Its seems more and more that the US is sliding even further into the economic morass, according to the Heritage foundation the US economy is less open then it was in 2003. The US dropped from 10th to 12th place with nations like Chile, Australia, and Iceland taking over.


The slide in the rank of the US is attributable to the reforms in Chile, Australia and Iceland, which have moved ahead in this year’s index. Anna Eiras, a co-author of the report, attributed the decline in the US rank to various anti-dumping laws prevalent in the country and increased government spending levels. An improvement in the US ranking could be achieved by slashing individual as well as corporate tax rates, besides cutting government expenditure. Hong Kong maintained its top position because of the economic flexibility and liberty available to its residents, Ms Eiras said. The index reflects economic freedom in 10 categories, ranging from fiscal burdens and government regulation to monetary and trade policy. The 2005 Index reveals that 86 countries are more free this year, 57 are worse off and 12 remain unchanged.

http://www.newratings.com/new2/beta/article_612600.html

I think the Heritage foundation put it best:


Looking for the “land of the free”? Try Estonia.

http://www.heritage.org/About/Bookstore/Index_of_Economic_Freedom_2005.cfm

Unfortunately I cannot determine from this article what exactly makes a nation "economically free". Does government spending levels determine how much of our money we are able to spend elsewhere, determining the level of freedom?

If Hong Kong is economically free..., their civil freedom is certainly becoming a memory of the past.

Economic freedom is the general measure, the least amount of government interference in the economy. The Fraser institute has an even more comprehensive list of economic freedom. This is the Heritage foundation you really can’t get much more conservative, and this obviously doesn’t bode well with the neo-liberal Bush administration. .

Good. The Christian empire is falling.

Another bit of bad news...the US is rated as the 13th best place to live in the world, ahead of the US is Ireland at #1, Spain at #10, Singapore at #11, and bad news for Canada too...we are at #14.

Source: The Year in 2005...the economist.

I wonder what the criteria is to become the worlds best place to live?

These factors:

>Income
>health
>freedom
>unemployment
>family life
>climate
>political stability
>security
>gender equality
>family/community life

A scathing reportage:

I just got access to the 2005 list from the Heritage foundation and they made no bones about it:


In short, the United States, while still a vibrant country, is at a crossroads: It will either continue to be a leader in economic freedom or idly watch other countries pass it by. The United States’ overall score is unchanged this year.

With the Bush policy team the US will not change course…admitting failure is not in the cards. As we continue down the list we see that America’s fiscal burden is very high, out of a score of 5 (meaning repressive) to 1 meaning (free), the US’ score on the fiscal burden is a 4:


Government expenditures as a share of GDP increased less in 2003 (0.4 percentage point to 35.9 percent) than they did in 2002 (0.7 percentage point). On net, the United States’ fiscal burden of government score is unchanged this year.

What does the US need to do? Raise taxes, that would actually help the US in the long term, freeze spending, cut spending in areas like the military, and possibly even privatize parts of the government which can be privatized. We cannot forget that the States also have massive deficits and debts which only further exacerbate the eroding fiscal situation in the US. If the US does not raise taxes soon the fallout will be worse then the temporary fall in consumption, and the badly needed recession.

Good. The Christian empire is falling.

I fear that as our economy collapses, people will start blaming the wrong things, and cling to the wrong beliefs. We're just entering a new age of Christian Oppressors.
The Catholic Church came into power towards the demise of the Roman empire.
Evangical Chuch anyone?

When the USA falls, and Russia falls, the world has a chance at survival. Oh, China must go too. Total war, and nothing but, forevermore.

These factors:

>Income
>health
>freedom
>unemployment
>family life
>climate
>political stability
>security
>gender equality
>family/community life

I'm sorry but you can not rate "qualitative" criteria as that is subject to too much interpretation by those conducting the report.

Health, freedom, family life, climate, political stablity, security, gender equality, well shit...everything on there is actually qualitative, but some are quantitative IF some other factors are included.

For instance:

Income vs. cost of living.

Climate vs. damage of property and in lives by climate vs. cost to recover vs. success in recovery. (Thailand, Malaysia, they are very screwed by this Tsunami, but we have been hit by Hurricanes every year for hundreds of years and have always managed to recover and expand and grow.)

Unemployment vs. needing employment.

That's about all I can think of as remotely approaching "quantitative".

I fear that as our economy collapses, people will start blaming the wrong things, and cling to the wrong beliefs. We're just entering a new age of Christian Oppressors.
The Catholic Church came into power towards the demise of the Roman empire.
Evangical Chuch anyone?

The Catholic Church came to power long before the fall of Rome (by the late 2nd Century the Catholic Church had precedence with the nobility of Rome).

Don't try to confuse history with your retarded "theories of religion".

The Catholic Church has been one of the best forces for Western Civilization, it has spawned a numerous amount of educated men, such as Hobbes, and the Jesuit Priests. The Rennaissance was not an act against, but for the Church...

Good. The Christian empire is falling.

You don't think that a Unified Europe will be a boost to the power of the Catholic Church?

You are on my list of "dolts" on this forum, I don't like having to have such a list, but you're forcing me.

I'm sorry but you can not rate "qualitative" criteria as that is subject to too much interpretation by those conducting the report.

True...but most of these are relativist, and the economist is by far one of the most respected organizations in the world. We know for sure that the US is not the best place to live in the world…that there is no question. But sure there can be variations about what is better on those criteria…but generally speaking that’s as good as its going to get.

You don't think that a Unified Europe will be a boost to the power of the Catholic Church?

No and I don't see why you are calling him a retard...that's not appropriate because you haven't show us in any qualitive way why this assertion is true. If anything the EU is antithetical to the US conception of religion, Europe is very secular while America isn’t. If anything the Church has been weakened by two factors:

 The EU has denied the word God in its constitution
 Turkey may join and break the Christian-ness of the Union.

I don’t want Turkey to join, but it seems it will. So really in reality the Church may as well lose out in the long run.

Your idea that Europe is very secular, is the type of "out-of-touch with reality" attitude that limits your fore-sight.

Europe is VERY religious, even France is majorily religious. However, Europeans do place considerable control to their State Governments (national Governments...I'm getting ahead of myself), and those Governments have ideologies the most of which are "non-religious".

France for instance, principally Catholic, has a rabidly "liberal" Government that is very much in the minority (as was shown by their recent banning of head scarves and religious symbols from Hospitals and Schools, which not even their President supported except reluctantly).

Britain's national religion is non-Catholic, so they'd not enter that fold.

Anyway, on to the point, history shows that creating a Union government, reduces the autonomy of the States involved (nations). Whether the Union holds or not is yet to be seen, if it doesn't hold, then the EU falls apart. If it does hold, then the State government's limits on religion will most likely weaken as a "national identity" is found.

How that will effect things is uncertain, Europe is VERY afraid of a return of the conditions that existed in the 1300s, but this does not mean that in a Unified Europe, the Pope will not wield a considerable amount of "Advice from the rear" to those in charge of that Union.

What will begin as just commments and suggestions, will eventually grow to a precedence, and that can almost be certain.

Of the majority of the nations in the EU, only a few are not dominated by Catholics, mainly those of South-Eastern Europe (which is orthodoxy).

Of those that are dominated by Catholics, only 1 is significantly secular in Government AND people (that is France, compared to the others).

Germany has a strong Catholic group. Spain is immensely religious, Italy also. The numerous principalities that form those near "city-states". Switzerland (their financial power-house).

The Scandinavian nations are very Catholic.

The only thing that is secular is their "image", their day-to-day lives are still fairly religious and predominently Catholic.

I'm not saying they will form a "Union Religion", just that the Catholic Church's role in their society will elevate.

After-all, the Catholic Church has many humanitarian concerns that the Europeans want to address as well.

Some commone similarities I think will out-weigh some ideological differences.

Also, Union would mean a reorganization of "identity" which can have any possible effects.

Also, in conclusion, the only way Turkey is joining is if the Europeans see a need to absorb their economy, they can give a rats butt about Turkey as a part of their Union, and most likely its entry would be that of a colony in 50 years, which will result in conflict that the Turks most likely could not win.

The European Union is going to be an interesting thing 50 years from now, as people growing-up as "Europeans" instead of Germans or French and etc. start to come to power, and they will start to attack the minorities in an effort to further nationalize their Union.

It happens all the time, it happend in Rome, it happend in Britain, it happend in the French Imperialism, Russians, Americans, it will happen in Europe.

What identity they decide to incorporate into the European identity will be hard to tell at the moment, but it won't be hindered by the addition of a near all-Muslim nation. Especially with the amount of hate growing in France against the Muslims there (one-reason they banned the head scarves, so there were no more Muslim beatings).

The Scandinavian nations are very Catholic.

Really I didn't know that, quite strange since as far as i know they are mainly protostant(hmm spelling?) and only around christmas.

Funny post.

indeed.

The Netherlands have always been divided between a catholic south and a protestant north, with many different factions. This lead to a system of tolerance and a division between state and church.

and nowadays the christmas effect is also in place here similar to scandinavia.

Your idea that Europe is very secular, is the type of "out-of-touch with reality" attitude that limits your fore-sight.

No I seem to be in touch with reality, Europe is not a very religious continent, if anything the Catholic Church has been in decline in Western Europe ever since the French Revolution. Europeans don't want the Church anywhere near their governments, their history has taught them well, America hasn't had much history and has much to learn.

Europe is VERY religious, even France is majorily religious.

That's why French churches are routinely empty? Or near empty? Sure the vast majority of Europeans call themselves Catholic or Protestant, or whatever but most don't even practice. To call France a "majorily" religious nation is quite ignorant.

France for instance, principally Catholic, has a rabidly "liberal" Government that is very much in the minority

Then why would the French people vote in Socialists if it were as you say a "minority" your rhectoric isn't standing up to the facts. Firstly most French support the ban, and secondly I don't see how one can be a "radical liberal" I find that hard to fathom.

Britain's national religion is non-Catholic, so they'd not enter that fold.

Do you honestly expect me to take you seriously when you say words like "non-Catholic"? Wouldn't it have been more apporiate intellectually to say...Anglican? The only real difference btwn a Catholic and an Anglican is that the Queen is the head of the Church not the Pope, and its easier to get a divorce...woop!

Anyway, on to the point, history shows that creating a Union government, reduces the autonomy of the States involved (nations).

By definition...yes... :rolleyes:

If it does hold, then the State government's limits on religion will most likely weaken as a "national identity" is found.

No most likely the State (being the EU) will be even more areligious that any European state in existence today. Firstly the EU will have to contend with many forms of Christianity, secondly it has a very large Islamic population, and with the inclusion of Turkey that will grow by 60+ million, so for the EU to be religious would be asking for civil strife, the EU like Britian understands that to keep the Union together, religious freedom is paramount and as a result there shouldn't be a priviledged class in terms of religion.

Of the majority of the nations in the EU, only a few are not dominated by Catholics, mainly those of South-Eastern Europe (which is orthodoxy).

There to my knowledge is no Eastern Orthodox state in the EU apart from Greece, and Cyprus. To say the least these nations do not wield any considerable power in the Union, they are takers not givers. Those nations with majority Catholic populations in Europe are some of the most secularized, because of the bad history of the Church in those nations affairs. Religion is no where near as important in the EU as in the US.

Germany has a strong Catholic group. Spain is immensely religious, Italy also. The numerous principalities that form those near "city-states". Switzerland (their financial power-house).

This concept that ppl are "immensely" religious is fallicious, just because it says "90% Catholic" doesn't mean by any strecth of the imagination that these ppl act like Catholics. I am Catholic and I can tell you most Catholics I know really don't care, and don't go to church, we pretty much pay lip service to God. That is a European thing...an apathy towards God.

The Scandinavian nations are very Catholic.

Now I know for sure you have no idea what you are saying.

I'm not saying they will form a "Union Religion", just that the Catholic Church's role in their society will elevate.

That seems to go against all the evidence, unless you can show me evidence to support this then this is nothing but mere belief. We know that attendance in church is low in Europe, and that the EU has rejected and notion of the Christian God in its constitution...sorry but it doesn't look that the Church is going to exhert much power.

Also, Union would mean a reorganization of "identity" which can have any
possible effects.

With Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Romania, and Bulgaria in or going to be part of the union this idea of a "Catholic" identity will not be allowed to happen.

Also, in conclusion, the only way Turkey is joining is if the Europeans see a need to absorb their economy, they can give a rats butt about Turkey as a part of their Union, and most likely its entry would be that of a colony in 50 years, which will result in conflict that the Turks most likely could not win.

Well the economist and the EU seem to disagree they've started talks about joining...so think again.

The best place (i have been to U.K, Canada,SINGAPORE,Switzerland,i am now in U.S.) to live is Switzerland which i believe is the best considering all of the above factors...

Bad news for the US! even international drug dealers are going Euro! http://www.newstarget.com/003587.html

G.

The best place (i have been to U.K, Canada,SINGAPORE,Switzerland,i am now in U.S.) to live is Switzerland which i believe is the best considering all of the above factors...
Huuummm... how hard is it to immigrate to Switzerland? Do you know?

Switzerland... the only country in the world to seed their mountain passes with nucular mines.

NEW YORK - The stock market is up and economic growth has been steady, if unspectacular. But, an increasing number of economists are seeing serious storms build on the horizon. They point to ever-growing federal budget deficits, a record current-account deficit, increased consumer debt, a real estate market that looks like a bubble ready to burst, a surge in personal bankruptcies and the prospect of inflation.

http://www.forbes.com/economy/2005/01/10/cx_da_0110doomdollar.html

[ Good - now maybe the shooting can start. ]

NEW YORK - The stock market is up and economic growth has been steady, if unspectacular. But, an increasing number of economists are seeing serious storms build on the horizon. They point to ever-growing federal budget deficits, a record current-account deficit, increased consumer debt,
That's all pretty obvious. And Bush makes the situation even wore giving tax breaks.....
What is that? More crowding out for the next already overwhelmed generation to pay!? :rolleyes:


a real estate market that looks like a bubble ready to burst,
Direct consequence of extreme living standards and extreme consumerism..... :rolleyes:


a surge in personal bankruptcies
How big was the consumer deficit by the end of last year...? Was it something like 3 trillion dollars, or something like that?


and the prospect of inflation.
Obviously. Despite all the debts......
Of course, the government could use contractionary fiscal policy to avoid inflation and try to pay the debt (if Bush has any brain cells in his brain... :D ). But still, thanks to the consumer debts, the US will end up in a REALLY deep recession if they adopt a contractionary fical policy.

Imagine all the banks losing money because everyone is sunken in debts. Not only the kids, who are already paying the crowding out of the last generation, but the entire population falling in debts.... of course, they will run out of money, the banks won't be receiving money anymore, and the consequence is obvious:


Plunging into the biggest recession in the history of mankind!



I'm not surprised.....
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=43485

Dispite all these people talking us down, we're doing pretty well. We went into recession about one quarter before Bush took office and it's taken us about 4 years to limp out of it. Most recessions last longer and that last one could have been bad with the tech sector collapsing.


Anyway, our figures are looking good. The only first world countries with 'issues' are core EU states... Germany and France are basket cases. Japan still has issues but that's nothing new. Eventually they'll kill off the 'zombie' companies and formalize their economy.

Love peace, Karmashock.

:rolleyes:

Anyway, our figures are looking good.

Said Mickey Mouse...your figures are HORRID if you haven't noticed. An economy based on debt is not a good economy, an economy that is a drain on the world economy is not good, a economy whose sole existence now depends on the kindness of strangers, and lowering wages, living standards, and lower job opportunities for the majority of its population is not “good”, also the slowing of social mobility, and the concentration of wealth in the upper 20%, and even 1% of the population is not “good”. The US is going to collapse, the only question is when and how bad?

Capitalist societies don't function well unless there is glut at the top. What do you know about economics? Seriously? Or are you getting this from some malcontent off of NPR or PBS? Cus' that's useless drivel. The US economy is far less in debt then most economies of it's density. Our per capita income is 37,000 dollars a year. Do you know how many nations can match that? In the world there are only two other nations... Norway and Luxemburg. Norway only pulls it off with it's oil exports and Luxemburg is a tiny tax shelter. Our growth is also very strong considering our density - between one and two percent beyond our peers. That might not sound like much, but that compounds continuously.

We have nothing to prove to anyone.

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

Capitalist societies don't function well unless there is glut at the top.

FYI; the US is not a capitalist society, if anything is closer to a fascist society with a birth of capitalism. But that was hundreds of years ago. Now is mostly what is called "mixed economy". Look it up!.

There has never been a laisez-faire capitalist society; the US was close at its birth however that was not the case. Since then we are a mixed economy. Doomed to failure since it's inception.

Anyhow here are the casualties of Buss's corporate tax breaks; click (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/business/01windfall.html?ex=1108098000&en=63567ed45b95d176&ei=5070)

Buss's cut of federal state contributions; cllick (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d53ea206-748f-11d9-a769-00000e2511c8.html)

Buss's home state in desperation; click (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3016725)

Economy Slowed in 4th Quarter, U.S. Report Says; click (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/business/28WIRE-ECON.html?ex=1107579600&en=d51d185a8f95b94a&ei=5070&oref=login&hp&ex=1106974800&en=1b10fc668f2b9e17&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

But wait!! they are all liberal liars, you are right and all those people are wrong right?. :rolleyes:

Godless.

Capitalist societies don't function well unless there is glut at the top.

And that’s why so many times in history capitalist societies have collapsed, when capital is concentrated at the extreme ladder of society its unsustainable because the rest have to then support it, and continually little scaffolding is built until the structure collapses, you cannot have a working economy with a bamboo foundation, and a granite top.

What do you know about economics? Seriously?

Much more then you, that I am sure of.

The US economy is far less in debt then most economies of it's density. Our per capita income is 37,000 dollars a year.

Like I said you would tell me all this nonsense, the US has high GDP per capita; the US has this and that. Last night I was watching Lou Dobbs, and Paul Krugman was on. He being an economics professor at Princeton University he told Lou:

“If you show me the figures of the United States and hid the name of the country, I would say Argentina”.

And he’s right, we have the Argentinization of the United States going on, economic growth is heady yes, but wealth is being concentrated higher and higher up the social ladder, huge unsustainable deficits, and growing debts. If you want to read about how “good” your economy is read this:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/20041201orszaggale.htm

Or this from the economist:


These record deficits are adding to America’s foreign debts at an alarming rate. But as yet, America still earns more from its foreign assets than it pays on its foreign liabilities. That is about to change. As interest rates rise, refinancing America’s debt will become more costly. Goldman Sachs forecasts that net foreign-investment income is likely to shift to a sizeable deficit during 2005, growing thereafter. The investment bank estimates that, if America’s current-account deficit remains steady as a share of GDP and interest rates average 5% in future, net foreign debt-service payments will reach 4% of GDP by 2020—a significant drag on American living standards. (The Economist Global Agenda Plumbing the depths Dec 30th 2004)

So please don’t show me more Bull shit about GDP per capita, because its part of the Façade of growth, ala you have no clue as to what you are saying.

Do you know how many nations can match that?

Yes…Argentina, because unlike Luxembourg and Norway they make money, their growth isn’t dependence on debt but rather income streaming in, and high savings rates, the US savings rate is a disgusting 1.2%! This is not sustainable.

Our growth is also very strong considering our density - between one and two percent beyond our peers. That might not sound like much, but that compounds continuously.

Into more debt, because the growth is not due to investment, its due to consumption. If you had any idea about economics you would know that real economic growth occurs when the productive capability of a country grows, what the US is experiencing is a inflationary gap in her GDP which should pull back to potential GDP, but since the rest of the world is supporting it, it keeps on going further and further until the ensuing return to potential will be very bad indeed.

We have nothing to prove to anyone.

Exactly the precedent already exists…Argentina…live in blissful ignorance my friend.

Sincerely
Undecided

I think the most amusing thing about this thread is that it uses the Heritage foundation as backing... :D

They're largely supportive of president bush... they like his over all policy and they're really excited about Social Security reform.

Its just gold... I love you all.
http://www.heritage.org/about/
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm647.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/wm650.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/wm652.cfm

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Maybe then the Hertiage foundation is wiling to foot the $2 trillion bill for unneeded reform? What is amusing is that all this "job growth" is lower wage jobs, and the only reason why the unemployment rate has remained stable is due to the increase in discouraged workers...so while you think you know what you are talking about, and thinking your living in the best economy in the world...1929 should hit again soon.

do you have anything 'but' propaganda?


I mean, you use the heritage foundation and then you discredit them.


Which is it? Is the whole basis for this thread founded on something from an organization you don't respect, or will you respect their take on the Bush presidency?

or perhaps you only respect them when they agree with your political preconceptions.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Is the thread baseless or has the bush presidency been good for the economy. :)

do you have anything 'but' propaganda?

Do you ever attack the argument and not the person?

Which is it? Is the whole basis for this thread founded on something from an organization you don't respect, or will you respect their take on the Bush presidency?

I don’t give about their position on Social Security, but I agree with them on other things. I am not like you who gives BJ’s to authority on call, I am not a intellectual whore.

or perhaps you only respect them when they agree with your political preconceptions

Sure…that’s the basis of opinion.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Tell that to the American consumer not me…

Is the thread baseless or has the bush presidency been good for the economy. :)

The Bush presidency has been unqualifiedly one of the worst things to have happened to your economy, but that doesn’t mean the Bush is the root of the problem, frankly I blame of the problems to Europe and China…but that escaped from your little ignorant rants against me, not my arguments.

Do you ever attack the argument and not the person?
I did address it, and you avoided the question. So that leaves me with two choices. Repeat myself or call attention to the fact that you're forcing me to repeat myself.


I don’t give about their position on Social Security, but I agree with them on other things. I am not like you who gives BJ’s to authority on call, I am not a intellectual whore.
I don't get paid to support people. So I'm no whore. You however seem to 'sleep' around with any organization that's saying what you want them to say, then back off the moment they don't agree with your point any more...

guess that makes you a slut... (don't blame me, you started the sexual metaphors :) )


Sure…that’s the basis of opinion.
No that's bias. Opinion is supposed to be based on information. If you only look for evidence to support one conclusion then you're in the same boat with the creation scientist people... which gives you an intellectual credibility rating of zero.




Tell that to the American consumer not me…
This statement has ZERO to do with my challenge to you. All you're doing is clouding the issue. I gave you a challenge and you're just kicking up dust... the shot of ink in the water before you squidge away... pathetic.



The Bush presidency has been unqualifiedly one of the worst things to have happened to your economy, but that doesn’t mean the Bush is the root of the problem, frankly I blame of the problems to Europe and China…but that escaped from your little ignorant rants against me, not my arguments.
The very organization you used to start this thread disagrees with you. So find one that has credibility, like the heritage foundation, AND (this is the tough one) agrees with your perspective.
I still find it humorous that you think Europe is taking America over. Neither economy is consuming the other, but it would be easier to argue the Americans are dominating the Europeans then the other way around. As to china, we own far more of them then they own of us. Neither side regards this as hostile and neither power should regard it as hostile. It's just business.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

I did address it, and you avoided the question. So that leaves me with two choices. Repeat myself or call attention to the fact that you're forcing me to repeat myself.

You addressed it and it was wrong, as evidnced by your inability to rebut anything I said and instead attacked me as most of your ilk usually do. I raped your “assertions” and its evident that you will continue to attack me.

I don't get paid to support people. So I'm no whore.

No your even worse…you’re a cunt whore who just wants it.

You however seem to 'sleep' around with any organization that's saying what you want them to say, then back off the moment they don't agree with your point any more...guess that makes you a slut... (don't blame me, you started the sexual metaphors :) )

So because I use an organization to show support for my assertions on one subject and not for another that somehow makes me a slut? Wow talk about lame! This is the fascist mentality, either or it’s a world of black and white isn’t it? Then maybe you can tell me why Bush selectively choose his policies, shouldn’t he have followed only one advisor and fuck the rest, using your logic he is just as much as a whore as I am. Sorry but I am not a intellectually monopolized automaton like you, I pick and choose what I think proves my argument which it did, and you have still to rebut.

No that's bias. Opinion is supposed to be based on information. If you only look for evidence to support one conclusion then you're in the same boat with the creation scientist people... which gives you an intellectual credibility rating of zero.

Ask me and I’ll show you the information you want, I have all the information in the world to support my assertions, trade figures from 1840 to the present for all nations, GDP figures as well, population, Current account balances and their key components from 1980 for all nations, and even figures for future GDP to the year 2050, PPP GDP figures from 1975, Real GDP from 1980, oil production from 1980 for the world and all the way back to 1934 for some nations and the United States, etc. I can easily support my position with facts…can you?

This statement has ZERO to do with my challenge to you. All you're doing is clouding the issue. I gave you a challenge and you're just kicking up dust... the shot of ink in the water before you squidge away... pathetic.

What challenge? Where? You mean the challenge of me using the heritage foundation? Look Adam Smith if I am SOOOOOOOOOO wrong…logically wouldn’t you then destroys my rebuttal to your “argument” and prove me wrong? This argument has nothing to do with the heritage foundation, but America’s unsustainable economy, something you have shied away from because you know you are wrong. And now you are trying (in vain) to change the subject.

The very organization you used to start this thread disagrees with you.

On social security…not the topic at hand.

So find one that has credibility, like the heritage foundation, AND (this is the tough one) agrees with your perspective.

I provided the Brookings institution and the IMF idiot…learn how to read, why does God feed you? They both support my assertions, and CATO as well.

I still find it humorous that you think Europe is taking America over.

I don’t think that, there’s a new book which I will get which describes who Europe is taking over the US as the world’s primary power.

Neither economy is consuming the other, but it would be easier to argue the Americans are dominating the Europeans then the other way around.

What do you think a current account deficit is?

As to china, we own far more of them then they own of us.

No actually China holds more US bonds and treasury bills (something you have no idea even existed idiot remember?) then total US investments in China.

Neither side regards this as hostile and neither power should regard it as hostile. It's just business.

Sure…said the jester the fleecing of American continues.

welcome to the ignore list. :)

Well, we knew that was coming. But I still beat you to it Undecided!

With his wild assertions, and inability to defend them, I expect he'll soon have most of the forum on ignore, with the possible exceptions of Madanthonywayne, Brutus1964, and Clockwood.

Bye Karmashock!

I don't think Undecided is extremely bad. He does have some good points. However....

Don't worry TruthSeeker, Karmashock will probably add you to his ignore list soon enough. Just pick a questionable assertion of his, and try to get him to defend it. That's all it takes.

I don't think Undecided is extremely bad. He does have some good points. However....
Who is this addressed to? :)

This Karmashock character raises many economic questions, for instance wouldn't the food fed to this individual be better spent on feeding a child in Africa who may become the next Einstien?

Who is this addressed to? :)
To the table....

To the table....
*sniff* :(

Since when is estonia land of the free? who ever thought of that quote deservs a slap

and since when is ireland the best place to live in the world?

1. IRA :eek:
2. Rains alot = :(
3. If your either catholic or protestant your gonna run into problems :bugeye:

Ireland is doing pretty damn well though... They're being really friendly to US buisness and so we're setting up most of our regional headquarters in Ireland...

The Irish deserve a freakn break. :)

I know they do, but I still dont consider it the safest place to live...

Your confusing Northern Ireland with Ireland...

I know they do, but I still dont consider it the safest place to live...
I think all of that has calmed down... though maybe that's just from our perspective... Irish people generally like Americans and if you look at blood alone the most irish people in the world live in the US. :p