Can the EU become a superpower like the U.S.?

Hardly unbiased.

So I discard the whole problematic, and of course their assumptions � which are speculative and not based on hard data but on their expectations and implications on how to run an effective economy � and the comments.

Let�s stick to the data, then.

I wrote (in the above post) that the GDP of USA is higher than that of Europe. I didn�t said otherwise. Also, I conceded that the growth rate of US economy is higher than the European medium.

Both these figures apply to the whole economy not to individuals.

What does that mean? Let�s make it really simple.

There are 100 people and there is 1 million dollars available to cover the needs of all 100 of them. If we go by the US formula, 1 of those people shall get 800.000, 14 of those people shall get 12.500 each, and the 85 remaining shall share (not equally, some would get more, some less) the remaining 25.000.

That is the social buildup of USA. In Europe, there would be 2 men getting from 260.000 each, 27 people would get around 14.000 each and the remaining 71 would share 81.000 dollars.

Far from perfect, but still a great deal better than USA.

So, if the medium (that�s what the GDP stands for, the medium) rises 5% in a year, this doesn�t mean that this growth is applied equally across the board. On the contrary, the higher the growth is, the lesser classes get less. The best evidence for that is this: In 1978, the example I presented for Europe would apply at USA in a rough level! It�s getting only worst every year, since USA switched Neo-Classical in Reagan�s times.

The Timbro analysis presents the medium wages as well. Of course what they fail to mention is that this is again a medium. So, while the average wage of say construction workers might be barely enough to make a living for and the average pay for someone working at McDonalds doesn�t even cover the cost for taking the bus everyday to work, we have the CEOs of all large corporations getting paid more than 1 million dollars a month � and that doesn�t include the huge bonuses and gifts they grant to themselves. The disparity between the high-level executives and even the mid-level ones, is a huge issue of debate in USA as well. It�s getting worst every year.

The Swedish liberal think-tank people are honest enough (must be that they are Swedish) to admit that �the GDP is only a yardstick of material prosperity at macro level�. They are not honest enough to include the real defining factors of the prosperity of a nation as a whole, and not just a small group of people in it. Think about this: if the guy living in the next block acquires a billion dollars, how does that makes you wealthier?

I certainly hope that you will find a couple of analysts who do not belong to the extremists of the "Free for all" right wing, so you can further your knowledge about this matter. If you only read those who agree with you, what's the point of reading them? Enforcing your arguments?

One sided arguments are usually weak.

Life expectancy

USA: 77.43
Belgium: 78.44
France: 79.44
Netherlands: 78.68
Germany: 78.54
Luxembourg: 78.58

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

Deficit au nuveau

More facts, data, numbers

Since 1980, average income for the bottom 98% of the US workforce has increased at an average rate of 0.28% less than indexed inflation, annually. The �average workers real� income has declined by 6.72%.

www.census.gov

Since 1980, Health Insurance coverage and benefits for the the bottom 98% of the US workforce has been reduced an average of 2.62% annually. The �average workers � health coverage has declined by 62.88%. In real terms, more workers are paying part or all the costs of health insurance, and more workers are not insured at all. As this is not an item part of indexed inflation, this cost, adds to the decline of the �average workers real� income. In dollar costs against average income, the estimated decline is anywhere from a low of 4.82% of income, to a high of 11.61% of income.

Thus the �average workers real� income has declined by a minimum average of 11.54%, or a maximum average of 18.33%.

Since 1980, Pension coverage and benefits for the the bottom 98% of the US workforce has been reduced an average of 3.71% annually. The �average workers � Pension coverage has declined by 89.04%. In real terms, more workers are paying part or all the costs of any form of Pension plan and more workers have no Pension Plan at all. As this is not an item part of indexed inflation, this cost, adds to the decline of the �average workers real� income. Trying to calculate the value of this loss is quite complex. Suffice to say, most workers currently employed will not retire to an adequate Pension, but will instead, survive on food stamps, social assistance, food banks and Wal Mart greeter jobs.

The easiest way to cataloge the differences, is that in 1960,�.
- the cost of a new car was less than half the average workers annual income,
- the average cost of a home was less than the average workers income,
- the majority of employees and their families were covered by a employer provided Health Care plan,
- the majority of employees had an indexed to inflation employer provided Pension Plan,
- the majority of employees supported single income families.

in 2004,�.
- the cost of the cheapest new car is the average workers annual income,
- the average cost of a home is ten times the average workers income,
- the majority of employees and their families have no Health Care plan,
- the majority of employees have no Pension Plan, and cannot afford to save for their 401�s.
- the majority of employees support double income families living in debt and poverty.

The upper 2% of the US Workforce on the other hand have done very well indeed, with an annual average of 171% increase in wages .

And from the good, ole LA Times

The government would have to borrow an estimated $1 trillion to $2 trillion over 10 years to replace the diverted payroll taxes and pay traditional Social Security benefits to today's retirees.

---

But some analysts were skeptical of the prospect of Bush's expected plan, still in sketchy form, to borrow money to restructure Social Security.

"I think it would be negative for the dollar," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo Bank in Minneapolis. "The reason we're borrowing $1.8 billion every day from overseas is in part because of our huge budget deficit. If you're telling the markets that it's going to get larger, the markets will worry

...comments? worries? Arguments?

edited for clarity