For some reason I haven't gotten the most recent Economist issue so I'm stuck from the October 13th-27th. Most of the large economies have been in a slump but it seems like many of them are starting to come up. Recent figures suggest that productivity in the US increased by 10%. I think that by 2010 the whole unemployment problem will be somewhat resolved with maybe 6 % unemployed and productivity will continue to rise.

However, the same cannot be said of the EU. The large majority of countries experienced declines in production. Particularly France, Italy, and Sweden are experiencing deflation and rising unemployment with no real signs of exiting this recession. So much for Welfare-State superiority. If they want to stimulate growth and end this recession, the EU cannot simply hope to keep their low interest rates. Some fiscal policy needs to be enacted, particularly a cut in taxes might do the EU some good. Consumption will go up in these nations and the people will start to see prices rise, unemployment drop, and wages will return to normal.

The author of the article Vive la Difference, in the most recent Economist believes that France may be doing well despite the recent market let downs. The author believes that France is doing well with its gardening projects, infrastructural rebuilding, and the sharing of jobs. It has created a new pecking order for European nations. Now Sarkozy with his turn against Capitalism is now able to boast his model in comparison to Britain, Germany, and the United States. Yet Germany and Britain have made calls toward socialism and they believe it will benefit them. The US is still adamantly against Socialism and the right-wing senators are calling any government aid via bailout and redistribution, a step towards socialism that must be fought off. This is the kind of labeling that kind of bothers me. Right when there is a solution that involves government interference, the US government will shoot it down, both Democrats and Republicans. Anyway back to the France part, there are downsides to this plan too. Unemployment never really falls below 8% and French people pay very high taxes. There is limited investment in France and they don't have as many options as Britain, Germany or the US do when it comes to investing. So my question is, should the "French model" be followed or should the West

Indian elections

I would like to talk about this election in which the people have voted twice (or 3 times, not sure) I may not be an expert in Indian politics but I do feel that as a rising world power, India should vote for an able body that establishes herself as a world power, not as a harmless passerby who will unconditionally side with the West.

I also feel that India has domestic issues that need to be solved before dealing with the entire world's problems. I know that the national congress party likes to get involved in foreign affairs but they have had trouble controlling a tiny island nation of Sri Lanka who hasn't backed down from its ruthless campaign against the Tamil villages in the northeast. Terrorism and security have proved to be issues for India as well, yet the Congress Party is ignoring a major issue and instead they are openly attacking the BJP for being too ultra-conservative. Thoughts?