I would like to makes some comments about your last post. I am a Frenchman living in England. I have always been supportive of the US; I have worked for US companies and always enjoyed it. We have numerous American friends here in England. I have also lived most of my youth abroad; in fact like you (from what I understand in previous posts in your blog) my family is a mix; a mix between French from Europe (Caucasian) and Caribbean origins, mixing Chinese/Vietnamese, Amazonian Indian, and African blood.

As I mentioned I have lived a number of years in the Caribbean Island, African and Europe. I have visited the US (East Coast) and Canada a number of times for tourism and business. I believe I have a balanced view and approach on both countries.

The reason I am writing to you is because I don't understand the French bashing since the run-up to the Iraq War and also because I don't believe the description you have made of the "anti-American" feeling in France is accurate.

I am interested because I don't understand the "french bashing" going on and I am even more surprised by your article. I have always consider America as friendly and I am under the feeling was that there is more an "anti-french" than an "anti-American" feeling.

I don't believe that there is a hatred and Anti-Americanism in France. There is however a dislike of the unilateral approach of foreign policy of the Bush administration.

We are not taught to dislike Americans in schools or in family. Never heard or never saw that, whether in my family or friends or read anything like that in any newspaper or any books.

On the other hand, I think there is a general feeling of suspicious and anti-Bush administration policies (like the refusal to sign Kyoto treaty and the willingness to shun international institutions in major international political events like the War in Iraq by some or most of the current administration) although some French political figures totally support the war in Iraq (usually the right wing) but I agree, it is the minority.

But on the other hand, in America, for example there was in the run-up to the war, a boycott of french products, a lot of political personalities like General Schwarzkopf calling French many names, renaming French Fries to Freedom Fries....

Do you remember General Schwarzkopf saying on main TV screens that going to war with France is like hunting with an "accordion" -basically useless. (which is probably true) How many US political figures called the French cowards or criticized us because American soldiers died for France and now that America needed France, France was not willing to help.

Yet you always hear about French-Bashing... Why? (No Russian bashing, no German bashing...) In my humble view, France seems to always take the flak ;-) Now I don't want to play the victim!

"Sartre wrote that people who give in to the pleasures of hatred do so because they cannot abide their own frailties. Weakness and imperfection are the human condition. But weakness and imperfection leave us unsatisfied, maybe even disgusted with ourselves.

Hatred, however, can make us feel strong. Hatred is thrilling. Hatred is reassuring. When we choose to hate, we discover that, by hating, we overcome our own disappointment at ourselves. We choose to hate because we want to feel the exhilarating vibrations of power instead of weakness, the perfect ideal instead of the imperfect reality. And so, in order to hate, we hold aloft a glorious vision that can never exist: the vision of a perfect mankind unstained by weakness and flaws, a vision of purity and power. And we give ourselves over to the satisfying pleasures of hating everyone who stands in the way of the perfect vision."

Over 86 percent of the value of all stocks and mutual funds, including pensions, was held by the top 10 percent of households. In 1998, the top 1 percent of Americans owned 47.7 percent of all stock, while the bottom 80 percent owned 4.1 percent.

One key insight into the "workshop metaphor" can be found in the book The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference by Malcolm Gladwell.

"We have added another piece of information showing that the timescales on which humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere are extremely short compared to the natural time cycles of the climate system," says Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern in Switzerland, who led the research.

A recent U.S. study predicts that in the next decade as much as one third of the smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions in California's air will come from China. South Korean researchers published a study last year showing that more than 40% of sulphur dioxide and other toxic pollutants in that country's air appeared to have originated from China.

One difficulty has been that the State Environmental Protection Administration has only 200 professional employees as opposed to 10,000 that work for its counterpart in the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency.

Top Chinese officials are also making renewed calls on local provinces to rethink growth priorities that have allowed the construction of plants along river banks and in residential areas.

But China's industrial engine has proven largely incapable of policing itself. Many of its biggest companies remain state-run, and many government agencies continue to play the role of both regulator and owner, leading to potential conflict of interests.

With incomes rising faster than spending, the personal savings rate improved to negative 0.7% from negative 0.8%. The record low was in August at negative 2.2%. The savings rate has been negative for six of the past seven months.

The OECD said oil prices and other imbalances, such as the U.S. current-account deficit, pose increasing risks. The deficit in the U.S. current account, which reflects the balance of trade and other payments, is projected to rise to a record 7% of gross domestic product in 2007.

"These imbalances largely reflect inadequate macroeconomic policies," the report said, singling out the U.S. deficit, as well as "mercantilist" exchange-rate policies in some Asian economies that the OECD said were aimed at winning global market share. It didn't name the offenders, though China has faced the most criticism for its exchange-rate policies.

Adjusting such policies is becoming "increasingly pressing," the report said, warning that inaction raises the risk of large and destabilizing movements in currencies, asset prices and interest rates "and, finally, weakening world growth."

This year, the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index are on track to pay out more than $500 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends and share repurchases, or buybacks, according to S&P. That's up more than 30% from last year's record -- and equivalent to nearly $1,700 for every person in the U.S.

The outpouring of cash from corporate coffers in the U.S. is just one aspect of a world-wide phenomenon. With interest rates low, unprecedented amounts of capital are sloshing around the globe, in search of better returns. Pension funds, mutual funds and insurance-company accounts, for example, have some $46 trillion in assets, up almost a third from five years ago.

But there could be an economic downside to the cash glut. The fact that companies have been sitting on so much cash is, in some respects, a vote of no-confidence in U.S. economic prospects: At least some companies may be signaling they can't find enough profitable ways to reinvest their earnings, so they are simply returning it to shareholders.

Some economists call the payouts this year an ominous development that may be stealing from future economic growth, since they suggest companies are having trouble spotting new products, projects or services they think will boost their growth. Indeed, capital spending by the companies in the S&P 500 has grown only modestly over the past two years, after two years of declines, according to S&P.

For a record 14 consecutive quarters, companies in the S&P 500 have reported double-digit profit growth, according to S&P's Mr. Silverblatt. His firm's projections have the record streak lasting at least two more quarters.

"M3 does not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that is not already embodied in the M2 aggregate. The role of M3 in the policy process has diminished greatly over time. Consequently, the costs of collecting the data and publishing M3 now appear to outweigh the benefits."

The proffered rationale is utter nonsense. In October 2005, seasonally-adjusted M2 was $6.6 trillion, while M3 was $10.1 trillion. It is incredible that the Fed would even suggest that the shifts in and growth of the $3.5 trillion in non-M2 assets had no meaning.

The November Chicago PMI report revealed that manufacturing trends remain strong, but the market perhaps focused upon the price-paid portion, which rose 18% and to its highest level in over 25 years.