Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I don't think the world is for everyone and am fiercely patriotic. That being said, I would rue the day that the US and the EU combine, unless it is an American conquest of Europe or something.

Why should i have to live under the same state as someone in Europe? Why is 'unity' such a value? If two people have a differences of opinion is it not safer to let them separate than to have them battle one another for control over one another's lives?

At 12/19/10 12:10 PM, Warforger wrote: Except these nations are really rich and going by say Sadistic Monkey's logic they should be poor economic illiterate states because they don't follow Austrian Economics.

Lol.

Scandanavian countries are doing well, yeah. Others, you know like Greece and Spain and France are going poorly.
Anyway, the "good" countries are still entirely dependant upon a fundamentally market-based economy for the subsistence of their standard of living.
Not having a laisseiz-faire economy doesn't mean you will be "poor", whatever that means. It means you will be less wealthy than you would have been if you had had a free market. If Americans are so intellectually inferior to Europeans as you are always claiming, doesn't it make sense that they can get by on less freedom? If they're really so smart, and by extension productive, then of course they will do as well/better than America, even in a sub-optimal economic system.

According to your logic, Soviet Russia should have been a paradise. But wait, the state magically runs certain industries better than private individuals on a market, but only a few (for some reason).

Further, America is nowhere near a free market. You, like most statists, incorrectly frame the debate as 'free market America vs welfare state [European nation]', when this is not true at all. If you had ever read any Austrian Economics, you would know that these economists explain why the problems with America stem from the fact that it isn't a free market. Measures of economic freedom and inherently problematic, and it shouldn't be treated as purely quantitatively (America has 'more' free than Europe, Europe is better, therefore economic freedom = bad). The types of regulation are extremely important. European nations and America all have central banks, but because the US dollar is the world's reserve currency, this shakes things up entirely, and why this particular example of intervention in the market (that is, control of money supply) results in way worse results for America, without jeopardising economic freedom relative to other nations.

Anyway, this is something good to read.

At 12/18/10 12:00 PM, Warforger wrote: since the US just did the whip out natives routine Australia and New Zealand did later on and just spread more white people around.

What race are you warforger? You say that like it is a bad thing.

At 1/4/11 06:02 PM, conservative23 wrote:

At 12/18/10 12:00 PM, Warforger wrote: since the US just did the whip out natives routine Australia and New Zealand did later on and just spread more white people around.

What race are you warforger? You say that like it is a bad thing.

What a loaded question in today's political atmosphere.

If he's non-white he's a reverse racist. If he is white, he's full of(according to some pundits that over-exaggerate) white-guilt and self-hate caused by the Giant Underground Liberal Socialist Agenda to Feminize America.

usa and eu its not "the world"

At 12/19/10 06:53 AM, lorriedude wrote:

one of the best reaction until now congrats.
But to the rest of the people EU is not the united states of europe or something.
it doesnt drive on 1 economie look at greece and germany they fucked up. and now other country is the eu must pay up.

So according to the picture, the U.S. got all the best except for Sean Connery.

At 1/4/11 03:12 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/19/10 12:10 PM, Warforger wrote: Except these nations are really rich and going by say Sadistic Monkey's logic they should be poor economic illiterate states because they don't follow Austrian Economics.

Lol.

Scandanavian countries are doing well, yeah. Others, you know like Greece and Spain and France are going poorly.
Anyway, the "good" countries are still entirely dependant upon a fundamentally market-based economy for the subsistence of their standard of living.
Not having a laisseiz-faire economy doesn't mean you will be "poor", whatever that means. It means you will be less wealthy than you would have been if you had had a free market. If Americans are so intellectually inferior to Europeans as you are always claiming, doesn't it make sense that they can get by on less freedom? If they're really so smart, and by extension productive, then of course they will do as well/better than America, even in a sub-optimal economic system.

According to your logic, Soviet Russia should have been a paradise. But wait, the state magically runs certain industries better than private individuals on a market, but only a few (for some reason).

Further, America is nowhere near a free market. You, like most statists, incorrectly frame the debate as 'free market America vs welfare state [European nation]', when this is not true at all. If you had ever read any Austrian Economics, you would know that these economists explain why the problems with America stem from the fact that it isn't a free market. Measures of economic freedom and inherently problematic, and it shouldn't be treated as purely quantitatively (America has 'more' free than Europe, Europe is better, therefore economic freedom = bad). The types of regulation are extremely important. European nations and America all have central banks, but because the US dollar is the world's reserve currency, this shakes things up entirely, and why this particular example of intervention in the market (that is, control of money supply) results in way worse results for America, without jeopardising economic freedom relative to other nations.

Anyway, this is something good to read.

SM, you make it sound like the US dollar is doing great, that's not really the case is it...
Neither is the Euro in all fairness, the P.I.G.S are to blame of that ( Porugal, Italy, Greece and Spain )

On topic: it's probably impossible to ever merge the USA and Europe, even western Europe, because of political / economical / social security / health systems.

Don't forget the two landmasses are seperated by the Atlantic ocean as well.

Keep the overweight Yanks where the are. :-p

At 12/18/10 12:25 PM, lorriedude wrote: well thats a..intersting theory but i a war with china is more likely
and eu their economy depends a lot on america when usa fellt in crisis the eu did also

There will never be a war with between the US and China, it would destroy both countries' economies.

...and to your original question: If they were to merge, either the EU or US would have to surrender power or put a new government in place where both sides would have to make difficult compromises.

At 1/5/11 03:55 PM, kamil-fucker wrote: SM, you make it sound like the US dollar is doing great, that's not really the case is it...

Not at all, which is why I made a point of explaining that america isn't a free market, so some "socialism vs free market" dichotomy wasn't applicable.

If you were talking about the specific points I made about the US dollar: I've made whole threads about the (bad) future of the dollar. If the dollar wasn't the world's reserve currency and the US had pursued the same monetary policy, then they would be totally fucked.

At 1/10/11 01:15 AM, Grubby wrote: God bless America. IMO best country in the world.

lol

At 1/10/11 02:05 AM, Stocking wrote: There will never be a war with between the US and China, it would destroy both countries' economies.

If you mean that both countries would probably be reduced to radioactive ash, then yes, both countries' economies would be 'destroyed,' I imagine. However, if the scope of the war is limited to conventional weapons, it would hardly affect either countries' economies. The bottom line is that there is nothing to gain.

At 1/10/11 03:25 AM, KemCab wrote: However, if the scope of the war is limited to conventional weapons, it would hardly affect either countries' economies.

Not sure if serious...

At 1/10/11 03:32 AM, Stocking wrote:

At 1/10/11 03:25 AM, KemCab wrote: However, if the scope of the war is limited to conventional weapons, it would hardly affect either countries' economies.

Not sure if serious...

What is there to be serious about? There needs to be a real reason for China and the United States to go to war before there can be any serious scenario-building. If China really wanted to take over Taiwan, for example, it certainly has the wherewithal to do so. However, it does not have anything to gain from trying to invading the island by force, so it doesn't.

If there were ever a serious threat of war, both countries would mobilize and shift economic planning accordingly so as to not jeopardize their economic base.

If china decided to stop supporting the US Dollar, the idea of a US invasion of China seems more probable than the more peaceful alternative of trying to balance the budget to restore confidence.

At 12/19/10 11:56 AM, SohlTofang wrote: EU = Socialism,
USA = anti-socialism (until recently)

Its like oil and water.

The fuck are you talking about "until recently."

May I remind you the USA just threw out many Socialists/Progressives in states, and even the House of Representatives in the 2010 election.

At 1/12/11 01:00 PM, conservative23 wrote:

At 12/19/10 11:56 AM, SohlTofang wrote: EU = Socialism,
USA = anti-socialism (until recently)

Its like oil and water.

The fuck are you talking about "until recently."

May I remind you the USA just threw out many Socialists/Progressives in states, and even the House of Representatives in the 2010 election.

Yeah, but we still have Obama as President.

I guess that was what Sohl was referring to.

The EU strikes me as what the United States was in its very early history, a federation of largely independent states, gradually and painfully surrendering powers to the federal unit.

Americans = this thread.

90% of the repliers don't know a damn thing about the rest of the world, apart from the stereotypes.

This thread and everyone in it have made my head hurt.

At 12/18/10 11:53 AM, lorriedude wrote: i believe the world is for everybody so why do we still not collab or something.together you are stronger right?

Because everyone wants their own nation, for MANY reasons- political ideology, religion, race, geography, and historical claims are the big ones.

Oh, and the European Union is 1) European, and 2) Not a country.

At 12/18/10 12:12 PM, lorriedude wrote: 1. everybody in eu almost speak english except: germany,france

Yeah, everyone speaks English except France and Germany... And Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Greece, Slovenia, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, Andorra, and good bits of Ireland.

At 12/18/10 12:19 PM, Vousielle wrote: Because we are economic rivals. I foresee a major war blah blah blah

If only real life worked like it did in video games and movies...

At 12/18/10 12:25 PM, lorriedude wrote: well thats a..intersting theory but i a war with china is more likely

Except China holds a large majority of America's debt, and they make most of the commercially available goods that are sold in America. A conflict would be likely to kill both economies.

and eu their economy depends a lot on america when usa fellt in crisis the eu did also

It was/is a WORLD economic crisis, so I don't know if dependency on America had much to do with it.

At 12/18/10 12:32 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Us Americans are fucking nuts. Trust me. Keep to yourselves. You don't want our bible thumpers.

Europe has a lot of conservative and Christian elements, you know. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that European nations have had majority Christian populations for over a thousand years longer than the United States has existed.

To everyone else, I would have tried to reply to you, but I sincerely don't care enough to put in more effort than I have.

Beacause even a single difference can cause a gap between nations, reasonability and sanity. And someone ends up losing more than wat they wanna gain if not on both sides

At 1/12/11 11:58 AM, Grubby wrote: Why lol? I truly do believe this.

What makes the big patch of dirt that you live on better than any of the other comparable patches of dirt? Most of the inhabitants of the more developed patches of dirt enjoy a comparable standard of living to that which you currently enjoy in your own patch of dirt. They uphold the same legal freedoms, more or less. And so on.