The US beat the Soviet Union once, it should have no problem with the Soviet Union Light...er, EU. A bunch of unelected bureaucrats arguing about if the tax on chocolate should be high or absurdly high is going to do very, very little to oppose the dominance of the United States.

It seems to me that the list of advantages that the US has over the EU is virtually endless. The US is more efficient in every way - one area of efficiency which has been missed a bit from these exchanges (which are really good to read, btw) is efficiency of governmental decision-making. Contrasted against the structural problems of decision-making in the EU, US government decision making is much more rapid and more likely to arrive at an appropriate national response than the EU is to arrive at an appropriate EU response. Decision-making in the EU is duplicated everywhere since decisions and negotiations at meetings can only take place once national politicians have gone through a similar procedure at home, in order to set their red lines.

Decision-making in the EU is also contaminated by the need that national politicians have to retain electability at home. It is rather like expecting every decision in the United States to be taken on the basis of a qualified majority or unanimous decision collectively made by all the State Governors - an absurd and ponderous arrangement.

When you compare the way that the EU and the US have reacted to crises that require an immediate response - whether you compare the ECB with the Federal Reserve in the context of rate cuts, or the responses to 9/11 and other military issues - the EU's response is consistently slower, less effective and rendered intellectually incoherent by the need to accommodate irreconcilable views of the various nations under one umbrella EU policy. The US can mobilize and organize rapidly and in a unified manner. The EU cannot.

In the political field, one fundamental problem with the EU is that there is no European political culture of any kind, nor is there likely to be for the foreseeable future. Really this is one of the causes for the ponderous and often completely spastic nature of EU decision making because the absence of a European political culture makes it politically difficult or impossible to have a federal EU government that responds to external stimuli in the unified manner of the US government. People vote for candidate X rather than candidate Y for a whole bunch of very complex reasons, only some of which relate to that candidate's stated manifesto policies. We ask ourselves whether we can trust their judgment, whether we like the way they look and the way they talk to us, whether they're intellectual or down to earth, their record up to that point, who their friends and associates are, etc.

It's a very direct human judgment of another human being that's taking place when you ask whether you prefer Leiberman to Kerry or Daschle, or Bush to McCain, etc. Imagine, for example, how much harder it would be to notice that Al Sharpton was a total fruitcake if he and all the other Democratic contenders spoke in German and were born and raised in Germany. It wouldn't be anything like as obvious as it is to us now because we don't share the language and the cultural topography that Germans share with their German politicians. The best thing you could do would probably be to ask a German who they'd vote for and why.

But the EU denies this. It thinks that a common political community in Europe is only a matter of time. Well, it simply isn't, and when you think of the transformation that would be required in languages and cultural identities it's obvious why not. The lack of one political community means no strong accountable and coherent democratic federal government, which means the largest units of political community are either the nation states or small groups of them, such as the French speaking or French and German speaking ones which could plausibly be taken together and where there is a high level of understanding of the other's political culture. But there's no way that say a Spaniard or a Brit can properly take part in an election where one of the candidates is German and speaks German because they'd have no access to the cultural cues that you need to see in order to determine who to vote for.

This suggests that the kind of organisation that would be required if the EU were even to have the governmental structure it would need in order to compete with the United States (by which I mean to match the US in its ability to project economic, diplomatic and military power and influence around the world) is unlikely to emerge. The homogenization of political cultures - which themselves depend on national and linguistic cultures - that would be required is not even foreseeable.

Clearly the US is not the largest nation on the earth but I think there's a case for saying that it is, and will remain, the largest nation that can speak with one voice at this point on the spectrum of economic development. Other nations may well come apart as they develop (China, India), may never truly gel together properly (the EU, the Arabs) or may never achieve it at all (Africa).

Two words: Social Security.

Two more words: educational disaster(s).

Another two words: military overspending.

Two more words: Health care.

Come to think of it, why not Europe? At least their pension, health care, and educational systems are not on the verge of collapse.

Katherine: you don't read too good. :)

The EU is going to go through hell because of aging and their health care sucks. It's cheap, but you get what you pay for.

Read the piece that Dean linked and make those assertions again.

Bear in mind that U.S. military spending is still near a historical low.

Two words: Social Security.

Katherine:

"Two more words: educational disaster(s)."

Have you noticed that the last bastion of communist inefficiency in our society--the educational monopoly--is slowly sinking beneath the waves? The Democrats' "No Teacher Left Behind" plan will be irrelevant within fifteen years, though I agree with you that the destruction it currently inflicts on the minds of America's youth is incalculable.

"Another two words: military overspending."

Actually, if I remember correctly, our economy provides for a military force stronger than the forces of all the remaining militaries combined (a provocative statistic, I apologize for not being able to attribute it) on less than 5% of our country's GNP. It's social programs that are sucking us dry. I'm not sure you can say we're overdefended when we don't have the bandwidth to simultaneously hold Iraq and attack Iran.

"Two more words: Health care."

Our health care system is phenomenal. You just shouldn't plan to destroy your own health unless you've got the money to pay for the ground-breaking drugs and surgical techniques being pioneered by the US. When >60% of Americans are obese, >35% morbidly so, why should the nation pay for everyone's health care? Take a page out of the Asians' dietary books: put down the Twinkies and step away from the floor display.

"Come to think of it, why not Europe? At least their pension, health care, and educational systems are not on the verge of collapse."

Actually, they are. Forecast their governments' rate of expenditure against their population trends and see how far they get. Why do you think Germany and France are in the midst of such painful belt-tightening as we speak?

Of course, the Germans, Austrians and (Vichy) French have demonstrated the moral flexibility necessary to herd millions of people into concentration camps and dispose of them efficiently. If they find the political will to reinstate this policy in the context of the aged, they will absolutely have the US at a severe disadvantage, cost-wise. But this is one American disadvantage I'm willing to accept.

Of course, "American declinists" are right in one thing: the USA is, in fact, headed for a fall.

The evidence is the witness of history. Every society that has dominated the world has fallen at some point. Even comparatively enlightened dominant societies eventually take a bow. (Britain, Rome, and Egypt come to mind.)

It's entirely possible (indeed, probable) that the current set of doomsayers are totally wrong. But the exercise of reading their claims and refuting them, one by one, is very important, which is why I don't agree with a "we've heard it all before" dismissal. Someday, one of these pessimists will hit the jackpot, and if history is any guide, the temptation to blind ourselves to the warning will be very great.

If a country like Britain were to reclaim its ascendency from us, I wouldn't mind too much. But woe betide us if we allow China to dominate the world stage in the future. If we keep our eyes open, we may be able to maintain our dominance for a long time, and perhaps pick our successor in the end. Such foresight is not only in the best interests of the USA, but of the whole world.

So, tedious as the doom-mongerers are, I believe it is always our duty to take them seriously. If they are crackpots, the refutation should be short and sweet, at which time we can ridicule them if they deserve it.

The best thing about America, and why we are so good at dominating economically, is our flexibility.

We don't have massive government-owned utilities and corporations that can't change quickly when the market does. We don't have comprehensive "industrial policy" where favored industries get picked and helped. We don't have the german model of labor-management cooperation on decisions which paralyzes companies.

American entrepreneurs are free to assault the big boys. If they have a better product, the consumer flees to them. Entire industries just pop up when needed--who carried a cell phone 10 years ago, and what was a web designer? Sure, nobody's guaranteed a job for 30 years anymore, but job opportunities have multiplied.

We're fast on our feet, America is. By contrast, the EU is wearing the lead-plated lederhosen of kurze Samstags and 35-hour work weeks.

I agree with Jeff that ignoring doomsayers without addressing their arguments is very dangerous. But I'm reasonably confident that these particular doomsayers are wrong, in that they are each in their own way inconsistant or relying on suport of failed systems.

Far from the less transparent, less responsive government of experts that the doomsayers seem to want, I think the problem lies in the areas where our government has become less responsive and less transparent. Not that a heavily beuracratic government can't work, but that it's not us. If/when the USofA falls it will be (IMO) because we drifted away from the vigilance required to maintain a democratic society. And once we fail to maintain that we will have fallen, there may still be a US in name, but it will not be the same in fact.

Albo: yes, and as long as we keep that flexability we are safe, unless one of the places we don't have that flexability bites us. For instance the military, we only have, and should only have, 1 of those, but we need to watch to make sure it doesn't become bloated and overweight.

Doomsayers are the stopped clock that hasn't been right ever. Discussions with them wastes time that could be used productively.

In my view, all wealth is rooted in four basic elements: 1) real estate, 2) time, 3) energy, and 4) knowledge (also called information).

A brief discussion of history shows that ancient battles were fought over real estate. He that acquired the most land was considered the greatest. Vast quantities of Real Estate gave one access to food (farms and grazing lands) and fuel (trees).

Time is finite, and the only way to increase your resource of time was by using the time of others. Hence the ancient widespread practice of slavery, and hired labor.

Energy was also a limited commodity, and was primarily limited to burning wood from the land you owned, animal power (which required grazing lands), and manpower.

Knowledge and information was primarily limited to oral transmission from generation to generation, and skills were localized because travel required time and wealth.

It was in this pre-industrial age that the concepts of socialism were born. In a world with the finite resources of land and time and limited resources of energy and knowledge, it is not unusual that philosophers and economists would categorize productivity in finite terms. This naturally leads to the zero-sum economic theory that many socialists adopt.

The industrial age saw a great expansion in productivity primarily because of two things: 1) We learned how to exploit natural resources other than wood to create more energy, and 2) The industrial age led to an explosion of travel so that regionalized knowledge became more universally known.

This led to more efficient machines for both productions and transportation which created a multiplying effect on productivity.

Finally, the coming of the information age has led to another exponential multiplication of productivity and effectiveness. One only has to replay the recent war in Iraq to see the huge advances made in just the area of effective warfare because of the recent and ongoing Information Revolution.

The problem with "Nobody" and other socialist who see the world as a finite pie divided between the haves and the have nots is that they are stuck in the past. The Industrial Age combined with the the Information Revolution have changed the wealth equation. Now, Energy and Knowledge dwarf the finite resources of the time and real estate factors in the equation.

Europe is still in the grip of post-Fuedal, post-colonial thinking. They will not be able to compete with India and China in the near future, much less the USA. "Nobody" is living in a fantasy world. Until European thinkers get out of the 17th and 18th centuries and join the 21st century, they are without hope.

One other thought.

The fact that Europeans so widely interpret the American victories in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars of conquest exposes their minds and thoughts to us. In Romans 2:1,the Bible says "for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things."

I have always interpreted this verse to mean that you are most aware of and most likely to judge the things you yourself are most likely to do. And if someone accuses you of motives that are untrue, they are revealing their own desires. In other words, they are accusing you of doing what they would do IF they were in your shoes.

A paranoid is most likely to be afraid of others doing unto him the way he would do unto them if given the chance. Since Europeans accuse the USA of imperialism, and we know it is not true, it exposes their hearts. They still dream of dominating the world. How sad.

One other thought.

The fact that Europeans so widely interpret the American victories in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars of conquest exposes their minds and thoughts to us. In Romans 2:1,the Bible says "for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things."

I have always interpreted this verse to mean that you are most aware of and most likely to judge the things you yourself are most likely to do. And if someone accuses you of motives that are untrue, they are revealing their own desires. In other words, they are accusing you of doing what they would do IF they were in your shoes.

A paranoid is most likely to be afraid of others doing unto him the way he would do unto them if given the chance. Since Europeans accuse the USA of imperialism, and we know it is not true, it exposes their hearts. They still dream of dominating the world. How sad.

Two points:

1) The "American Empire" may very well fall, and possibly even soon. And, since it is an empire like none other, it will fall for reasons unprecedented. Not military defeat. Not economic collapse. No, it will "fall" when the American people say, "Y'know what? Screw this! This empire is nothing but a pain in our ass, and a reason for sanctimonious political children to set us up as a straw man. The hell with it." And thus the fall. And when empires fall, chaos ensues... every time. Hope that booming EU is up for dealing with it. It's all you, guys.

Point 2) The new EU constitution is filled with "rights to", as opposed to "rights of" like the US one. I.E. things you are "entitled" to, that other humans must provide. Well the US has ONE constitutional "right to". Just one. The right to a trial by jury.

ANd lo and behold, other than pay taxes, what is the ONE thing that the US "state" can do that can essentially turn your life upside down, albiet just temporarily? That's right.. jury duty. You wanna sleep in... got a business trip.... your sisters wedding...kid's softball game...? Too Bad. The state orders you to report to courthouse X, at 8am. Be there.. or you could wind up in jail.

Amazing. Only ONE "right to" in the US Constitution, and it's the ONLY current mandatory service to the state that you are born owing. In a sense, it is a tiny bit of slavery. And if you reject it, you could go to jail.

And the EU Constitution is overflowing with such "rights".

Uh oh.

Scott and Andrew, clever comments. Thanks for taking the time to articulate them.

In WWII, successive waves of American and British bombers would sometimes drop so many incendiaries in a given city center (notably Hamburg) that they would temporarily generate "firestorms" so massive as to approximate natural disasters. Bricks would melt, and the wind would suck people into the flames from as far as a city block away.

I think that the US has, for decades now, functioned as an economic firestorm, sucking the best talent from other countries from across oceans and infusing them into the fabric of our country. And I think other countries will always be at a disadvantage to us so long as we continually:

1) Allow the free market to reward and punish as it sees fit, and;
2) Avoid subsidizing destructive life choices,

while other countries to greater or lesser degrees:

1) Try to outthink the free market, and;
2) Try to spare their citizens from the consequences of their destructive life choices.

I do believe we should actually work towards a 100% inheritance tax and 0% income tax, if we want to keep mobilizing our top talent while eliminating trust-fund baby impurities from our system. If we pull this off, I think our "empire" could last many hundreds of years indeed.

The firestorm anaology is good. Allow me another one. We (US) are….. The New York Yankees. Just as you say, we use our material clout to attract the best and the brightest, and wind up winning one out of four series over the past century.

And we all know how much the New York Yankees are oh-so-beloved outside of New York. = : - O

Explains a great deal actually.

Now, to go counterintuitive, Major League Baseball is one place I have always said that a good dose of socialism would be a healthy thing, to help correct the imbalance that benefits the Yankees (irony check) so much over other teams, espeically since MBL is anti-trust protected. If I live in Arizona or Toronto, I might think that even more. If I lived in the Bronx, I would hate the idea with a passion.

Explains a great deal more.

Be that as it may, Planet Earth is not Major League Baseball. If a player despises baseball socialism, he can quit and get another job, become a priest, whatever.

If we “socialize Earth” to correct this imabalance…. well, there ain’t no wheres ta go. And I am not about to decide that we have some gall to actually choose the policies that are most effective, and thus dumb ourselves down essentially, and that is what this is all about in the end. If “the nail that stands up gets hammered down” becomes global policy, well, that is why we have the United States Armed Forces to tell you what you can do with your hammer.

So I don’t now how to address the brain drain issue, which I think will get even worse given the number of people in Europe an elsewhere who seem hell bent on implementing virutally any policy, as long as it is the “not America” one… and then bitching and blaming us (or the Jews) when it fails miserably. (Sure, we’ll get Arizona to the World Series this year. As long as we make sure that we do the exact opposite of whatever the New York Yankees do. After all, we hate them! See ya in Cooperstown!)

Uh huh, you go with that.