It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
When you have a pile of dollars it allows you access to the to an economy that is largest, most efficient, most dynamic, has the largest GDP per capita, has the largest purchasing power and the most productive.
What would happen to europe's economy if they had to shoulder their fair share of keeping a clamp-down on the word's maniacs?
3.4 It is better being poor in a rich country than in a poor one
Poverty is a highly relative concept. As we saw in the preceding section, for example,
40 per cent of all Swedish households would rank among low-income households in the
USA, and an even greater number in the poorer European countries would be classed as
low income earnings by the American definition. In an affluent economy, in other words,
it is not unlikely that those perceived as poor in an international perspective are relatively
well off. The media image of the American poor is that they have great difficulties to
contend with, that they are dossers, junkies and in various ways marginalised. There are
of course such groups in the USA, and they are relatively large, but – and this is an
important “but” – such groups exist in European countries too. There is also another
image of poverty in the USA, namely that the great majority of those considered to be
poor have a relatively good material standard of living. Examples are given below.
First of all, the percentage of poor people in the USA has diminished over time, concurrently
with the growth of the American economy; see Table 3:1. In 1959, for example,
22 per cent of all Americans were living below the then poverty line. Today only 12 per
cent are living below the present-day poverty line. Things have also improved for the black
population of the USA, whereas for Hispanics the poverty percentage has changed little
The EU economy is expected to grow further over the next decade as more countries join the union - especially considering that the new member states are usually poorer than the EU average. Growth is almost assured, and hopes are high that this will lead to the modern dynamic of a united Europe. It is estimated that through 2010 the eurozone will grow 1.1 per cent annually1, which is significantly less than other industrialized nations such as the United States, which has an estimated GDP growth of 3 per cent annually through 2020.
The EU's share of Gross world product (GWP) is falling. GDP growth, though strong in the new member states, is being affected by sluggish growth in France and especially Germany and Italy. The Benelux countries also have low growth.
Originally posted by El Tiante
Darn those pesky facts!
Originally posted by Violent
If you want to lump Europe all together and take the bad with the good, then do we have to take on the Mexican economy into the equation? Using a broad lumping of soverign European nations to make statements about their viable before there exists a standardized European Union is as fair as putting all North American countries into a North American Trade Area (ack!!! that almost sounds like the way things are headed?!!).
But that would require you to use your mind and a knowledge of economics that I don't think you can grasp outside of spoonfed websites that espouse skewed facts into something you can digest.
Originally posted by zappafan1
SpanishFly: The "Greenback" is still the basic support structure of the world economy, and will be for quite some time. America has more oil in it's shale deposits, alone (a trillion barrels) than all of Iran .
The threat Iran made to destroy Isreal and America doesn't have anything to do with it??? We've been letting the (corrupt) UN and other nations try to work this out with Iran, but they won't satisfied 'till there's a confrontation.
By the way, it's long been known that Iraq's WMD's were moved mostly to Syria and Sudan. Remember all the stuff Khadaffi gave up so easily? Where do you think that came from? He didn't have the means to produce all that.
Edit for text placement.
[edit on 3-5-2006 by zappafan1]
Originally posted by SpanishFly
The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
Why Iran's Oil Bourse can't break the Buck
In August of 1971, Nixon took the United States off of the gold exchange standard and the last bastion of gold-based currencies ceased. Prior to this point, foreign central banks had the ability to exchange any U.S. dollars they accumulated for gold. Because we were expanding our money supply rapidly, many central banks around the world had done just that. As such, from 1958 to 1971, our gold stock had fallen from $19 billion to $10 billion, and over the same time, U.S. liquid liabilities to foreign central banks had risen to over $60 billion. Though, this is, comparatively, a pittance to the trillions we owe today, the demand, especially from France and Britain, became so strong that the United States reneged on this agreement, and the world embarked on the current free floating currency system we know today.
To this day, when oil trades on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) or the London International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), all of the transactions are made exclusively in dollars. This means that every country in the world has to exchange their currency for U.S. dollars in order to buy or sell oil.
Again, if Russia, Argentina or Iran wants to sell oil to China, India or France, they must do so in U.S. dollars. Because of this, each country keeps an ample supply of dollars on hand, hence the term "reserve currency." Needless to say, this gives the United States certain economic advantages.
At about the same time this was happening (1975), the Saudis agreed to export their oil for US dollars exclusively. Soon OPEC as a whole adopted the rule. Now, as a result, the dollar was backed not by gold but, in effect, by oil. Had the US permitted the Saudis to nationalize their oil industry in return for this extraordinary favor? Because the Saudi royal family and the oil companies are all notoriously tight-lipped, we may never know.
While oil can be drilled and refined and transported anywhere, there's only two places where it can be officially purchased. One is in New York City on the NYMEX stock exchange and the other in London on the IPE exchange. I should mention that London's IPE is actually now owned by an American country named "ICE".
This doesn't mean that oil actually has to be transferred from say, Saudi Arabia, to New York where it sits in a real barrel until it's sold to a customer in Japan. What it does mean however is that oil is traded like any commodity, via these two (and ONLY these two) stock exchanges. There are also "futures" or promises of future oil deliveries sold and traded as well.
So the customer in Japan, perhaps a large oil refinery company, buys the oil "shares" via one of the two exchanges from one of the oil owners, a company such as ExxonMobil or Saudi Arabia's ARAMCO. And while the oil itself never actually gets to London or New York, all the money involved flows through those two cities. And every single barrel of oil is bought and sold in American dollars.
This means that every single country which wishes to buy oil has to own dollars to do it. Since these dollars are held overseas, they are referred to as Eurodollars, although once again they don't have to be in Europe. A dollar in China is a dollar in America too - they aren't valued any differently.