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.

 

C.I.A. Prediction: EU and NATO to Dissolve In 2020.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
The CIA can't even get WMD's right so I take this with a grain of salt as best. No-one really knows what will happen in the future. The CIA should be looking how America will look like in 20 years, rather than this 'holier than thou' crap.




posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   
NATO will dissolve way before that, But NATO disolving doesnt mean the EU will go the same way, as the EU doesnt rely on NATO to survive. NATO is simply a multinational defense pact, the EU is a socio-economic community, and will probably eventually put together its own army.

But China and India will both more than likely be world Powers, as their population growth and importance easily projects that.

Europe's Native population is dwndling, in otherwords, Europe as an ethnic community and culture will decline, as we see the native populations in two of their biggest powers, France and germany, at actual negative population growth. The national populations are only being bolstered by Immigration, mainly from the middle east and Africa, however, India and China are also big parts of the population. With the ethnic picture of Europe going from traditional white people, to populations made up more and more of Asian countries, this population shift will also play a big role in the rise of Asian powers and Asian global influence.

If China can clean up its human rights act and India can deal better with poverty and class segrgation, then the idea of either of these two giants becoming superpowers is not a bad thing at all, but could end up being benefical.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

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.


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).

Italy has a diversified industrial economy with roughly the same total and per capita output as France and the UK.

www.cia.gov...

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.

www.cia.gov...

www.cia.gov...



[edit on 17-1-2005 by Trent]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
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.

EU Exports Total: $850 billion

EU Imports Total: $887 billion

Surplus = $-37 billion

US Exports Total: $714 billion

US Imports Total: $1.26 trillion (hmm... they only had 2003 figures here, it's 2004 est. for everything else)

Surplus = $-542 billion



[edit on 17-1-2005 by Trent]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
On the other hand, it appears many people are attacking the CIA report without having read it. We merely are hearing a reporter's take on the report, while not having access to the information the CIA used to make their conclusions.

It would be interesting to see what they based their conclusions on. Anyone have a link to the actual report?

In my opinion, socialist states and/or parts of the state that are socialist will fail eventually. No matter what form they are in: "Democratic Socialist," "National Socialist," or "Marxist." Europe, in general, has been having problems keeping up with their social welfare, as we have seen in previous posts. America is starting to have problems with its social welfare -- supposedly having its social security fail by the 2040's.

As the last American election suggests, the majority of the American public (hey, even if the majority is decided by a couple of percent) wanted to have its social welfare changed, and ironically, into a less socialist way. This isn't even including the implication that the American voter defacto decline the idea to implement a national healthcare.

We can argue about economic theory all night line, as there are many opposing schools of thought, however something every school can not get away from is that currently money is not a standard of objective value. At its root, money has its value in the faith and belief we have in it. One thing I have noticed is that faith and belief tend to come easier with action and not just words.

I think we should ask ourselves:

Who is more likely to inspire belief in the strength and longstanding of their nation states: The U.S. or the E.U.?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

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.?


The U.S. by far! We've been a strong nation-state for over 200 years, the EU isn't even a weak nation-state yet. If the EU fails to become a strong nation-state, and I think it will, it will be because of internal differences and distrust among the member states, not economics. The economic links and other EU treaties will remain. The member states of the EU have long histories of their own soverignty and won't be able to come up with a constitution that gives enough power to the central authority that can work and be agreed upon by all, IMHO.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

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.


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.


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.


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.


I was looking at budget revenus and how much they spend. I didn't say trade deficit.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   

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.


Fair enough but we are not talking about how countries are now not 45 years ago. They are still up there with the UK and France so they can't be doing too badly with their "socialist" policies.


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.


Yeah and Iceland has a stronger GDP per capita than China but that doesn't mean it is more of an economic power than it or has anywhere near it's production compacity. Also that growth is predicted growth and to a non-American the CIA's predictions are about as credible and unbiased as the KGBs prediction would have been in the 1980's.


I was looking at budget revenus and how much they spend. I didn't say trade deficit.


Well i wasn't refering to your post but anyways... 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.


[edit on 17-1-2005 by Trent]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

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.


Italy's economy has actually been in a major slump lately. France's economy isn't doing any better.


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.


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.

Iceland is far more stable an economy then China's. America is still far richer then the EU.


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.


You can not always cut back spending. In the case of the EU, many of the nations aren't willing to cut back spending on their social programs. They've already slashed their military budgets for the past few years, and it hasn't done much good. Even the UK's economy isn't as great as it looks on paper.

You clealry don't understand the trade deficit, either. There is absolutely no sign that a trade deficit hurts an economy. When our trade deficit has grown the most, we've seen the lowest unemployment rates, as well as the highest growth rates in our nation's history.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

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.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Trent]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

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.

Dec, 2nd 2004

The dollar wobbled badly this week, having fallen for five successive days after Mr Greenspan said that America's current-account deficit was unsustainable because foreigners would eventually lose their appetite for more dollar-denominated assets.


www.economist.com...

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Trent]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Beware the False Prophets!

Sorry, I couldn't resist, the CIA making "predictions" is kind of funny to me.

I don't know about 15 years, at the current rate the EU may fall apart faster. It's too young to think that it would survive longer.
Already NATO and post 1945 military allegiances are beginning to fall apart, so that is no surprise.
India and China will definitely become super powers, we're helping them.

anyways when the CIA makes predictions, it's not really a prediction, I think it more like an objective.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   

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.

The problem is that America's imports are 50% bigger than its exports, so if exports and imports simply grow at the same pace, the trade deficit automatically widens. If imports rise by, say 10%, then exports need to grow by 15% just to prevent the deficit from widening. This means that while stronger foreign demand would undoubtedly help, it would be virtually impossible for America to reduce its deficit significantly through stronger exports alone. Li Ruogu, the deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, said last week that America should put its own house in order—ie, save more—and stop blaming others for its problems. He was right.

In any case, the current-account deficit cannot be corrected by a fall in the dollar alone: domestic saving also needs to rise. The best way would be for the government to cut its budget deficit. That would reduce America's need to borrow from abroad, and so mitigate the fall in the dollar and rise in bond yields that will otherwise be demanded by investors. If combined with stronger growth abroad, then the current-account deficit could slowly shrink. America's growth would be depressed by tax increases or spending cuts, but there would be no need for recession.


www.economist.com...



[edit on 17-1-2005 by Trent]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   

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.


A single article can't give the whole viewpoint. A weak dollar is likely to help the American economy, and it seems more likely this is America's plan:

money.cnn.com...
www.economist.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
All details aside, all the major countries on the planet (I'm counting the EU as a 'country' here, not an international alliance) need each other to survive. If any of the big players in the global economy goes down, we're all going down.

So, the sooner we all recognize this, the sooner we can start working together (while engaging in healthy economic competition at the same time).

Personally, I hope that the EU remains together, and eventually encompasses all the countries in Europe (except Russia, who is big enough on her own). From an economic and political perspective, it's a lot easier and cheaper for other countries to deal with one EU than to deal with 45 smaller nations.

I hope that the U.S., E.U., Russia, China, Japan, and India, among others, continues to grow, and either stay as or become regulated free market economies (that aren't over-regulated, though). I don't want anyone to have their economy crash...



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   
CI who???? loossers!



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

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]


That's absolutely right. America cannot afford her current domestic and foreign policy commitments, and is borrowing several billion dollars a day (mostly from Asian central banks.) After the baby boomers begin to retire, and in the coming decades, the shortfall for entitlements (social security and medicare, though particularly the latter) is projected to be more than 72 trillion dollars. The only other other significant block of spending aside from entitlements is Pentagon spending. America cannot continue to take care of its own people, maintain multiple occupations, more than 700 bases around the world, and round-the-clock policing of much of the world's oceans and skies. At some point America will have to choose between empire and entitlements just as Britain and Europe did in the middle of the last century.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
With hindsight we can now indeed see the biggest risk to E.U. economies is the failure of the US economy. Will this effect or hasten the C.I.A. predictions, if the E.U. survives this I don't see it failing in another 10 years as predicted.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join