China more popular than U.S. overseas

[Loren Booda]

The poll should also have asked the respondents to name the head of state of their favored country - an indication of how well informed they really are, and whether they are judging leaders in lieu of citizenry.

 

[Smurf]

The poll should also have asked the respondents to name the head of state of their favored country - an indication of how well informed they really are, and whether they are judging leaders in lieu of citizenry.

Ha, nice call. I bet a lot of people won't be able to name more than USA, Russia and their native country. Be interesting to see how many who preferred china could name it's leader. Would make for an interesting show of weather their isolationism is one of the causes of them not being targetted as much as the USA

 

[ron damon]

And China does not interfere abroad to protect economic interests like the US does..

You're very naive if you think so. China opposed meddling with the genocide going on in Sudan because of their oil interests there. Also, they blocked the sending of desperately needed UN help to central America after a devastating natural disaster as a way of punishing them for having recognized democratic Taiwan.

It is just that China's ruthlessness in world affairs flies under the radar of an ultra-leftist, ultra-anti-american news media, but it is real, and as time passes it will be impossible to keep ignoring.

 

[fourier jr]

Ha, nice call. I bet a lot of people won't be able to name more than USA, Russia and their native country. Be interesting to see how many who preferred china could name it's leader. Would make for an interesting show of weather their isolationism is one of the causes of them not being targetted as much as the USA

hu jintao

i would say that since chinese firms have made bids for maytag & unocal they are maybe not so isolationist as people think. at least it's 2 powerful(ish) countries trying to screw each other over rather than one powerful & one weak.

 

[Mercator]

hu jintao

i would say that since chinese firms have made bids for maytag & unocal they are maybe not so isolationist as people think. at least it's 2 powerful(ish) countries trying to screw each other over rather than one powerful & one weak.

China needs energy to support it's enormous growth. They try to get the energy they need, not by invading oil rich countries, but by legitimate take -overs of oil companies. Anything wrong with that?

 

[Mercator]

You're very naive if you think so. China opposed meddling with the genocide going on in Sudan because of their oil interests there. Also, they blocked the sending of desperately needed UN help to central America after a devastating natural disaster as a way of punishing them for having recognized democratic Taiwan.

It is just that China's ruthlessness in world affairs flies under the radar of an ultra-leftist, ultra-anti-american news media, but it is real, and as time passes it will be impossible to keep ignoring.

I am not naive. That is a statement based on nothing but your own bias. Have you seen any Chinese army invading overseas lately? I wonder why there is so much ahte and misunderstanding about the Chinee, maybe people like you should come and live here for a while, open your eyes.

 

[ron damon]

I am not naive. That is a statement based on nothing but your own bias. Have you seen any Chinese army invading overseas lately? I wonder why there is so much ahte and misunderstanding about the Chinee, maybe people like you should come and live here for a while, open your eyes.

No, you are getting me wrong. I am a profound admirer of China and its civilization. And I would LOVE to visit the country. Yet, truth is truth, and saying that unlike the US they play nice is just plain false. And they have occupied and brutally subjugated plenty of territory, most recently Tibet and Xinjiang, and their menacing of democratic Taiwan is appalling.

Still, I am as big a fan of China as can be, and welcome their rise as the next world power. I believe that their eagerness to learn from others will eventually guide their path well.

 

[Mercator]

No, you are getting me wrong. I am a profound admirer of China and its civilization. And I would LOVE to visit the country. Yet, truth is truth, and saying that unlike the US they play nice is just plain false. And they have occupied and brutally subjugated plenty of territory, most recently Tibet and Xinjiang, and their menacing of democratic Taiwan is appalling.

Still, I am as big a fan of China as can be, and welcome their rise as the next world power. I believe that their eagerness to learn from others will eventually guide their path well.

Agree, Tibet and Xinjiang have been occupied by China. However, the histories of these territories have been linked to Chinese history for ages. The problem is , I think: time. European colonists took land from the original population of America. Nobody today would defend the idea that European Americnas should go back and leave the land to the original owners. So when does the same apply for China in Tibet? After 50 years, 100 years, or 200 years? Taiwan is a different case. When Mao succeeded in overpowering the Kuomintang, they fled to Taiwan, part of China. If the actual leaders of China are legitimate, then Taiwan is part of their territory. I don't believe that it will come to hostilities. The Chinese see the Taiwanese as part of the family, and in reality they are much closer than is portrayed in the Western media. China is a lot about face. There is not much difference between the Kuomintang and the "Communist party". Anyone familiar with the situation in China, knows that it has very little to do with Communism nowadays. It's just waiting for somebody with the courage to finish the masquerade and throw the term "communism" overboard. Of course, that does not make China a democratic country, but my humble opinion after 7 years in China and decades of contacts with Chinese is that the present system works for the Chinese. It is not a pure dictatorship either, unlike NK f.e. And above all, as I said before, they make progress in all fields. Yes, you should come, and if you do I would be glad to show you around.

 

[McGyver]

Bush Administration's Fundamentalist Image

It's one thing to have poor pre-war intelligence or misguided foreign policy initiatives, but to cap these with clearly fundamentalist viewpoints and condescending statements about others does not unite other people and countries. It fans the flames of any present dislike.

In many respects, in view of the Bush Administration's outspoken fundamentalist views, such comments are received by many as the pot calling the kettle black, and this further erodes U.S. credibility and foreign cooperation.

As an impartial observer, I can liken George W. Bush's condescending style of speaking to that of Hillary Clinton's, when she was the first lady. Though her presence and style has improved, both have had a tendency to willfully offend their audience. Just because you are the President or first lady, it doesn't give you a free pass to offending your listeners.

In contrast, Microsoft's Bill Gates, who has far more money, prestige, and influence than any in Washington, is respectful of the interests of those to whom he speaks.

 

[russ_watters]

As an impartial observer, I can liken George W. Bush's condescending style of speaking to that of Hillary Clinton's, when she was the first lady. Though her presence and style has improved, both have had a tendency to willfully offend their audience. Just because you are the President or first lady, it doesn't give you a free pass to offending your listeners.

Heh - I agree with your comparison, but not your opinion. Not being afraid to offend people when saying what she really believes is about the only thing I like about her! Too many politicians use a lot of words to say little to nothing or make empty promises in an effort to sound good and not offend anyone. At the end of the day, they are just vessels of hot air.

Imo, its far worse to hide your beliefs for fear of offending someone than it is to stand up for them and offend people who aren't going to agree with you anyway. In the end, its your actions that matter - not thoughtless, emotional knee-jerk reactions such as what is reflected in this poll.

 

[russ_watters]

as with so many other things, truth is stranger than fiction:

Just saw the thing on prisons affecting the US unemployment rate:

The US unemployment rate today is about 5.2%. The prison population is .7%. Figure that half the US population would want to be in the workforce and all of the prison population would, that means if all prisoners were released and no new jobs created, the unemployment rate would be 6.6%. France's unemployment rate is in the upper 9% range. So even with all the prisoners entering the workforce, our unemployment rate would still be substantially below France's.

Theory failed.

 

[Smurf]

I don't get your math russ, and can you post your sources for those numbers?

 

[ron damon]

Anyone familiar with the situation in China, knows that it has very little to do with Communism nowadays. It's just waiting for somebody with the courage to finish the masquerade and throw the term "communism" overboard. Of course, that does not make China a democratic country, but my humble opinion after 7 years in China and decades of contacts with Chinese is that the present system works for the Chinese. It is not a pure dictatorship either, unlike NK f.e. And above all, as I said before, they make progress in all fields. Yes, you should come, and if you do I would be glad to show you around.

I agree with you that calling China a "Communist" country is a gross misrepresentation, and also think that an "enlightened despotism" will work very well for them in the medium term. I have faith they will move slowly but surely, "crossing the river by feeling the stones", into an increasingly more liberal and open society. Their future is bright indeed. It is a beautiful sight, as Europe dies, history coming back to the land where its sun first rose to be rejuvenated and rekindled. What will the future uncover?

If I am ever so lucky to experience the Middle Kingdom in person, I might just take you up on that invite

 

[Mercator]

I agree with you that calling China a "Communist" country is a gross misrepresentation, and also think that an "enlightened despotism" will work very well for them in the medium term. I have faith they will move slowly but surely, "crossing the river by feeling the stones", into an increasingly more liberal and open society. Their future is bright indeed. It is a beautiful sight, as Europe dies, history coming back to the land where its sun first rose to be rejuvenated and rekindled. What will the future uncover?

If I am ever so lucky to experience the Middle Kingdom in person, I might just take you up on that invite

Great, but what do you mean with "as Europe dies"? Europe has never been so healthy, it has brought new (relative) welth to it's neighbors in the east and is now integrating them in the "network Europe" to become the largest economic block in the world. I would like to see the US do for Mexico, Nicaragua, Columbia(just to name a few) what Europe has done for the former East block countries, or incite an unprecedented democratic reform of an islamic country, like what is happening in Turkey. The rise of China goes hand in hand with Europe's. It brings them mutual benefits and Europe is now the biggest trading partner of China. The US could do the same, but for the moment prefers confrontation. Did you follow how the EU solved the textile dispute with China? Anyway, it's my firm conviction that some day the US will follow the EU in it's approach. Already many pragmatics in the US acknowledge that the European way is working.

 

[ron damon]

Great, but what do you mean with "as Europe dies"?

Europe is very sick with Leftism, and I don't think they'll be making it through. What you see happening in the east of Europe is very definitely not a consequence of its integreation with western Europe. Quite the contrary. The model for the ex-communist countries has been the United States, in stark opposition to the failed socialist model of Germany, France and Italy. Many of those newly-industrializing economies, including Russia, now even sport a flat-tax, probably the most eloquent statement of rejection of the progressive socialist paradigm old Europe represents.

Recently I saw an interview in the BBC with the economy minister of a baltic country, where he chastised "old Europe" for failing to liberalize their economies. His country, he explained, like many other eastern European nations, has pursued a very profound policy of economic liberalization, ridding it of burdensome and irrational government intervention, with spectacular growth to attest to its effectiveness.

Meanwhile, old socialist Europe is knee-deep in a trap of high unemployment, low growth, low productivity-growth, high government debt (Italy's is more than 100% of its GDP!), and a looming catastrophe when their over-generous welfare system finally collapses.

And this is not a secret. Most economists have repeatedly warned the European public that what they have going on is not sustainable, and will not be resolved unless serious market-oriented reforms are implemented. The head of the IMF even joked that "if the Europeans want to see an economic recovery, they will have to see it on TV".

Ominously, Europe has chosen to ignore reason, and hide behind Left-wing superstitions. A new dark age is upon them my friend. The new Leftist religion will take the burden of thought and rationality off their shoulders. Marx's specter lays triumphant across that once proud and dynamic civilization.

 

[Mercator]

Europe is very sick with Leftism, and I don't think they'll be making it through. What you see happening in the east of Europe is very definitely not a consequence of its integreation with western Europe. Quite the contrary. The model for the ex-communist countries has been the United States, in stark opposition to the failed socialist model of Germany, France and Italy. Many of those newly-industrializing economies, including Russia, now even sport a flat-tax, probably the most eloquent statement of rejection of the progressive socialist paradigm old Europe represents.

Recently I saw an interview in the BBC with the economy minister of a baltic country, where he chastised "old Europe" for failing to liberalize their economies. His country, he explained, like many other eastern European nations, has pursued a very profound policy of economic liberalization, ridding it of burdensome and irrational government intervention, with spectacular growth to attest to their effectiveness.

Meanwhile, old socialist Europe is knee-deep in a trap of high unemployment, low growth, low productivity-growth, high government debt (Italy's is more than 100% of its GDP!), and a looming catastrophe when their over-generous welfare system finally collapses.

And this is not a secret. Most economists have repeatedly warned the European public that what they have going on is not sustainable, and will not be resolved unless serious market-oriented reforms are implemented. The head of the IMF even joked that "if the Europeans want to see an economic recovery, they will have to see it on TV".

Ominously, Europe has chosen to ignore reason, and hide behind Left-wing superstitions. A new dark age is upon them my friend. The new Leftist religion will take the burden of thought and rationality off their shoulders. Marx's specter lays triumphant across that once proud and dynamic civilization.

I think you couldn't be further off. What you state here is of course just a repetition of what you read daily in the US mainstream media. There is a clear shift to the right in Europe and I have no idea how you can claim the opposite. The former east block countries liberalized their economies to be ccepted in network Europe, not the US. Now, Europe is not a finished project, that I agree. But it is doing much better than what You and many other Americans think. I can now start citing facts and figures, but let me refer to someone who does it better than I: Mark Leonard. (www.markleonard.net) or better , read his book: WHY EUROPE WILL RUN THE 21 st CENTURY. If you would have the guts to read it with an open mind, it will provoke you to think differently. It's not as entertaining as watching Fox though, I must warn. And please stop this ridiculous game of name calling. Europe is not leftist, just as the US is not fascist. No black and white please!

 

[lurathis]

I would like to see the US do for Mexico, Nicaragua, Columbia(just to name a few) what Europe has done for the former East block countries

I agree completely, but just as a nit-picky note, I believe you mean Colombia (It's more of a pet-peeve than anything else I guess... it's just that being Colombian and seeing your country constantly spelled like a US/Canadian city get's on that pet-peeve list real fast).

 

[Mercator]

I agree completely, but just as a nit-picky note, I believe you mean Colombia (It's more of a pet-peeve than anything else I guess... it's just that being Colombian and seeing your country constantly spelled like a US/Canadian city get's on that pet-peeve list real fast).

I plead guilty! And I can't even use the excuse that my native language is obviously not English. Call me a Bilgian for revenge

 

[ron damon]

I think you couldn't be further off. What you state here is of course just a repetition of what you read daily in the US mainstream media. There is a clear shift to the right in Europe and I have no idea how you can claim the opposite.

My conclusions are not based on "the media", but on many years of study of economics, sociology and history. The diagnosis and prognosis in the economics issues also represent the consensus of the many scientists that have looked at the the problem. The sociological interpretations are mine though

Take a look at this:

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cuse/analysis/posen20040901.htm

In May, the European Union celebrated the accession of 10 new members. In one fell swoop, by adding their combined GDP to that of the current EU-15, Europe had finally caught up to the United States in economic size. Both economies at present have an annual income of around $11 trillion. Their per capita incomes differ significantly, with the European Union spreading the same income over 170 million more people. Nonetheless, for symbolic as well as practical reasons, the achievement of parity between the EU and U.S. economies marks a milestone.

This parity, however, is not going to last. Given differentials in demographics (both fertility and immigration rates) and in productivity growth that will persist for the foreseeable future, American economic growth will outstrip European growth. Absent some change in current trends, the U.S. economy will be nearly 20% bigger than the enlarged European economy in 2020.

Also, saying Europe is not Leftist is like maintaining that Bush is a Moslem. Did you not see the "No" campaing in France against the EU constitution? What they voted against was "neo-liberalism". They very desperately want to keep spending billions on farmers.

 

[ron damon]

And as far as integrating backward countries go, Mexico, the most closely economically-related country to the US also has been the most effective at reducing poverty rates during the past decade in the western hemisphere.

 

[Mercator]

My conclusions are not based on "the media", but on many years of study of economics, sociology and history. The diagnosis and prognosis in the economics issues also represent the consensus of the many scientists that have looked at the the problem. The sociological interpretations are mine though

Take a look at this:

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cuse/analysis/posen20040901.htm



Also, saying Europe is not Leftist is like maintaining that Bush is a Moslem. Did you not see the "No" campaing in France against the EU constitution? What they voted against was "neo-liberalism". They very desperately want to keep spending billions on farmers.

Let me bgin with your last statement. You have no clue about the nature of European politics, but your prejudice coming from god know where that Europe is leftist. You have no facts or arguments to defend this and therefore use a platitude in stead. Your reference to Bush proves absolutely nothing. Most governments in Europe are not run by socialists and the big exception, Tony Blair is not excatly the example of a leftist, is he? So much for that nonsense.

Then on the economic issue, I thnak you for given me one of the best arguments in comparing European and US economies: the difference in growth is mainly based on demographics: immigrants and higher birth figures in the US. Another "small" detail is that the GDP includes oil imports and military spending. Europe uses less than half the oil per capita compared to the US and the spends much less on invasions of other countries etc... Therefore, your GDP may grow faster as price of oil goes up and as long as Bush is there to spend your money on arms an military, but THIS WILL NOT MEAN INCREASED WEALTH FOR THE US. On the contrary, the US energy inefficiency will soon start to show very bad effects on your economy, while Europe will be relatively better off. Too bad that you little plan in Iraq was such a fiasco! You really should read that book.

 

[Mercator]

And forgot to mention: the Eastern Europe economies are just starting to revive. Do you know which region attracts most of Chinese overseas investment? Eastern Europe. Ring a bell?

 

[vanesch]

Also, saying Europe is not Leftist is like maintaining that Bush is a Moslem.

He ALMOST is, isn't he ?

 

[Smurf]

Meh, He's almost christian too.

 

[ron damon]

If you want to isolate economic growth from the demographics variable you use change in productivity as a way to measure economic activity. That's why the paper I cited mentions "differentials in productivity growth".

Also, no, economic growth is inversely proportional to the price of oil, not the other way around. And military spending contributes significant gains to the economy in the way of externalities resulting from research and development. In fact, the proportion of the military budget going into science is higher in the US than anywhere else.

Finally, calling me "prejudiced" does not equal rebutting my arguments. Sky-high unemployment (in some regions such as east Germany reaching 20%) and abysmal growth rates are very, VERY serious symptoms that you are going down the wrong path. Unless you can argue that somehow they don't matter, you, like your fatherland, are living in denial.

 

[vanesch]

Did you not see the "No" campaing in France against the EU constitution? What they voted against was "neo-liberalism". They very desperately want to keep spending billions on farmers.

Although it is true that the French were told a lot of nonsense about that constitution, especially by worker's unions and extreme-left parties, they made a huge miscalculation, in that this so-called "neo-liberal" part of the constitution IS ALREADY IN PLACE. So this was plain stupid to say "no" for that reason, because by saying no, it is the only thing that you KEEP. I will agree with you that PART OF FRANCE lives in a leftish bubble (maintained by worker's unions because it is their playing ground). But in Germany, or most other European countries, that is not the case.

The nice thing about the EU market is that it is NOT guarded by politicians, but by technocrats (the commission), which means that they apply the rules of the market to a *much higher degree* than anywhere else, where political pressure comes into poke a bit here and there. This system IS IN PLACE. The so-called subsidies on farmers (which made a lot of noise, and on which one can say a lot) only represent 40% of the EU functioning budget, WHICH AMOUNTS TO LESS THAN 1% of the GNP, so this farmer stuff represents, in the end, only about 0.4% of the GNP. Not that this is necessarily the right thing to do, but it is much less than you would think due to all the noise around it. Can you guys say the same ?

http://www.ewg.org/farm/findings.php

However, the jump that many Americans make, is from socially corrected market economy (social-democracy) to socialism, to Marxism. These are VERY DIFFERENT IDEOLOGIES and only the first applies partly to Europe, in varying amounts. I wonder whether *in practice* (by just changing vocabulary) most mechanisms that are actually present in one way or another in Europe, aren't also present in the same or another way in the US, like farm subsidies, or social security.

 

[ron damon]

I understand what you say, and I in no way imply Europe is "Marxist" in an orthodox sense. It is more complex than that, and I might have to write a paper about it since no one is addressing its consequences, but in spirit they do follow the old prophet.

I don't know if you are familiar with the discussion about the constitution in Britain before the No vote? There the constitution was considered TOO restrictive of business :, in diametrical opposition the the views held in France. That, and the fact that the UK is the ONLY major country in Europe with a good economy (low unemployment, high growth) has GOT to tell you something...

 

[Mercator]

If you want to isolate economic growth from the demographics variable you use change in productivity as a way to measure economic activity. That's why the paper I cited mentions "differentials in productivity growth".

Also, no, economic growth is inversely proportional to the price of oil, not the other way around. And military spending contributes significant gains to the economy in the way of externalities resulting from research and development. In fact, the proportion of the military budget going into science is higher in the US than anywhere else.

Finally, calling me "prejudiced" does not equal rebutting my arguments. Sky-high unemployment (in some regions such as east Germany reaching 20%) and abysmal growth rates are very, VERY serious symptoms that you are going down the wrong path. Unless you can argue that somehow they don't matter, you, like your fatherland, are living in denial.

Productivity? OK! The productivity of the US is slightly higher than that of the EU on avarage (countries like France, Belgium and Holland have higher productivity than the uS) With one difference: workers in the US work 25 % longer. Or the hourly productivity of the EU is almost 25 % higher than the US. Or, if we would work as unproductive as you, we would not have enough workforce.
Unemployement stands now at 9.5 % in the EU. It's high, but compared to the US figures (let's not quibble about the prison population and other small corrections), it's not SKY high. And employment is rising.

Take all this together and you have the picture of a European population , quite wealthy, working hard when necessary and enjoying life much more than their longer working (not harder, not smarter!) US counterparts. We created enough wealth to even provide reasonable living standards for the unemployed. And things are still improving. But for some uncomprehensible reason Americans think it is a crime to live like that.
Anyway, you would better base your views on history than on today's biased newspapers. A simple fact: a few deacdes ago the US economy was more than double the size of the present EU countries together. Now we are equal. All that time you have been boasting about how well you did. The figures prove differently.
You know my theory? People in the US have to work so long to keep their relative wealth that they don't have time to develop a critical mind of their own. And that's only partly joking.

 

[Mercator]

That, and the fact that the UK is the ONLY major country in Europe with a good economy (low unemployment, high growth) has GOT to tell you something...

Let' see... does it tell us that a socialist government is the only one in Europe bringing with it a good economy? You can't have it both ways , Damon

 

[Smurf]

Anyway, you would better base your views on history than on today's biased newspapers. A simple fact: a few deacdes ago the US economy was more than double the size of the present EU countries together. Now we are equal. All that time you have been boasting about how well you did. The figures prove differently.

I've heard that a couple times but I havn't seen a source for it. Could you site one? It'd be interesting to know how it came about as well, like did the US prod. go down or did Europe improve? And maybe see possible reasons for it.

 

[Mercator]

I've heard that a couple times but I havn't seen a source for it. Could you site one? It'd be interesting to know how it came about as well, like did the US prod. go down or did Europe improve? And maybe see possible reasons for it.

http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/leonard_prospect_feb05.pdf

 

[vanesch]

That, and the fact that the UK is the ONLY major country in Europe with a good economy (low unemployment, high growth) has GOT to tell you something...

Well, not that I want to pick on the UK, but they have problems too, and I'm starting to get a bit nervous about "the UK has the only good working economy in the EU".
There are structural problems too. One is the high credit levels in the UK: average spending weekly is 884 Euro for an average income weekly of 851 Euro. The UK economy lives "in the red". Concerning the low unemployment level, since 1979, the way of calculating has changed about 30 times, and now a lot of inactive people are not taken into the calculation anymore. If you take into account the same categories as in France to calculate the British unemployment, you arrive at 9.4 % (I'm citing an analysis in the French magazine "Marianne" of 18 june), which is not so spectacular. It is explained there that the change in the social security system by John Major changed significantly the accountancy of unemployment. Finally, there is another structural problem in the UK economy, which are the retirements: more than half of the employees in hotels, building, small scale salesmen etc... do not pay for their retirement, which will give a huge social problem when these people will get in age of retiring. So it seems that at least partly, the UK's good performance is due to a shifting-forward of problems, and partly due to bookkeeping tricks in the unemployment numbers.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Take all this together and you have the picture of a European population , quite wealthy, working hard when necessary and enjoying life much more than their longer working (not harder, not smarter!) US counterparts. We created enough wealth to even provide reasonable living standards for the unemployed. And things are still improving. But for some uncomprehensible reason Americans think it is a crime to live like that.

Hard working and enjoying life more, I agree.

But take-home wealth for most European countries is still lower than the US:

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=140&country=US#rowUS

This is because of the massive taxes payed by the European population in order to support their socialized plan. Now, this may not necessarily be a bad thing though since from my experience the standard of living in Europe is a bit higher than in the US (public transportation, beautification of the landscape, better integration of technology for societal benefit).

But you cannot have it both ways, by having the govt. provide more services AND having wealth. I don't know much about the rest of Europe, but in Germany they work just as hard as people in the US - it is almost required now, since they have to make up for the unemployed.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't get your math russ, and can you post your sources for those numbers?

http://nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm is the US unemployment rate. In April it was 5.2%, seasonally adjusted. Labor force 148.3 million, unemployed 7.3 million.

HERE is the best I could do in 30 seconds of googling for France. The last number is from 2004 and its 9.8%. In the past 20 years, it hasn't varied by more than 2 percentage points from 10%.

HERE is the US prison population of 2.0 million.

I made some assumptions that I can see how they wouldn't have made much sense (I assumed the labor force is about half the US population, which is correct), and were unnecessary since I had the actual numbers to use. The other assumption I made is that all of the prison population would enter the workforce. Clearly not all would (some are too old, some too young, some would just go back to dealing drugs), but since it doesn't hurt my thesis and is difficult to know what the exact number would be, I just assumed all of them.

So: (7.3+2.0)/148.3*100%= 6.3%

 

[russ_watters]

I've heard that a couple times but I havn't seen a source for it. Could you site one? It'd be interesting to know how it came about as well, like did the US prod. go down or did Europe improve? And maybe see possible reasons for it.

Its pretty straightforward: a significant fraction of the countries that make up the EU had just emerged from behind the iron curtain (anyone remember a country called "East Germany"?) and didn't really have functioning economies. So those countries have made vast gains in the past 20 years while the US has "merely" been chugging along at a healthy 3-5% annual growth (don't know what the actual average is).

And I hope everyone can still see the irony of comparing the US to a continent in order to claim we've lost our edge...