----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Crystall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:36 PM Subject: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
> On 26 Jun 2003 at 13:07, Dan Minette wrote: > > > **One might argue for including 45-47. However, if one doesn't > > include the great wartime improvement in GDP between 41 & 45, I don't > > think one should include the relatively small letdown right after the > > war. > > That's certainly a factor for Europe - Britain effectively spent > itself into oblivion during WW2, and a lot of Europe got hammered - > and a lot of the rest was promptly dumped into community regiemes. > > However, I'm going to suggest that the data you have isn't entirely > accurate. Europe as a whole is about to expand, and the countries > which it is expanding TO...some were community and still have rapidly > growing markets. Well, the EU is going to expand, Europe is not about to take over Asia. :-) But seriously, unless Turkey is admitted, the countries that it is expanding to have the same or worse demographic problems as Western Europe. > The dropping of trade barriers alone would do a lot to the European > growth, and the Euro is a further factor. But, the most important factor hindering European growth is not going to be adressed. It is the inherent inflexibility of the European ecconomic system. > I wouldn't be complacent as an American. Well, complacency is never good, but the challenge to the US will not be from Europe in 30 years. How will an old society that is shrinking be able to challenge for supremacy? Europe is in the process of fading away. The only way I can see this being stopped is: 1) Women start having kids out of as sense of loyalty to Europe. 2) Europe decides it wants to be multi-ethnic. I don't think either will happen. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
