The EU wants its own military.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Also as I made clear above I don't have a fundamental objection to "superstates". I just dislike the fact that you mention a few words and people start off with the most coma-inducing idiocy you can imagine. Also I don't remember the french and germans saying they do want a super-state

It's a combination of the comments made by their representatives at this conference and their general attitude to future planning - all the stupid ideas like the European Police, Armed Forces and Foreign Minister seem to originate from France and Germany.

(Saying France and Germany is getting boring. They are acting like the same country (like the French bloke speaking for both countries recently), so I'll treat them as such. From now on they can be Framany or Germance.)

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

If they're going to vote I'd hope they'd at least read the basic facts at hand rather than relying on the (mis)interpretations of others.

It would help though if it wasn't hundreds of pages long.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

There are foreign language newspapers in most countries.

imports yes, but not own newspapers. i cant think of a single german newspapaer that is published in another language. (except for some transaltions on their websides)

It would indeed look like those things if your coalition had actually made the slightest bit of difference.

it did. bush still didnt get the support he needs. he does have neither enough troops nor enough money.

Which might go down the toilet once other countries realise that the poorer countries in the Eurozone have the same currency as you but with workers willing to work for much less.

and how exactly does not joing the euro protect you from that? its low wages vs productivity, thats all.

Currency is, and always has been, a political issue, not just an economic one.

I don't want us to lose the ability to manage our own currency and set our own interest rates.

since 1949 the currency has not been a political issue here AT ALL. the policy had absolutly no influence on the central bank. worked out pretty good.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Bunga

No country other than the US can freely set their own interest rates anyway.

i disagree. its not like every centralbank blindly follows the us-policy. certainly the state of the us-economy has an influence on the rest of the world, but the larger economies set their interest rates according to their own needs.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Proteus

It's a combination of the comments made by their representatives at this conference and their general attitude to future planning - all the stupid ideas like the European Police, Armed Forces and Foreign Minister seem to originate from France and Germany.

(Saying France and Germany is getting boring. They are acting like the same country (like the French bloke speaking for both countries recently), so I'll treat them as such. From now on they can be Framany or Germance.)

God forbid they suggest anything for the future of the EU! You do realise we all signed the Maastricht and Nice treaties? Unified policies on justice, home and foreign affairs, economic policies and the full establishment of the single market?

It would help though if it wasn't hundreds of pages long.

The laziness of people is hardly an excuse to alter the constitution. If they care about democracy they'll read up on it.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

imports yes, but not own newspapers. i cant think of a single german newspapaer that is published in another language. (except for some transaltions on their websides)

Germany doesn't have as many people as the US.

I don't know about newspapers, but there are loads of foreign language TV channels in the UK.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

it did. bush still didnt get the support he needs. he does have neither enough troops nor enough money.

He has more than enough troops. You don't actually think the entire US Army is deployed in Iraq do you?

And I sincerely doubt Bush's political problems are in any way related to foreign resistence to war.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

since 1949 the currency has not been a political issue here AT ALL. the policy had absolutly no influence on the central bank. worked out pretty good.

It's not that politicians wouldn't be able to set interest rates, it's that it would be the ECB setting them for the whole of Europe rather than the BOE for the UK.

[Bunga]

Its not just that they follow the lead of the US Federal Reserve, but any economic bloc (ie country) has to have similar rates of inflation to their trading partners or lose out in the balance of trade. Interest rates are always set very close to interest rates in the US for this reason.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

God forbid they suggest anything for the future of the EU! You do realise we all signed the Maastricht and Nice treaties? Unified policies on justice, home and foreign affairs, economic policies and the full establishment of the single market?

Yes, I do realise that, and I think it was a bad idea.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The laziness of people is hardly an excuse to alter the constitution. If they care about democracy they'll read up on it.

But the US one is really short. Why does the EU one have to be so long?

[Bunga]

Ah I see the problem here... You don't want 25 unelected officials in Frankfurt who cannot be removed therough democratic means setting your interest rates, you want however many unelected men you have in London who cannot be removed thorugh democratic means setting your rates.

The geographical location of the men is very important I see.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Ah I see the problem here... You don't want 25 unelected officials in Frankfurt who cannot be removed therough democratic means setting your interest rates, you want however many unelected men you have in London who cannot be removed thorugh democratic means setting your rates.

The geographical location of the men is very important I see.

Yes, that is exactly it.

The BOE sets rates for the benefit of the UK, the ECB for the benefit of the whole of Europe.

The democracy of the process is irrelevant.

[Bunga]

Maybe Liverpool should have their own currency then, and set the interest rates for the benefit of Liverpool, rather than the whole of Britain.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Maybe Liverpool should have their own currency then, and set the interest rates for the benefit of Liverpool, rather than the whole of Britain.

Now you're just being silly.

[Bunga]

I'm not you know. Why shouldn't Liverpool set their own interest rates to benefit them? After all, why is the bloc know as "Britain" different from the bloc known as "Liverpool", economically speaking? Its just a matter of scale.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

And maybe not, have you though about that?

Yes.

[Bunga]

Ok... that was supposed to be a new post, not an edit, but nevermind.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

I'm not you know. Why shouldn't Liverpool set their own interest rates to benefit them? After all, why is the bloc know as "Britain" different from the bloc known as "Liverpool", economically speaking? Its just a matter of scale.

Because the UK is a country, and Liverpool isn't.

[Bunga]

And an EU "superstate" is a country too, and if Liverpool gets their own currency and sets their own interest rates, its a country too.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Germany doesn't have as many people as the US.

I don't know about newspapers, but there are loads of foreign language TV channels in the UK.

produced in the uk? i can watch cnn or bbc world here aswell, if i want to, but thats besides the point.

He has more than enough troops. You don't actually think the entire US Army is deployed in Iraq do you?

And I sincerely doubt Bush's political problems are in any way related to foreign resistence to war.

with more political support and a proper uno-resolution it would be far more easy for him to get money and troops. and no, bush does not have enough troops. the circulation periode (i.e. the nuber of month someone has to spend in iraq) had to be increased because there were not enough troops. they had to call up reservists because there are not enough troops. lets not even start talking about the money. i doubt the situation would havbe been that extreme with uno-support (i mean, look at afganistan...)

It's not that politicians wouldn't be able to set interest rates, it's that it would be the ECB setting them for the whole of Europe rather than the BOE for the UK.

now, thats a valid point. one i disagree with though. but that doesnt make it a political issue.
well, i dont really disagree with the point. it might be usefull to be able to set interest rates. we were close to deflation here last year. but the benefits of the euro outwieght that risks. its quite expensive to secure yourself against exchange-rate risks. smaller companies can not effort that and the bigger ones loose lots of money. extreme changes in exchange-rates can do more damage to an economy than a wrong interest rate, especially if you consider that on the long run the economies will be somewhat sychnized.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

And an EU "superstate" is a country too, and if Liverpool gets their own currency and sets their own interest rates, its a country too.

If the EU becomes a superstate, then of course it should have its own currency.

But I don't want it to become a superstate.

And I don't think having a currency is sufficient to make somewhere a country. After all, if it were, France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc would no longer be countries.

[Bunga]

Its a neccesary requirement for being a country, but its certainly not sufficient, you are right there. So if Liverpool were institute its own currency it would become a new country, but if Bulgaria adpoted the UK currency it wouldn't just become part of the UK.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Its not just that they follow the lead of the US Federal Reserve, but any economic bloc (ie country) has to have similar rates of inflation to their trading partners or lose out in the balance of trade. Interest rates are always set very close to interest rates in the US for this reason.

not exactly. the FED (or whatever it is called, the centralbank of the usa) lowered the interest rates many times in the last years, the ECB didnt, neither did the BoE.

but the dollar is finished anyway

[ParraCida]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

but the dollar is finished anyway

You had better hope it isn't.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by ParraCida

You had better hope it isn't.

one can hope a lot, but i dont see a way around it. unfortunatly we will have to deal with it.

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

not exactly. the FED (or whatever it is called, the centralbank of the usa) lowered the interest rates many times in the last years, the ECB didnt, neither did the BoE.

but the dollar is finished anyway

True. What I said was a lot more true before the ECB reacged where it is today. The EU has begun to challenge USA economically already, but then it could be said that in the countries close to the Eurozone they set their interest rates according to what ECB does rather than what the Federal Reserve does.

That just means that only two economic blocs can set their own interest rates, rather than one.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

produced in the uk? i can watch cnn or bbc world here aswell, if i want to, but thats besides the point.

I'm hardly an expert, but I think that at least some of them are produced in the UK.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

with more political support and a proper uno-resolution it would be far more easy for him to get money and troops. and no, bush does not have enough troops. the circulation periode (i.e. the nuber of month someone has to spend in iraq) had to be increased because there were not enough troops. they had to call up reservists because there are not enough troops. lets not even start talking about the money. i doubt the situation would havbe been that extreme with uno-support (i mean, look at afganistan...)

The US doesn't care about UN resolutions, except as a convenient way to get other countries to fall in line. I can't imagine any US politicians actually caring that he didn't get another resolution at the moment.

And attributing Bush's political problems to your lack of support for war is rather silly.

(It's called the UN, by the way. Uno is a type of Fiat, and a card game.)

And the US Army has about a million troops, of whom about a quarter of whom were used to invade Iraq. I don't see that as a "lack of troops".

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Bunga

True. What I said was a lot more true before the ECB reacged where it is today. The EU has begun to challenge USA economically already, but then it could be said that in the countries close to the Eurozone they set their interest rates according to what ECB does rather than what the Federal Reserve does.

That just means that only two economic blocs can set their own interest rates, rather than one.

yes, the policy of the most important trading partner is always an important factor ( exchange rate risks) but the larger economies (the us, eurozone, japan,...) can also take other decissions if it would benefit their economies for other reasons.
(sorry, i forgot where we disagreed :/, just wanted to say something)

[Bunga]

Can I take the fact that you just agreed with me to mean I actually convinced someone over the internet? w00t! Thats two people in my life!

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I'm hardly an expert, but I think that at least some of them are produced in the UK.

i niether an expert, but i doubt it. there are probably not enough imigrants in uk for that.

The US doesn't care about UN resolutions, except as a convenient way to get other countries to fall in line. I can't imagine any US politicians actually caring that he didn't get another resolution at the moment.

And attributing Bush's political problems to your lack of support for war is rather silly.

(It's called the UN, by the way. Uno is a type of Fiat, and a card game.)

And the US Army has about a million troops, of whom about a quarter of whom were used to invade Iraq. I don't see that as a "lack of troops".

then why all the attempts to get an un-resolution? i read what i wrote in quite a lot of newspapaers.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Can I take the fact that you just agreed with me to mean I actually convinced someone over the internet? w00t! Thats two people in my life!

i dont think we disagreed in the first place .


PS slightly off topic: i have some theory about discussions on the internet. did you know that in a conversation the actual words you choose make up only 6-8%? the rest is body language and the voice. on the internet you only have these 6-8% and thus never convice anyone of anything .

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

i niether an expert, but i doubt it. there are probably not enough imigrants in uk for that.

Star TV is an Indian TV channel run from the UK and broadcast in the UK.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

then why all the attempts to get an un-resolution?

He knew it would help to get other countries involved if he had a UN resolution.

He didn't do it to get political support at home.

Once he invaded without a resolution, he stopped caring about it. So did the US.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

i read what i wrote in quite a lot of newspapaers.

German newspapers, no doubt.

[Bunga]

I've been convinced on the net once before, and convinced one other person. Can't you change your mind, and say that we were disagreeing and that I did convince you, so I can bring my count up to 2?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

He knew it would help to get other countries involved if he had a UN resolution.

He didn't do it to get political support at home.

Once he invaded without a resolution, he stopped caring about it. So did the US.
German newspapers, no doubt.

and now he cares again, because he needs more troops and more money. ofc he had enough troops to invade the iraq. he could even have done that without support by uk, but he doesnt have enough to keep up control.
there was an article in the new york times just a few days ago about how there are not enough troops to guard all of iraqs weapons. another one a few month ago was about how soldiers got annoyed because they couldnt go home because there were not replacments for them. i cant belive you missed the whole thing?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

and now he cares again, because he needs more troops and more money. ofc he had enough troops to invade the iraq. he could even have done that without support by uk, but he doesnt have enough to keep up control.
there was an article in the new york times just a few days ago about how there are not enough troops to guard all of iraqs weapons. another one a few month ago was about how soldiers got annoyed because they couldnt go home because there were not replacments for them. i cant belive you missed the whole thing?

I don't read the New York Times. Why would I?

I'm hardly surprised the soldiers want to go home. It's a hot country. But you don't just replace soldiers every 2 months - it costs too much to transport them.

Like I said, the US Congress refusing to give him more money is because of public opinion going against the war and disliking the continuous deaths there. They couldn't care less that he didn't get a resolution (and frankly, neither do I).

[Azof]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

but the dollar is finished anyway

Lol... keep telling yourself that

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I don't read the New York Times. Why would I?

I'm hardly surprised the soldiers want to go home. It's a hot country. But you don't just replace soldiers every 2 months - it costs too much to transport them.

Like I said, the US Congress refusing to give him more money is because of public opinion going against the war and disliking the continuous deaths there. They couldn't care less that he didn't get a resolution (and frankly, neither do I).

it was on news.bbc.co.uk aswell, on reuters.com, almost everywhere. it was planed to keep the soldiers there for 3 month, then replace them, so that there are always fresh troops. but that periode was extended to 6 month (i think).
again, i ask: why do you think the us trys so hard to get more foreign troops into iraq?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Azof

Lol... keep telling yourself that

its simple market-logic, thats all. personally i would prefer everything staying as is, but thats impossible to acomplish.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

again, i ask: why do you think the us trys so hard to get more foreign troops into iraq?

Because it costs less than having their own troops in Iraq.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Because it costs less than having their own troops in Iraq.

lol, certainly.
PS and $ 8.5 billion for 10,000 soldiers from turkey is cheap?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

lol, certainly.
PS and $ 8.5 billion for 10,000 soldiers from turkey is cheap?

If they want to waste their money, that's their business.

[Azof]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

its simple market-logic, thats all.

Whoa, wait a second I want to hear your "simple market-logic"

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Azof

Whoa, wait a second I want to hear your "simple market-logic"

dollar drops constantly, which on the long run is inevitable because of the us-trade deficit.
people lose trust in the dollar and switch to other currencies. by doing that the us-economy gets damaged, reducing the trust in the dollar even more.
some people seem to think a weak currency is good for an economy, but that isnt true. how many large economies are there around which have weak currencies?
i could write half a page here, but ive got the feeling that that would be a waste of my time.

[Azof]

Then how can you explain the strength of many of the southeast asian economies?

[Bunga]

Wu, did you forget that as the US dollar drops in value the trade defecit will automatically correct itself as imports to the US become more expensive and exports from the US less expensive from the viewpoint of the countries importing?

Thats elementary economics.

[Devilizer]

Originally Posted by Bunga

The Swedish Kustjägare are better.

Bah, Nothing beats the Norwegian Telemarksbataljon or the Fallskjermjegere.
\o/ Kicked SO the americans ass during the last joint. Rawr!

/me shakes fists

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Devilizer

Bah, Nothing beats the Norwegian Telemarksbataljon or the Fallskjermjegere.
\o/ Kicked SO the americans ass during the last joint. Rawr!

/me shakes fists

I think you'll find that the SAS are the best.

(And the Telemarksbataljon sounds awfully like an organisation of Telemarketers or Telemark Skiers.)

[Marilyn Manson]

If it's going to be limited to a role as a task force for settling conflicts as they arise, peacekeeping, etc, then it should be fine. I can't really see the point of it ever becoming a bona-fide standing military, as it'd hardly ever be used, due to attitutdes about settling issues within Europe, I.E, that they should be settled (Mostly) through diplomatic channels.

You could talk about the neccesity of 'hard' power to back up diplomatic strength, but that rests on the assumption that The EU is going to develop a coherent, single and viable attitude in foreign policy, which isn't going to happen soon, if ever.

The 'Foreign Minister' thing is probably a bad idea if the remit of the post is too wide and ambitious, which it probably will be.

[Proteus]

But I don't see the point in having a new European Rapid Reaction Force, if that is what this is going to be.

We are already capable of responding quickly to a situation with our own armed forces, and if the problem is bigger then we have NATO, or we can co-ordinate with other countries (Australia and New Zealand, amongst others) to respond independently of NATO.

There just doesn't seem to be any actual need for this other than France and Germany wanting to have an EU Army to make it look important.

Are any situations likely to arise in the future when this would actually help?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Wu, did you forget that as the US dollar drops in value the trade defecit will automatically correct itself as imports to the US become more expensive and exports from the US less expensive from the viewpoint of the countries importing?

Thats elementary economics.

in theory yes. the imports will drop, that for sure. il try to translate something i read in another forum. it sounds covicing to me. (im not sure if i translate everything corretly though, not sure about all these words. it has been a while since my buiness-english lessons and in that class we mostly talked about arsenal london anyway ).

on the first view a falling dollar is good for us-exports, bad for us-imports, good for eu-imports and bad for eu-exports. but thats not the whole story.
imagine you are a manager of a european pension-fond, you invest in bonds only, because your customers dont like the risks.
now lets assume the following situation: interest-rate in the us 5%, interestrate in the eu 4.5%. if there are no exchange-rate risks, the choice is clear, you will buy us-bonds. but if you see an exchange-rate risk of lets say 10% over the next year, you risk losing up to 5% of your investments. now you most likely will sell us-bonds and buy eu-bonds.
so far so good?
if many european fonds act that way us-bonds fall and the europeans rise.
example:
$100 invested in us-bond = 5$ profit
?100 invested in a european bond = 4.5? profit.
because many people sell us-bonds the price falls to $90, but you still get the 5$. now you get an interest-rate of 5.5%, if it falls to $80 you even get 6.25%.
in europe the situation is the other way round. if the prices rise to 110 ? the interest rate falls to 4%.
so we see: the weaker the dollar the more money will be moved out of the us and the bigger the difference of the interest rate is (6.25% vs. 4%)

so whats the situation for an us-fond now? ofc that fond doesnt care about exchange-rate risks, because it calculates in $ anyway. the only thing that matters is comparing stocks and bonds. the dividend (dont know the right word, hell, my english is really bad , the part of a companies profit you get for owning a share) must be higher than whatever the us-bonds pays, the risks for stocks are higher.
so we have to assume now that us-fond managers will sell us-stocks and buy us-bonds instead.

so far we have: europeans sell us-bonds and us-fonds buy this bonds and sell stocks.

another point of view:
a rich us investor will regard us-bonds as the most secure investment on earth. all other posibilities are compared to it. if now an us-company wants to give out a bond aswsell, for a long term investment or wahtever, it has to pay more than the us-goverment. in the example that was 6.25%, so the company would have to pay 6.% - 8%, depends on the risks.
the same is true for mortgage and other forms of credit.
if the interest-rates in general rise, companies and private people have to spend more of their income to pay for their debts. this means they do have less money to spend on investments and consumption.
because private consumption makes up 70% of the us GNP, this means the following for us companies:
- higher prices for imported raw-materials
- less consumption
- higher prices for their loans / bonds / whatever

back to the original question: is a weak dollar good for the us economy?
the answer is no, because
a) weak dollar means foreigners sell us-bonds.
b) because of that the bonds fall, the long-term interest rises
c) the interest for the customers rise
d) because of that these peole have less money for consumption
e) the industry suffers, because it has to deal with higher prices for raw materials, higher costs for their credits and less consumption
f) bad for the economy as a whole.

a weak currency means a weak economy

you can even translate this into 'a strong currency means a strong economy'. if the money flows back to europe, it needs to be invested somewhere. this means it becomes easier for european companies to get cheap money.

i hope its at least half understandable. my english-vocabulary on this subject isnt that good. i hope you can see now why a weak currency can cause quite a lot of problems.

oh, and lets not forget about bushs current budget-policy. it causes higher interest-rates, even without exchange-rate risks.

PS why doesnt the ?-sign work? replace ? with euro

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

If it's going to be limited to a role as a task force for settling conflicts as they arise, peacekeeping, etc, then it should be fine. I can't really see the point of it ever becoming a bona-fide standing military, as it'd hardly ever be used, due to attitutdes about settling issues within Europe, I.E, that they should be settled (Mostly) through diplomatic channels.

You could talk about the neccesity of 'hard' power to back up diplomatic strength, but that rests on the assumption that The EU is going to develop a coherent, single and viable attitude in foreign policy, which isn't going to happen soon, if ever.

The 'Foreign Minister' thing is probably a bad idea if the remit of the post is too wide and ambitious, which it probably will be.

the opinion of the people within the european union doesnt seem to be that far apart. so it should be possible to find a common point of view on foreign affairs issues. unfortunatly in case of iraq noone even tried. i still think we can make this work.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Are any situations likely to arise in the future when this would actually help?

Personally, I think NATO is far too nebulous a concept at the moment, not to mention that it's too widely spread politically. Defining a European force that is more suited to dealing with European regional problems, and is clear as to it's mandate would be a step in the right direction.

I would be strongly in favour of NATO simply retaining it's status as a mutual-defence pact, and the actual 'active' military areas being left to the members - which is essentialy what is going to be the de facto situation soon, if it isn't practically that already.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

the opinion of the people within the european union doesnt seem to be that far apart. so it should be possible to find a common point of view on foreign affairs issues. unfortunatly in case of iraq noone even tried. i still think we can make this work.

I really do feel sorry for you if you think this is the case.

Iraq was a demonstration of the problem, not an exception to it.