It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The EU (or their pre EU equivalents) have had "socialist" policies since long before the 70's. In the 90's, Germany was the strongest EU economy by far, and grew massively.
Some of Europe, yes. Not all. France and Germany adopted the socialist policies later. It was only really weak nations like Italy who had strong socialist parties before that.
Originally posted by radardogWho is more likely to inspire belief in the strength and longstanding of their nation states: The U.S. or the E.U.?
How is Italy weak, much less "really weak" economically? It has the aprox the same population (60 mil) and GDP as France and the UK ($1.6 trillion).
Anyway according to the CIA itself the EU already has a greater GDP than the US. It's total GDP is currently $11.05 Trillion while the US has a GDP of $10.99 Trillion.
That link also provides info which should answer the surpus question asked earlier. The EU isn't running at a surplus but it is close due to major members like Germany, France and the UK having exports greater than their imports. This only includes trade not internal revenues/expenditure where at least the expenditure can be controlled by spending less in the budget (cut back on health care, military, public schools ect.) there was no figures for internal expediture/revenues for the EU so i just did trade.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
How is Italy weak, much less "really weak" economically? It has the aprox the same population (60 mil) and GDP as France and the UK ($1.6 trillion).
I was going back to the 60's. Italy had the largest communist party in Europe.
It doesn't see a third of the growth America does, and it doesn't have as high a GDP per capita. Arkansas has a stronger GDP per capita then Germany.
I was looking at budget revenus and how much they spend. I didn't say trade deficit.
Fair enough but we are talking about how countries are now not 45 years ago. If they were doing so badly you think it would show on the facts (their actual GDP) rather than just in the predicions of growth. They are still up there with the UK and France so they can't be doing too badly with their "socialist" policies.
Yeah and Iceland has a stronger GDP than China but that doesn't mean it is more of an economic power than it or has anywhere near it's production compacity.
Trade deficit is one of the most important economic factors, it's not good if you purchase more than you sell. At least with the budget you can cut back on spending, if you feel you need to. With trade it's all supply and demand and the government has little control over that.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
[China really isn't an economic power. The people there are dirt poor. Just because it has a high GDP doesn't mean it has a good economy.
Umm... ok you have lost me there. I don't think i have heard one expert in the world say China is not an economic power. I agree the people of China aren't rich but the sheer size of the population means the production compacity is huge. Also trade deficits can be sustained over a short period and they do help a countries growth (by the de-valuing of their currency, thus making their products cheaper for export) in the short term but if the dept keeps building up it becomes a problem.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Umm... ok you have lost me there. I don't think i have heard one expert in the world say China is not an economic power. I agree the people of China aren't rich but the sheer size of the population means the production compacity is huge. Also trade deficits can be sustained over a short period and they do help a countries growth (by the de-valuing of their currency, thus making their products cheaper for export) in the short term but if the dept keeps building up it becomes a problem.
America has been running a trade deficit for over 30 years. Our economy has only continued to grow stronger.
And what the hell does production capacity matter? Pretty much all of them are foreign (aka American) companies. The products are all shipped overseas. The Chinese government probably doesn't even have as much money to spend as Iceland's.
Ok so you think Iceland is a bigger economic power than China? China has the power to damage the US economy and any other economy in the world with it's policies, Iceland does not thus not an economic power. As for the US economy this is a very good article to read regarding the deficit past and present. I quoted this small part but i suggest you read the whole thing.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Ok so you think Iceland is a bigger economic power than China? China has the power to damage the US economy and any other economy in the world with it's policies, Iceland does not thus not an economic power. As for the US economy this is a very good article to read regarding the deficit past and present. I quoted this small part but i suggest you read the whole thing.
China at this time can't do anything to America's economy without completely destroying their own. Without the American investment, they'd collapse.
And Mr. Greenspan wasn't talking about the trade deficit, but the budget deficit.
Actually they already have many times, have you been totally un-aware of the economic warfare that has been going on between the US and China in recent years? If you read the whole artile you would see that trade deficit and budget deficit go hand in hand, the less you make from trade the more you need from other sources. Ah well i will quote another important bit but yet again i stress you read the entire artile.
Originally posted by Janus
I think the C.I.A. would be better spending its time looking at how the US will look in 20 years. If the level of Military spending continues as it is, and with future conflicts possible, the US will find its self in a hole it will find very difficult to climb out of. Ive said this before, the US, as wealthy as she is, does not have a bottomless pit of money. Also President Bush seems intent upon widening the war on Terror to Iran and possibly Syria. The kind of Military spending that kind of operation would take, bearing in mind that there must be a significant presence in these countries afterwards, surly cannot be sustained. Anyone expecting a speedy resolution is mistaken. I forsee a heavy US and possibly UK presence in the region for a few years to come and that kind of comitment dont come cheap.
[edit on 16-1-2005 by Janus]