Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EU a la Soviet Union ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dan Neely
    replied
    Interesting idea, but it'll never happen. France and Brittain would veto the reduction of thier individual power. IMOa complete removal of veto power would be an improvement, but again it'll never happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolfe Tone
    replied
    Re The Soviet Union, IIRC Soviet Ukraine had a vote in the General Assembly too.
    Each UN member should have its own vote. But on the Security Council there is urgent need for reform. I suggest

    USA
    Russia
    China
    India
    Japan
    EU
    Brazil

    and an Arab League member state and also one from the OAU ( I think they have just changed their name though). The major Arab and the African nations could take in turns to hold their seat.

    Thus

    USA
    Russia
    China
    India
    Japan
    EU
    Brazil
    Arab world
    African continent

    9 permanent members

    Nobody objects? It's fair right? Lets go for it then!

    Leave a comment:


  • Tex
    replied
    Originally posted by Tzar


    Hmmm, I think this is inaccurate. America has been, for most of its existence since 1776, quite self-sufficient economically. Political and economic isolationism was a key feature of America. Trade deficit was not a issue at all (in fact, I believe trade surpluses were the norm). The U.S. really stepped up on the world stage and broke this pattern with WWII and the Cold War.
    Trade includes capital inflows and outflows. Capital inflows + import products has almost always exceeded capital outflows + export products since the existence of British colonies that later became America. For the most part, American industrial growth was due to its gigantic internal market rather than exporting around the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tzar
    replied
    Originally posted by Tex


    The America has pretty much always had a trade deficit since the pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower. And the current increase is more indicative of how poorly the other major economies are doing than that state of the US economy.
    Hmmm, I think this is inaccurate. America has been, for most of its existence since 1776, quite self-sufficient economically. Political and economic isolationism was a key feature of America. Trade deficit was not a issue at all (in fact, I believe trade surpluses were the norm). The U.S. really stepped up on the world stage and broke this pattern with WWII and the Cold War.

    So the American trade deficit is a recent phenomenon, and the roots probably dates back to 1960s/1970s, although I haven't check the exact figures.

    Today, in spite of all his power, America is no more self-sufficient and is largely dependent on the world for its standard of living. America is now a big economic black hole that attracts vast portions of all the goods and services that are produced on the planet. The staggering trade deficit is there to prove it.

    Because of this, the American consumer, whether on an individual or corporate basis, fuels much of the planet's growth. But all this spending binge is also financed by the rest of the world.

    To offset such a huge trade deficit without becoming poorer requires from America an equivalent infusion of money. And indeed, the international capital flows going into America are as about as huge as the trade deficit itself. These important flows of capital to the U.S. explains in large part the exceptional strength of the U.S. dollar in the last decade.

    As long as this influx of money is keeping on, America can maintain this gargantuan trade deficit and maintain its consuming habits. But the day it will stop, it will spell trouble for the American economy who will lose an important source of cash.

    I read recently that some economists worry that this could become a reality with the burst of the tech bubble and the badly shaken confidence of foreign investors in the American economy with all these accounting scandals at Enron, Worldcom and others. All around the world, investing in the American economy was viewed as a safe haven for your money. Now, some foreign investors have second thoughts about it.
    Last edited by Tzar; 26 Feb 03, 22:32.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tex
    replied
    Originally posted by Kraut


    Europe is no global military power, agreed, but the economic power of the EU is at least equal to the US. I think its the US that'll get into serious economic trouble soon, Bushs achievments so far are to produce a 480 billion $ yearly deficit! Quite impressive.



    Oh yeah, I totally forgot, America is not part of this world and dont needs to care about potentially katastrophical global weather changes. All those nasty hurricanes and tornados will not bother the US because they didn't signed Kyoto, suuure The USA is responsible for 25% of the worlds CO2 emissions but the thereout resultuing greenhouse effect will only bother europe or asia but cant possible dare to disturb your american way of living, right ??
    The America has pretty much always had a trade deficit since the pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower. And the current increase is more indicative of how poorly the other major economies are doing than that state of the US economy.

    As for Kyoto, if CO2 emissions were truly causing climate change, Kyoto doesn't do anything to stop it. I should correct myself, instead of 5degrees of increase by 2094, the increase will happen in 2100, according to the UN's own studies.

    Also, as Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out, it would be cheaper to adjust to the climate change than to curtail economies by drastically reducing CO2 emissions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kraut
    replied
    Originally posted by Tex
    [B]Since they are no longer a military power and their economic power is on the wane, the domination of international institutions are the only way for Europe to play power politics.
    Europe is no global military power, agreed, but the economic power of the EU is at least equal to the US. I think its the US that'll get into serious economic trouble soon, Bushs achievments so far are to produce a 480 billion $ yearly deficit! Quite impressive.

    Fortunately for us, we are not playing their game and have decided to opt out on other institutions/agreements such as Kyoto and the WCC, which Europe uses to wage political/economic war against the US.
    Oh yeah, I totally forgot, America is not part of this world and dont needs to care about potentially katastrophical global weather changes. All those nasty hurricanes and tornados will not bother the US because they didn't signed Kyoto, suuure The USA is responsible for 25% of the worlds CO2 emissions but the thereout resultuing greenhouse effect will only bother europe or asia but cant possible dare to disturb your american way of living, right ??

    Leave a comment:


  • Tex
    replied
    Since they are no longer a military power and their economic power is on the wane, the domination of international institutions are the only way for Europe to play power politics.

    Therefore, Europe would sooner give up the 35 hour work week before they give up places in the UN.

    Fortunately for us, we are not playing their game and have decided to opt out on other institutions/agreements such as Kyoto and the WCC, which Europe uses to wage political/economic war against the US.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kraut
    replied
    Originally posted by Headshot
    as a european you really want france to voice your opinion for you?
    Who said that France would lead europe ? If at all Europe will form into a federal alliance, with some strong countries whos voice will be more important (France, Germany) and smaler countries, whos voice will be less important (Luxemburg) but still have influence. There won't be a one-nation-leads-europe, never.

    Leave a comment:


  • Headshot
    replied
    as a european you really want france to voice your opinion for you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Marko
    replied
    One country one vote - one group of countries under one umbrella one vote.

    Leave a comment:


  • Headshot
    replied
    the problem with such a move by the EU is that they arent as unified in opinion the Soviet Union was (and there arent guns pointed at their heads). But realistically there are far too many different idea for the EU to count as one vote. Orgiginally mind you, every continent was going to have a vote, and thats an even bigger set up for disaster. But atleast the EU doesnt have enough patience to stop squabbling, it helps democrats look very, very good.

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    started a topic EU a la Soviet Union ?

    EU a la Soviet Union ?

    Here's one that should get a rise out of the Europeans among us.

    When the UN was first established, the Soviet Union attempted to negotiate a position where they would have 15 votes in the General Assembly. The reasoning behind this was to allow each "independent" soviet to have a voice (to follow the Moscow line no doubt). Needless to say, this was opposed by all major signatories.

    How do you suppose things would work out if the EU were to be given the same consideration ? If they really want to speak as one voice, as Chirac so eloquently explained to his Eastern European brethren, then why should they have more than 1 seat in the UN General Assembly ?

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X