 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| Koryo Posts: 100/122 |
Wow, I like your style. Especially the part with the sheep. 
We should begin immediately. |
| SamuraiX Posts: 91/302 |
Originally posted by Ziff And doesn't really achieve any positive impact either. |
| Ziff Posts: 1620/1800 |
I'm pretty sure that that contravenes a whole bunch of laws and stuff. |
| netscape Posts: 89/90 |
Here's my idea. Since Kim jong is in charge any beef we have with North Korea we have with him. So why not just harass the hell out of him personally? North Korea tests nukes so we use automated air craft to drop hundred of thousands of realistic looking photoshops of kim jong shagging a sheep on to the populated areas of NK. NK postures with SK so we send a small cheap remote control helicoptor with express mission of blasting an air horn in the middle of the night near his window and waking him up. Repeat sever times per night till he has to sleep in a sound proof room. NK tests another nuke so we test our ability to drop several tons of dead rats all over his estates.
Basically make it intensely personal for him. |
| Ziff Posts: 1619/1800 |
US help? For the growing micropowers? Venezeula, Iran, various African states, Kazakhstan, and other others? The US has been seeking to reign them in, not to help them. Although the US certainly did help the non-state actors of the 80s. The Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Uzbek Jihad movement, various Islamist groups in Indonesia, right wing paramilitary organizations all across the Southern American continent. So, you could say that they helped out micropowers while they were still all micro without any power.
However, the Cold War was very black and white. Capitalism (USA/West Europe) v. Communism (Eastern Bloc). There were a few nuances in the later period of the 70s up to detente. The only other parallel to it was the NAM. And NAM basically accounter for a fundamental void of influence and just sat there with states either being pulled to a US anti-Soviet side or an anti-US Soviet side. The FAMA breaks between the Sino-Soviet Bloc was the first change in the black and white atmosphere of the Cold War. The end period of the 80s was basically ultra-hardliners seeing the world as "Us v. Communism". Thatcher, Reagen and various others all bought into an even more simplified world view of black and white. Support anything against Communism  |
| Koryo Posts: 84/122 |
According to the CIA worldfactbook and wikipedia, the growth rates in 2005 for the US was 3.2% and for Italy 0.1%. That’s zero-point-one percent. According to this website, the US’ GDP in 2000 was 5%, and Italy’s for the same year was 2.7%. This website records the US at 3.5% and Italy at 0.1% for 2003. According to everyone’s favorite magazine, economist.com “GDP growth is forecast to dip from an estimated 1.7% in 2006 to 1.2% in 2007, before rising to 1.5% in 2008.” According to the world factbook, the entire EU’s growth rate is 1.7%, making it much closer to Italy’s anemic growth than to Estonia’s rush to catch up to its wealthier cousisns. Estonia may have a high GDP growth rate, but that is only because it is catching up. The most developed countries, such as the US, UK, and Italy, produce new, never before heard of type wealth. They must run the economic risks of pioneering new economic ground. Developing countries like Estonia have a clear map to follow if they want to catch up to the top few countries. The fact is that the most developed countries in the EU are poorer and are growing slower than the US.
If I’m thinking only in terms of military, why have I been nattering on about GDP, per capita, growth rate, percentages, average wealth distribution, etc. If I wanted to talk about military power, I could mention that US nuclear weapons could destroy the EU inside of 30 minutes. But I didn’t. Now, onto the subject of this supposed “influence.” The US has largely ignored Latin America, for the record. Other than that, the US has considerable influence. We have done things like successfully talked Israel out of selling weapons to China. Our “influence” in terms of suggestion and coercion has decreased recently because of the rise of anti American sentiments. However, soft power “influence” is worth very little without the military to back it up. That doesn’t mean that every “suggestion” must be back up with a bombing raid. That does mean that, without the capability and the threat of a bombing raid, your words and “soft power” can become useless very quickly. No amount of soft power from either the US or the EU will convince Iran to stop building its atomic bomb. If Iran actually believed that the US was going to bomb them, they would stop their nuclear research. But they know the US is bluffing. Bush is too afraid following the situation in Iraq to risk anything else, which is a pity, because only the threat of military action will actually stop Iran. Which, by the way, is something the EU will never accomplish, I’ll put $50 on that right here and now. Just one other quick nit pick here: the EU does not have a “massive” military.
For the record, the cold war was not actually black and white, nor solely capitalism and communism. And micro powers are only rising up because the US lets them. Many of them are doing it with US dollars, and many of them would already have been crushed by a less benevolent super power, say Nazi Germany. The US is not so much being challenged because we have to be everywhere at once, but because we are squeamish and afraid of causing too much damage. |
| Ziff Posts: 1584/1800 |
Because their barely rate of growth is an average ranging from ridiculous lows like Italy and unbelievable highs like the Baltic states.
The US GDP growth is 2.2% I'm just going to flip through my economics text to...Estonia. 7.8, Italy is 1.2, from what I've seen it is the lowest in the EU. On the point of super power, you keep on thinking only in terms of military. You don't think in terms of immediate influence on the neighbours. The US height of influence is on Mexico and Canada. With a lot wielded around Latin America, which is its historic stomping grounds. The EU is surrounded by a lot more, wealthier nations. If Turkey ascends, then suddenly the EU has a direct boarder with the Caucaus states, Iran, Iraq, Syria. That is a lot of influence that you can wield. Massive military that can menace its immediate neighbours and do limited deployment where it is NEEDED is all the projection you need. I hate to keep using superpower, because it is an outmoded term from when the world was black and white, capitalism and communism. The world has changed monstrously since 1991. Non-state actors and micropowers are rising up. The status of "superpower" is pretty much like the king of some Scandinavian country. A nice little memory, but any real claims to the title, beyond sanguin succession are pretty much moot. The US may be the only superpower, but being a superpower in this brave new world only means that you're weakened because you have to be everywhere at once. |
| Koryo Posts: 83/122 |
Not really. As I showed above, only a couple of the states are actually considerably behind the average (and those few were higher than most European states, too). Again, even in the southern states (why do you think so little of them?) GDP is only very low in a couple of states. Comparing Romania (population 22 million) and Bulgaria (population 7 million) with Puerto Rico (population 4 million). And New Mexico has a per capita GDP of 36,000, far from the lowest. It may require some extra funds because of the harsher climate and border with Mexico, but its hardly a cement brick tied to the ankles of the US economy.
This chart, which I posted earlier, actually is PPP adjusted. Comparing PPP adjusted GDP and regular official exchange rate GDP cause problems when comparing countries that have drastically different economies. The difference between China's PPP GDP (8 trillion) and official exchange rate GDP (2 trillion) is fairly noticeable, but not so much with the US (12.31 vs 12.49 trillion) or EU (12.18 vs 13.31 trillion). Which is why I said above that, when comparing the largest western industrial economies, these figures work well enough. Still, if you want to find some statistics for those other factors that you mentioned, feel free. I've done my fair share of number crunching for the week.
And so, if the EU is barely growing, are they really likely to overtake the US, which is growing? |
| Arwon Posts: 572/631 |
Oh I know the US median is higher, you said so yourself last post. I just wasn't sure if the disparity between EU nations (Romania and Bulgaria aside, since if you're gonna include them you might as well include Puerto Rico) was really that much higher than the disparities in the US. If you can think of the EU as "carrying" some of it's poorer states, I reckon you can say the same about the US and it's poorer states, particularly in the South (and also New Mexico) which are massive absorbers of redistributed money at a federal level.
This kinda illustrates the limitations on comparing through one indicator alone. First, I'm pretty sure those GDP per capita figures aren't PPP adjusted, which makes comparison incredibly tricky. There's no way in hell that there's anything like equivalent wealth and standard of living between Mississippi and Germany, for example. That's to say nothing of using GDP as a proxy for "strength". I mean, given that most of our first world economies these days are services and meaningless unproductive consumption how much can "strength" and economic growth they really be said to correlate? What about things like primary industries, manufacturing base, balance of trade, current accounts, income inequality, employment rates (including underemployment), public debt, productivity, corruption levels, soft power, social welfare and health care, quality of life, education quality, etc? In many of these areas the US falls down rather badly, in others it doesn't. Comparing countries is not an easy process. Finally, if you adjust EU and United States economic growth rates to take into account differing population growth rates they actually come out a lot closer. |
| Koryo Posts: 82/122 |
You could say there is a bit of a divide between the wealthiest state (Delaware with $64,437 per capita in 2005) and the poorest state (Mississippi with $27,545 in the same year). However, Delaware is tiny, with only about 800,000 people. And in fact, only 2 states have per capita GDPs of 60,000 or more, and only 5 have per capita GDPs of 50,000 to 59,000. The US per capita GDP for that same year (2005) was 41,600.
A better example might be this: 42 out of 50 states have a per capita GDP between 30,000 and 50,000 dollars (the same distance above and below the national average). And 39 states have a per capita GDP between 30,000 and 45,000. Another interesting number to crunch would be that Mississippi, the poorest state in America in terms of per capita GDP, only has about $500 less than the EU average.  So, while there is a gap, one should really say that Delaware is rich, rather than saying that Mississippi is poor. Or we could say that only two US states (West Virginia and Mississippi) are as poor as the UK, German, Sweden, France, and Italy (per capita GDPs all 27,000 to 30,000). Slovenia has a per capita GDP of 21,00, a scant half of the US average. Lastly, the US has a GDP growth rate about twice that of the EU (3-4 percent compared with 1.5-2 percent). The UK has about 2% growth rate, but the major EU players sharply decline from there with France at barely above 1%, Germany just below, and Italy barely growing at all.
However you cut it, the EU isn't as economically powerful as the US yet. Even if they did have a more centralized control system, they wouldn't have our economic power. Germany alone makes up for almost all of the EU's exports, and just 4 countries make up over half of its overall GDP. The small number of strong countries carrying a number of weaker countries is very much the case with the EU. And each of those countries spends its own money on its own military and its own economy. Until the EU can get a center of control (at least for their economy), they won't be as economically powerful as the US. Even then, they will have to bring many of their weaker countries up to par with the rest of the developed world (which is still a bit behind the US). Right now, most of the EU countries seem more interested in promising retirement benefits to their elderly rather than getting new people into the work force. The former drains money, the later creates money. Again, the EU may one day surpass the US, but I don't see it happening soon. In fact, I think it more likely that the US will sink down to Europe's level, rather than the EU rising to ours, as I see us starting to make many of the same economic mistakes they are. |
| Arwon Posts: 571/631 |
I'm at work, I wasn't logged in. Still ain't. |
| Koryo Posts: 81/122 |
I will look into it and try to find some facts or statistics. By the way, why does no one here use the quote function? |
| Arwon Posts: 570/631 |
"A number of EU countries, such as Germany, the UK, and Italy, are above that on the chart, while most of the rest are below it. This means that most of the EU is not nearly as developed and wealthy as the Western and Northern European countries that we all think of when we think of EU economic power. The US is more homogeneous. I hope those poorer countries will be brought up to the level of Germany and the UK, but it is not likely to happen tomorrow."
I dunno, there could well be as much disparity between Sweden and Slovenia as Mississippi and Masachusetts, if you counted the latter separately. |
| Koryo Posts: 80/122 |
So it may be, but its not happening right now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not hoping the EU will fail just because they aren't the US. I would much rather see the EU eclipsing the US (though I doubt that would happen) then China eclipsing the US. Ideally, the US and EU could ally, as the world force for western style democracy, against the non democratic forces that will be rising soon or already have, such as China, Russia, Iran, terrorism, and possibly a socialist Latin American economic bloc. Still, I don't see any scenario in which the EU builds a military to rival the US or China (or even Russia). |
| Ziff Posts: 1581/1800 |
The EU is just taking baby steps right now. I imagine that after a few more years of Euroskepticism a bunch of parties slightly more supportive of ratification of all necessary treaties will come to power, bringing Europe to a single military command structure and a more powerful trade zone. That's when it becomes a pole power. I figure that "superpower" is going to be outmoded as the power of that title is going to be degraded by nuclear proliferation and more powerful trade blocs. |
| Koryo Posts: 77/122 |
Please research things. I'm begging you. I'm getting down on my hands and knees in front of my computer right now.
Now that I'm back: Please take a look at this link. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html There is a lot of information on that website. You might want to book mark it for later use. But for now, take a look at that front page. GDP is not a perfect measure of wealth and economic power, but for our purposes today, and when comparing the most wealthy western nations, it works. The UK, France, Spain, etc were strong, when compared with most countries. Compared with the US and China, however, they fell behind. Even the entire EU's GDP is about the same as Americas. However, America's GDP is under the control of one single government, which makes it a stronger economic force than the EU. The EU's GDP is only that large on paper. That is the sum of all nations within the EU, who do not yet act as a cohesive unit. It is also interesting to consider that the US has a much lower population than the entire EU added together, which means that each individual American is more productive than each European. Once again, the EU looks good on paper, but is not yet what it might one day be. Edit: Also consider this. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html This chart of per capita GDP in purchasing power parity is from the same site. What this basically means is, if you take the total wealth of a country, and divided it by the number of people in the country, you would get the per capita GDP. In other words, if wealth was perfectly equally distributed in that country. The US is in 7th place, according to that chart (which will very slightly from year to year), and all 6 of the countries above the US have tiny economies over all in terms of GDP. But that's not the important thing we can glean from this chart. Scroll down a bit until you find the EU. You will find it in position number 31. A number of EU countries, such as Germany, the UK, and Italy, are above that on the chart, while most of the rest are below it. This means that most of the EU is not nearly as developed and wealthy as the Western and Northern European countries that we all think of when we think of EU economic power. The US is more homogeneous. I hope those poorer countries will be brought up to the level of Germany and the UK, but it is not likely to happen tomorrow. |
| Alkis Posts: 50/54 |
UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc. were already rich and powerful before EU, now with EU, they're together and thus, more powerful. |
| Koryo Posts: 72/122 |
And that's the measure of a super power, is it?
In truth, while the EU will have considerable economic power, that power will probably rest exclusively with their being a large consumer block. Countries like China and India will be the world's primary producers of goods and merchandise in the coming decades. The EU will have some power, in that they could tariff or otherwise restrict imports from China to the EU (cars, for example), but the EU will not be a world producer of industrial goods, or an exporter of energy. Economically powerful, to be sure, but not an economic super power. |
| Alkis Posts: 48/54 |
The EU economy is formidable, as their coin is even worth more than the dollar. It will soon surpass the British pound. |
| Koryo Posts: 71/122 |
Those are almost mutually exclusive statements. Without projection capability, your military power is almost worthless. They have a couple hundred nuclear bombs, which is enough for a casual deterrent, but China and Russia each have more atomic bombs than all of the European Union combined. Their military hardware is technologically advanced, but poorly organized, distributed in a piecemeal fashion, and not present in nearly enough quantities to equip a large military. They have modern aircraft, but not in any great numbers. All in all, their military power is limited. Still, I doubt anyone would attack the EU on their own soil within the foreseeable future. What is likely to happen, though, is that something will happen elsewhere in the world, and the EU will be unable to project their power that far away. Also, Russia no longer needs military power over the EU. Oil gives them all the power they need. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
