Blogcritics: Comments on Destroying European Delusions

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:27:25 EST

>>The truth is, America under the Republicans, pick their battles. It has nothing to do with being a nation that cherishes democracy and freedom for the world and it's people. Why doesn't George Bush try it with North Korea? << We pick our battles because we HAVE to pick our battles. Our money and resources are not unlimited and it makes sense to use them where we can do the most good at the best price. That's just good business management, and that's something Bush is actually kind of savvy about. Can you imagine how an invasion of North Korea would have gone? I mean, that's just a dumb idea. In Iraq success was a realistic possibility so that's the fight Bush picked. And it does have the overall benefit of showing other tyrants and monsters that we're serious and committed. >>"Even a Chimpanzee" could see that the idea of Britain not eventually integrating into Europe is, at best, ludicrously delusional and, at worst, seriously damaging.<< It would take a Chimpanzee to believe that claptrap. France is even starting to realize that the EU is dragging it down, do you think England isn't already painfully aware of it? Sacrificing your autonomy and your economy on the altar of an abstract and relatively worthless concept like European unity just makes no sense for England. Dave

Comment by alienboy

Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:06:35 EST

Hi sandra, Interesting comments - it will be fun, if not surprising, to see how some of the cabal respond. As to your first point, I wouldn't give up on the English or Dutch yet. "Even a Chimpanzee" could see that the idea of Britain not eventually integrating into Europe is, at best, ludicrously delusional and, at worst, seriously damaging. Having such an unbalanced media debate on the subject plus a totally craven and cowardly political environment certainly isn't helping...

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:46:28 EST

Nead=need

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:43:10 EST

Spain voting YES is almost irrelevant. Most of the UK public will vote NO. Most in the Netherlands will vote NO. If everyone is not on board, then the point of the whole thing is lost. As for the rest on this post, I am not too aware of the specific details so I shall just state my opinion broadly on this America is better than the rest of the world nonsense. I concede that America, as far as opportunities go,is the best place in the world. I applaud America for that. However, this misguided notion that America can exist independently of other Nations or is better than other Countries is complete rubbish and even a Chimpanzee can see that. The Trade with China. The Oil from African Countries and Saudi Arabia. The interdependency of intelligence Agencies regarding Terrorist activities. I mean, the list is endless. America can NOT exist on it's own and it is not better in every department than the rest of the world. Your healthcare system and health insurance is in no way better than most of the European Countries. Certainly not the United Kingdom. I don't think your welfare system is better either. I will digress now but I must mention it as it goes to this whole propaganda by Republicans that America does not nead anybody. Bush went into Iraq supposedly because we SUSPECTED they had WMD. NOW, North Korea have said they HAVE WMD. IRAN have practically admitted the same. SYRIA is known to help and harbour Terrorists. Come on. America..big and mighty..GET IN THERE. Invade. After all, you are the fighters for freedom and liberty and democracy. Is Syria democratic? Haven't there been human rights abuses in China and Syria since God knows when? How come you now need the dreaded French to help you put pressure on Syria? Your own pressure is not strong enough? Oh, now you need Europe to pronounce Hezbollah a terrorist group? I thought the minute America said it, that was good enough? The rest of the world was supposed to Kow tow? Now, Bush is going on a trip he would rather not go on because, let's be frank here, he's going to try and kiss some ass. Let's not play games here. The truth is, America under the Republicans, pick their battles. It has nothing to do with being a nation that cherishes democracy and freedom for the world and it's people. Why doesn't George Bush try it with North Korea? I have said many times on this site before that the North Koreans might have a little something to say about America being called the World's only Super power. The time has come. They've told you they have it and they will NOT destroy it. Should you attack, they will respond. Now, is the time for all that cowboy talk Bush was using on a weakened Sadaam. Fighting a handicapped man. Iran and North Korea are ready. Go in there. They are NOT Democratic. They HAVE WMD. Be consistent, America or should I say, George Bush? But you guys voted for him in numbers, so I better say, America. Go help us weak Europeans save the world and make us free:) One last thing, this story of America always being the most generous nation. Well, there are a lot more Americans than there are British or even French people. If every American gives one dollar and every Brit responds in kind, America would still have given more because there are just more Americans than Brits. So, broadly speaking, this whole idea of America being the biggest and the best and the most generous is truly nonsense. Now, what exactly is the topic you guys are talking about?!:)

Comment by alienboy

Sat, 19 Feb 2005 06:14:45 EST

Tomorrow, Sunday 20 February, Spain votes in the first of a series of referenda on the adoption of the new EU Constitution/Bill of Rights. Here's hoping all the polls are correct and a resounding YES vote will be delivered...

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:45:56 EST

Roy, as I'm sure you're aware, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has NOT been adopted by the EU because several nations do not support the specific provisions I mentioned. Plus we were talking about the ICC as I recall, which does not observe anything like the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Dave

Comment by alienboy

Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:05:38 EST

don't worry Roy, Nalle is well aware of the realities, it's just that he has an agenda, is stuffed full of fixed preconceptions and fears a frank exchange of true information. That's why, even though he can be very interesting and funny when he can be bothered, he usually relies on this rather irritating blend of bluster and bullshit...

Comment by Roy Smith

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:20:06 EST

Response to Comment 26: Dave says: However, from my prior reading I know that there is no guarantee of a jury trial, there is no presumption of innocence, no guarantee of due process, and no guarantee of the right to bear arms. That last is really a separate issue, but the first three make a European style justice system inherently less equitable than the American system. Dave, you made this one too easy. You would be more credible if you troubled yourself to read the document before telling us all what isn't there. The following rights are protected in Europe by the Charter of Fundamental Rights: Article 2 - Right to life - abolishes the death penalty Article 4 - Prohibition of torture Article 5 - Prohibition of slavery Article 6 - right to liberty and security of person Article 8 - Protection of personal data - much stronger privacy protection than anything in U.S., includes requirement that individuals may see any data that a government or corporation has collected on them. Article 10 - Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion Article 11 - Freedom of expression Article 12 - Freedom of assembly and association Article 13 - Academic and artistic freedom Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business - another right that is not spelled out in the U.S. constitution - generally presumed to be there, but isn't actually. Article 17 - Right to property - requires due process Article 19 - Protection in event of removal, expulsion, or extradition - "No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Not only is this not in the U.S. Constitution, recent actions of the Bush Administration do the exact opposite of this by sending terror suspects back to countries where they may be tortured. Article 20 - Equality before the Law Article 21 - Non-discrimination - Broader than anything the U.S. has. Article 23 - Equality between men and women - The U.S. explicitly does not have this - remember what happened to the Equal Rights Amendment? Article 35 - Health Care - "Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities." No guarantee like this in the U.S. Article 47 - Right to legal defense for the poor (according to a strict constructionist, the U.S. constitution doesn't require that) - Right to a speedy, fair, and public trial Article 48 - Presumption of Innocence - Right of Defence against charges Article 49 - No ex-post facto laws - Proportionality of penalty to crime Article 50 - No double jeopardy

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:15:18 EST

I hear he just parties with the tribunal members and they compare their favorite genocide stories. Do wish they'd hurry up and administer the big slap on the wrist (their harshest sentence) and send him off to live in a condo in Switzerland. But I don't believe the ICC is likely to get to do much with Saddam. After the Iraqi courts are done with him there won't be much left to try. Though I suppose they could imprison his dead body in a minimum security facility in the Riviera. Dave

Comment by SFC SKI

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:08:47 EST

Speaking of the ICC, any idea if the world court will clear Milosevic out in time to try Saddam?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:35:44 EST

Alienboy wrote: >>For a start, the USA is not the land of the free - you have way more state control in your lives than we do in Europe - so this idea that you are a nation of individuals is a total fiction. How you people keep falling for this line is beyond a laughing matter.<< Where on earth do you get this idea? Can you own a hand gun and keep it in your house? Can you buy and sell land privately to anyone you like without permission from municipal or regional authorities? Can you legally start a business without paying a franchise fee or purchasing a business license? I know you live in Spain, and I'm not nearly as familiar with Spanish law as with law in France and Germany, but I know that the examples I give above are all things you can do in the US and cannot do in those countries. >>Kyoto and the IC are attempts, however imperfect, to deal with some really quite important issues that affect matters on a global scale, rather like the UN. << Yes, but like the UN they were initiated with skewed priorities which have more to do with empowering third world nations than representing countries according to their actual participation in the world economy. >>One of the main problems all these bodies endure are the persistent attempts of the USA to set themselves up as somehow above the norms of the rest of humanity and undermine these efforts by withholding contributions or other resources.<< The US pays 25% or more of the money used to fund the UN and its various subsidiaries and has not withheld that money despite great provocation. With 150+ countries in the UN doesn't it seem a bit disproportionate to expect the US to foot a quarter of the total bill for the organization? >>Refusing to meet international commitments and (treaty) obligations does nothing to enhance or protect the USA, only to further undermine and imperil everything it claims to stand for. Life is not a cowboy movie.<< We meet our treaty commitments. This is a common misconception among Europeans. We have no Kyoto commitments, because we did not ratify the treaty. We're not signatories, not involved in Kyoto and it does not legally apply to us. Like all treaties it works through voluntary compliance, and after seeing how it came out we chose not to be a participant. Europeans act as if once most countries had signed onto the treaty that means everyone has to obey it, but that's not the way treaties work. I think this is because Europeans are used to having laws handed down to them from on high without their participation, but that's not how it works in international treaty law. >>I don't know your relatives, but the only difference you'll see between comfortable Europeans and their American cousins is that our houses aren't made of wood!<< Ever been to Scandinavia? Plenty of wood there. But there are a lot of similarities between how Americans and Europeans live. The thing that strikes Europeans who've visited us the most as being different is how much space we live in and how large our cars are. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:16:06 EST

Roy: Do you really think so? A brief examination of what are decreed to be "Fundamental Rights" in the European Union makes me think I would rather have my rights protected by European legal systems than the one in the United States. For one small example, I would be delighted to adopt European privacy protections as the standard in the United States. Of course, every corporation involved in marketing would scream bloody murder ... That link you give doesn't actually enumerate the rights which are protected, but refers to other documents which contain that information. However, from my prior reading I know that there is no guarantee of a jury trial, there is no presumption of innocence, no guarantee of due process, and no guarantee of the right to bear arms. That last is really a separate issue, but the first three make a European style justice system inherently less equitable than the American system. There just isn't another system of justice in the world which takes as much care to protect the rights of the accused. And yes, the corporation issue is another one. The common law concept of the corporation as a legal entity with a standing in court like a human being, which is part of English and American law is absolutely vital to the kind of success we have had in fostering the growth of business in America. A legal system which does not recognize that concept - as the UN system specifically does not - is unacceptable to any free capitalist nation. Dave

Comment by Roy Smith

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:34:02 EST

Dave says: When you have a better system of law and a higher level of civil and human rights than the international community . . . Do you really think so? A brief examination of what are decreed to be "Fundamental Rights" in the European Union makes me think I would rather have my rights protected by European legal systems than the one in the United States. For one small example, I would be delighted to adopt European privacy protections as the standard in the United States. Of course, every corporation involved in marketing would scream bloody murder ...

Comment by Mike Kole

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:31:40 EST

I have found that even in the Monarchies, the people feel rather free. In fact, they no doubt feel as free as they ever have since the EU made for the same kind of passage between countries as between American states- no border posts or passports to deal with, just drive on through and take a picture of the sign. Also, the common currency makes life much easier. I think the US is interesting to Europeans because they get as much American media as they get of their own. I was astonished to see so much American television when I had the chance to channel-surf in Denmark and in Spain. There are plenty of American channels to pick from on any European cable or satellite, and the European channels then have American shows that are either dubbed or have subtitles. I watched Law & Order in Spain, and found it a fun way to try to improve my Espanol. I will say this, though. Anyone who claims that his country isn't looking out for itself is either, a) full of it, b) has the blinders clamped on, or c) resides in a country desperately begging for guidance. You bet the United States protects its interests. Every other countries' leaders do too, in their own way.

Comment by alienboy

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:31:08 EST

Francis, once again, ego gets in the way of reality. For a start, the USA is not the land of the free - you have way more state control in your lives than we do in Europe - so this idea that you are a nation of individuals is a total fiction. How you people keep falling for this line is beyond a laughing matter. Kyoto and the IC are attempts, however imperfect, to deal with some really quite important issues that affect matters on a global scale, rather like the UN. One of the main problems all these bodies endure are the persistent attempts of the USA to set themselves up as somehow above the norms of the rest of humanity and undermine these efforts by withholding contributions or other resources. Refusing to meet international commitments and (treaty) obligations does nothing to enhance or protect the USA, only to further undermine and imperil everything it claims to stand for. Life is not a cowboy movie. Why is it so diffcult for the USA to accept it is just one of many voices, albeit, particularly from a European perspective, a most important and valued one? All this froth you display just comes across as immature and lacking confidence in the end. Europeans don't see themselves as subjects, except possibly in the the Monarchies, most of us see ourselves as citizens with rights that should be protected at all costs, so once again, your presumptions get in the way. I don't know your relatives, but the only difference you'll see between comfortable Europeans and their American cousins is that our houses aren't made of wood! The States is interesting to us because we are interested in the world around us and care what happens to it. And because there are strong connections of blood and history between us. You really ought to lighten up about the whole subject. Just as friends will debate endless small details of social, cultural or sporting trivia, people like a bit of healthy argy-bargy about different lifestyles. It's a part of the way that humans make connections and share information. You seem to only care about yourself and disregard the rest of us. If nothing else, that is just plain rude. Finally, you have no interest in debate, you are too busy telling everyone what is to actually shut up and find out. Pity that... There are enough real problems facing the whole world, problems on such a scale that possibly ONLY our combined efforts will be able to resolve them. Until the USA feels comfortable in itself and in its role in the world, this current divisive tension can only continue.

Comment by Francis

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:18:24 EST

Alienboy says "Secondly, if we were only out for ourselves, why would such initiatives as Kyoto, International Courts and a zillion other programmes that enjoy widespread support be rejected by the USA?" These types of discussions are pointless. Across the pond, they see things like Kyoto and the IC as something lofty and noble. We think of it as foolish (Kyoto) and ineffective (IC, how goes the Milosvic trial these days?) The reason we don't see anything the same is because Americans see themselves as individuals first, and the state is a construct to serve the desires and needs of the individuals. The Europeans sees themselves as subjects of the state, as the state is supreme. Everything flows from these divergent world views. Being 1/2 French, I spent lots of time growing up in France. I grew up with my french relatives telling the how superior the French were, how much better, how stupid the Americans were etc. This was in the 60's and 70's. Nothing has changed. I'm always amused when a relative will come vacation in the states, and be agog at the general level of prosperity here (at least in the Portland OR area). Everyone has giant houses, 2 cars, dogs, kids, etc. Then I hear how we're all slaves to our jobs, work too much, are greedy and fat, California wines aren't as good as French (I don't care, I love Portland brews) etc. Fine, enjoy your 20m flat in a 200 year old building in Paris, where you can hopscotch around the dog poop as you scramble to catch the Metro. I don't know why the States is so interesting to the Europeans. It seems we're the focus of their attention. Our "viral culture" whatever that means. Our simplistic world view. The worlds cowboys, etc. etc. I've given up debating Europeans on this. I don't understand why they can't just be content quietly; smug and happy with their sophisticated, idylic lives in their utopian society and leave the brutish yanks to toil, sweat, and bully the rest of the world...

Comment by SFC SKI

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:01:39 EST

Rich, my ancestors did not leave Europe to found a city on a hill, they left about 250 years later to avoid being used as fodder in clashes between baronies in Eastern Europe. I have to examine this statement "the viral nature of your culture", you make it sound like people drink Coke, eat McDonalds, and wear jeans because they are compelled to do so. I mean, who chooses to get a virus? What, in your definition, is "American culture"?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:06:47 EST

>>Secondly, if we were only out for ourselves, why would such initiatives as Kyoto, International Courts and a zillion other programmes that enjoy widespread support be rejected by the USA?<, Have you ever taken a good look at Kyoto? It's specifically designed to single out the US for economic persecution for the benefit of third world nations which do far more polluting. It's not a plan to controll greenhouse gasses, it's a method of redistributing wealth. If it were serious about the environment it would target countries like Mexico, India and China, but they are essentially given a free ride to keep polluting. As for the international courts, the US is never going to give up sovereignty within its own borders. If you read some of the things which the international courts and even the UN Charter want to impose on us, you should know they would never be acceptable to the US. Our highest authority will always be the US Constitution, and there's no way on earth we would ever accept the authority of a court system which doesn't provide or recognize basic, fundamental human rights that are embodied in our law and Constitution. When you have a better system of law and a higher level of civil and human rights than the international community it makes no sense to submit yourself to the rule of a court system which is dominated by petty despots and countries which have no clue of how a real legal system should work. Dave

Comment by JR

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:58:23 EST

Dave Nalle: Perhaps the key difference is that we ARE trying to do good, while other countries - specifically some of the largest in Europe - are no longer really trying to do good, they're just out to do for themselves. See, now there you go again with another of your insupportable gross generalizations. This is why you have no credibility.

Comment by alienboy

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:53:25 EST

Dave mate, you've said a lot of daft and funny things in the short time I've been reading your stuff but this is the silliest. For a start, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The real world is way more complex than the Cowboy Movie meets Minority Report mentality that has been passing for US policy lately. Secondly, if we were only out for ourselves, why would such initiatives as Kyoto, International Courts and a zillion other programmes that enjoy widespread support be rejected by the USA? You have it arse backwards here, it is the USA that is out for itself.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:04:43 EST

>>You're no better than any other country really, just the same old mixture of people trying to do their best in a complex world.<< Perhaps the key difference is that we ARE trying to do good, while other countries - specifically some of the largest in Europe - are no longer really trying to do good, they're just out to do for themselves. Dave

Comment by alienboy

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:04:24 EST

Well, I've lived in Europe all my life and these are not issues that concern European people. Maybe these issues are circulating at a governmental level but not "on the streets" so to speak. Normal people are more concerned about the fact that a nation we thought was an ally, based on long ties of family, friendship and common interests, seems to be drifting off into some ill-defined blend of isolationism, arrogance and delusion. If the USA was a person, it could only be defined as juvenile: full of energy and ideas, some good some not; contemptuous of the status quo; convinced that it knows better than everybody else; amazed that somebody struck back; struggling to understand its role in a world that is suddenly more complex and textured than it imagined back in its nice suburban dream. This is the USA of today, that we care about and love, but do not wish to over-indulge... You're no better than any other country really, just the same old mixture of people trying to do their best in a complex world. Welcome

Comment by Rich

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:09:02 EST

SFC SKI: I'm not making any broad prediction about social immobility. Dave's disparaging notwithstanding, the OECD is the high priest of deregulation and its study was exhaustive, yet it is still forced to conclude that social mobility is declining. There are many other studies (e.g. Lipset and Bendix, Erikson and Goldthorpe, Aarberge, etc.) that independently confirm the same results. There is even evidence to suggest that existing levels of American social mobility are overstated because the category used to define the top class - "professional, technical and kindred workers" - is so broad that it includes workers who would be categorised further down the class hierarchy in more tightly drawn European classifications. And I acknowledge your council. However, I suspect things have changed a little round here since your ancestors left to build the city on the hill. I'd also ask you to consider that many Europeans perceive many admirable qualities in your country. However, those aspects of your society which are less admirable are pretty much "in our face" right now. Partly this is a consequence of the viral nature of your culture, and partly it is a consequence of straightforward expansionism. Given the feebleness of our politicians (particularly here in the UK), it is probably only a matter of time before the worst excesses begin to manifest themselves in our society. So it has become our business and you'll forgive us if we have something to say about it, hence analyses such as Gersemann's, Hutton's and Wyn Davies. They are warning the sleepy in our society about what is heading our way if we aren't careful ...

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:41:43 EST

Responses to Rich's comments: >>Every bit of information originating with the EPI and the OECD is likely to be either deliberately or accidentally incorrect. Well there is a surprise. And, of course, you have statistics from an even more authoritative source to substantiate your point?<< Well, I don't really know where the OECD and EPI get their data, but when I compare it with data from BLS or the the Census Bureau (what I used in this case) it always seems to come up way off. Their data also always seems to be at least 5 years out of date. I'm not really familiar with the organizations aside form running into their data and finding it lacking. Do they have an agenda that causes this? >>You're looking at net worth and comparing it with an analysis of income, which is not the same thing. Of course I am, and of course it's not. There are two reasons why it is necessary to do so: (1) low net worth as a consequence of high incomes offsetting excessive borrowing is tolerable while the debt is sustainable. It is not, and it is no longer accurate to regard income as proxy for wealth. The dollar has lost 35% against the Euro, the Chinese (the second-biggest holder of foreign-exchange bonds) are trimming their purchases of Treasury Bonds. Interest rates will rise. If the difference between income and wealth is not apparent to you at the moment, it will become so.<< Actually, people have been predicting this rise in bond rates for more than a year, yet it hasn't happened and now experts suspect that the window for it to happen has passed because of growth in the economy counterracting the need for the rates to go up. As for the debt not being sustainable, that's enormously debatable. As a percentage of GDP our debt is lower than virtually any other nation, and it's also historically low compared to other periods when we were carrying debt. The same is true when you compare the current debt to tax revenue. Tax revenue has risen substantially because of Bush's tax cuts - I assume you're familiar with the Laffer Curve? >>Low income families are likely to be younger and have had less time to build up property and capital. This is the second reason why income can't be substituted for wealth. In America, low income families are likely to remain low income families. Again, the EPI demonstrate that the US has the lowest share of workers moving from the bottom fifth to the next fifth. The OECD conclude that downward mobility is more marked in the US. << I'm not at all convinced that this is true. And again, it's info from EPI and OECD. American society has always been characterized by strong upward mobility and my personal observation is that this continues to be the case, though that's just anecdotal. I do know that housing sales figures are an indicator of upward mobility and they show a strong and continuing trend of movement from lower to middle income groups. >>This is not true if you adjust for lower consumer prices in the US, which is an enormously significant factor. And where do we adjust for medical insurance costs? For the housing premium to get near a decent school? Are we using McDonald's prices as a proxy for living costs? Interesting.<< It's more expensive to eat at MacDonalds than it is to feed yourself, and the amount Europeans pay in VAT alone is more than Americans pay for Medical Insurance. As for decent schools, while there are exceptionally bad schools which it is worth moving away from, most school districts allow in-district transfers or have enough decent schools to make accessibility relatively inexpensive. >>This is per man hour productivity, rather than per worker productivity. Well, lets charitably leave aside for a moment the masive financial malpractice and technological mistakes exposed by the dot-com boom. John Kay, professor of Economics and writer for that negligible little rag, the Financial Times, argues that the US so inflates the growth of US GDP by overestimating the impact of information technology investment compared to European statistical practice that this accounting difference alone is equivalent to the main part of the so-called US productivity miracle.<< Well, no one ever said that economists can't be partisan buffoons. IMO the value of information technology is undervalued if anything. I don't think that most economic analysts have even begun to understand the nature of the new economy and the new businesses associated with information technology. In fact, I think a large portion of this part of the economy goes completely unanalyzed and unrecognized. Dave

Comment by Roy Smith

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:44:50 EST

Nobody here has commented on how the difference in GDP growth rates between the U.S. and Europe could be more a reflection of the difference in population growth rates than actual increases in the overall standard of living (I have no statistics at the moment, but I do know that population growth in Europe is lower than in the U.S., so it only makes sense that GDP growth would be somewhat lower, all other things being equal.) Also no comments on how GDP is in some respects a miserable measure of "quality of life" (which is damned hard to even define, let alone measure), and so may not reflect what people are actually looking for in where they live or what kind of society they set up.