View Full Version : Us v EEC Long Term
While the US is still clearly the dominant force in the international economy the EEC (is it still called that) seems to be making some good moves with its euro currency and unified policies. It's possible that the europeans may eventually eclipse the US in terms of economic influence and size (not to mention all those other qualitative factors that are so easy to argue about:) ).
Has the damage caused by WW1 and WW2 finally coming to a halt and Europe starting to claw back some of its dominance on the world scene? If so will this leave Australia out in the cold?
What if the European Union used their collective might to fundamentally change the way ALL our lives are lived.
For example:
Europe hosts some of the most advanced automotive companies in the world - Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari to name a few. What if the EU banded together and developed an automobile that could be easily mass produced and mass marketed AND that ran on a cheap alternative fuel like hydrogen or electricity or even magnetic fields.
The technology to do this is either already available or at any rate, near enough that it doesn't matter.
Such a move would break the reliance on the oil producing countries of the Midde East (drying up funds for terrorism?) and would severely disadvantage the USA with their none to subtle interests in that region.
If the EU could get to market quickly and steal a march on the US automotive industry, then the (already shaky) USA economy would be squarely on the whole would be on the back foot and may take a while to recover.
I think this would possibly advantage Australia. The USA haven't really done us too many favours as a trading partner and our real relationship with them is one based on protection. While the USA are our buddies (ie., have interests here), there is nobody who would be stupid enough to invade.
Europe on the other hand, with their increased wealth (and presumably increased population) may well need to increase trade with Australia, particularly in the areas where the USA are screwing us (ie., Wheat).
Pessimistic
28 Dec 2001, 07:27
Originally posted by CJH
What if the European Union used their collective might to fundamentally change the way ALL our lives are lived.
For example:
Europe hosts some of the most advanced automotive companies in the world - Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari to name a few. What if the EU banded together and developed an automobile that could be easily mass produced and mass marketed AND that ran on a cheap alternative fuel like hydrogen or electricity or even magnetic fields.
The technology to do this is either already available or at any rate, near enough that it doesn't matter.
Such a move would break the reliance on the oil producing countries of the Midde East (drying up funds for terrorism?) and would severely disadvantage the USA with their none to subtle interests in that region.
If the EU could get to market quickly and steal a march on the US automotive industry, then the (already shaky) USA economy would be squarely on the whole would be on the back foot and may take a while to recover.
I think this would possibly advantage Australia. The USA haven't really done us too many favours as a trading partner and our real relationship with them is one based on protection. While the USA are our buddies (ie., have interests here), there is nobody who would be stupid enough to invade.
Europe on the other hand, with their increased wealth (and presumably increased population) may well need to increase trade with Australia, particularly in the areas where the USA are screwing us (ie., Wheat).
If europe became more powerful than the US watch out for the bombs to start falling !
Originally posted by Pessimistic
If europe became more powerful than the US watch out for the bombs to start falling !
Can you elaborate Pessimistic, if Europe were more economically powerful I can't see why there would be any more bombs falling than there already is?
Interesting point about the automotice industry CJH. Personally, I think Europe may not even have to concern themselves with alternate fuel technologies. The oil and gas reserves throughout the ex-Soviet states are enormous, not even considering future exploration potential. When Europe taps into this fuel supply through overland pipelines there will be a whole range of benefits.
Porthos
28 Dec 2001, 13:07
You ought to be thinking more about the US and the EU combining and squeezing us the hell out. Unlike US companies, there's no international government trying to stop monopolies.
Pessimistic
28 Dec 2001, 15:09
I don't think the US would tolerate a more powerful europe.
They have established a precedent bombing the crap out of a country accused of harbouring terrorists.
There was no process of law so they could declare terrorists enemies anywhere.
Which is the only country to drop an atomic bomb on another country ?
Ask NZ how 'friendly' the US can be.
The idea that Europe in the guise of the EU can be compared with a single country that has unified aims is misleading.
There are crackpot politicians in each country in Europe whose aim is to create a 'United States of Europe' but this flies in the face of the will of the majority & of common sense.These politicians tend to occupy the centre left ground & have somehow created a situation where they wield more power than they should in relation to the general support for there policies.
The idea that single European curreny (Euro) is a good thing is laughable.They're (politicians) starting to try to crank up the pressure on British people to accept that the Euro is in our best interests as we are one of the few countries that will not be replacing our currency with it on Jan 1.
But of the countries that are it looks like it will cause a considerable economic downturn which is just what isn't needed at the moment with a downturn in the 'world economy' happening anyway.Basically for countries to share a common curreny they must also share the same exchange rates, so a country like Ireland that has enjoyed unparelled economic growth in the last few years must share interst rates with Germany whose economy is sluggish-this flies in the face of all estabilshed economic thinking & most experts predict high levels of inflation in Ireland which is possibly the most undesirable of all economic trends.Some of the weaker economies like Portugal can't even adopt the Euro yet because they are unable to fullfill certain criterea and don't like likely to for the foreseeable future.
In Denmark when they had a referendum on whether to replace the Krone with the Euro there was a massive 'Yes' campaign to try to bully people into accepting it & in what I would imagine was an umprecedented alliance the 2 main parties backed the Yes vote as did the Unions & the leaders of big bussiness & yet despite spending millions & millions the people still voted 'No'.What they fail to realise is that National identity is important to people & thye don't want to be swallowed up into some souless European super state.
There is strong competition within the EU for subsidies which lead to complacency & waste-there are many examples of farmers earning more per sq metre of land for having a field lying doing nothing thatn for actually growing crops.Farmers are paid to pour milk away as they've exceeded their quotas.In the waters around Britain which used to be full of cod (cod was always the main fish in fish & chip shops & the cheapes) there are now severe shortages & worries about the long term prospects of cod due to foreign fisherman particularly from Spain & Belgium coming in & intensively fishing the waters with much bigger boats than British fisherman traditionally use.As Britain no longer has rights to its own fishing waters there's nothing we can do.
I really don't think in practice you can put people from different countires with different cultures together in this way & expect it to work.What started off as a trading system that held mutual benefits for all has grown into an uncontrollable monster that won't rest until European national identities are dead & we live in one country called Europe-it didn't work for the Soviet Union & it won't work now.
Just a thought Dipper....
If the politicians are unable to convince change through democracy then perhaps they may have to consider some more ... err, hum ... old-fashioned means of land aqcuisition....
Like War! :D
London Dave
29 Dec 2001, 05:34
The damage of WW2 was pretty much fixed by 1950 (inwestern europe at least, the old warsaw pact countries have a different tale to tell). The much talked about Marshall plan did not rebuild europe per se, but 'forced' the governments to implement 'pro growth' policies...but the story of the Marshall plan is for another thread pehaps.
The EU could possibly be the equal of the US in the future, but i would figure the US is still the worlds economic powerhouse by a long way.
On the Euro, I think the UK will join (eventuallly) and it will be a good thing. The actual use of Euro notes will have no effect on the countries econonies, their currencies have been pegged to the floating Euro since 97 so to forsee the Euro as the harbinger of doom is a bit rich,)
On Dippers points regarding...
Denmark..the Krone is pegged to the Euro, so its no big deal, and latest polls put pro Euro at 51 to 49, which was the opposite of the way the actual vote went.)
Ireland...been in trouble for a while, and they have benefitted enormously from the EU 'equalisation fund(?)', and thier growth came in hi tech to no small degree, which is suffering a downturn worldwide unless I'm mistaken.
Agree with the disaster that is farm subsidies...and the rape of the cod stocks is a perfect example of the EU FU's. Iceland stayed out of the EU for that very reason, and have the only self sustaining cod stocks in the nthn hemisphere. But the EU is not alone at mismanagement...re The Grand Banks.
on the original point, regarding whether Australia is gonna be 'left in the cold', I doubt it. It will hopefully build on the efforts of the last 15 yrs or so to work into Asia and the Pac Rim. What europe does is of far less importance than Asia or the US performance.
Originally posted by London Dave
On the Euro, I think the UK will join (eventuallly) and it will be a good thing. The actual use of Euro notes will have no effect on the countries econonies, their currencies have been pegged to the floating Euro since 97 so to forsee the Euro as the harbinger of doom is a bit rich,)
Check out the news today LD(Sat) Germany are now actually contravening the economic rules that allow then to be part of the common currency because of the weakness in their economy.
What should they do?Follow a policy that further weakens their economy so that fullfill EURO criteria or stick to the guidlines & harm themselves?
Although it may be washing out now I don't think the WW2 problems were solved by the 50's. Major stumbling block was that Hitler wanted Europe to be the major part of the 3rd Reich. Even now many people wonder if the EEC is just the third reich in another name won by economic war rather than violence. I'm for the Euro though but the politics of Brussels is a joke.
Manufacturing of medium to heavy engineered products in Europe and USA cannot be competitive and will die. Do you know where BMW's are made that are imported into Australia? Germany....no.....South Africa! USA and EEC will compete in the tchnology war. USA keeps ahead because of space technology. Also as EEC gets stronger the USA will expect them to take a larger part in world policing, at a cost to the EEC taxpayer.
For Australia......status quo.......wheat, sheep, coal, iron ore and a bit of LPG........so rich a country we can afford to sit back and watch the world go round.
Porthos
30 Dec 2001, 15:24
The European countries already have a large hold in, as you put it, `policing the world'......when the US do this, they invariably become a major trading partner of the country `aided'. I think their policing pays for itself.
Blues2001
4 Jan 2002, 18:36
Originally posted by DIPPER
Some of the weaker economies like Portugal can't even adopt the Euro yet because they are unable to fullfill certain criterea and don't like likely to for the foreseeable future.
Portugal HAVE adopted the Euro I'm pretty sure.
Originally posted by DIPPER
In Denmark when they had a referendum on whether to replace the Krone with the Euro there was a massive 'Yes' campaign to try to bully people into accepting it & in what I would imagine was an umprecedented alliance the 2 main parties backed the Yes vote as did the Unions & the leaders of big bussiness & yet despite spending millions & millions the people still voted 'No'.What they fail to realise is that National identity is important to people & thye don't want to be swallowed up into some souless European super state.
It's no surprise that the Danish referendum came up with a 'no'. Most referendums do. I don't think any of the countries adopting the Euro had a referendum because they knew that there is almost no chance of it being a 'yes' vote.
Blues2001
4 Jan 2002, 18:40
Originally posted by London Dave
Denmark..the Krone is pegged to the Euro
If that is true I don't understand why they just didn't join and not bother having a referendum. If you are going to peg your currency to another then you are at a bit of a disadvantge in that you can't run your own monetary policy. So Denmark, since they are doing this, may as well reap the benefits of increased tourism and trade that will probably come with adopting the Euro since they are forgoing their own monetary policy.
Originally posted by Porthos
You ought to be thinking more about the US and the EU combining and squeezing us the hell out. Unlike US companies, there's no international government trying to stop monopolies.
Interesting point. I don't know how competition is going to be regulated or how it all plays out. Surely its not just one single economy encompassing the 12 odd countries adopting the Euro? Otherwise, wouldn't competition and regulation laws in each individual country still stand.
Australia's place? I dont think the United States really enters into it any more. I have a few theories on why this current geopolitical climate has arisen and what Australia's role will be.
1. The creation of the EEC could have advantages for Australia in terms of accessing greater markets for exported Australian goods. We haven't officially severed links with the UK so Britain could provide an in for the Australia into the European marketplace.
2. This official regionalism in Europe could possibly be seen as a backlash against globalisation and in that case, Australia should be jumping on the Asia bandwagon otherwise it could find itself excluded and isolated even further from world markets.
3. A backlash against globalisation is essentially a backlash against Americanisation and American culture. I don't think Australia is a country which needs to be concerned about its economic future but it will be interesting to see if any official backlashes against Americanisation results in deterioration of US trade relationships.
4. In my opinion, the Australian economy needs to become more heavily industrialised and start producing more manufactured goods.
Blah blah blah I don't think I've written essays this long. Sorry to bore you all. :D Its a topic close to my heart
Originally posted by Pessimistic
Which is the only country to drop an atomic bomb on another country ?
Bloody good thing they did too, else a few hundred thousand more allied troops might have died to end the war.
Ask NZ how 'friendly' the US can be.
The US bombed NZ did they?
the power doesnt lie with the US or the EU
rome will be reborn as a "republic" and america will fall
the real power is in the hands of the very few people (illuminati/freemasons -zionists mostly) who controll the worlds debts/interest rates and the worlds economy, almost every country in this world is being crippled by debt, even america is so far in debt its not funny, who controlls it all, who actually lent them the money if the countries controll it all, where is the interest going
more money goes through stockmarket transactions every day than is produced in the world for the whole year, who benefits..
Originally posted by ah_19
the power doesnt lie with the US or the EU
rome will be reborn as a "republic" and america will fall
the real power is in the hands of the very few people (illuminati/freemasons -zionists mostly) who controll the worlds debts/interest rates and the worlds economy, almost every country in this world is being crippled by debt, even america is so far in debt its not funny, who controlls it all, who actually lent them the money if the countries controll it all, where is the interest going
more money goes through stockmarket transactions every day than is produced in the world for the whole year, who benefits..
Well interest rates are generally controlled by government in order to regulate inflation and stimulate economies.
Debt is only real if Assets are lower than Liabilities. Despite large debts by many countries they are much smaller than the value of their nett assetsand projected income streams.
Although there are a few rich people that can make the odd ripple I can only think of one group that has the power to cause recession in the world and that is the OPEC oil consortium which is mostly Arab and Muslim. They also have enormous cash reserves throughout the world.
Originally posted by Dave
The US bombed NZ did they?
Actually the French bombed New Zealand.
The US intelligence agencies had in hindsight reliable information that the French government was about to commit an overt terrorist act but neglected to share this information with the NZ government until after the act.
The reason EVERY Kiwi practically overnight went nuclear free was to give all our so-called allies the finger.
Pessimistic
8 Jan 2002, 21:04
Originally posted by Player
Actually the French bombed New Zealand.
The US intelligence agencies had in hindsight reliable information that the French government was about to commit an overt terrorist act but neglected to share this information with the NZ government until after the act.
The reason EVERY Kiwi practically overnight went nuclear free was to give all our so-called allies the finger.
Thanks for the reply.
If that was a terrorist act, would the US, under current policy, demand the perpretrators be handed over by the French with Bombing as the alternative ?
Pessimistic
8 Jan 2002, 21:24
Originally posted by Dave
Bloody good thing they did too, else a few hundred thousand more allied troops might have died to end the war.
If the other side had the bomb too the US would not have dropped theirs.
In my opinion this is what has stopped the US using nuclear bombs since. Note how they have been very wary of Pakistan but quite wanton in their bombing of afghanistan, a country which is well bombed anyway
Blues2001
8 Jan 2002, 22:05
Originally posted by Player
[B]
Actually the French bombed New Zealand.
The US intelligence agencies had in hindsight reliable information that the French government was about to commit an overt terrorist act but neglected to share this information with the NZ government until after the act.
B]
When exactly was this?
Originally posted by Blues2001
When exactly was this?
Around 1985/86
The Greenpeace flagship the "Rainbow Warrior" docked in Auckland in preparation to sail to the French nuclear testing site of Moruroa Atoll was sunk by explosive charges attached below the vessels waterline.
Interestingly:
1.Two French agents were arrested, charged with murder, and eventually pleaded guilty in a New Zealand court of law to manslaughter and willful damage.
France was not bombed, nor were hundreds of French citizens, those of French descenent, or conspicious Francophiles arrested on trumped up charges.
2.A small army of co-conspirators were briefly detained when they sailed into Norfolk Island. Forensic investigation found incriminating evidence on their yacht, but they had already been released after which their yacht literally disappeared somewhere off Australia. (A French Submarine was known to be in the vicinity.)
3.The French government threatened to bureaucratically impede all New Zealand trade to the E.U. zone, the result of which the the two agents were extradited back to France after less than two years imprisonment.
It was a French act of 'state sponsored terrorism', but it was the Americans who got aggro when New Zealand public opinion decided the rest of the world should go and **** yourselves with all your nuclear weapons.
The stupidest Cold War in history which has not thawed out yet, USA and all its Reaganite chest thumping and flag waving verse New Zealand and its righteous indignation.
It is impossible not to see this war on terror as hypocrisy, Yes, America truly gives a damn about democracy and natural justice in this world, unless of course it interferes with a US special interest.
Originally posted by Player
Around 1985/86
The Greenpeace flagship the "Rainbow Warrior" docked in Auckland in preparation to sail to the French nuclear testing site of Moruroa Atoll was sunk by explosive charges attached below the vessels waterline.
Sinking a ship is hardly the same as bombing a country :rolleyes: (or State as NZ may be called by Australians)
And there is a viewpoint that the Rainbow Warrior was a 'terrorist ship' hiding in NZ waters (bin Laden in Afghanistan?) but that depends upon how you viewed the actions of 'greenpeace'
Originally posted by Frodo
Sinking a ship is hardly the same as bombing a country :rolleyes: (or State as NZ may be called by Australians)
And there is a viewpoint that the Rainbow Warrior was a 'terrorist ship' hiding in NZ waters (bin Laden in Afghanistan?) but that depends upon how you viewed the actions of 'greenpeace'
What is the difference between sinking a ship and bombing a country?
If sinking a ship in another country by using frogmen to attach explosive charges to a berthed ship known to be occupied is not exactly the same as 'bombing a country' I don't know what is. The consequences are intended to be exactly the same, only the methodology employed is different.
That is unless you differentiate 'bombing' presumedly military targets by aircraft as an act of war and the destruction of civilian targets as 'merely' a terrorist act. A trivial difference I would have thought.
"viewpoint that the Rainbow Warrior was a 'terrorist ship' "
It obviously can not be the French governments viewpoint, because they agreed to pay for a bigger, better, brighter, vessel to replace the Rainbow Warrior.
But please broaden my horizons, enlighten me whose viewpoint morally defends the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. Could it be the sponsors of the annual Japanese 'scientific' whaling fleet perhaps, or the respective American and European industrial/military complexes.
Don't feel the need for any critical evaluation and opposition to regional activity that blatantly depletes limited resources or overwhelms them with waste do you.
"hiding in New Zealand waters"
The vessel was in Auckland to take on crew and supplies to sail to the French possession of Moruroa Atoll.
The New Zealand government also sent a frigate to Moruroa Atoll in the 1970s as a classic example of gunboat diplomacy. Does that mean New Zealand not only harbours terrorists, but is in fact also a terrorist state?
Refugees from the West, Indonesia to the North, and the Great Satan New Zealand to the East. Australia has some sleepless nights ahead.
I think the key point is that it was not a NZ boat or owned by any NewZealander so the attack on it can hardly be an attack on NZ. And it was an attack on a foreign boat, not a city.
Analoly....let's see.
A tax collector parks his car in your driveway whilst visiting you about unpaid tax. Some guy who hates this tax inspector and notices his car in your drive slashes its tyres.
Do you then say it is an attack on you because his car was on your drive? I think not.
Perhaps a more suitable scenario.
A tax collector parks his car in your driveway whilst visiting you about unpaid tax. Some guy who hates the tax inspector knows his car will be in your driveway so rigs the fuel tank to explode killing the tax collectors wife in the passenger seat.
While the antagonist considered the tax collector to be a personal enemy, you were largely apathetic towards the tax collector, a person you had known from your previous encounters to be a law abiding citizen.
First does the attack on the car violate the sanctity of your home and your fundamental property rights, needlessly endangering and traumatising your family.
Does the attack leave you with the responsibility and cost of removing a murder scene from your driveway, negatively impacting on the perception of your neighbourhood and property values, while simultaneously infringing on your ability to lease part of your driveway for off street parking. I would say so.
Finally is there a universal law making it illegal to blow up cars and kill people in your driveway. Is the reason the car was blown up in your driveway because the antagonist assumed you lacked the capacity to protect your property rights.
According to your reasoning apparently I can go to any international airport in Australia and blow up all the foreign airliners I like. Provided only foreign tourists and air crews are killed obviously.
Originally posted by Player
Perhaps a more suitable scenario.
A tax collector parks his car in your driveway whilst visiting you about unpaid tax. Some guy who hates the tax inspector knows his car will be in your driveway so rigs the fuel tank to explode killing the tax collectors wife in the passenger seat.
While the antagonist considered the tax collector to be a personal enemy, you were largely apathetic towards the tax collector, a person you had known from your previous encounters to be a law abiding citizen.
First does the attack on the car violate the sanctity of your home and your fundamental property rights, needlessly endangering and traumatising your family.
Does the attack leave you with the responsibility and cost of removing a murder scene from your driveway, negatively impacting on the perception of your neighbourhood and property values, while simultaneously infringing on your ability to lease part of your driveway for off street parking. I would say so.
Finally is there a universal law making it illegal to blow up cars and kill people in your driveway. Is the reason the car was blown up in your driveway because the antagonist assumed you lacked the capacity to protect your property rights.
According to your reasoning apparently I can go to any international airport in Australia and blow up all the foreign airliners I like. Provided only foreign tourists and air crews are killed obviously.
I accept that as a reasonable analogy and you make many good points. My KEY point is that it is nopt an act of war on that country. Yes, it may be against a universal law, a wrong thing to do etc, but it is not an act of war on Australia if you go to an airport and blow up a foreign airplane. Act of terrorism against the owners of that airline and the crew/passengers yes, but act of war on Australia no......mainly because the 'intent' was not to war against Australia but against those associated with the plane.
I am not condoning the sinking of RW (despite my loathing of greenpeace {opens pandoras box :eek:} ), my point is purely that the act was not an act of war against NZ