The economic comparison between the EU and the USA

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
There was no 'hot war' then either so our spending and level of 'deterrence' must have been sufficient, mustn't it? (otherwise - according to those who believe in an aggressively imperialist Soviet threat - we would have had an actual war, right?)

The combination of flexible response strategies and assured response strategies was the deterrant that prevented a conventional (non-nuclear) war in Europe. Simply put, flexible response strategies said a conventional war would not stay conventional; Assured response said that there is no such thing as a small nuclear war.

That, more than anything else, kept Western Europe safe from Soviet aggression.

Originally posted by Raphael_UOThat, more than anything else, kept Western Europe safe from Soviet aggression.

And the fact that quantity does not have a quality all its own as was shown in the first Gulf War. The conventional forces played a big part in holding the Soviet Union back and don't think it didn't.

Originally posted by edsinger
And the fact that quantity does not have a quality all its own as was shown in the first Gulf War. The conventional forces played a big part in holding the Soviet Union back and don't think it didn't.

Oh don't get me wrong, conventional forces were needed. Without them there would not have been a flexible response strategy to implement.

But don't think conventional forces alone prevented Soviet aggression.

I don't like growth rate comparisons when it's about a countries economy. As parallel I like to compare a countries growth with the usual life timeline.

A baby grows very fast. A kid still grows quite fast but at a certain point growth is over and further evolution is done on a mental level. Germany grew to it's current maximum, now we have to evolve on the mental level (rebuild the social & education systems -> that's where the USA have improved in a better way).

But one thing is for sure: The reunification hit the economy hard.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I came up with about a 3 Trillion dollar debt without germany.

Germany: 1.383.205.710.906 = 1383 billion EURO

Amount that went into east germany as loans etc (before reunification) + costs of reunification: it's approx. 750 billion EURO
So without reunifiction approx. 633 billion EURO

Here is some information based on 2001 estimates of oil production and consumption by the EU countries and the US. Source information came from www.indexmundi.com.

Oil consumed but not produced (EU): 11.275 million barrels per day
Oil consumed but not produced (US): 11.596 million barrels per day

Originally posted by edsinger
Well from your post I take it you do not know what the Fulda Gap was and how 40,000 tanks faced both British and American troops.

- Yes I do know Ed.
The point is that the paranoia finally 'paid off' for the war-pervs.
They eventually got an actual threat to go with the imagined one they spent decades working on. Where's the surprise in any of that?

Nevertheless in terms of actual strategy NATO strategy was always to 'go nuclear' fairly quickly with the short range stuff as the conventional ground and air forces facing the WARPAC forces was always said to be so inferior numerically.....which, unsurprisingly, upset people all across central Europe as it would have been their locals where the bombs would have been going off!

Tell your no threat exercises to the Eastern Europeans and to the Hungarians and Czechoslovakian peoples.

- Oh come on Ed.
Spheres of influence and all that. You must have heard of them, huh?
There was no way the then Soviet Union was going to allow any kind of 'westernisation' in those countries - think of the fit successive US gov.s have thrown over tiny Cuba - the idea can't be that alien to you!

I know you think the 80's were dangerous but what were the 60's and 70's cakewalks?

- In terms of the forces actually opposing each other the 'Soviet threat' was grossly exaggerated throughout the 1950's and 1960's.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Nevertheless in terms of actual strategy NATO strategy was always to 'go nuclear' fairly quickly with the short range stuff as the conventional ground and air forces facing the WARPAC forces was always said to be so inferior numerically.....which, unsurprisingly, upset people all across central Europe as it would have been their locals where the bombs would have been going off!

- In terms of the forces actually opposing each other the 'Soviet threat' was grossly exaggerated throughout the 1950's and 1960's.

I always thought that ironic but in all fairness, once the nuclear genie was off, the American cities were targets also. There was no plans for limited nuclear war unless one side would let the other win.

You know as well as I do that the US taxpayer paid for the defense of Western Europe for 50 years so just admit it.

Well until we could get those U2 flights to find that they did not have the bombers we thought they did, you are right in a sense.It sure gave Kennedy the edge on the ol shoe beater.

Originally posted by edsinger
I always thought that ironic but in all fairness, once the nuclear genie was off, the American cities were targets also.

- Well that is certainly the usual thinking regarding escalation and it's likely outcome.

There was no plans for limited nuclear war unless one side would let the other win.

- Nevertheless in Europe we did not think it 100% assurred that if it came to it when faced with the choice of losing Washington DC, Los Angeles or New York for Paris, Berlin or London an American President could be really guaranteed not to 'seek an accomodation'....hence the independant UK & French 'bomb'.

You know as well as I do that the US taxpayer paid for the defense of Western Europe for 50 years so just admit it.

- America paid in large part yes. I have not denied it.

You seem very reluctant to talk about what the USA gained from this arrangement though Ed, how come? Cos there was a reason for it you know. Don't you know?

Well until we could get those U2 flights to find that they did not have the bombers we thought they did, you are right in a sense.It sure gave Kennedy the edge on the ol shoe beater.

- Yip and the satellite photos with the - purely imagined - vast numbers of strategic nuclear missiles later too.

But that is just it.
Instead of taking up Krushchev's offer to begin the winding down of the various forces (to his credit as Eisenhower wanted too) and begining the end of the cold war, certain figures in the US gov & military preferred to play their power games and (as I have said) ended up with the staggeringly scary world of the 1980's.

The imagined avoidable threat was turned to reality......and it has cost us all so dear and still does to this day.
Great politics, not.

Well I guess we are not so far off, but I did not think the 80's were any more dangerous than the preceding decades. MAD was alive and well by the mid 60's, the only difference was the speed at which it could happen.

And what did we gain for paying for Europe's defense? The Marshall Plan? Seems that memories are short, but I bet you are going to say "But you made money!"

Originally posted by mahsa

Germany: 1.383.205.710.906 = 1383 billion EURO

Amount that went into east germany as loans etc (before reunification) + costs of reunification: it's approx. 750 billion EURO
So without reunifiction approx. 633 billion EURO

Thanks I could not find that any where. That would put Germany far in the lead of debt for EU member nations. The next highest would be Italy with $816 billion USD not sure on the Euro converstion all my numbers are in USD.

Originally posted by ShadowXIXThanks I could not find that any where. That would put Germany far in the lead of debt for EU member nations. The next highest would be Italy with $816 billion USD not sure on the Euro converstion all my numbers are in USD.

Wow that is alot indeed,

1383 billion EURO = 1.30*1383 = 1797.9 Billion Dollars.....

GDP = $2,062.2 billion *1.06 growth from the 2003 figure = 2185.9 Billion

1797.9/2185.9 = 82% Debt to GDP ratio

US

8 trillion debt\10 trillion GDP = 80% hmmmm

Interesting indeed, sky must be falling there also.

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I guess we are not so far off, but I did not think the 80's were any more dangerous than the preceding decades. MAD was alive and well by the mid 60's, the only difference was the speed at which it could happen.

- I think you are right about the principles (MAD doctrine etc) but the sheer numbers of weapons/warheads (and the plausibility of things like 1st strike etc) were just not there.

And what did we gain for paying for Europe's defense? The Marshall Plan? Seems that memories are short, but I bet you are going to say "But you made money!"

- Naaa, markets Ed. That was why the USA did it. It gave you guys huge new markets.
Markets for goods, markets for loans (which we will be paying for decades yet) and a market (if you like) willing to accept a dominant USA for decades.
That's why 'you' guys did it.
Pure self interest and extremely lucrative for the USA.

(.....and as for the Marshall Plan?
What would you have rathered a slump/depression the like of which the world had not previously seen?
That's it thought Ed, like it or not we are all interconnected. No country can stand isolated from global events.....

.....and they certainly couldn't take all the available trading profits with each side before becoming involved in the war, entered the war and 'gain' again from the 'spoils of war' and then suffer no consequences from the damage and defeat of all involved at the end of that war.)

Originally posted by edsinger
1797.9/2185.9 = 82% Debt to GDP ratio

US

8 trillion debt\10 trillion GDP = 80% hmmmm

Interesting indeed, sky must be falling there also.

Yep, just Japan has a higher ratio. It is a big big problem the USA, Germany and Japan have to solve.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey - Naaa, markets Ed. That was why the USA did it. It gave you guys huge new markets.Markets for goods, markets for loans (which we will be paying for decades yet) and a market (if you like) willing to accept a dominant USA for decades.That's why 'you' guys did it. Pure self interest and extremely lucrative for the USA.

Excuse em for saying this but that is so well French of you. What other nation in history has paid to rebuild its enemy's, gave them their freedom after they loose, and offered to pay for their security until the times comes they can do it on their own?

And what do you mean still paying? Looks to me since the Europeans hold US treasury's that we are paying you?

Originally posted by edsinger
And what do you mean still paying? Looks to me since the Europeans hold US treasury's that we are paying you?

I don't know if it is related to your question, but the US Treasury holds 11797 million USD worth of Euros.


U.S. International Reserve Position

[edit on 30-11-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by edsinger
And what do you mean still paying? Looks to me since the Europeans hold US treasury's that we are paying you?

I don't know if it is related to your question, but the US Treasury holds 11797 million USD worth of Euros.


U.S. International Reserve Position

Interesting to say the least, but that is only say 30 billion dollars in total, not a whole lot and the treasury's the US sells pays interest to the holder.

[edit on 30-11-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by edsinger
Excuse em for saying this but that is so well French of you.

- No it isn't; it's simply how it is. A recognition of the politics of the situation and the economics.

What other nation in history has paid to rebuild its enemy's, gave them their freedom after they loose, and offered to pay for their security until the times comes they can do it on their own?

- Interesting way of looking at it Ed.

How about the alternate view?

What other nation was ever part of an alliance which successfully insisted the repeatedly quarrelsome trouble-makers - unfortunately for the world economy all '1st world' economic 'powers' - never sufficiently re-arm or do their politics again in such a way as to threaten global economice melt-down for all ever again......and have this work so well for for so long?

All this on the understanding that, for many years, decades, to begin with at least, they would voluntarily be client markets to the biggest unscathed winning part of the alliance, who in turn would extend 'defensive protection' to make up the short-fall in regard to any exterior threats.
The US would be free to persue what it saw as it's own global interests elsewhere with little input or criticism from those European powers and where, in any genuine situations of potential conflict between the 2, the Europeans agreed to always play the junior subordinate role?

.....oh, and not forgetting the important nicely strategic parts of ex-British empire terroritory the USA gained and the knock on into the markets that (except for the 'allied side' France and the UK) were also opened to the USA).

The USA did very nicely out of the deal Ed.

Things were, more or less, fine up until the war-perv neocons arrived in the 1970's and then got some power during Reagan's time in the 1980's.
The fact that you guys have gone completely loopy loo over your defence spending in the last 25yrs - outspending every other military budget on the planet - combined!? - I ask you - and lost all senses of proportion over it is no reason to go blaming anyone else......and still you don't even feel 'safe'!
It can never be enough. can it?

And what do you mean still paying? Looks to me since the Europeans hold US treasury's that we are paying you?

- You should look into national debt (it's nothing like the same as the 'current account' situation, hell, we only just stopped paying for some of the Napoleonic war debt!)







[edit on 30-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Ed forgot to mention how many homeless and below poverty people live in the states. USA has very huge difference between rich people and poor people. Example Bill Gates could by a third world country for himself. If you would take 1 percent of every rich mans income and give it to poor you wouldn�t have homeless people at states. Salaries what you pay to actors and co�s are a joke.
-ap

Originally posted by aape
Ed forgot to mention how many homeless and below poverty people live in the states. USA has very huge difference between rich people and poor people. Example Bill Gates could by a third world country for himself. If you would take 1 percent of every rich mans income and give it to poor you wouldn�t have homeless people at states. Salaries what you pay to actors and co�s are a joke.
-ap

So communism, just give it away and have no incentive is the answer. Do poor people in your country have cars? How about Kenya, they got cars?Cuba? Poor in America is overstated but it is a problem, but not as big as you make it to be.


Still paying the Napoleonic war huh? We gained all that territory after WWII huh?

Seems to me we are smaller now, since we gave Independence to the Philippines just as the British Empire gave independence to many colonies.

The US has not been expansive in this century at all.