kantian tradition and cultural home to goethe and the sturm und drang (i think that's the right one) literary movement, and basically superficially united. I'll make the claims for superficial unison on the grounds of firm political unison only under Bismarck, fluctuating territorial boundaries (which mean the once heart of Germany is now in Poland) and the post-WWII split, the state of Germany in it's current form hasn't even existed for 15 years. This along with the social momentum (which impinges on the moral) from the ECSC and the resultant Western European movement which has never fully understood Britain. Also I don't like to mention it but Germany has a lengthy history of racial discrimination right up to the current problems with turkish immigration. No strategic invulnerability, and no democratic stability before the end of WWII, depends on imports for energy needs even more than the UK and US. Has had wars in living memory on it's territory. Socialist tradition in Marx (and don't point out he lived in Britain for a lot of his life or I'll hurl rocks at you).

France has had everything from complete imperialist to communist to fascist to socialist to right-wing capitalist and back again governments and popular political ideologies. No strategic isolation, scarce democratic stability (here's for a sixth republic guys!), dependent on imported oil, has had wars in living memory on it's territory, socialist tradition from Rousseau up to the modern Parisian intellectuals. Dependent on the EU for economic and agricultural prosperity.


I'm not doing it for the rest but Eastern Europe-communist dictatorships, war, will be dependent on EU for prosperity in the future. Little to no democratic tradition. Spain is a case unto itself but let's just leave it at the fact that it had an undoubtedly fascist government until the 1980s. Benelux cannot be categorised as a significant element without the tacit consent of Germany and France. Italy has had fascism, been very near to communism, half of the northern part of the country wants to secede from the south, and also little cultural integrity which is made up for with everything from enlightened cosmopolitanism to bombastic nationalism. Scandanavian countries aren't significant enough, and have strong socialist leanings (see Sweden's 50 year socialist government). Russia is self-explanatory.


Next time do your own thinking.

Originally posted by SPQR
(Apart from the same language) why are you soooo much closer to the US than to Europe ???

Because the british empire used to embarass , exploit and ensclave people and countries all over the world.
And now they are proud that the USA is continueing their good work.
What closer relationship could their be??

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by acropolis
I would guess that whoever wrote this drivel can't even spell 'economics'.

First, under the correct conditions (which are generally in existence right now) a country can run with a vast trade deficit for eternity without ever encountering any balooning debt. Depending on how you define 'trade deficit.'

not true, you can run such a trade deficit for eternity, because the money has to come from somewhere. sooner or later the exchange rates for the dollar will sharply drop and that will destabilize the economy world wide. thats not at all a situation that should be desired..
(i agree with the rest of your post, although i wouldnt underestimate the depts bush currently builds up)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by SPQR
Sorry but this is was too long for me to actually quote you heh

That'd be a good reply if the universe was created in 1946. On two notes -a) anglo-saxon heritage doesn't mean they're all anglo-saxons it means they've adopted those ways (sorry if I didn't make that clear) and language means little. b) france has no moral superiority left. I mean moral superiority in terms of the white man's burden and other such rather than a believe that nobody can judge. France's belief in itself was destroyed in the Algerian conflict. Germany is still afraid of acting as it thinks this will provoke comparisons to Hitler etc. I'd finish by saying that one must examine the situation not just in terms of extremely recent history but in terms of historical inertia. Britain and the US were the first two large-scale parliamentary democracies, and have remained consistently so for over two hundred years.



PS Where are you from? I'd guess Italian solely off the name but somehow I doubt it heh.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
Because the british empire used to embarass , exploit and ensclave people and countries all over the world.
And now they are proud that the USA is continueing their good work.
What closer relationship could their be??

This is the worst and possibly singularly most inaccurate statement I have seen on the boards ever in both it's implications and it's literal meaning.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by wu_trax
not true, you can run such a trade deficit for eternity, because the money has to come from somewhere. sooner or later the exchange rates for the dollar will sharply drop and that will destabilize the economy world wide. thats not at all a situation that should be desired..
(i agree with the rest of your post, although i wouldnt underestimate the depts bush currently builds up)

but let's say a company that produced say, shoes, in, say, vietnam, and was called, say nike, was owned by americans but made all their goods across the ocean and shipped them over.

then the money goes over to vietnam and bounces right back to americans. so it is 'coming from somewhere.' any investments that americans make overseas and profit off of can pull money this way without exporting.

of course, depending on how you defined 'trade deficit,' this could be excluded. but i really doubt they excluded it in their accounting cuz that would be very difficult to keep track of.

and i agree that Bush has the ability to totally destabilize everything.

[queball]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood

OK, your real point is distinguishing countries that have been invaded in the last century from those who have not, ignoring the various European countries that haven't been invaded.

You whole idea of socialist tradition is screwy - the differences in socialist tradition between the UK and the US are far larger than the differences between the UK and Europe.
The USA is the only country with a strong democratic/capitalistic tradition. The UK comes nowhere close. It's silly to compare by leading thinkers - the differences between countries are minisule compared to the differences between individuals anyway.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by acropolis
but let's say a company that produced say, shoes, in, say, vietnam, and was called, say nike, was owned by americans but made all their goods across the ocean and shipped them over.

then the money goes over to vietnam and bounces right back to americans.

of course, depending on how you defined 'trade deficit,' this could be excluded. but i really doubt they excluded it in their accounting cuz that would be very difficult to keep track of.

that is excluded in the current statistics. the current situation is that the us imports far more goods from outside the us than it exports to those countries. nikes money never leaves the country (except that small part that is paid to those workers in vietnam). To do so more dollars are exchanged for other currencies than other currencies for dollars. up till now that could be compensated by foreign direct investments but given the current economical situation of the us, which doesnt look too bright i doubt the us can attract enough foreign investments in the future, you can work out how the market will solve this problem.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by queball
OK, your real point is distinguishing countries that have been invaded in the last century from those who have not, ignoring the various European countries that haven't been invaded.

You whole idea of socialist tradition is screwy - the differences in socialist tradition between the UK and the US are far larger than the differences between the UK and Europe.
The USA is the only country with a strong democratic/capitalistic tradition. The UK comes nowhere close. It's silly to compare by leading thinkers - the differences between countries are minisule compared to the differences between individuals anyway.

My real point is an incredibly powerful one actually. The differences between countries with direct experience of foreign occupation (or totalitarianism) and those without is ****ing colossal. There is a whole mode of thought separate from that which dominates in the UK and the US. And I said that they both had pretensions to free trade (nobody is truly capitalist anymore). Britain lest we forget invented parliamentary democracy and was the home to Adam Smith.

One must consider that in 1919 when my countrymen were beginning a war against the British, Irish MPs were still legitimately recognised as such in Britain and were respected as politicians. Contrast this to the rest of Europe. Sometimes Europeans (continental) get wrapped up in themselves, the worst colonists were in fact the Dutch and the Belgians a fact little remembered in a world where the British and Americans are solely responsible for 90% of the world's ills. Basically one can see the fundamental difference in the differing approachs of British and American imperialism (you can debate what that means for Americans but there is definitely an element) and other European countries' versions.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by wu_trax
that is excluded in the current statistics. the current situation is that the us imports far more goods from outside the us than it exports to those countries. nikes money never leaves the country (except that small part that is paid to those workers in vietnam). To do so more dollars are exchanged for other currencies than other currencies for dollars. up till now that could be compensated by foreign direct investments but given the current economical situation of the us, which doesnt look too bright i doubt the us can attract enough foreign investments in the future, you can work out how the market will solve this problem.

See but listen to my crazy neo-marxist economic model of capitalism. Listen and go insane!

We have the bourgeois capitalist pig scum factory owner who does nothing but own the factory, and occasionally whips his slower-working employees (representing America of course).

We have the hamburger factory. It produces 1000 hamburgers a day, which it sells for a dollar apiece.

We have the say 100 employees of the factory, who each produce 10 hamburgers a day (each employee representing a different third worldish country).

Now of course because he is very fat (and probably loud, and definitely ignorant) he eats 100 hamburgers a day, costing $100. The other 900 burgers are purchased by a combination of employees and people that don't work for this company.

Now let's do the accounting for the capitalist pig: every day he imports one hundred hamburgers, at a value of $100. Every day he exports nothing, at a value of $0. Daily trade deficit: 100$.

But his ownership of the company earns him $900 a day*, and he is spending only $100 a day, and at the end of the week, he has eaten 700 hamburgers, is very fat, and stinks, and is up $5600. And this can go on indefinitely, until either the rest of the world runs out of money or his own workers break their chains and rise up in revolt.

*he pays his employees $1 a day, coincidentally enough for each of them to buy one of his hamburgers. They should definitely unionize or something.

Originally posted by m.ar.d
Because the british empire used to embarass , exploit and ensclave people and countries all over the world.
And now they are proud that the USA is continueing their good work.
What closer relationship could their be??

Just when I think, "Surely this person has reached and encapsulates the limits of Internet tedium" you go and push the boundary even further. You should offer your posting style to hospital operating theatres as a highly-effective alternative to unconsciousness-inducing medications.

I don't think you are a fool after reading your post, but what's my opinion compared to that of thousands of others? You wouldn't know a clue if it walked up to you, bit you on the ass, and announced 'I AM A CLUE'. Reading your post makes blindness a wonderful thing to look forward to. To quote Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

You are about as entertaining as a child's inflatable punching toy. You bop it, it springs back, you bop it again and you forget it ever existed. It slowly deflates in an unused corner, then one day you throw it away. You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers. Maybe you wouldn't be such a Jerk-In-The-Box if you weren't intellectually slower than a herd of turtles stampeding through a vat of chunky peanut butter; if the chief excitement in your meaningless life wasn't spotting people who are fatter than you are, or if you didn't have a face so ugly that even your mother didn't know which end to put the diaper on. No, come to think of it, you would.

In conclusion, why don't you go away and play Russian roulette with all chambers fully-loaded?

[menth0l]

Originally posted by SuperM0nk
Let's see if i can redefine "talking a lot but saying very little"

I agree with you tho.

[wu_trax]

ok, ill try to get this.

Originally posted by acropolis
See but listen to my crazy neo-marxist economic model of capitalism. Listen and go insane!

We have the bourgeois capitalist pig scum factory owner who does nothing but own the factory, and occasionally whips his slower-working employees (representing America of course).

nice comparison

We have the hamburger factory. It produces 1000 hamburgers a day, which it sells for a dollar apiece.

which means a turnover of $1,000 a day

We have the say 100 employees of the factory, who each produce 10 hamburgers a day (each employee representing a different third worldish country).

costs of $100, which means $900 profit

Now of course because he is very fat (and probably loud, and definitely ignorant) he eats 100 hamburgers a day, costing $100. The other 900 burgers are purchased by a combination of employees and people that don't work for this company.

are they produced and consumed in the us? or are you talking about us-companies expanding overseas?

Now let's do the accounting for the capitalist pig: every day he imports one hundred hamburgers, at a value of $100. Every day he exports nothing, at a value of $0. Daily trade deficit: 100$.

ah, ok, the us imports burgers for $100 a day

But his ownership of the company earns him $900 a day*, and he is spending only $100 a day, and at the end of the week, he has eaten 700 hamburgers, is very fat, and stinks, and is up $5600. And this can go on indefinitely, until either the rest of the world runs out of money or his own workers break their chains and rise up in revolt.

*he pays his employees $1 a day, coincidentally enough for each of them to buy one of his hamburgers. They should definitely unionize or something.

in your scenario this is right, but the situation in the us is like this: it produces 1000 burgers a day in argentina, eats 700 of them on its own and sells 300 elsewhere. at the same time it imports german bratwurst and japanese sushi worth $500 a day. if we now do the accounting we have a real trade deficit of $200 a day.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by wu_trax

in your scenario this is right, but the situation in the us is like this: it produces 1000 burgers a day in argentina, eats 700 of them on its own and sells 300 elsewhere. at the same time it imports german bratwurst and japanese sushi worth $500 a day. if we now do the accounting we have a real trade deficit of $200 a day.

on my adjustment to "what is really going on today" i was going to use steak and lobster, but it seems you've caught that thought very well (and german sausage and sushi are better examples anyway, what with the connotations).

I am utterly delighted that it seems my model makes sense to you.

My guess is that in some years we actually are in the black overall, and some years we aren't. But I don't know, and I was loosely claiming that simply putting down "foreign trade deficit" was very misleading:/

Overall, I said that it would be possible to keep a foreign trade deficit going forever without a problem, whereas the article implied the opposite. Especially now with Bush in office, I doubt we are able to make good on that, but my point was that that article was crap, and in no way did I mean to imply that our economy isn't going to hell right now.

Originally posted by SuperM0nk
Just when I think, "Surely this person has reached and encapsulates the limits of Internet tedium" you go and push the boundary even further. You should offer your posting style to hospital operating theatres as a highly-effective alternative to unconsciousness-inducing medications.

I don't think you are a fool after reading your post, but what's my opinion compared to that of thousands of others? You wouldn't know a clue if it walked up to you, bit you on the ass, and announced 'I AM A CLUE'. Reading your post makes blindness a wonderful thing to look forward to. To quote Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

You are about as entertaining as a child's inflatable punching toy. You bop it, it springs back, you bop it again and you forget it ever existed. It slowly deflates in an unused corner, then one day you throw it away. You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers. Maybe you wouldn't be such a Jerk-In-The-Box if you weren't intellectually slower than a herd of turtles stampeding through a vat of chunky peanut butter; if the chief excitement in your meaningless life wasn't spotting people who are fatter than you are, or if you didn't have a face so ugly that even your mother didn't know which end to put the diaper on. No, come to think of it, you would.

In conclusion, why don't you go away and play Russian roulette with all chambers fully-loaded?

The british empire has waged wars all over the world.
It has colonized and exploited so many countries and killed so many people over the past centuries.
And the USA has doe similar in the last 55 years.
Those are facts. if you cant handle them, or if they hurt your national pride, that is not my problem!!!!

PS: why dont you go away and salute the flag a little!!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
The british empire has waged wars all over the world.
It has colonized and exploited so many countries and killed so many people over the past centuries.
And the USA has doe similar in the last 55 years.
Those are facts. if you cant handle them, or if they hurt your national pride, that is not my problem!!!!

PS: why dont you go away and salute the flag a little!!

france landed a man on mars.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by acropolis
on my adjustment to "what is really going on today" i was going to use steak and lobster, but it seems you've caught that thought very well (and german sausage and sushi are better examples anyway, what with the connotations).

I am utterly delighted that it seems my model makes sense to you.

My guess is that in some years we actually are in the black overall, and some years we aren't. But I don't know, and I was loosely claiming that simply putting down "foreign trade deficit" was very misleading:/

Overall, I said that it would be possible to keep a foreign trade deficit going forever without a problem, whereas the article implied the opposite. Especially now with Bush in office, I doubt we are able to make good on that, but my point was that that article was crap, and in no way did I mean to imply that our economy isn't going to hell right now.

yes, you are right that article was crap, i didnt read it correctly :/. and you are right the market will correct itself sooner or later and there will be no trade deficit anymore, there is no way around it. that will happen by the exchange rates: lots of dollars -> not enough people want them -> exchange rates drop -> people stop buying foreign goods because the prices are too high. BUT the question is how fast will this happen. if the exchange rates change very fast that will cause a lot of instability and uncertainity on the global markets and that will be bad for all of us.
Bushs tax-policy seems pretty much ****ed up to me and will archive the exact opposite of what is needed. if he reduces the taxation on profits that where made with shares this will attarct more money to be invested in shares. this money wont be spend for consumption. if there is no money for consumption companies cant sell their products and wont make profits. end of the story: recession. i dont see any sence at all in this, you can do that in times of economical growth, maybe, but now its certainly the wrong time. anyway, this whole thing might be stupid or there might be some sence in this that is hidden to me, it has nothing directly to do with the trade deficit.

[SPQR]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Germany, one 12 year fascist dictatorship, kantian tradition and cultural home to goethe and the sturm und drang (i think that's the right one) literary movement, and basically superficially united.

Every nation had it's great philisophists and writers, and they all had a different style of course.

I'll make the claims for superficial unison on the grounds of firm political unison only under Bismarck, fluctuating territorial boundaries (which mean the once heart of Germany is now in Poland) and the post-WWII split,

The reasons for the Germany being so splittered lie much deeper in the middleages and Germany's geograpical position. I don'T know what fluctuating territorial boundaries you are speaking from, too. The territory stayed mostly the same for hundred of years until the 2 World Wars. Germany also never had a 'heart'.

the state of Germany in it's current form hasn't even existed for 15 years.

Bull****, the current state actually just has been extended. It's been a very stable state for 60 years now.

Also I don't like to mention it but Germany has a lengthy history of racial discrimination right up to the current problems with turkish immigration.

Now this pisses me really off. EVERY european country (including Britain) had a history of discriminating jews. Just in Germany it went really bad for a relatively short period of time. And please don't tell me that other countries (like Britain) are doing a great job in immigrating their immigrants. That would be utter bull****.

No strategic invulnerability, and no democratic stability before the end of WWII, depends on imports for energy needs even more than the UK and US. Has had wars in living memory on it's territory. Socialist tradition in Marx (and don't point out he lived in Britain for a lot of his life or I'll hurl rocks at you).

Germany didn't have a social tradition, Marx may have been born here, but his ideas were never enforced. Only when his system was forced on a part on Germany by a foreign might. The first point i have to agree with though.

France has had everything from complete imperialist to communist to fascist to socialist to right-wing capitalist and back again governments and popular political ideologies. No strategic isolation, scarce democratic stability (here's for a sixth republic guys!), dependent on imported oil, has had wars in living memory on it's territory, socialist tradition from Rousseau up to the modern Parisian intellectuals. Dependent on the EU for economic and agricultural prosperity.

So it may have taken France and Germany some time to get on 'the right way'. But today (and we are ****ing speaking from the present) we are all living in a quite stable democrazy. But if you want to speak from the past...the political system of the USA and Great Britain have been developed completely different. Oh and btw...Great Britain also gets its fair share of money from the EU. Actually only Germany is paying more than it gets back from the EU.

[SPQR]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
That'd be a good reply if the universe was created in 1946. On two notes -a) anglo-saxon heritage doesn't mean they're all anglo-saxons it means they've adopted those ways (sorry if I didn't make that clear) and language means little.

What ways are you actually speaking from?

b) france has no moral superiority left. I mean moral superiority in terms of the white man's burden and other such rather than a believe that nobody can judge. France's belief in itself was destroyed in the Algerian conflict.

I don't see why Great Britain has any more moral superiority than France. Remember, they lost their whole empire as well...

Germany is still afraid of acting as it thinks this will provoke comparisons to Hitler etc.

Couldn't agree more

I'd finish by saying that one must examine the situation not just in terms of extremely recent history but in terms of historical inertia. Britain and the US were the first two large-scale parliamentary democracies, and have remained consistently so for over two hundred years.

The ways these democracies developed was completely different though if you really want to examine the history of it. And there are still quite some differences between them. Also I couldn't imagine the Americans accepting something like the House of Lords where people get in because of their birth in NO WAY. There is a major difference between both cultures here.

PS Where are you from? I'd guess Italian solely off the name but somehow I doubt it heh.

Germany

[queball]

Originally posted by SPQR

So it may have taken France and Germany some time to get on 'the right way'. But today (and we are ****ing speaking from the present) we are all living in a quite stable democrazy. But if you want to speak from the past...the political system of the USA and Great Britain have been developed completely different. Oh and btw...Great Britain also gets its fair share of money from the EU. Actually only Germany is paying more than it gets back from the EU.

Really? What about all the money going into East Germany?

[JonnyBGood]

1) Slight differences, but big differences between British tradition and continental.

2) I was referring to the wars actually, and Prussia-military and ideological.

3) And the previous pop. of East Germany didn't live under it.

4) I don't have the time to go through this fully but it goes all the way back to the Crusades and the fact that germany was never part of the legal tradition of the Roman empire.

5) Germany was the environment which fostered communism though. There was a socialist uprising after WWI as I recall. Really just using that as an example of how the extremes were often more dominant/popular than not, assuming one takes parliamentary democracy as the centre but as we're discussing it relative to the US and Uk that bears little relevance.

6) Sixty years is not stability when one is discussing a society. Consider Russia 1917-90, and then consider the views communism is held in there by an easy majority. The US and British political systems adopted different approaches but always along the same theme. And note the difference between 'dependent' and 'gets'.

[SPQR]

Originally posted by queball
Really? What about all the money going into East Germany?

What's your point? Of course Germany (especially the east) also gets some money from the EU. It just pays more in than it gets out. Was that soo hard to understand

[JonnyBGood]

By ways I mean when you consider the environment Anglo-Saxon settlers departed from and created (as they were there before the others, bar the french but they didn't have mass emmigration), and the environment other immigrants left from.

Britain's empire was based around economic prosperity and the principle that empire was good for those who had it enforced on them. Every single other empire was based around exploitation, not trade (one has to examine the situation closely to see why this distinction matters) and the good of the home country. Consider also the Commonwealth, still remains today and is indicative of a large degree of residual good will towards if not British practices then British ideals.

House of lords was an accident of historical inertia. It just happened to be there because there was always a significant landed gentry in a country where there was no new land. Basically it slowed down change, but it never reversed or stopped it. People's budget 1909 was the first time they tried to stop it and see what happened there. The similarities far exceed the differences for me.


And I guessed the Germany bit off your previous post heh.



PS Off to bed, night. fun talking with you.

[SPQR]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
1) Slight differences, but big differences between British tradition and continental.

Completely wrong. The USA developed it's own society with all the immigrants, which cam from all over the world. I think what you are implying is they all came there and took over the British tradition, which is utter Bull****.

3) And the previous pop. of East Germany didn't live under it.

It's a minority. And its slowly growing together. The economy is still lagging behind, but the political system is widely accepted.

4) I don't have the time to go through this fully but it goes all the way back to the Crusades and the fact that germany was never part of the legal tradition of the Roman empire.

Utterly wrong.

[b]5) Germany was the environment which fostered communism though. There was a socialist uprising after WWI as I recall. Really just using that as an example of how the extremes were often more dominant/popular than not, assuming one takes parliamentary democracy as the centre but as we're discussing it relative to the US and Uk that bears little relevance.]

There may be some kind of paralellity from US and Britain...but that point stands that they developed completely differently, to completely different times. They don't have as much in common as you are implying. Just that they last quite a long time.

6) Sixty years is not stability when one is discussing a society. Consider Russia 1917-90, and then consider the views communism is held in there by an easy majority. The US and British political systems adopted different approaches but always along the same theme. And note the difference between 'dependent' and 'gets'.

The fact that both political systems have been existing for so long does not necesserly mean that both countries have much in common.

[queball]

Originally posted by SPQR
What's your point? Of course Germany (especially the east) also gets some money from the EU. It just pays more in than it gets out. Was that soo hard to understand

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta..._pays_what.stm
Doesn't look like Germany is the only one financing the rest of the EU to me.