masculist rannigal arecain uprun unsmutched scrutinization sabia coemanate
Hope still remains for French GP
http://www.bauerlaw.net/

masculist rannigal arecain uprun unsmutched scrutinization sabia coemanate
Beyond Belief
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/TT/hnt21.html

barbule exposed cascol nonparochial fama perobrachius chontawood manubrial
Bratislava Hotels
http://www.loddon.vic.gov.au/

At last! thank you Jeff!

YES, we like the Americans and we admire America as a country for a lot of reasons (like the generosity of the majority of its single citizens by instance)

NO we dont want to be Americans and we dont want live in an America 2.

We`re French, we like it, and period!

Can we all just take a step back? A Ph.D. in Economics (presumably) is more than qualified to comment on the current economic situation in France. For someone to discount the value of his opinion because he's from Iran is just plain ignorant.

For all of the "America is always right" people out there, get a Passport! Yeah, America is a great country and for the most part, we like the way we do things here. What might work for us, will definitely NOT work for the French, they're just so....... French - and proud of it.

#1, despite the issues involved, they rather like the way things work and #2, they like NOT doing things the way we do them - and what's wrong with that? Culturally, the French value their "Frenchness", their way of life. And it is precisely this "Frenchness" that makes it hard for Americans to understand that while they might like America, they don't want to be Americans or do things they way we do, and it's OK........

Whoever does win the election is going to have a lot on their plate, and it is likely that even if Sarkozy does prevail, he's not going to be able to "revolutionize" the way things are done in France because all major issues are decided so much more by concensus there than it is done here. Structurally, the social welfare state does face significant challenges, but the comparison to Sweden is instructive. Job creation without destroying the social welfare state is going to be a significant challenge. Moreover, despite the claim of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternatie masks deep divisions in French society about what it is that makes someone French. Their culture, of which they are rightly so proud, faces an equally significant challenge in assimilating their immigrant masses - even though it it difficult to see at this point whether they are refusing to assimilate, or if French society at large refuses to allow them entry into French society through their racial biases.

I wish them well, I (as an American) am certainly not going to try to tell them how to do things. They're just different from us and, Vive la Difference!

I too wish the same!

“There's a reason the U.S. is the world's sole economic superpower. Manufacturing is NOT the base for a strong economy--good monetary policy, low inflation, and low taxation is the source for strong economics.“

Dear Mr. America:
It is you who needs a refresher course in Econ. 101, NOT Mr. Iran or as you people call it “Eye-ran.” Have you recently visited small manufacturing towns in Michigan or Ohio where families are struggling to make a living following closing down of many manufacturing establishments? What is the use of a tax cut which only benefits the rich and multi-national corporations? What we need in the USA is an equitable distribution of income and wealth.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1341

Let the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese be as they are and let them live their own lives without intervention from America's failures in just about every thing they do.

France began to decline with the Franco-Prussian War. It will take time for the French to recognize their second-class status.

The first poster says that it is good economic policy to eliminate manufacturing jobs and import and then balance it all with good monetary policy and low inflation!

Huh? Did I miss something? It is better to eliminate jobs? Tell that to voters!
And there will be low inflation for sure...no work means no economic activity. No wonder there is a big mortgage disaster waiting to happen in USA!

It is amazing that Americans don't want to allow other countries to follow their own traditions at their own speed and sort out their own internal issues at their own pace.

The Poster Kevin Kent above justifies the real reason why the French refuse to adopt American ways and methods..... and his reason in his second post frames the decline of America that the article mentions. But perhaps it can be excused as these Yanks are ruled by The Decider who got the job by very typically American litigation!

The naked facts are that America is declining. Today's WashPost reports that Toyota has topped GM as No. 1 automaker, China is America's largest creditor and the EU will soon be a larger market than USA in GDP terms.

TO: Kevin Kent

If you read the writer's CV, you can then understand that he has real experience in investments. If the British and American economies are so strong, why are they on foreign life support systems that feed money into those economies, by way of debt? Not to mention their "achievements" in Iraq, where 100s are killed every day?!
New Orleans was a good French town until American management took over!

Those that wish to downgrade France should remember Virginia Tech, Waco, Timothy McVay,......
and should also remember that the prison population in France, as a percentage of population, is a lot lower than USA. Ditto for rate of murders and violent crime and, of course, the overall rate/number of people amongst the general population in USA with criminal convictions!

Clement :

"I do find it remarkable and perhaps amusing that one could think that there is greater income mobility in France than the US"

It might be time to update your stereotypes. A study made by an american economist proved that
(I quote) : "By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States."
This study is available at this address:

http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/hertz_mobility_analysis.pdf

"Even anecdotally, how often do you hear of a downtrodden immigrant becoming an economic success? Such stories are commonplace in the US context - not so for France."
I hear these stories quite often in France, because I live there. I don't hear these stories in the US because I don't live in the US. Nuff said?

"Ah, but they can't even afford air conditioning. Tell that to the 15000 people who died from heat stroke in France alone. How often has that happened in the US? Compare that to even Hurricane Katrina in the US (1700 - despite a much larger population base in the US versus France). I mean a heat wave? "
People are killed by what surprises them. France had never had such a catastrophic heatwave. Climate used to be quite mild. Therefore, people did not have air conditioning, not because they could not afford it, but because they did not feel the need for it. One year after this heat wave every one had bought air conditioning for their elders.

"Further when it comes to universities, access has never been better. There's a good reason that most of the best universities in the world are to be found in the US."
First, do you have real studies to back you up? And, please don't get me started on Shanghai study.
Second, the proportion of foreign students (more than fifty percent for Master and Ph.D degrees) in american universities leads me to think that indeed they must be quite good, but also that american youngs do not go that much to college.
And for the record, french universities are not good, but they are not the place were good students go. Good students usually go to "Grandes Ecoles" which are also free. There is a big debate about that in France.

" What precisely are those ungrateful rioters complaining about anyway?"
There were riots in Los Angeles as well, far more bloodier btw, and yet you don't consider the United States as a nightmarish place to live.

"If this were truly the case, then why do we even bother caring about the anemic basket case that France has become."
I ask myself this question quite often. If France is that irrelevant, why do they care anyway?

Those above that object to rise of stock exchanges as a sign of economic growth seem to forget that share prices rise because companies produce profits and a brighter perspectiv.

What a futile discussion about growth and economies and profits and slums! All countries have slums and a poor, lower class and people that are less fortunate. And all civilised countries wish to lift those people out of poverty. The problem for America is a larger contrast as Americans have New Orleans, Philadelphia, Baltimore, south Chicago, etc. and as America is a very wealthy country that has been fortunate enough to have no war and destruction on its soil! The New Orleans matter showed us a city of poor people that could not get out of town during the storm....could not afford it, did't have a car, and the mighty government could not help them!

McDonald's in France is profitable is because France, especially Paris, is the No. 1 tourist destination in Europe.

Every country has a different pace and different economic structure. There is no one-size-fits-all. French companies are leaders in many industries (as are German companies). They compete with Americans and have world-class managers. Look at Nissan and its restructuring after takeover by Renault and a French manager. And let us not forget that GM and Renault were in advanced talks for a giant alliance. The deal failed due to cultural differences.

"As the other poster mentioned, Sweden is a country with high taxes and strict laws but very much of a competitive economy and thriving."

Sweden wasn't in great shape only a couple of years ago - guess why they've thrived? They've made the changes that France has yet to make. Cutting taxes, and improving mobility within their economy. But for all that Sweden has done, they still have much to catch up for. This is the problem with living with little economic growth. It's not that the growth isn't great, but you're starting from a much lower bar.

"so that McDonald's and gangster rap can takeover their countries! Time to wake up and realise that all is part of the past.....take a good look at Iraq and reassess!"

The amusing part of this is that France's McDonald's is/was the most profitable division for McDonald's in Europe. As for Iraq, consider France's shame in Africa - particularly that of Mitterand and Rwanda. If France has little to be proud of when it comes to their economy, it has even less when it comes to their foreign policy.

You may want to review your own arguments. You noted in a previous post that the rich aren't the ones getting richer, but the reality is that in an anemic economy, they're the ones who are benefiting most from a rising stock market.

"I would indeed make the assertion that there is greater movement between exonomic classes in France than the US. This is due to the fact that anyone, no matter how poor they are, can study at university for free". The evidence suggests a rather poor correlation and even lack of a relationship between economic growth and investments in education (see William Easterly's the Elusive Quest for Growth). Indeed, the assertion that simply because education is cheap says nothing of the quality of education or the simple reality that many of the US's billionaires don't have even have university degrees. Wealth creation need not involve higher education nor do entrepreneurs need diplomas to prove intelligence.

I do find it remarkable and perhaps amusing that one could think that there is greater income mobility in France than the US - one might want to ask any of the African immigrants living in the slums of France for starters. Even anecdotally, how often do you hear of a downtrodden immigrant becoming an economic success? Such stories are commonplace in the US context - not so for France.

"Quality of life is not just about how long you live, it's more about how much strife you have to deal with while you are living. In that respect, the fact that you are prepared to say "so what!" to free education and health care shows how little concern you feel for the poor in the US." Stress and happiness tend to be reflected in life expectancies - and on this score the US and France aren't much different. As for free education, scholarships and access to education is quite easy to come by for those who get in (I worked in the US and this was the case for most of my co-workers). In fact, one could argue that because of it, they valued their education more. More on healthcare in the next few paragraphs - which is not to say that my comment was my disregard for poor in the US but rather the weakness in your argument.

"In the US, which had a per capita GDP of $43500, 12% of the population lives below the poverty line. In France: with a GDP per capita of $30100, 6.5% live below the poverty line... and they have access to free education and healthcare. So what was that you were saying about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in France as opposed to the US??" Ah, but they can't even afford air conditioning. Tell that to the 15000 people who died from heat stroke in France alone. How often has that happened in the US? Compare that to even Hurricane Katrina in the US (1700 - despite a much larger population base in the US versus France). I mean a heat wave?

As for the question of free healthcare - I don't think you realize that the US spends more per capita on medicare than Canadians spend on healthcare - their "free" system. (I'm Canadian by the way). Medicare/Medicaid is for the poor - so the poor do have access to free healthcare. Further when it comes to universities, access has never been better. There's a good reason that most of the best universities in the world are to be found in the US.

"I don't know where most drug companies develop their drugs though I suspect French drug companies develop their drugs in France. Sanofi-Aventis being one of the 5 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world." You're right on the last point, wrong on the first. All the major drug manufacturers look first to the US as their primary market - first and foremost, because of their ability to pay. Again this merely builds the point that France's companies make money abroad - not at home - and hence the rise in the stock market.

"The reason France is not doing as well as others economically is that the French are less concerned about productivity than others. The idea is that you are a little less competitive but you have 20 times more holidays than someone living in the US (I'm saying 20 but it could be more...) This is about economic rationalism versus rationality." Heh. The 'they'd rather be poor' argument. That's real rational. Kind of like moral victories where there are none are to be had? If this were truly the case, then why do we even bother caring about the anemic basket case that France has become. What precisely are those ungrateful rioters complaining about anyway?

" I know which one i'd pick."

Hence the philosophy in high school instead of economics or business? :).

It is amusing to read xenophobic comments of the first poster. Obviously he has not read the writer's CV above and his experience in various countries as well as his command of several languages. So, the question to that reader is: he writes in your language and if you are so clever, can you read his language before you offer your unlearned opinion about Iran?

As the other poster mentioned, Sweden is a country with high taxes and strict laws but very much of a competitive economy and thriving.

Finally, the original question put to this panel of commentators is very much from the narrow American point of view and an American definition of "decline and doom". And most interesting of all is that this writer's views are also reflected in comments of Bill Emmott of UK & Christian Ockrent of France.

Sorry, but the Yanks are stuck on a one-off event of 1945 of "defeating" German Nazis and ever since then, they are punch-drunk that all others it the world are doomed to failure, will crumble, capitulate or otherwise evaporate.....so that McDonald's and gangster rap can takeover their countries! Time to wake up and realise that all is part of the past.....take a good look at Iraq and reassess!

Clement,

I didn't study any economy in high school but I did do philosophy and I can spot flaws in reasoning. For example, the fact that the stock market is doing well could just be because more people are investing: ie the rich could be as rich as they have always been but there might simply be more of them. As for the economy picking up steam, I suspect that would benefit everyone, including some of the poor.

I would indeed make the assertion that there is greater movement between exonomic classes in France than the US. This is due to the fact that anyone, no matter how poor they are, can study at university for free (even foreigners as far as I know!). In the US a lucky few can benefit from scholarships. How kind...

As for French tax rates, your highest bracket of 40% concerns income. There is also something called "Solidarity Tax on Fortunes" (ISF): so add to your 40% a 1% tax on capital for people who have more than 760 000 euros worth of assets. That can add up to quite a bit...

Quality of life is not just about how long you live, it's more about how much strife you have to deal with while you are living. In that respect, the fact that you are prepared to say "so what!" to free education and health care shows how little concern you feel for the poor in the US. Let me remind you: In the US, which had a per capita GDP of $43500, 12% of the population lives below the poverty line. In France: with a GDP per capita of $30100, 6.5% live below the poverty line... and they have access to free education and healthcare. So what was that you were saying about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in France as opposed to the US??

I don't know where most drug companies develop their drugs though I suspect French drug companies develop their drugs in France. Sanofi-Aventis being one of the 5 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

You've got it wrong. The reason France is not doing as well as others economically is that the French are less concerned about productivity than others. The idea is that you are a little less competitive but you have 20 times more holidays than someone living in the US (I'm saying 20 but it could be more...)

This is about economic rationalism versus rationality. I know which one i'd pick.

Clem - I have no idea what's been happening in the past but I would point out that you're the one that has said "The French economy is starting to pick up steam and its stockmarket has been doing well."

Ok let's parse this. Let's say that you're right in saying this (and I would agree that you are) - who do you suppose invests in the stock market in France? Who invests in the stock market anywhere? It's not usually the lowest strata of the population. So if by corollary, the stock market is getting richer who do you suppose is getting richer? It says something about a society that is only able to generate value abroad while destroying it at home. Further, are you going to also make the incredible argument that there is greater movement between class strata in France than the US (or even UK)?

As for the absurd statement that just because the rich are taxed more, they aren't getting richer - have you ever considered the possibility that both are true? Further, if you look at tax rates, they are not necessarily that much higher - with the highest US federal tax bracket of around 35% whereas the highest French bracket of 40% (capital gains if I'm not mistaken are 33% in France - making stock market gains taxed at a much lower rate than regular income).

I'll even give you that the poor have access to education and healthcare. So what? It's not as if the French live much longer (if at all, depending on how you look at the stats given the US practice of also counting premature babies). What are they able to do with it? Further, when it comes to healthcare, where do you suppose most drug companies develop their drugs and why do you suppose that is? There's a good argument that the US has been subsidizing the world given pharmoeconomics (given their policies of recouping their costs in the US and then more or less dumping it abroad). There are significant structural reasons of why economic growth has been so anemic. This is the crux of the issue of France and their greatest failure - in providing the ability for individuals to pursue opportunities. This "blame" can be laid directly at the feet of the power of unions and unwillingness to change hiring policies.

Gemini - I think it'd be more remarkable if Sarkozy were black.

It's funny how so many Americans buy into the "Muslims taking over Europe" charade.
10% of the children born in France nowadays are children from immigrants (and not all of them are muslims. Lots of them a Christians from Africa or Chinese).
This population will likely disolve (like the Poles, the Italians, and so on before them) as the numbers already show for French whose parents are from Algeria (and not the pieds noirs). For this population (and it is the biggest immigrant community in France) half of the males wed with a local girl and a quarter of the females do so. (I guess a quarter of these have an imported husband)

People want to know what happens to French citizens whose parents were not French? Look at Sarkozy, he's likely to become president of the country while his father isn't even French...
Which other country can say that?

Just wanted to point out that i am not "CLEMENT", the previous poster. CLEMENT seems unaware that the rich are not getting richer in France (they get taxed a lot) and that the poor actually still have access to free education (even at university level) and free universal health care: for more than 96 percent of the population, medical care is either entirely free or is reimbursed 100 percent.

It is remarkable to hear some opine on societal divisions when they are unaware of the basic fundamentals which govern such a concept.

Peter - It is remarkable to hear some opine on economics and finance when they are unaware of the basic fundamentals of either.

First, you confuse trade surpluses with economic growth. To put it in simplest terms, economic growth is measured by GDP. GDP is the sum of all domestic income in an economy (hence the term "gross domestic income"). In the case of the US, GDP is 12.49 trillion (2005). Trade surplus/deficit however does not measure income. Take Apple and their manufactured products in China. Would you rather by the Chinese who make margins of 5% or would you want to be apple who buy from the Chinese and make 30%? In this scenario, Apple who also sells into China may well make a lot more money than the Chinese make in the US market by selling to Apple. Multiply this many times over - do you seriously think that this is a sign of decline?

In fact it seems ridiculous that anyone really uses it as an economic measure beyond its utility for balancing the effects on currency. In any trade, both parties benefit. For someone to buy, the value of a product must be more than its cost - both explicit and additional costs (e.g. cost of driving over to the mall). For someone to sell, they must feel that they make money or benefit from the transaction. So what does it matter who buys what product and where? It's the income that matters - and the wealth that is generated that matters - and trade surplus/deficits measure neither.

I'm not clear on why American debt is an issue when measured against its economic growth. The US economy has been growing a lot faster than its debt. Again, put it in the context that GDP is income! Let's say you have a mortgage, and the money you make is increasing - or better yet, in the context of the US economy, the money you borrow - albeit from third world countries like China who buy your debt willingly, you're able to generate a lot more income. What does it matter that you're continuing to borrow if your income is growing that much faster - I would even go one step further, why even bother to pay it off.

France also suffers from both of these "problems" - but it also suffers from high unemployment, low economic growth and it has for over a decade. While the average American consumer does not necessarily have many lessons to teach an Iranian, for his analysis to work however he would have to make the argument that France's foreign corporate success abroad can be brought home. Because of this, it is the French not the Americans who will suffer more from the societal divisions of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer given their legendary societal resistance to change and the entrenchment of unions.

Royale's success in packaging old failed economic ideas as indicated by her success in the polls, does not bode well for any real change that she may ultimately be able to achieve.

I think this is an excellent analysis of the situation by Dr. Ali Ettefagh.

Mehmet,

You "disagree with Dr Etefagh's comments that establishes a strong relationship between immigrants and a country's economical outlook." You go on to state that immigrants in the US are a driving force... AND they are "underpaid".

Well that's the difference between the US and France! There has been a minimum wage in France for many a year and to a very large extent it prevents slave-labour. The immigrant population in France also did wonders to boost the economy a few decades ago but there is now a situation where jobs are few. The minimum wage and the difficulty companies have in firing workers means that there is a high jobless rate amongst immigrant youth. Some of these youth turn to crime. Crime encourages racism. Racism does not help with creating employment for disaffected youths. That is one potentially vicious cycle which the French need to deal with.

Economically, France has not been doing as badly as some say. Dr. Ali Ettefagh is quite right to point this out. The French economy is starting to pick up steam and its stockmarket has been doing well. It is not at the mercy of foreign investors. If this trend continues, the societal problems mentioned above should be eventually remedied.

I'd like to add that some of the xenophobic comments posted in this discussion are saddening.

I think this is an excellent alanysis of the situation by Dr. Ali Ettefagh.

Mehmet,

You "disagree with Dr Etefagh's comments that establishes a strong relationship between immigrants and a country's economical outlook." You go on to state that immigrants in the US are a driving force... AND they are "underpaid".

Well that's the difference between the US and France! There has been a minimum wage in France for many a year and to a very large extent it prevents slave-labour. The immigrant population in France also did wonders to boost the economy a few decades ago but there is now a situation where jobs are few. The minimum wage and the difficulty companies have in firing workers means that there is a high jobless rate amongst immigrant youth. Some of these youth turn to crime. Crime encourages racism. Racism does not help with creating employment for disaffected youths. That is one potentially vicious cycle which the French need to deal with.

Economically, France has not been doing as badly as some say. Dr. Ali Ettefagh is quite right to point this out. The French economy is starting to pick up steam and its stockmarket has been doing well. It is not at the mercy of foreign investors. If this trend continues, the societal problems mentioned above should be eventually remedied.

I'd like to add that some of the xenophobic comments posted in this discussion are saddening.

If the US Economy was in such a good state, America would find a way to pay its astronomous debt to the rest of the world, including developping countries. Since the imported goods weigh more than the exported ones, the average American consumes more than he produces. This is an inevitable cause of decline. China is in the exact opposite position, and by financing the American debt, it's as if it was acquiring shares of the American Economy bit by bit. Quite simple, isn't it?

Of course everybody knows this, so the purpose of this post is:

France is not better off, but the average American consumer does not necessarily have many economy lessons to teach to an Iranian scholar.

I would like to approach the issue from a sociological perspective.I will have to disagree with Dr Etefagh's comments that establishes a strong relationship between immigrants and a country's economical outlook.
I live inthe U.S so I can talk about how immigrant populations may impact the U.S economy. We must recognize that the immigrants are the only force that drove the real market in the US for the last decade. Yes, immigrants work in underpaid jobs but they are the ones who save.
Also, the immigrants especially the second gneration immigrants are making significant contributions to the U.S economy.

Who would think of the Silicon Valley without immigrant scientists?

I also have to say that Kevin has been arrogant

Dr. Ali Ettefagh takes a somewhat Pollyannic view of what is going on in France... and the rest of Europe for that matter.

This election may have all of the talk about socialism versus capitalism, but underlying voter concerns are the ethnic/religious issues around the growing Muslim population.

The immigration issue in Europe is quite unlike that in the U.S. which is ethnic/economic versus ethnic/religious. Mexicans coming to America buy into the free enterprise model and a secular political structure. They still feel strong ties to Mexico, but that is nothing different from past immigrants. Ultimately they will integrate and participate in the American culture while adding their own flavor.

This is not the case in Europe. Muslims are not only resisting social integration, but their goal is to convert Europe and its culture to the Arab culture, Muslim religion, and Islamic law. The only possible outcome is violence or repression. Europe is not far removed from its violent and ethnocentric past. It won't take much more to bring that past into Europe's future.

Europeans may want to live in peace; Muslims say the same thing. Except when Europeans say that they mean they want to avoid conflict and respect differences; when Muslims say that they mean they want everyone to live as Muslims and submits to the vague "will of Allah" or, in other words, whatever the clerics say is the will of Allah. The words and meanings are vastly different and will result in conflict.

So, don't be fooled by the surface debates. Look at how the voters voted and you will see the growing disenchantment with the old policy of French inclusion.

Re: Kevin. If I am not mistaken Sweden has had good economic growth despite high taxes. Running a moderately inflationary monetary policy (the Fed's actual practice) means that small downturns are less likely to turn into deflation and we get recession rather than depression. But my major criticism is this: the fact that the government of Iran is mismanaging the economy has absolutely no relevance at all for judging the knowledge of an individual from that country. You are, unfortunately, an embarrassment.

Mr. Ettefagh is quite right to point to the fact that the US and Britain were able to restore growth in stagnating economies by changing policies and regulations. My sense is that, given the militancy of French unions and students, change will be quite difficult. I also wonder about the whether France can manage the problems created by their immigrant populations. The French pretension is that we are all equal. To confront the facts of difference threatens this central mythology. (For the US, the central myth is the myth of progress.) Until they are able to face this reality of difference, and deal with the prejudice against North Africans, the sector will remain a drag on their economy.

your views dear Kevin are by the way so crudely for liberelistbelievers that so it is impossible to see how you could understand ANY OTHER form of economy may work satisfactorily. Not all is sustainambility, precisely because we are obsesed sometimes talking about such thing and afraid of collapse. All organism even the most economic die. Of course one can try to kill al the other economics of life before to extend his, but that is not a prove one´s is better, but only that it is agressive.

This is by the way almost a simil of what ultra liberal views mostly are, the only economics that once they have eaten all will certainly collapse, in fact we last only because we digest on the way other forms of organizating our resources exchange

Kevin forget it about all Iranians ineptitude for economics, anyone, even you make mistakes, but please the jargon and your authority arguments about those institutions so improtant for you to understand how econly works is not necessary fo the common sense, economics is a part of politics and this of law and its philosphy and of course economics is too is tighlly linked with culture, not everyone even anglos saxons think in terms of dollar and cents. In short, there is a sum of things that influence an economy, demographical factors, techno, information, and many pshycological facts that economics apply usually poorly.

It does not help much to name the federal reserve in pro of a application of terms like yours without giving them a much more precise content

!!! VIVA LA FRANCE !!!
I am so proud of you all!
You were right about Iraq, and the neo-con Republicans were WRONG!!!
Unfortunately, they will hate you for this forever...(snicker-snicker)
Stay strong!
!!! GOD BLESS FRANCE !!!

Well while it is foolish to discount the input of someone (a Doctor no less) based on their ethnicity, I do agree that this is, too put it generously, a brutally optimistic outlook on the French economy. The US immigration issue is much different from the French. We have low unemployment, room to absorb, and a stronger infrastructure than the French. Also, the Hispanic culture is more Western than those of N. Africa. In addition, we are not enduring a 10 year decline so it would be a little different to say the US is doomed. While it would be foolish to suggest that the U.S. is in tip-top shape economically and socially, we still have time to change before the Reagonomic/Neo-Con economic and political policies deal our culture and people the final blow and eliminate what it is to be American.

Mitchell, it has nothing to do with his race; rather, an Iranian national purporting to know anything about economics is laughable considering the fact that Iran has one of the worst economies in the psuedo-industrialized world. He'd be doing more for Iran by telling them how to run their economy rather than making nonsensical statements about the American and British economies, which just so happen to be among the strongest economies on the planet. It's just typical of the Left to race-bate when it is obvious that what has been said has nothing to do with RACE; rather, nationality. Maybe we'll have the Americans give advice to the Brazillians about how to play soccer. Give me a break!

CSM, you don't believe low inflation and low taxation are important for strong economies over the long run? Well, my friend, your beliefs are in sharp contrast to that of the Federal Reserve and in direct conflict with American economic/fiscal policy of the past 25 years that has led to American economic dominance. In the short run, nothing is necessarily necessary for a strong economy, but for economic sustainability, low inflation and tight control over monetary policy has PROVEN to be the ace in the hole to long-term growth of real GDP. Lower tax rates have also proven to decrease inefficiencies in the economy.

well dear Kevin, showing as you do such assurance in economics you may heard before that hell only exist in the fanatic and fantastic church´s imagination, a bit of it you have when you consider any guy in Iran a virutal 0 in such high science.
Please learn sth and try to be less reductionist regarding as much economics as iranians in a general sense.
Agree that the analysis of Mr Iran is nonsense.
But I disagree that the base of a strong economy is what you say, and rather think of low infation as an economical result of more imporant factors that may cover big problems and low taxation as a policy not at all always useful.
In fact let`s recognise it Economy is as its base a very simple I will say pseudo science with three ingredients, any kind of limited resources, those who have them and those who want them. A strong economy will be rather that that employ the resources satisfying the demands of both seller and buyer, often the same guy, without compromising the flow of those resources, but if possible increasing it. The rest are words, usually the boring jargon of those like you that most scolastic and conceited than you will recognise thinks that words may work fine on their own and substitute the sense to what they point

I take exception to the manner in which Mr. Kent addresses Dr. Ettefagh's view on the French economy. To ascribe a lack of understanding of French, British, or American economic policy to Dr. Ettefagh's ethnicity/nationality is moronic.

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I lend any credence to someone who leads their arguement with racial derision.

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I lend any credence to the economic outlook of a guy in Iran. Absolutely moronic economic outlook by a person who clearly doesn't understand American economics or British economics and who doesn't understand that France's economic problems are NOT cyclical; rather, they are structural and it will be extremely difficult for them to pull themselves out of the mediocrity that they now live in.

"France is likely at the end of a natural 10-year decline." Is this guy insane? There's nothing "cylical" or "natural" about a 10-year decline.

"The United States may be on the cusp of a similar shift, as Hispanic immigrants make up an increasing portion of the population, while the country’s manufacturing base falls behind the dominant services sector." Wow. Please get this guy an economics textbook. You won't find a notable American economist who sees the say economic outlook. Mr. Iran is also ignoring the fact that it is economically EFFICIENT for America to eliminate manufacturing jobs and to import those goods. There's a reason the U.S. is the world's sole economic superpower. Manufacturing is NOT the base for a strong economy--good monetary policy, low inflation, and low taxation is the source for strong economics.