Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
America by the numbers, No. 1?
Dinivan
Member Posts: 91
No concept lies more firmly embedded in our national character than the
notion that the USA is "No. 1," "the greatest." Our broadcast media
are, in essence, continuous advertisements for the brand name "America
Is No. 1." Any office seeker saying otherwise would be committing
political suicide. In fact, anyone saying otherwise will be labeled
"un-American." We're an "empire," ain't we? Sure we are. An empire
without a manufacturing base. An empire that must borrow $2 billion a
day from its competitors in order to function. Yet the delusion is
ineradicable. We're No. 1. Well...this is the country you really live
in:
- The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (the New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).
- The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
- Twenty percent of Americans think the
sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves
around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005). - "The International Adult Literacy
Survey...found that Americans with less than nine years of education
'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy
Rifkin's superbly documented book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78). - Our workers are so ignorant and lack
so many basic skills that American businesses spend $30 billion a year
on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). No wonder they relocate
elsewhere! - "The European Union leads the U.S.
in...the number of science and engineering graduates; public research
and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised" (The European Dream, p.70). - "Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature" (The European Dream, p.70).
- Nevertheless, Congress cut funds to
the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer
research grants this year (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). - Foreign applications to U.S. grad
schools declined 28 percent last year. Foreign student enrollment on
all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased
greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in
the U.S. dropped 56 percent, Indians 51 percent, South Koreans 28
percent (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore. - The World Health Organization "ranked
the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and
the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th.
"The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health
care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less. - "The U.S. and South Africa are the
only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health
care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping. - Lack of health insurance coverage
causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the
number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.) - "U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream,
p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's
the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty. - Twelve million American families--more
than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not
always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members
who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million
(NYT, Nov. 22, 2004). - The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
- Women are 70 percent more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
- The leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country is murder (CNN, Dec. 14, 2004).
- "Of the 20 most developed countries in
the world, the U.S. was dead last in the growth rate of total
compensation to its workforce in the 1980s.... In the 1990s, the U.S.
average compensation growth rate grew only slightly, at an annual rate
of about 0.1 percent" (The European Dream, p.39). Yet Americans work longer hours per year than any other industrialized country, and get less vacation time. - "Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S. companies" (The European Dream, p.66). "In a recent survey of the world's 50 best companies, conducted by Global Finance, all but one were European" (The European Dream, p.69).
- "Fourteen of the 20 largest commercial
banks in the world today are European.... In the chemical industry, the
European company BASF is the world's leader, and three of the top six
players are European. In engineering and construction, three of the top
five companies are European.... The two others are Japanese. Not a
single American engineering and construction company is included among
the world's top nine competitors. In food and consumer products, Nestlé
and Unilever, two European giants, rank first and second, respectively,
in the world. In the food and drugstore retail trade, two European
companies...are first and second, and European companies make up five
of the top ten. Only four U.S. companies are on the list" (The European Dream, p.68). - The United States has lost 1.3 million jobs to China in the last decade (CNN, Jan. 12, 2005).
- U.S. employers eliminated 1 million jobs in 2004 (The Week, Jan. 14, 2005).
- Three million six hundred thousand
Americans ran out of unemployment insurance last year; 1.8 million--one
in five--unemployed workers are jobless for more than six months (NYT,
Jan. 9, 2005). - Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea
hold 40 percent of our government debt. (That's why we talk nice to
them.) "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to
play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American
housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing
boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they
manufacture. - Sometime in the next 10 years Brazil
will probably pass the U.S. as the world's largest agricultural
producer. Brazil is now the world's largest exporter of chickens,
orange juice, sugar, coffee, and tobacco. Last year, Brazil passed the
U.S. as the world's largest beef producer. (Hear that, you poor deluded
cowboys?) As a result, while we bear record trade deficits, Brazil
boasts a $30 billion trade surplus (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). - As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
- Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry:
59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn't show up:
79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If
more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country
in the world will think that election legitimate. - One-third of all U.S. children are
born out of wedlock. One-half of all U.S. children will live in a
one-parent house (CNN, Dec. 10, 2004). - "Americans are now spending more money on gambling than on movies, videos, DVDs, music, and books combined" (The European Dream, p.28).
- "Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32).
- Forty-three percent of Americans think
torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated
Press, Aug. 19, 2004). - "Nearly 900,000 children were abused
or neglected in 2002, the last year for which such data are available"
(USA Today, Dec. 21, 2004). - "The International Association of
Chiefs of Police said that cuts by the [Bush] administration in federal
aid to local police agencies have left the nation more vulnerable than
ever" (USA Today, Nov. 17, 2004).
No. 1? In most important categories we're not even in the Top 10 anymore. Not even close.
The USA is "No. 1" in nothing but weaponry, consumer spending, debt, and delusion.
Comments
No.1 for GDP.
No.1 for foreign aid.
Actually the EU has a slightly larger GDP
Maybe a couple of the city states like Andorra, Lichestein and Monaco do.
I don't think any other European countries do.
America is the undisputed largest economy in the world.
America is No.1 for aeroplane speed.
No.1 for car ownership.
Perhaps you should try using some credible and accurate sources if you are going to try to make a point against US Citizens, Dinivan.
What your point is other then the fact that you hate the USA is beyond me. However considering the quality of your post I really don't care at this point either.
- Scaris
"What happened to you, Star Wars Galaxies? You used to look like Leia. Not quite gold bikini Leia (more like bad-British-accent-and-cinnamon-bun-hair Leia), but still Leia nonetheless. Now you look like Chewbacca." - Computer Gaming World
Actually, maybe America is No.1 in illegaly invading other countries?
Hmm what about funding someone and then declaring war on them?
Ohhh I got one now; number one in fat people?
:0)
US = Bad
Europe = Good
Feel better now...
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
That source seems pretty credible to me. Euro-centric but honest enough.
No.1 for diplomatic influence.
And again, GDP of the EU is slightly larger than that of the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) so no, you're not the largest economy in the world
I'm not from the U.S., the EU isn't a country, and Wikipedia isn't evidence it's opinion.
Choosing to have more leisure, however admirable, doesn't make for taking the GDP crown.
Do 460 million people in a total of 25 countries out produce 320 million in just one? Proboably. But no European nation does. And even combined they don't out produce it by a factor equating to their numbers.
America is the most productive nation in the world. And the largest economy.
But if you are going to just dismiss his post by disputing the information provided and its source, wouldnt it be wise to supply your own data and its source to prove why it is inaccurate?
Europe v America Mirror, mirror on the wall
America is widely admired as the
beauty queen of the economic world. But the euro area's figures are
more shapely than its reputation suggests
AS AMERICA'S economy has bounced back, the economies of the euro area
still seem to be crawling along. This perception has reinforced
pervasive gloom about continental Europe's economic future. A great
deal has been written about America's superior performance relative to
the euro area. But wait a minute: the widely held belief that the euro
area economies have persistently lagged America's is simply not
supported by the facts.
America's GDP surged by 5% in the year to the first quarter, while
the euro area grew by only 1.3%. Europe's GDP growth has consistently
fallen behind America's over the past decade: in the ten years to 2003
America's annual growth averaged 3.3%, compared with 2.1% in the euro
area. Yet GDP figures exaggerate America's relative performance,
because its population is growing much faster. GDP per person (the
single best measure of economic performance) grew at an average annual
rate of 2.1% in America, against 1.8% in the euro area—a far more
modest gap.
Furthermore, all of that underperformance can be explained by a
single country, Germany, whose economy has struggled since German
reunification in 1990. Strip out Germany, and the euro area's annual
growth in GDP per person rises to 2.1%, exactly the same as America's.
Germany does represent around one-third of euro-area GDP, but still the
fact is that economic statistics for the 11 countries that make up the
other two-thirds look surprisingly like America's (see chart 1). (Were
Britain part of the euro area, this effect would be even more
striking.)
The most popular myth is that America's labour-productivity growth
has outstripped that in the euro area by a wide margin. America's
productivity has indeed quickened in recent years, but the difference
between productivity growth in America and the euro area is exaggerated
by misleading, incomparable figures. In America the most commonly used
measure of productivity is output per hour in the non-farm business
sector. This grew by an annual average of 2.6% over the ten years to
2003. For the euro area, the European Central Bank publishes figures
for GDP per worker for the whole economy. This shows a growth rate for
the period of only 1.5%. But unlike the American numbers, this figure
includes the public sector, where productivity growth is always slower,
and it does not adjust for the decline in average hours worked.
Using instead GDP per hour worked across the whole economy,
American productivity has risen by an annual average of 2.0% since
1994, a bit faster than the euro area's 1.7% growth rate. However, a
study* by Kevin Daly, an economist at Goldman Sachs, finds that, after
adjusting for differences in their economic cycles, trend productivity
growth in the euro area has been slightly faster than that in America
over the past ten years. Since 1996 productivity growth in the euro
area has been slower than America's. But it seems fairer to take a full
ten years.
But has not America combined rapid productivity growth with strong
jobs growth, whereas continental Europe's productivity growth has been
at the expense of jobs? This may have been true once, but no longer is.
Over the past decade, total employment has expanded by 1.3% a year in
America against 1% in the euro area. Again, excluding Germany, jobs in
the rest of the euro area grew at exactly the same pace as in America.
And since 1997 more jobs have been created in the euro area as a whole:
total employment has risen by 8%, compared with 6% in America.
It is true that, during the past decade, productivity growth has
accelerated in America, but slowed in the euro area. Alan Greenspan,
chairman of America's Federal Reserve, blames Europe's rigid labour and
product markets. Structural barriers to laying off workers or to new
methods of work may have prevented firms from making the best use of IT
equipment.
However, there is another, less worrying reason why productivity growth
has slowed in continental Europe. Reforms to make labour markets more
flexible have deliberately made GDP growth more job-intensive. Firms
now have more incentive to hire new workers, thanks to lower labour
taxes for low-paid workers and a loosening of rules on hiring part-time
and temporary workers, which allow firms to get around strict
job-protection laws. The flipside is slower productivity growth for a
period, as more unskilled and inexperienced workers enter the
workforce. This is exactly what happened in America in the 1980s. In
the longer term, more flexible labour markets should help to boost
growth.
Another popular misconception is that the return on capital is much
lower in the euro area than in America, because European business is
inefficient and hobbled by high wage costs and red tape. This argument
is often given in defence of America's large current-account deficit.
America's higher return on capital, it is argued, attracts a net inflow
of foreign money, so it has to run a current-account deficit. But
according to calculations by Goldman Sachs, the return on capital in
the euro area has actually been roughly the same as in America in
recent years. The total return on equities over the past decade has
also been broadly the same—which is what you would expect given their
similar pace of productivity growth.
Nonsense in, nonsense out
So far we have established that, based on official statistics,
productivity growth over the past decade has been virtually the same in
the euro area as in America, and although GDP per person has grown a
bit slower, the gap is modest. However, using official statistics can
be like comparing apples with pears, because of differences in the way
that GDP is measured in different countries. For example, American
statisticians count firms' spending on computer software as investment,
so it contributes to GDP. In Europe it is generally counted as a
current expense and so is excluded from final output. As a result, the
surge in software spending has inflated America's growth relative to
Europe's.
A second important difference is the price deflator used to
convert growth in nominal spending on information technology equipment
into real terms. In America, if a computer costs the same as two years
ago, but is twice as powerful, then this is counted as a 50% fall in
price. Though logical, this is nevertheless a contentious issue among
economists. Most euro area countries do not allow fully for
improvements in computer “quality”, so again official figures probably
understate Europe's growth (in both GDP and productivity) relative to
America. This reinforces the argument that the euro area has not been
doing that badly.
Despite such statistical quibbles, however, it is undeniable that
the average person in the euro area is still about 30% poorer (in terms
of GDP per person measured at purchasing-power parity) than the average
American, and this gap has barely changed over the past 30 years. Thus
even if income per person is growing at almost the same pace as in
America, Europeans are still stuck with much lower living standards
than Americans.
Olivier Blanchard, an economist at the Massachussetts Institute of
Technology, offers a more optimistic view†. The main reason why the
income gap has not narrowed, he argues, is that over time Europeans
have used some of the increase in their productivity to expand their
leisure rather than their incomes. Americans, by contrast, continue to
toil long hours for more income. Who is really better off?
In fact, Europe's GDP per person is no longer lower than America's
because its economies are much less productive. Average GDP per hour
worked in the euro area is now only 5% below that in America; 30 years
ago it was about 30% lower. GDP per hour in Germany and France now
exceeds that in America. Income per person is higher in America largely
because the average person there works more hours. In the euro area,
fewer people work and those who do hold a job work shorter average
hours. By one estimate the average American worker clocks up 40% more
hours during his life time than the average person in Germany, France
or Italy.
The narrowing of the productivity gap between America and the euro area
over the past 30 years has not been reflected in a catch-up in the euro
area's GDP per person because hours worked have fallen sharply. Compare
France with America. Between 1970 and 2000 America's GDP per hour
worked rose by 38% and average hours worked per person rose by 26%, so
GDP per person increased by 64%. French GDP per hour rose by a more
impressive 83%, but hours worked per person fell 23%, so GDP per person
only increased by 60%. Chart 2 shows for the whole of the euro zone how
its improvement in productivity relative to America has also been fully
offset by a fall in hours worked.
If leisure is a normal good, then it is surely appropriate that
demand for it increases in line with income. A broader analysis of
living standards based on economic welfare rather than GDP should place
some value on longer leisure time. The tricky question is whether the
decrease in hours worked is due to employees' preference to take more
leisure rather than more income, or due to distortions from maximum
working hours, forced early retirement or high taxes.
Lovely leisure
Mr Blanchard's analysis finds that most of the fall in hours worked
in Europe has been due to a decline in average hours per worker (thanks
to longer holidays or shorter working weeks), rather than a rise in
unemployment or a fall in the proportion of the population seeking
work. Furthermore, most of the reduction in average hours worked was
due to full-time workers putting in shorter hours, not because of an
increase in part-time workers who might not have been able to get
full-time jobs. Mr Blanchard concludes that the fall in hours worked is
mostly voluntary.
But that does not settle the matter. Perhaps Europeans choose to
work fewer hours because of high taxes. Marginal tax rates have indeed
risen by more in Europe than in America over the past 30 years. Taxes
reduce the incentive to work an extra hour rather than go home, once a
reasonable standard of living has been reached.
This is a hotly debated issue. A study** by Edward Prescott, an
economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, claims that
virtually all of the fall in hours worked in the euro area can be
blamed on higher taxes. But the flaw in this theory, says Mr Blanchard,
is that within Europe there is little correlation between the fall in
hours worked and the increase in taxes. Ireland has seen a 25% fall in
average hours worked since 1970, despite an even smaller increase in
tax rates than in America. Other studies have found that taxes have
played a more modest role, accounting for about one-third of the fall
in hours worked per person.
Mr Blanchard concludes that most, but not all, of the fall in
hours worked over the past 30 years is due to a preference for more
leisure as incomes have increased. Europeans simply enjoy leisure more.
Americans seem more obsessed with keeping up with the Jones's in terms
of their consumption of material goods. As a result, they may work too
hard and consume too little leisure. Their GDP figures look good, but
perhaps at a cost to their overall economic welfare.
Robert Gordon‡, an economist at Northwestern University, agrees
that GDP comparisons overstate America's living standards, but he goes
even further. America has to spend more than Europe, he says, on both
heating and air conditioning because of its more extreme climate. This
boosts GDP, but does not enhance welfare. America's higher crime rate
means that more of its GDP is spent on home and business security. The
cost of keeping 2m people in prison, a far bigger percentage of its
population than in Europe, boosts America's GDP, but not its welfare.
The convenience of Europe's public transport also does not show up in
GDP figures. Taking account of all these factors and adding in the
value of extra leisure time, Mr Gordon reckons that Europe's living
standards are now less than 10% behind America's.
Flexing the macro-muscles
But even if the euro area has not lagged far behind America, does
not its pathetic growth over the past couple of years bode ill for the
future? Surely America's stronger rebound since the global economic
downturn in 2001 is proof of greater flexibility in its economy? In
fact, both suggestions are questionable. The main explanation for
America's more rapid recovery is that it has enjoyed the biggest
monetary and fiscal stimulus in its history. Since 2000 America's
structural budget deficit (after adjusting for the impact of the
economic cycle) has increased by almost six percentage-points of GDP.
Meanwhile, the euro area has had no net stimulus (see chart 3).
American interest rates were also cut by much more than those in
the euro area. Without this boost, America's growth would have been
much slower over the past three years. In other words, America's much
faster growth of late may mainly be the result of looser (and
unsustainable) fiscal and monetary policies, rather than greater
flexibility.
While this might have been the right policy to support America's
economy, it means that America's recent growth rate says little about
its likely performance over the coming years. Indeed, the super-lax
policies of the past few years have left behind large economic and
financial imbalances that cast doubt on the sustainability of America's
growth. From a position of surplus before 2000, the structural budget
deficit (including state and local governments) now stands at almost 5%
of GDP, three times as big as that in the euro area. America has a
current-account deficit of 5% of GDP, while the euro area has a small
surplus. American households now save less than 2% of their disposable
income; the saving rate in the euro area stands at a comfortable 12%.
Total household debt in America amounts to 84% of GDP, compared with
only 50% in the euro zone.
America's recent rapid growth has been driven partly by a
home-mortgage bubble. As interest rates fell and house prices rose,
people took out bigger mortgages and spent the cash on a car or a new
kitchen. House prices have also been lively in some euro-zone
countries, with house prices rising at double-digit rates over the past
year in France, Italy, Spain and Ireland. But in general, households
have not borrowed to the hilt against those capital gains. Some
European policymakers hope that America's bubble will soon burst and
that Europe could then sprint ahead. That may be wishful thinking: a
sharp slowdown in American consumer spending is also likely to dent
Europe's growth rate. It is true, however, that the eurozone's consumer
finances are in much better shape.
So, America's superior economic performance over the past decade
is much exaggerated. Productivity has grown just as fast in the euro
area; GDP per person has grown a bit slower, but mainly because
Europeans have chosen to take more leisure rather than more income;
European employment in recent years has grown even faster than in
America; and America has created some serious imbalances which could
yet trip the economy up badly.
“Bullish on America”
Indeed, one might say that the economic performance of the euro
zone and America has not been hugely different over the past decade,
but that American optimism has disguised this. European policymakers
are forever fretting aloud about structural rigidities, slow growth,
excessive budget deficits and the looming pensions problem. In
contrast, American policymakers love to boast about America's economic
success while playing down the importance of its economic imbalances.
This does not mean that the euro area can be complacent. It still
needs to push ahead with structural reforms. Its average jobless rate
of 9%, against 5.6% in America, is too high. Contrary to the beliefs of
many Americans, there has been labour- and product-market reform in
continental Europe over the past decade, which is why employment has
perked up. But unemployment remains a problem and, sadly, economic
reforms now seem to have stalled in France and Germany.
The biggest snag, of course, is that because of its less
favourable demographics, Europe has an older economy than America. With
lower birth and immigration rates and an ageing population, Europe's
labour force will soon start to shrink as a share of the population.
That will make it harder for Europe to maintain its current pace of
growth in GDP per person—and thus harder for governments to pay pension
bills. Without faster growth, Europe will be unable to afford its
welfare system.
If Europeans do not want to slip down the rankings of GDP per
person in future, then they will need to work longer hours during their
lifetimes. Alternatively, they may continue to attach more value to
leisure and the quality of life, rather than hard cash. That is their
choice. A truer picture of their economy might help them make it in an
informed way.
* “Euroland's secret success story”. Goldman Sachs Global Economics Paper No. 102, January 2004.
† “The economic future of Europe”, NBER Working Paper No. 10310, March 2004.
** “Why do Americans work so much more than Europeans?” Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Research Staff Report 321, November 2003.
Don't forget No.1 in killing their own Citizins and delivering terrorist attacks and blaming muslims for them.
Make it No.1 for killing innocent people around the world, together with Isreal.
Not even close. You are shooting in an entirely different gallery.
That title goes to somewhere like Rwanda, Japan or Germany.
Alone the EU 8.7bn + 8.4bn from France + 7.5bn from Germany sum up to 24.6bn of foreign aid, while the US gives 19.7bn, so again you are wrong. Source: http://www.oecd.org/countrylist/0,2578,en_2649_34447_1783495_1_1_1_1,00.html
"America is No.1 for aeroplane speed."
Huh? I don't know what do you refer to with this.
"No.1 for car ownership."
Don't want to look for numbers because probably you are right. But you know, I prefer our highly efficient public transport
See, at first I thought you were just giving these "facts" to back up how you feel the EU is better for the world than the US....now I realise with the help of this statement you are just an ass. If you would like I am sure I can go cut and paste a bunch of stuff about the EU that shows its dark little under-belly. Anyone can makes numbers say anything...just don't be an ass about it.
Dinivan = Cut and Paste Skills Roxxors #1
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
What you say is very true, but IMHO you are still comparing apples to oranges. If you want to be accurate divide the total contributions by the member nations, then compare them to the U.S. individually.
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
It is that easy.
America can give one ecomonic, military and foreign policy. The EU cannot. Half went to Iraq, half didn't. Half wanted to stop Israel, half didn't. Half are in Afghanistan, half aren't. Half want to block shoe imports from China, half don't. Half want to ban trade with Canada and New Zealand, half don't. Half send aid to Mugabe, half don't. Half adopted the Euro, half didn't. Half want Gibralter to be handed over to the Spanish, half don't. Your fantasies of EU federalism are nothing more than that. Fantasy.
America is different, like Russia it can mobilse almost the same number of resources as everyone in the EU zone combined, but unlike the EU, Russia and America can do so with uninamity. Federal law supercedes state law. They are United as a people where the EU is not. EU power does not match the power of the Russian and American federations. It is not a unified people with common intrests and goals.
The EU is a trade and diplomatic consortium, it is no more a country than the Arab league or the United Nations. EU policies are not law in any country. Each country choses to adopt them as it pleases and then votes oin them via it's own parliamentry process. National law supercedes EU law. It has no citizens as it is not a nation. The EU rapid reaction force is no more a unified army than NATO is. Any such army will not be under control of the EU, but rather under the invidual control of any countries willing to provide any troops to any specific endeavour. A coalition.
It might be lost on you, but many of the countries in the EU gave their citizens a vote to see if they wished for it to become a political union, a federal Europe, and amost every single one of them resoundingly voted "no".
The EU is not a country or a federation. There is a long history of very violent resistance to any attempt to make it one throughout European history.
As for superior public transport in Europe, I'll keep using my car thanks.
I notice you keep mentioning the European Union. That is 25 countries vs. 1 country. I would hope 25 countries put together would be better than the U.S.
Also I could post ugly shit about every country in the world but what is the point other than to incite hate?
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
Zerogenum - MixMatched BH Carbineer Template of the Gods, Kettemoor PRE CU SWG.