When the EU was formed (originally as the European Common Market), it was an agreement between entirely sovereign nations. No federal government, no trans-national legal frameworks.

The US has essentially never existed in this form. From the moment of its founding, it has been a federal, democratic republic.

Before the EEC/EU, investing across Europe was much more difficult, and labor migration was limited to "high skilled" workers. There have never been any such limitations in the US.

> The US has essentially never existed in this form. From the moment of its founding, it has been a federal, democratic republic.

this isn't true at all, what about the first US constitution: The Articles of Confederation?

Article II stated that the States are sovereign (bar delegated powers), and Article IV established freedom of movement and freedom of capital

essentially the same structure as the current EU (with many of the same flaws)

err, excuse me .. before the first US constitution (barring a few years when things were really up in the air), the "united states" was a wholly owned colony of Great Britain. If you're a historical revisionist, you could make the claim that the separate colonies constituted separate nations before the AoC, but I wouldn't agree with you. The AoC formed a nation, post-revolution, and formed it out of states. I would read Article IV as preventing the elimination of freedom of movement and capital, because when it was enacted there was honestly little to no barriers to either already in place.

The EEC/EU was preceded by nations, continues to feature nations (1) and still has no actual federal structure (though quite a lot of Europeans wish it had more, and quite a lot of other Europeans wish it had less).

(1) consider how easy it was for even the Schengen zone nations to close their borders and think about how difficult it would be for a state to do the same.

> err, excuse me .. before the first US constitution (barring a few years when things were really up in the air), the "united states" was a wholly owned colony of Great Britain

I don't remember claiming otherwise

> If you're a historical revisionist, you could make the claim that the separate colonies constituted separate nations before the AoC, but I wouldn't agree with you

I didn't claim this either

my only point was EU is not unique, it's a confederation and there have been many throughout history, several with freedom of movement and capital, including the rather well known United States (post-AoC but pre-federalisation)

you may disagree, but that would be historical revisionism

pre-1776: no independent nations, just colonies of GB 1776: revolution 1777: AoC draft complete 1781: AoC adopted by all 13 states 1789: Federalization

I hate to quote Wikipedia, but:

Little changed politically once the Articles of Confederation went into effect, as ratification did little more than legalize what the Continental Congress had been doing. That body was renamed the Congress of the Confederation; but most Americans continued to call it the Continental Congress, since its organization remained the same

So basically we're disagreeing over whether or not a 12 (or 8) year period between 1777 (or arguably, 1781) and 1789 represents a confederation in which the concepts of free movement of labor and capital existed in a way at least somewhat analogous to the way they do in the EEC/EU.

I'd say they do not. Given that Wealth of Nations was only published in 1776, I'm not even sure that these concepts existed clearly in the minds of most of the people it would have to existed in in order for the post-AoC-pre-federal USA to be usefully said to be anything like the EU.

> I'd say they do not

so you're disagreeing that the following sentence establishes freedom of movement and capital?

> the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively

ok

(replying to grandchild ...)

if the AoC did nothing more than codifying what was already the case when the land was just a bunch of GB colonies, I don't see how the AoC can be seen as analogous to the EU, which started from a set of distinct nations. it seems that all you're saying is that "within the colonies, there was free movement of labor and capital, and that continued after the revolution". that doesn't seem even remotely suprising - they were all colonies of a single nation.

we haven't mentioned the currency side of things - when the EEC/EU began, there wasn't even a common currency in use.

I'm saying that this text did nothing more than codify what was already true. If I have that wrong, please let me know.

never said otherwise (again)