met this Brit on the plane over, he's an Europhile, and he's convinced me that this

Car Key Boi

Well-known member
396 8
proposed superstate of Europe (the USE) is gonna be a good thing for us Yankeetards

yuo see, the way i figure it, the UK has the 4th largest economy in the world (btw, i hope Arnie ends up manageing the 5th - Gray Davis=Tool) and the UK is the only credible military power out of all the proposed member states. The Germans have jack, ditto the Italians, ditto the Bellgims and ditto the rest. The only other country that has nukes is the French and we all know what they're like when it comes to rumble time (i heard there was a severe heatwave over there recently and that Chirac offered unconditional surrender to Mother Nature)

anyways, money and military power always run the show, so when the UK joins this Eurotard Union (and it will, kicking and screaming perhaps, but yuo will join eventually) i figure that yuo Brits will end up running the show - seriously

in fact, that guy on the plane informs me that there's a strong rumor within UK politics that yuor Blair is thinking of quitting as PM in favor of becoming the President of this proposed United States of Eurotard - however as an American, it's irrelevent if the President is Blair.

So long as the Brits are running the show, i will welcome it coz everyone knows that our leaders ownz yuor leaders regardless of which party they're from - Labor or Conservative

Ra!
 

stevet

Established member
917 5
the way that france and germany are gutting their historic economic power is a lesson for all in how opportunity can be squandered

lets join with the US or Asia - and even get Spain in on the deal, Turkey would be fine and all those ex communist joints where they are keen to get on - but keep France and Germany out of it until they have even the slightest clue as to how to run an economy

and we will never join "Europe" - since in 5 years it will not even exist - and since we are supporting the whole damm thing now with Germany, and Germany is fast running out of money - the sooner the whole misconcieved idea is put to bed, the better
 
Last edited:

bbmac

Veteren member
3,584 787
re: the posts above

The political and socio-economic post-war europe was largely borne of the franco-german axis that grew out of the formers capitulation during the war, and it's attempts to pacify it's more expansionist neighbour.

De Gaulle recognised that such an axis with the newly constituted social democratic west germany, - formed principally in it's own image, could be a balancing super power in the european theatre to the emerging power of the us and the ussr.

De gaulle further recognised the importance to france of keeping the Uk on the fringes of this, but little understood the corollary of such a policy would be the Uk's increasingly close relations with the Us. This close relationship, cemented by the post-war marshall plan has been tested only by Suez, the Falklands and to a lesser extent -the grenada invasion, and has survived and grown stronger.

The whole post war european experiment was always an excercise in political integration aimed at preventing future wars that had blighted europe for the past 500 years. From the so- called 'common market, through to the 'EEC' [european econmoic community' evolving to what we know today as the EU, the european union, - union being the intentiionally operative word.

The Uk will become more integrated with Europe over the coming decades but is forever torn between it's american axis and european one, particularly as the 'old powers' of central europe try to temper the power of the Us.

Tony Blair's policy of the Uk's role as 'acting as a bridge between the Us and Europe' was severly tested with the Iraq crisis and the flaws shown for all to see. Europe will be shaped in the next few years in 2 main ways,

1. the integration of the new eastern european states to expand the EU. these are generally very much pro-america, bribed to a certain extent by fiscal assistance from the Us, and security issues connected to nato membership.

2. The emergence of China and to an extent India as a third genuine world power, particularly economically.

The Uk's alliance with the Us, and it's flexible and liberal economy and willingness to act militarily with a credible military force will give it real influence in the EU to counter the Franco-german axis, which will lessen when Chirac stands down, and schroeder loses the next election, which he undoubtedly will.

At best the Eu will only ever be an economic powerhouse, as even with the proposed european defence force, it will never agree amongst itself to act militarily. In any event the proposed 'european army' is just a concept proposed by the franco-german axis to counter balance the nato alliance which they feel is dominated by the Us and the Uk.

The previous poster is right to suggest that the real power lies in economics and military force, and seeing as the Us spends more on the military than the rest of the world put together, and that it's recent Bush administration increases in miliary spending in themselves have been more than that of all the Eu countries combined, - any axis with america will continue to yield the Uk and others benefits.

Russia will continue to westernise, albeit slowly, bemoaning it's loss of super power status, and trying to find a new role, punching above it's weight, with a respect shown to it primarily because of it's nuclear capabaility.

The big variable in this emerging world order is China, and my guess is that they too will 'westernise' albeit at a slower rate than Russia. Potential conflicts over taiwan and Tibet can be settled with the west, and if they work togethor with Russia, Japan, S.Korea and the Us to resolve the N.Korean problem, that, along with the continued bribe of the WTO will help to facilitate this.

The big variable in China is the dissemenation of information via the internet to the people, who are currently denied it to a large extent. Information=power, power=freedom. Over time the chinese people may yet rise up in a peaceful mass numbers revolution such as has been seen in some of the eastern european ex-comminist states to a lesser extent, the most recent being serbia's popular uprising. The only power a state has over it's people are twofold; fear, and war powers.

Remove the fear through growing an appetite for change fed by information of how things should be and are in the west (bush's much vaunted 'liberty') and the fear begins to evapotrate as numbers grow demanding change. This is the basis of all popular revolutions, and the internet can act as a very effecient expeditor in this respect. Such a polular revelution is bound to pro-western in it's afternath and outlook.

To preserve it's power and dominance the neo-conservatives in the west want the markets of China, India, and for that matter africa, but not the competition, that as India is proving, costs jobs.
So the west's policy toward China is governed only by it's potential military competitiveness, not so India and Africa where no serious attempt will ever be made to develop them to a western standard.

The policy of pre-emption, respect of human rights, and dealing with rogue states is pretty much here to stay if post war iraq can be resolved quickly and handed back to the UN, who as an organisation recognise that they must adapt and change too.
Changes to the permanent membes of the security council and to and the way the council works and act are inevitable, as the post 2nd world war victors still preditate. America and the Uk want to see France replaced by India, France wants to see the permanent members expanded by germany and japan, which they calculate would then split china/germany/france -v- Uk/USA/Japan in any potential veto vote.

Even a Democrat back in the White House (Other than Leiberman, who wouldn't anyway) will find it hard to undo the underlying ethos of Bush's post 9/11 foreign policy, particualrly when remembering Clinton's mis guided and lethargic 'make a few holes in the sand' foreign policies which were generally ineffective, barring perhaps the middle east where he narrowly failed to bring an agreement between barak and arafat in the last days of his presidency. (Arafat having 99% of demands in his grasp, rejecting the deal-the result being the bush administartion's refusal to deal with him, recognising rightly that he controls the extremists causing havoc to the curent so-called road-map.)

Fortunately the key powers of the Un recognise that it really is the only show in town, and the fear of it's demise will ensure it's legitimacy. (League of nations lesson etc)


As Reagan ended the cold war by the promise to bulid the hugely expensive star wars programme that Russia (Gorbachov) recognised it could not match for ecomomic reasons, and thus a new cooperation was borne, so Bush is trying to replicate the sea change that occurred then partly through the new 'star wars' programme and more generally bt he huge advantage the Us has militarily over any comparable potential adversary. Such one-sided top-down power in the world is calculated by the neo-cons/hawks in the administartaion as potentially having the same measure of effect in bringing about a sea change in the world order as reagan achieved. Their motivation is basically to build a world in their own image, but I think with agenuine respect for diversity only if it is not threatening. The short-medium term cost of this is calculated by them as being a potential increase in extremism and potential terrorism/instability, and as being worth paying. They calculate that such extremism/terrorism is something that all free and reasonable people of the world can unite to defeat in a common purpose, however their experiences in the run up to Iraq, will require some fine tuning of the policy as some refused to fall in line.


(so there you have it-a brief synopsis on the next 10-50 years, if only my trading was as good!)

bbmac.
 
Last edited:

Car Key Boi

Well-known member
396 8
sweet analysis bbmac!

so to summarize, yuo agree with me that the USA will O\/\/Nz the USE

USA >>
<< USE

ra!'s all round :)
 

stevet

Established member
917 5
"At best the Eu will only ever be an economic powerhouse"

in their dreams - Europe had a free ticket from the money pumped in after world war 2 and they have managed to blow it - and the only way out of the hole that Germany and France have dug for themselves will be to disentangle themselves from the Euro dream (nightmare) - and take the pain of re-establishing their economies - they are never gonna get back to where they were - but at least people will be able to eat - when the pension **** hits the fan in the next few years from their ridiculous social systems - it is gonna be so so bad - that the concept of just eating will not seem such a given to the average European

"Over time the chinese people may yet rise up in a peaceful mass numbers revolution "

they dont need to rise up - China has historically been a capitalistic society and their flirtation with communism, which was a long way from the Russian version anyway, was only for a few decades, and now they are firmly back in capitalism - and they have the main ingredients for success - a belief that it comes from work, unlike in Europe, where people feel that they should hold their hand out - and be given whatever they need
 

dax

Junior member
49 1
The US is a world economic power because of the prevailing attitude of the people -- if you want to be rich -- you work for it.

In Europe the attitude is -- blame Blair, blaim Chirac, etc. No self-determination, no ambition to make one's life better by working. Stick your hand out and the government (aka taxpayers) shall give.
 

Newtron Bomb

Experienced member
1,602 86
Firstly what a brilliant read so far...

bbmac - an excellent view of the economic world :cheesy:

Just a quick view on the EU & single currency and like many things (including communism) it is a good idea and that is all it will ever be.

My main reasoning is that the US have done this when they unified the states and provided a single fiscal and monetary policy which as we know doesnt work to well.

So what is the EU doing to make a better go of a one-size -its-all-policy :?: Sweat F.A. they are copying an economic model that has proven itself over a couple of hundred years not to be efficient at handling the specific needs of its "member states"
It is all relative while some of the member state have seen an explosion in economic growth others will, and do, benefit or suffer at the handouts or lack of them. as long as on paper the figures demonstrate that the eu is on average healthy.... this is like saying if i stick my head in an oven and my feet on the freezer then my average temperature will be fine!!!!

I would suggest that some of the member states be seen as that of seeking JSA in the absence of an easy well paid job (no disrespect is meant to those genuinely seeking employment). They as others have mentioned be putting their energies into building an economy and not looking to see what handouts they can get.
 

Car Key Boi

Well-known member
396 8
dax said:
The US is a world economic power because of the prevailing attitude of the people -- if you want to be rich -- you work for it.

In Europe the attitude is -- blame Blair, blaim Chirac, etc. No self-determination, no ambition to make one's life better by working. Stick your hand out and the government (aka taxpayers) shall give.
affirmative about Americans wanting to be rich and being prepared to work for it although there is one exception to that, the ultra-Liberals who reside in the State of California...
 

Car Key Boi

Well-known member
396 8
for what it's worth, i don't think a United States of Eurotard could ever be in the same mould as the US. Yuo see, we Americans came from all over the world and we wiped the slate clean and made a fresh start. We created a new world for ourselves. And this we managed to do in spite of the fact that our Founding Fathers were a bunch of f**** morans who were unable to cope for themselves. But thanks to the generosity of the Native Indians, who gave food to the Pilgrams, we managed to survive and prosper. And in return, we killed the Indians and stole all their land - TROOF! But i digress. My point is that yuo guys have far too much history and too many disparate and deep rooted cultures. Even in the UK yuo have a bunch of Scots and Welsh who would like to see Scotland and Wales become independent countries, right? Same with the Catalans in Spain, same with the Basque region on the border of Spain/France. Even the Bellgims have duality issues with that Flanders and Flemish blah

what i'm trying to say, is that it is possible to lump yuo guys all together under one umbrella of a single super state that shares the same economy and currency blah, but yuo'll never be like the US in terms of "being a single nation"

simply put, Eurotards hate each other and will always be fighting amongst themselves at soccer matches
 

ChartMan

Legendary member
5,580 46
Not to mention the Irish, The froggies, the Eyeties, the greeks and Turks...., sorry If I missed someone.
 

bbmac

Veteren member
3,584 787
hi guys

re the posts above, i think the view of china expressed by 'stevet' is only partially right, certainly the work ethos is there, but at no time in china's history has it ever been a capitalist/economic force relative to other powers.

The problem pre-communism was simply size and a lack of organisation, and post-communism - the strangulation of any enterprise by the central docterine of 'central planning.' The factors of production are classed as land, labour, capital, enterprise, and of course the newest - information. China does not lack land and laabour but enterprise was not encouraged, and 'free capital' was scarce,' let alone information.

Communism/central planning goes against the very tacits of human nature; being individual freedom and progress, hence such regimes' need to keep the people in 'surfdom,' in fear of the state, with individual progress viewed as a crime against the state, - packaged as a crime against the collective good - the people.

Information was and is still in short measure, and whilst the new chinese leader recognises the need for economic reform, he may well be viewed similarly to gorbachov. Ie gorbachov believed that 'perestroika' - openness and 'glasnost' - reform could be achieved whilst maintaining an essentially communist system, but as he found out - give a little freedom and the people want more, and the floodgates are opened.

Economic reform in china over the last 10 years has been only as a result of the demands of the WTO and the world bank and were not fully embraced by the ruling committee.

So organised and effective capitalism is a long way off in China, and will remain so - so long as a communist regime remains in power. A post comminist china would regress, as Russia has whilst it and the people struggle to come to terms with new freedoms and the problems that come with them, although they probably wouldn't be starting from such a low base as Russia, it would like Russia take at least 2 generations to recover lost ground and become a true economic success.

The Us in particular and the west in general as mentioned in the previous post, do not want the competition but do want the markets, hence all trade agreements are haevily loaded in their favour. India is the exception as it is currently the only market in the world capable of challenging the Us or europe for economic supremacy, it having the only truly well routed democracy and free market economy. (India's biggest natural barrier to it's growth is it's extreme climate.)

Also stevet, the aid surrendered by the Us under the marshall plan, post ww2 was for reconstruction, as europe had, yet again been the main theatre of war, with huge reconstruction costs.

The us did not suffer these costs and hence it's economy grew faster and stronger. the post war settlements in all of the central european nations, the uk included made for an implicit promise of full employment and social justice for all, tenants that cost money, and it was only thatcher's supply side reforms that ended this post war settlement, recognising that the promise of full employment=low productivity/uncompetitiveness.

The resultant liberalisation of the free markets swept through europe, and made for huge changes not least social consequences, although it's european progress was slowed by the reunification costs of germnany (but that's another story.)

Newtron Bomb-thank you for your comments, - I probably tend to agree about your comments re: the Euro and the Us experience.

As european integration continues and the 1st/2nd post war generations die off (ie those that remember the after effects of war) i can see a time when a critical mass is reached, and a decision is faced about the prospect of a true federal states of a united europe.

Any type of integration beit socio or economic or political is self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating, ie integration begets integration, and people begin to think less of national self interest, or the 'little islander' isolationist view. But I can still not see a time in the next 2/3 decades when this will happen. The main threat to the Euro as a trading block/currency is it's member states' inability to effect further supply side reforms, which may result in a growth in inflation/unemployment/social costs = higher taxes = lower growth and recession.

This would severly test a new currency and it may yet flounder and fail. Britain is wise to keep it's wait and see policy although it will increase the political cost it has to pay. This has to be countered with the same thinking that keeps the U.N in business, ie: the fear of the vacumn,- it's the only show in town! (nature abhores a vacumn and quickly fills it !!)

Fear is as strong a force as greed.

My further predictions include Iran's ultimate nuclear compliance albeit protracted, and a diplomatic show down with N.Korea that will take us to the brink in that region.

China's ststed policy is for a non-nuclear korean penninsula and this is the most vital tool at the west's disposal along with the participation of Russia, Japan, and S.Korea. We all think this sabre rattling by N.Korea is a cry for economic help, particularly in terms of energy, to which the Us holds the key, but with a repressive dictator and closed society with no access to the contrary view/truth (?) some clever diplomacy will be required.

The neo- con hawks in the whitehouse may prevail over colin powell, - particularly if bush is returned in nov 2004, in which case-watch for a more potentially explosive outcome.

America's interventions in both afghanistan and iraq give it two further strategic outposts, - important particularly as turkey won't play ball. (Turkey was only granted membership of nato becasue of it's strategic geographical importance.)

The Us will come under increasing pressure from china and russia to give a little in the n.korea situation, after the spat/differences with them over iraq. It may well do so, if colin powell's diplomacy is not thwarted by the neo-cons. Remember that america has some history on the korean penninsula and there are still those around that remember it and see the current stand-off as unfinished business, in the same way as they saw iraq and the first gulf war of 1991.

The stakes are high economically and with potentially crippling social costs, the west needs to achieve the reforms with continued steady growth, whilst avoiding the fundamental mistakes made in the late 80's/early 90's which were the downside of so called reagonomics.

The Us really has to sort out it's current account defecit, and trade barriers albeit a tempting and obvious solutions, are not the answer, they will have to export their way out of the problem. So maybe the pre-emptive foreign poilcy is economically motivated as well, - conspiracy theorists, over to you..................
 
Last edited:

Car Key Boi

Well-known member
396 8
bbmac said:



America's interventions in both afghanistan and iraq give it two further strategic outposts...........

The Us really has`to sort it's current account defecit, and trade barriers albeit a tempting and obvious solutions, are not the answer, they will have to export their way out of the problem. So maybe the pre-emptive foreign poilcy is economically motivated as well, - conspiracy theorists, over to you..................
iraq in particular is a good strategic outpost. Ideal for launching an invasion against Saudi Arabia :devilish:

 

bbmac

Veteren member
3,584 787
Saudi Arabia- now there is a subject, where respect for diversity is tested to breaking point.

If they didn't have all the oil, pumped out by western technology (!) would we be dealing with them? answers on a postcard to: past and present governments of supposedly rational western democratic sovereign countries?

The biggest flaw in our democratic system (uk) and western systems in general is that we elect dictatorships, but hey, pragmatism must prevail...................no ideology /ethicacy allowed.
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock