Should Europe Counterbalance the United States?

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing says Europe must prepare itself ‘to take on the giants of this world’. For many Europeans, providing a counterweight in world affairs to a United States seen as a rogue hyperpower is a major motive for uniting Europe. But is this a good reason? Can we do it? Won’t it encourage any American administration to ‘divide and rule’?

Debate - page 2/2

Go to page 1 2

J David L, USA

Why should Europe counterbalance the USA? As the bastion of freedom, liberty, and prosperity why would Europe not want to be more like the USA?
This is the question I think really needs to be answered.

Chad Poniewasz, USA

The world needs Europe to counterbalance the
Wal-Martinization of culture. Here in the U.S. the sprawling shopping centers are dominated with carbon copy stores all lined up in exactly the same order, (home depot next to wal-mart, old navy next to sam's club, etc...). The United States has no cultural identitiy. I was in Naples Florida last winter and I felt as if I was in Cleveland, despite the obvious weather difference. My point is that American society is becoming more and more robotically Orwellian, everything must follow a pattern so that our lives can be made easier without thinking.
Europe on the other hand still maintains a level of cultural identity unique to each country. I hope that they refuse globalization to a certain extent so that there will still be areas of singularity. By the way, I am sipping Starbucks coffee while I wrtie this memo, what a hippocrate. Thank you.

Michel Bastian, France

To Charles:
> The most intractable conflicts are those in which the parties understand each other completely and simply have nothing to say to each other. After Intifada II most Israelis have concluded that Oslo was a stupid pipe dream that Arafat always intended to tear up the moment it was convenient to do so.
Mhmm, ok, agreed. And that gives you a reason to stop all peace talks? Interesting argument. Kind of like saying stop looking for a cure against cancer, it´s no use anyway.

> Europeans go on and on about "comprehensive peace settlements". Neither we nor Israel believe that any such thing is at all possible. Easily half the Arab world has no intention of ever accepting any peace settlement short of wiping Israel off the map and will see any piece of paper as a tactical truce (the other half will watch and wait to see who is stronger).
Ok, if you don´t believe in peace treaties for the middle east, then you have to go with the military option. The consequence is military annexation of all the palestinian territories by Israel, possibly with the backing of the US. Effectively, I presume we agree that would mean killing off Palestine as a nation. Even if we forget about the ethical implications of this kind of action for a second (yeah, I know it´s hard for you, since you´re so big on values), what would happen then? I´ll tell you what would happen: you´d have every muslim (mind you, not only the arabs, also every non-arab muslim) and many non-muslims as well screaming for Israeli and American blood. You´ll have unrest and rebellion in every last muslim community in the western world and next thing we know, we´ll have dirty A-bombs and 9/11 style attacks all over the place. The US will have lost all credit with anybody except Israel and the EU will have lost all credit for not stopping Israel and the US. Probably we´ll even see a resurgence of pan-arabism or pan-islamism with corresponding military attacks on Israel. Of course, the US will have to back Israel, the EU won´t have much of a choice but to follow, and whoops-a-daisy there goes the middle-east down the drain in a massive war with repercussions all over the world.
I mean, come on, not even the Bush administration would want that. Much better to find a peaceful settlement, even if it´s shaky.
> Terrorism is the method of expression of those who have no intention of ever accepting any peace with Israel so your insistence that a "comprehensive peace settlement" will end terrorism makes no sense to us at all.
It won´t "end terrorism". No international treaty can do that. However, given time, it might create a climate where terrorist attacks are less frequent and don´t receive the popular backing they´re receiving at the moment.
> Terrorism in fact is the mode of expression of an Arab world that has completely given up all hope that it will ever match Israel in conventional warfare. That is why the wretched state of the Syrian armed forces concerns no one in the Arab world.
Well, good. So don´t give them the reason and the means to rearm. And don´t tell me they wouldn´t be able to if they´re backed by all the arab states (yes, that includes Saudi-Arabia, too, btw). Despite what all you amateur military theorists might say, the US can only invade a limited number of countries. They´re the biggest military power in the world, I´ll grant you that, but even they can´t invade the whole middle-east single handedly.
> Israel would only cede real estate if given the firmest military guarantees by the United States, not to please the "international community".
Sharon has already given up territory. I don´t know if you noticed, but he did close down a few settlements. Also, it´s not about pleasing the international community. It´s about common sense. The Israelis know full well they can´t solve the palestinian problem with military muscle only. They´re not stupid, you know. They know the on-site situation far better than any of us and they´re fully aware it´s mostly on their backs any military adventures will be taken out.
>After Intifada II they have no confidence in Palestinian promises and just because Arafat is dead does not mean that Palestinian maximalism is dead, so what window of opportunity are you talking about ? Arafat's death changes nothing.
Well, not if Bush, Sharon and the EU don´t act now.
> And as for the Palestinians not talking to the US, that is ludicrous. Arafat was begging, pleading for Bush to meet with him but after Karine-A Bush would not listen to more of his lies.
Ok, go into the Gaza strip then, and ask them what they think of americans. Heck, you´ll be lucky to make it out alive. Wake up, Charles, to the palestinians and most other arabs, America is the enemy. They won´t trust them, period. They just might trust the EU, but that´s only worth anything if Bush and Sharon are willing to play the game and start talking again.

Jan Paul, USA

text: There is an internal war going on in virtually every country. For many countries in Europe and here in the U.S. and Canada, it is a war between capitalism and socialism. It is often disguised as other things such as "religion" against "secularism." But, if you look beneath the surface you will find the principles of Socialsim and Capitalism being espoused.
France currently has a tremendous struggle going on with their ever increasing Muslim population, rising crime rate and multinationalism. But, look under all this and you see much of the unrest coming from a loss of ability to compete for business with places like Ireland and "new" Europe which are using the principles of capitalism to attract business, jobs, wealthy, and generate tax revenues. Thus, France has filed complaints with the EU about the "unfairness" of Ireland's tax cuts because they take business away from France.
The U.S. is also losing business to Asia where educational standards are higher, business taxes are lower and workers are willing to be more flexible. Before you say they have cheap labor, remember that South Korea since 1975 has seen wages go up 2,300% while the U.S. wage has only gone up 335%. They only made .29 an hour back then and now only make $6.66. But, their buying power is probably twice that since they can buy goods made in Asia for a lot less than what it costs us. China now has a middle class population larger than the entire population of the U.S. and a lot of this is due to Corporate tax rates almost half that of the U.S., France, and Germany. Europe isn't the problem and the U.S. isn't the problem. WE, the people are the problem. In both Europe (at least old Europe) and the U.S. we have changed from hungry, motivated workers to cultures that put a high value on free time, recreation, socialized services, permissive laws to allow pleasures that used to be denied, etc. This is a normal progression in societies that do well. There is a natural tendency to want to work less and take less pride in work and more pride in "culture."
I am not saying these are necessarily bad things if not carried to an extreme, I am only pointing out that "hungry" nations take advantage of these tendencies to become the next economic super power, which is what Asia will be. They will sit and laugh at our squabbles while they become wealthy. They will question our wisdom as we impliment more and more social programs with less and less business to generate tax revenues.
Germans can be Germans and French, French. "new" Europe can be themsleves and Americans can have both secualr and "God" fearing cultures. But, this can only happen when we realize that without business hiring people and those people having money to spend, we won't have enough tax revenues to continue. Both the U.S. and Europe have been trying to have their cake and eat it too by putting the tax burden on business.
However, first of all, the cost on business is just passed on to the citizens in the price of goods. 2nd, many businesses just close up or leave and go to Asia or wherever tax rates are better. 3rd, the people who invest in business move their wealth or move themselves to better tax environments and that leaves the remaining middle class and poor footing the bill while other countries keep expanding their middle class and growing their tax revenues.
You can't tax business and you can only tax the wealthy to the point they are willing to stand. This last U.S. election proved that when Sen. Kerry revealed his family only paid 12% on his wealth due to tax free investments, while Bush paid 30% due to more business investments for income.
It may sound like I have a problem with Asians, but I don't. I admire them for rising from poverty in many cases, for implimenting tax cuts and encouragements for the wealthy to come to their countries and invest.
When you look at the rise and fall of nations, you find we are doing in Europe (at least some of "old" Europe) and the U.S. and Canada, the things that declining nations do and Asia is doing what rising nations do. These are normal cycles in the course of history. How some people's reaction will be to dig in and insist there isn't a problem. Others will say there is a problem and it is someone else's fault. But, some (usually young entrpenuers willing to take risks will leave and sail their "Nina," "Pinta," and "Santa Maria" to new lands of opportunity in Aisia, "new" Europe, Russia, and possible in a decade or so, Afghanistan and Iraq. Hungry people tend to win out over "fat" people.
We, all of us in Europe and the U.S. and Canada have become "fat" with past success. So, now we pick at each other while we lose ground every day to the quietly progressing "hungry" country. We argue about deficits, trade with each other, religion, wars against terrorism, etc. and they build factories, hire their poor and build OUR products. We worry about putting too much stress on our children with education and work and they build more Universities with standards so high our children can't even pass the entrace exams and then we wonder why our businesses hire Asians and have outsourcing and use Asian engineering to build the things we still build.
Don't be surprised when your children or grandchildren come to you and say, "we are moving to country "X" so we can have more opportunities to get ahead."

Peter Trevino, USA

Any time you ask a question with the words: Counterbalance, counterweight, divide or any other word meaning separation, unbalance, etc., between the USA and Europe you are asking the wrong question.
Instead of asking: "Should Europe Counterbalance the United States?" The question would serve better if asked: "What should Europe and the United States do to balance their relationship?"
The "balance" between the United States and Europe is not a competition, or a dare, or a maybe. It is a necessity that needs to be addressed with an open mind and always considering that the other party wants and needs the same things that you (we) want and need. So, play it fair.

Charles Warren, USA

Bastian, I read your response with some amusement. Apparently the vaunted "Arab street" terrifies you. We know it is 90% bravado and shaking their fists and screaming at the camera. Our assessment of their capacities is a little more cool-headed than yours.
Due to sound Israeli policies and Sharon's heroic refusal to be pushed into foolish concessions by panicky Europeans eager to buy Arab goodwill with Jewish blood, Intifada II has been crushed. Housing demolitions, the security wall, targetted assasinations....they have worked. So what is there to make any concessions for ? A worthless piece of paper with worthless guarantees ? There is no reason to settle for anything less than a 100% committment on the part of the Palestinians to end terrorism and short of that there is nothing to discuss. If this means there is no Palestinian nation, well, when you choose an all or nothing strategy sometimes you end up with nothing. The Palestinians always demand the deal today that wasn't good enough for them a defeat ago. They would crawl over broken glass for the deal Arafat proudly walked away from. So your comment about "ethical implications" makes no sense whatsoever. We owe the Palestinians nothing.
Your panicky, terrified comments about "dirty A-Bombs" and the Arabs rebuilding their conventional armies made little sense. The Gulf states are encountering population problems that make throwing around the cash to rebuild the Syrian Army impossible. There are and will not be for any forseeable future conventional attacks upon Israel, not because of any "concessions" or "peace treaty" or "goodwill" but because the Arab world is too helpless and incompetent to be any real danger. That's fine by us. Then again, considering your demographics, perhaps you are terrified of the Arab slums outside your window. They are your problem (and indeed, given routine nature of gang rape by packs of young Arabs, one might say that the tribute of Christian virgins has already resumed). We don't have a problem with our indigenous Muslim population because they know they would catch nothing but hell if showed any sign of disloyalty. If there were another terrorist incident in America they know it would not go well for them (which is perhaps an enormous part of the reason why there hasn't been one).
The military solution has worked, hardly requiring America to invade and conquer the entire Arab world. The Gaza withdrawal represents a militarily sound redeployment from an exposed position to a more defensible one on the West Bank. Not a concession due to weakness.
Finally, your comment about the Palestinians refusing to talk to America makes no sense. Diplomacy isn't about popularity contests with Gaza street trash. They need us. We don't need them. When you are thirsty you don't refuse to talk to the owner of the only well. France may grovel for popularity with the Arab world but it has nothing to offer. America doesn't have to because it and it alone has influence with Israel. America and America alone has what the Palestinians need. So whether they like us is a juvenile question. They need us desparately. And since neither America nor Israel trusts France's motives there is no role for it to play as any kind of "intermediary" with the Palestinians.

J David L, USA

I don't think Europe will ever be able to compete against the USA, not even if Europeans made the sacrifices mentioned above by Charles Warren. I don't eventhink it is in Europe's interest to try. Personnally I think the EU should concentrate on offering an alternative model to the American one, a model of society and development which would perhaps inspire other countries and enable America to see where it is doing right and where they may need to rethink their foreign policy or the way their society works. The best way ton learn about yourself is by looking at others.

Pierrick Moreaux, French, England

Michael Bastian, France

To Warren:
> Bastian, I read your response with some amusement.
Good, then at least I didn´t bore you.
> Apparently the vaunted "Arab street" terrifies you.
Nope, it doesn´t. What worries me is the US response to it. I´m not so much worried about the "Arab street" as by the fact the US tend to completely overreact to it.
> We know it is 90% bravado and shaking their fists and screaming at the camera. Our assessment of their capacities is a little more cool-headed than yours.
Due to sound Israeli policies and Sharon's heroic refusal to be pushed into foolish concessions by panicky Europeans eager to buy Arab goodwill with Jewish blood, Intifada II has been crushed.
Panicky? Who´s more panicky, the Europeans who try to keep a level head, or the US who send troops everywhere in a mad rush to "fight terrorism" after 9/11 without having even the beginnings of a battle plan? BTW, we´re not eager to "buy Arab goodwill with Jewish blood". We do not trade anybody´s blood for anything, especially not political influence. We´re actually trying to prevent more jewish (and arab) blood being spilt. Isn´t the Bush administration trying to do the same thing?
> Housing demolitions, the security wall, targetted assasinations....they have worked.
Yeah, right, they worked, didn´t they? They made sure the islamic fanatics could recruit even more kids for suicide attacks.
> So what is there to make any concessions for ? A worthless piece of paper with worthless guarantees ? There is no reason to settle for anything less than a 100% committment on the part of the Palestinians to end terrorism and short of that there is nothing to discuss. If this means there is no Palestinian nation, well, when you choose an all or nothing strategy sometimes you end up with nothing. The Palestinians always demand the deal today that wasn't good enough for them a defeat ago. They would crawl over broken glass for the deal Arafat proudly walked away from. So your comment about "ethical implications" makes no sense whatsoever. We owe the Palestinians nothing.
So you can just kill them all? QED. You do know what the word "ethics" means, though, I hope?
> Your panicky, terrified comments about "dirty A-Bombs" and the Arabs rebuilding their conventional armies made little sense.
Nobody believed in 9/11 either before it happened. And I´m not terrified, I´m just not as blindly gung-ho as you are.
> The Gulf states are encountering population problems that make throwing around the cash to rebuild the Syrian Army impossible. There are and will not be for any foreseeable future conventional attacks upon Israel, not because of any "concessions" or "peace treaty" or "goodwill" but because the Arab world is too helpless and incompetent to be any real danger.
Ok, have it your own way. Just don´t blame us if the "Arab world" blows up in your face.
> That's fine by us. Then again, considering your demographics, perhaps you are terrified of the Arab slums outside your window. They are your problem (and indeed, given routine nature of gang rape by packs of young Arabs, one might say that the tribute of Christian virgins has already resumed).
Ah, yes, I´m obviously talking to a real intellectual here. Let me guess: you have never been to Europe, have you? Where on earth did you get these horror stories?
> We don't have a problem with our indigenous Muslim population because they know they would catch nothing but hell if showed any sign of disloyalty. If there were another terrorist incident in America they know it would not go well for them (which is perhaps an enormous part of the reason why there hasn't been one).
Hasn´t there? Refresh my memory: how many american soldiers died in terrorist attacks since the start of the Iraq war? Oh, I get it, they don´t count because they didn´t die on US soil, so it´s far removed from the daily lives of your average american, right?

> The military solution has worked, hardly requiring America to invade and conquer the entire Arab world.
Right, the military solution has worked, as in that "Mission accomplished" sign on the carrier Bush landed on. Dream on, Warren.
> The Gaza withdrawal represents a militarily sound redeployment from an exposed position to a more defensible one on the West Bank.
Exactly. And I´m the pope and Madonna´s still a virgin.

> Finally, your comment about the Palestinians refusing to talk to America makes no sense. Diplomacy isn't about popularity contests with Gaza street trash. They need us. We don't need them. When you are thirsty you don't refuse to talk to the owner of the only well.
But you might try to kill him because you have no other options left if you don´t want to die from thirst.
>France may grovel for popularity with the Arab world but it has nothing to offer.
Oh, yes, almost forgot, we have to comply with the dumb stereotypes: France "grovels" and the US "commands".
> America doesn't have to because it and it alone has influence with Israel. America and America alone has what the Palestinians need. So whether they like us is a juvenile question. They need us desparately. And since neither America nor Israel trusts France's motives there is no role for it to play as any kind of "intermediary" with the Palestinians.
France´s "motives" are the same as the US´ "motives": they don´t want a destabilized Middle East and they want to stop the israelo-palestinian conflict. And if the US don´t want us to try and help, fair enough. We won´t. Have fun.

Roman, USA

to mike bastian.
umm sorry! gdp of combined countries!
Our GDP DWARFS the FRENCH!! thats one!
Two incomes, employment, jobs, inflation, porsperity THE USA is WAY BETTER THAN EU!! in 20 year US had created 40 million new jobs as opposed to ZERO in the EUROPE, this after EU promised it in 1992!
SOICLAISM DOESN'T WORK!
Third, nice military you have there....or lack thereof!

Scott Loranger, United States

I believe that a united Europe is a necesssity for the security of the free world. Someone has to balance the US, for it presently has gone mad with power. China can't do this, they do not hold a substantial enough economy, but I must ask, when their time does come, is China the nation we really want in a leadership role globally? (The PRC is plagued with corruption and has a blatent disregard for human rights.) The American-government structure is built on the principals of representational democracy, separation of powers, and checks-and-balances. I believe this principle should be applied on a grander scale to encompass the whole world. The European Union seems the most apt to take on the task of keeping the US in check. The EU is the only entity powerful enough (economically, militarily, politically, etc.) to stand up to the challenge.

Michel Basitian, France

>mm sorry! gdp of combined countries!
Our GDP DWARFS the FRENCH!! thats one!
Yes, but you´re comparing apples to oranges there. Compare Germany to California, compare France to Texas etc. and you´ll find that the combined GDPs of the EU member states exceed the US GDP. That´s nothing I made up, it´s just a fact.

>Two incomes, employment, jobs, inflation, porsperity THE USA is WAY BETTER THAN EU!!
Suit yourself. Keep denying the facts and in the long run, the US will end up as a secondary economic power behind the Asian states.
> in 20 year US had created 40 million new jobs as opposed to ZERO in the EUROPE, this after EU promised it in 1992!
40 million, gosh! Incredible. Care to be a bit more specific? Last thing I heard was 1.5 million jobs lost, not created, by the Bush administration.
> SOICLAISM DOESN'T WORK!
I KNOW!
That´s why we don´t have it in the EU. We (mostly) have social market economies, which is quite a different thing.
>Third, nice military you have there....or lack thereof!
Oh, we do have a military, just not the enormous military you have. I agree, though, that we need much more coordination between the EU member states.

Jan Paul, USA

" Suit yourself. Keep denying the facts and in the long run, the US will end up as a secondary economic power behind the Asian states. "
Correct. The Chinese government is switching from communism to capitalism. They are locating new sources of oil and buying into current oil sources. The are raising the wages of workers in economic zones so they can buy their own products. An estimated 100 million middle class Chinese. A new declaration from the Chinese government granting "religious freedom" in March. 30 million bibles distributed and as high as 35,000 new Christians a day. Economic zones with corporated income taxes as low as 15%, although it will probably stabilize around 25%. New rail lines, pipe lines, and power grids being built. The military being upgraded, etc. The buying power of the Chinese worker is estimated to be 2 to 4 times that of the buying power of an American worker.
Europe and the U.S. will both be 2nd or 3rd class economic powers in a few decades if both don't realize the "war" being waged economically is a very serious war. In both much of the U.S. and Europe there is a belief that you can tax businesses and the wealthy. Business pass all costs including taxes onto the consumer. The wealthy either move their wealth or themselves to better tax enviornments. At this time, there is still enough concern about the stability of China that many wealthy are not moving there, but there is a trickle. Some wealthy or their wealth is going to Ireland or So. Korea or New Zealand, etc. It is going to where there are incentives for the wealthy to invest.
When wealth moves, jobs move with it. Many of old Europes policies are now being discarded by "new" Europe which know what it has to do to compete with Asia. The U.S. with state corporate tax rates added in is as high as 44% while most of "new" Europe, Ireland, Asia, etc is at half that rate. France, Germany, and the U.S. are all in the top worst five countries for corporate income tax. Also, putting tax on business is just a more expensive way of collecting it from the worker.
Europe doesn't need to worry about the U.S. but it does need to worry. There are governments or rather parties in governments that do nothing but blame others for the problems the country, any country, is experiencing. They blame the other party or they blame other countries, or they blame both. Yet, all live in the same world and are affected by a global market and global competition. The leisure time was mentioned in Europe.
The only way you can afford leisure time is to have enough food, shelter, and other basic needs to be comfortable. But, Businesses look for profit and have to have it in order to survive. They are looking for people who want to work and are willing to work full time and have education and work skills that increase productivity. The U.S. is losing that asset and so is Europe. Countries with "hungry" people always win when it comes to luring business. Why wouldn't a business want to go where their products are built better and cost less. They have realized in China, as Henry Ford did here, that you have to pay a decent wage so your workers buy the products they make. They have a long way to go in China since some rural areas are still way below a dollar an hour in wage. But in many economic zones, workers are making the equivilant of $40,000 U.S. dollars a year in buying power. ($10,000 in wages)
But, back to the groups blaming everyone but themselves. These groups have their own power agendas and telling the truth would cost them power. It is rediculous to blame Ireland as France has for taking business away when it is more a case of driving them away than them being lured away. Until all nations realize that in the end, the working class pay the bulk of taxes and the wealthy only pay what they want to, (as long as they have tax free investment options or can move themselves or their wealth), and businesses don't pay taxes since they pass it on in the price of their goods, we can't compete with places like China, that are not only offering better tax and business packages including cheaper land, but lower labor costs and higly educated workers.
The main purpose of these groups is to keep people's attention focused on other countries so they don't focus on the lack of logic behind their own polices and how those policies affect the working people.

Michel Bastian, France

To Jan Paul:
> Correct. The Chinese government is switching from communism to capitalism. They are locating new sources of oil and buying into current oil sources. The are raising the wages of workers in economic zones so they can buy their own products. An estimated 100 million middle class Chinese. A new declaration from the Chinese government granting "religious freedom" in March. 30 million bibles distributed and as high as 35,000 new Christians a day. Economic zones with corporated income taxes as low as 15%, although it will probably stabilize around 25%. New rail lines, pipe lines, and power grids being built. The military being upgraded, etc. The buying power of the Chinese worker is estimated to be 2 to 4 times that of the buying power of an American worker.
Yup, that´s my point. And it´s not just China. India has similar figures, and does even better on high-end services and technologies.
> Europe and the U.S. will both be 2nd or 3rd class economic powers in a few decades if both don't realize the "war" being waged economically is a very serious war.
That´s not the point. Both business establishments realize this. What they don´t realize (and what the respective governments don´t seem to get) is that the only way to keep both economies on peak is a joint effort, not continued rivalry. Since I read in the news today that th US government, Boeing, the EU and EADS (Airbus) seem to have more or less settled their dispute over subsidies, I think that there is still hope. However, if we keep hacking at each other like we have in the past, we´ll both be out of the game pretty soon.
> In both much of the U.S. and Europe there is a belief that you can tax businesses and the wealthy. Business pass all costs including taxes onto the consumer. The wealthy either move their wealth or themselves to better tax enviornments.
It´s not just "the wealthy". It´s mainly big, global player industries and also a lot of middle class firms that have started moving to Asia. That´s what causes all the massive job losses in Europe and also in the US. And yes, taxation is one of the main problems here. Labour cost is another. As is overregulation.
> At this time, there is still enough concern about the stability of China that many wealthy are not moving there, but there is a trickle.
It´s much more than a trickle. All german or french firms with any kind of importance have a dependancy either in Beijing or in Shanghai.
> Some wealthy or their wealth is going to Ireland or So. Korea or New Zealand, etc. It is going to where there are incentives for the wealthy to invest.
Not sure about Ireland anymore. They had a boom in the nineties, but this seems to have subsided somewhat.
> When wealth moves, jobs move with it. Many of old Europes policies are now being discarded by "new" Europe which know what it has to do to compete with Asia. The U.S. with state corporate tax rates added in is as high as 44% while most of "new" Europe, Ireland, Asia, etc is at half that rate. France, Germany, and the U.S. are all in the top worst five countries for corporate income tax.
Yup, quite right. And it´s not getting any better any time soon, as far as I can see.
>Also, putting tax on business is just a more expensive way of collecting it from the worker.
Nope, wrong. That´s one of the reasons why businesses move to tax havens: they can´t deduct their taxes from labour costs here.
> Europe doesn't need to worry about the U.S. but it does need to worry. There are governments or rather parties in governments that do nothing but blame others for the problems the country, any country, is experiencing. They blame the other party or they blame other countries, or they blame both. Yet, all live in the same world and are affected by a global market and global competition. The leisure time was mentioned in Europe.
Weeeell, begging your pardon, but that´s a little simplistic. You are right of course that everybody tends to blame everybody else for anything that goes wrong. The problems are more complex than that, though. In Germany, for example, all the parties have been trying to pass direly needed legislation to reform the tax system. They haven´t succeeded as of yet because the two main parties cancel eachother out. It´s to do with the german political system, where the government coalition (Social Democrats and Greens) rule the parliament and the federal executive, but the opposition (Christian Democrats and Liberals) run the majority of state parliaments and executives. So the failed tax reform in germany is a particularity of the german political system. You can find other particularities in most of what you call the "old" european states and in the US.
> But, back to the groups blaming everyone but themselves. These groups have their own power agendas and telling the truth would cost them power. It is rediculous to blame Ireland as France has for taking business away when it is more a case of driving them away than them being lured away.
Surprise, surprise: I´ll even agree on that one. Bickering between european member states because one has managed to build better conditions for business is pointless. The french government should instead try to emulate the irish system as far as possible.
> Until all nations realize that in the end, the working class pay the bulk of taxes and the wealthy only pay what they want to, (as long as they have tax free investment options or can move themselves or their wealth), and businesses don't pay taxes since they pass it on in the price of their goods, we can't compete with places like China, that are not only offering better tax and business packages including cheaper land, but lower labor costs and higly educated workers.
The main purpose of these groups is to keep people's attention focused on other countries so they don't focus on the lack of logic behind their own polices and how those policies affect the working people.
Again, I don´t think the problem is wealthy individuals moving out. The problem is that businesses tend to move out leaving enormous numbers of unemployed in their wake. That´s the problem all politicians, americans or europeans, will have to tackle in the next decades. And fighting each other is not going to help.

Philippe Dambournet, French in Texas, USA

Tom McLaughlin must have misread my remark, which is easy as English is only my second language. (I'll be happy to help him polish his French for public display if he cares to do so.)
Russia controls the only strategic forces capable of wiping out the United States -- and any other country on earth, for that matter. I would not make light of such might, despite the severe problems affecting much of Russia's armed forces. Countries have come back from desperate straits before -- as the Germans did, to France's detriment, in 1940. It is time the United States learned the lesson of Versailles and abandoned its misguided push to weaken the Russian state.
Europe needs to grow up as US leadership heads straight for the shoals. The first act of a mature Europe is to provide for her own defense and to wave good-bye to occupying forces that have overstayed their welcome by over a decade. The American century is on its way out. China and India are on the rise, while global warming is poised to reshuffle the deck and bedevil everyone's strategic predictions.
An unarmed and subservient Europe has no more future than a thrashing, waning United States or a decaying Russia. Multipolarity can help restore some balance and prevent a future war for that supreme illusion, hegemony. I vote for a fully fledged Europe that will pull Russia into its economic and political orbit and control the balance of power between yesterday's superpower and tomorrow's, with institutions and a structure that will prevent her from evolving into a jingoistic, militaristic bully.

sangram, india

There is nothing wrong in Pres-chirac,s plan to put eu literature on the web. Only thing disturbing about it is if the eu public is made to pay money for it.It would be better if each individual country tries to encourage private individuals and organisations to do it. Also the french have to finally accept the fact that the french language is light years away from gaining world dominance. They(french)should also recognise that instead of making statements that further divide english speaking caucasians from non english speaking one's,they shold concentrate more on developing ties with asia ,africa and south america

Gabsters, USA

what does counter balance mean?

Richard, USA

when EU enlargered to 25 nation they were happy that there economy size is bigger then US now. But check the GDP of EU AND US in 2004. EU stands at 11.65 trillion Dollars. AND US stands AT 11.75 Trillon dollars. US has more economic growth rate then EU. AND they say by year 2020 US economy will be 20% bigger then EU. With this i can't see EU will ever be able to counter balance US in Anyway.

Paul Manser, UK

Basically i think the european and american views are just basing their beliefs in their own country, im no different. I believe that europe will keep USA on a leash and stop their madness of trying to control eevrything. Military might within europe over powers USA. UK is prob their only allie in the european which wont last personally specially when they become more with europe, personally i disagree with this relationship, me entering the RAF soon i wont b helping no yank in nay means but european only.

Paul Manser, UK

europe will be one of superpowers eventually if not already, russia, China, USA Europe will eb the four superpwers in the far far far future, russia will get back on its feet hopefully soon, tis thick to think their no threat they literally own the planet and are the biggest country in the world

Amit, India

The key question is not whether Europe SHOULD become a counterweight to America but whether it -- given its motivations and resources -- CAN even think of becoming a counterweight. I think the answer is a resounding NO. Here's why :
First, while it is all very well to talk of values and alternative visions, in the ultimate analysis people listen to you only if you back your words with actual physical force. Since World War II Europe has become progressively demilitarized. Europeans felt a need to have some military capability during the Cold War -- under US umbrella that is -- only because it was a question of self-defence. Since America is unlikely to pose a direct military threat to the Continent, it is difficult to see how the EU mandarins would ever convince the incurably pacifict Germans, Dutch, Belgians and the rest to pay for a huge defence budget and/or join a combat ready EU army for some grand purpose. France and Britain are the only two European countries that still possess Armies that can fight real wars. While France alone is a pigmy before America, Britain is more likely to join its Anglo-Saxon cousin than confront it.
Secondly, Europe is on a long term economic decline. Its leisure culture makes it singularly incapable of enhancing the economic base from which potential global clout might flow.
Thirdly, Europe's biggest weakness is that it is less than the sum of its parts. Parochial loyalties hamper the rise of any pan-European political identity. All its population and combined GDP cannnot be used as an instrument of global power as the joint resources are never under the consolidated control of any single entity.
Europe can conceivably act as a counterweight to America in the intellectual and cultural fields, but as far as hard-core military and political influence goes, its voice is getting weaker by the day. Even Europe's soft power remains compromised so long as its largest economies remain trapped in a permanently recessionary mode. Unless it first appears successful and dynamic, Europe would become increasingly irrelevant even in the global 'kulturkempf', let alone being visible on the geopolitical landscape.

Ross Gurung, France

For want of anything better, how best could we substantiate the words „l‚Entente cordiale‰ between the Brits and French across the Channel?
Under the current British presidency of the EU, Blair should and could impulse as well as inject a new mood and flavour into the EU by rendering it more attractive to the slumbering and so far lukewarm Europeans and thus making them really participate and believe in a better future of the EU.
The times we live in, it is claimed that agriculture is a thing of the past. And what‚s more, things are gradually taking different shapes. These days, the appropriate slogan is; „Scram from oil scam!‰ The rise of oil-price has given suddenly to our mostly urban societies the exact value of agriculture, making it a vital foregoing steward of the environment and giving it, at the same time, a top seeded role to play particularly with the advent of „green chemistry‰, greenhouse effects and bio fuels. The would be scarcity of energy product from the sources of fossil fuels gives agriculture a second chance to participate in the global management of the environment.
At the end of the latest EU budget discussions, a kind of bitter taste was persisting in amongst the participants. Amongst all those divisions, they concern, on top of all, the common agricultural policy (CAP) and british rebate. Were they simply the scapegoats?
As to the CAP, there are really very different points and conceptions. Let us seriously try to analyse them here below.
It is not without careful thought that we try to understand the difficulties of different Europeans to make match their respective interests regarding the CAP.
Setting aside the prejudice, if we want to engage in a serious debate, the first thing to do is to set out the real facts, not the selfish and partial considerations.
Above all, everybody says that the Cap is 42% of the EU budget, so why it is too expensive and squandering. To this effect, let us pin-point the approximate growth of national product (GNP)/year of the four big contributing nations of the EU. The different annual GNPs are as follows: Germany 2232.0 bn Euros, England 1770.6 bn Euros, France 1684.0 bn Euros and Italy 1379.4 bn Euros. The contribution of 1% to the CAP of each one is supposed to be 22 bn 320 m, 17 bn 706 m, 16 bn 840 m and 13 bn 794 m Euros/year. Moreover, they vary in accordance with different yearly growth of each nation.
Taken together, the EU spends 42% from Brussels of the collective budget on agriculture (don‚t forget, it is the addition of 1% contribution of each 25 nations). To compare the budget for agriculture with those for the other sectors, we need to consolidate expenditure at the EU and national levels. It is quite evident that the EU and the member nations spend less than 1% of their whole collective budget on agriculture (nothing in national level Œcause it is strictly prohibited). According to my estimation, Lisbon objective of allocating 3% of the EU budget to research, the EU and its member nations together would spend about 785 bn Euros on research compared with 305 bn Euros for agriculture under the Luxembourg presidency‚s proposals over the period of 2009 to 2013.
If we talk as French, we‚d surely say that the CAP is the only integrated european policy. France being the largest area country to plough in Europe it received automatically more allocation compared with Germany, England, Italy and others. Furthermore, all this time, it allowed Europe to regain food self-sufficiency in staple foods and guarantee secure prices for farms, safety for consumers with the real traceability of meats, cereals, fruits and vegetables. Whereas, country like England where cultivating land is almost the half of France, received less allocation. But thanks to the european subsidiary policy, all English landlords could entertain so far a substantial allocation in accordance with the hectares of possession of their respective lands. For example, the Queen Elizabeth obtained 800,000 Euros/year, the Prince Charles 500,000 Euros/year etc. and so on.
We should not forget the importance of controlling food supplies even in time of peace. The CAP can manage any fear resulting from the natural calamities, if there are economic crisis in the South America, drought, flooding and an epidemic such as birds‚ flu, mad cow disease in any part of the globe.
The efforts of the EU in favour of developing countries after the first Lomé agreements of 1973 are quite significant. The EU alone imports more from the rest of the world than any other developed countries put together comprising the USA.
The CAP accounts for 0.4% of european GNP. But every European can benefit from it. No other economic sector can boast for something better.
On the other hand, the 4.5 bn Euros of rebate allocated to England, extensible according to the growth of the european collective budget, at the time of Thatcher administration was in order to provide an assistance to boost the then England‚s slack economics and to better up the infrastructures which were really lagging behind compared with the then West Germany and France. Now as England‚s economics are quite flourishing it is time that the same opportunity had been awarded to the new comers who required it the most. Blair would face rather a great difficulty to wear the suit of Thatcher.
To come to an end, Dennis McShane, the british former labour european minister makes us want to barf at his eyes for his repellent moonshine and smear campaign perpetuating against France, time and again moping about, by scribbling down horrors on the Newsweek pages to flatter the ego of his neocon American friends. British fair play has become a simple myth.
This is far less than the value of his support to the british politics towards the EU, but it is at least a practical expression of his declared „Tartufferie‰ as a proeuropean.
Finally, he discredits all the british european policies as well as the british political mandarins that really never want England to be in the EU (if not they‚d have already accepted the Euros); except eventually compelled by the economic stalemate or slump.

Ross Gurung, France

To Sangram, India
To win one's spurs, one tries to hide oneself behind the curtain of all kind of jingoism. It springs out to my mind that you did choose this sanskrit or hindi word "sangram" (means tussle) to make us understand that you are in constant struggle against your inner demons such as jealousy, selfishness, avarice, avidity, hatred etc. And, no doubt you harbour a grudge against the French language as well as against all initiatives to put forward an European endeavour to work together for the well-being of the EU if it is not in the English language. So act.

As to the French language, you must be knowing that more than 60% of English words are taken from the French, showing the historical cross-Channel link with especially Normandy (Invasion of England by the Duke of Normandy in 1066 AD). There are more or less 160m to 230m people all over the world who speak French. It is very few in comparison with the Chinese. You'd for certain hurt a Canadian from Quebec and an Acadian from New Orleans, the USA with your laconic moonshine. The late Indira Gandhi, the renowned Indian movie actor Ashok kumar used to speak fluent French.
For the first time in 1938, Ravi Shanker danced Bharat Natyam and played Sitar in Paris and he is a Francophile as his two daughters Nora Jones and Anushka. Satyajit Ray was an ardent supporter of French culture. Aishwarya Rai who is the present beauty icon of Oréal learns French in her leisure time. Very many Bengali and the inhabitants of New Delhi and Bombay learn French in the Alliance française so as to murmur and beautify the glory of the words like 'Amour' and 'Persiflage'. And no doubt the 'Eminence grise' such as Montesquieu, Pascal Voltaire of the 'siècle des Lumières' showed us, over the period of 300 years, the path of knowledge thru' reasons and intelligence.
All intellectuals, epicureans and iconoclasts' people of the upper crust of the Universe want to learn French. Ask Jody Foster, Ashley Judd, Sir Christopher Lee, Mick Jagger, Oliver Stone, Woody Allen, Paul Auster, Tony Blair and the Queen Elizabeth II or Kofi Annan of the UN. For your information, the Monarchies in Europe still practice the French language and it is a Œmust‚ for the Royal family members to learn French. The Monarch of Thailand reads Jules Verne, Victor Hugo, Balzac, Alexandre Dumas in French not in vulgar English translation. His one of the favourite TV programmes is "Question pour un champion" diffused every afternoon on world French TV5.
Under the UN and Olympic conventions, official treaties and speeches are to be realized and pronounced in French and English either, if not the both. French is the language of intimacy, courtyard and of diplomacy. For some civil servants to learn French is compulsory if they want to work for the International Institutions such as UNESCO, WTO etc. And, no doubt it is primordial in Hotel business and Tourism. People who don't speak French are rather handicapped to understand almost half of the european or world literatures and modern, contemporary and cosmopolitan arts. If you ever want to learn Russian language first learn French.
I firmly hope, it will not be a kind of jinx for you to live in today's world of globalization where open mindedness in social behaviours does hardly tolerate monologue and cupidity. I understand now the perpetual sangram between Hindus and Muslims who live side by side in utter misunderstandings and denigration of each other for ages exactly like Jews and the Muslims. Ill luck would have it! Would they ever reconcile? When pigs can fly!! Patanjali would have defined it as a "Shankirna bhasmabhooti" or Narrow ashen meadow.
All Francophones and Francophiles of Africa, Asia, North and South America and the rest of the world are looking forward to the pleasure of consulting the Universal Encyclopaedias via computers in French, no matter if Google wishes to do the same in English for English readers. Ask Tahitians, in what language do they communicate? Gosh, it is in French!
Your cultural circle appears to be very dull and drab, without great classics such as Carmen of Bizet, Rigolleto, Traviata, Aïda of Verdi, some of the French and Italian Maestros. Don‚t you ever miss the German Lieder of Tannhaüser, Lohingrin, the Tetra logy of Nibelung's ring and of course the Allegros of Latin lovers? Further, how could you ever know the subtle flavour of the wines such as Château Mouton Rothschild, millennium champagnes and the delicious Mets concocted by the Chef of „Tour d'Argent", where the menus are all depicted in French? A jovial German would look over your shoulder and could admonish you gently; "Dumm Kopf, Die Menschlich Dummheit ist Grenzenlos!"- means "Tête de Linotte" (a clod), the human foolishness has no limit of boundary. "Satyameva jayate. And Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram."
I really appreciate the esoteric prowess of Krishna in "Bhagwat Gita" but, at the same time, I do not mind reading Shakespeare, Molière, Cervantes, Goethe, Dostoyevsky or Steinbeck, if possible in their original versions.

Go to page 1 2

Debate - page 2/2

Your Comment

Your comment will be sent to an email address and then posted on the website. Comments will not be edited, but we reserve the right not to post offensive, abusive or obscene contributions.