The EU wants its own military.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

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.

iraq war I?
yugoslavia?
afganistan?
and thats just the confilicts where military force was used.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

iraq war I?
yugoslavia?
afganistan?
and thats just the confilicts where military force was used.

You can't show times when people have agreed, ignore the times when they didn't, and say they will always agree in future.

Plus the very fact that the Yugoslav War happened demonstrates European differences.

[Marilyn Manson]

The difference between thought on foreign policy in The EU can be overstated.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

You can't show times when people have agreed, ignore the times when they didn't, and say they will always agree in future.

then in which caes did we disagree?

Plus the very fact that the Yugoslav War happened demonstrates European differences.

yugoslavia is not part of the eu though

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

You can't show times when people have agreed, ignore the times when they didn't, and say they will always agree in future.

The Iraq war was farily atypical, really, if you consider things in the long term. Most of the differences that have occured have been over the implementation of a certain idea rather than an idea itself.

Originally Posted by Proteus

Plus the very fact that the Yugoslav War happened demonstrates European differences.

What has that got to do with foreign policy issues?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

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.

Unfortunately, that won't be what this will be.

And I still see no point in creating a force that will do its job no better than the existing forces would, but with very limited control by the individual nations on their own armed forces.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

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.

Well that's what it always should be.

Mutual-attack pacts aren't generally a good idea.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

then in which caes did we disagree?

Do I actually need to answer this question?

Originally Posted by wu_trax

yugoslavia is not part of the eu though

So?

Did it occur to you that it is in Europe, and so it might be in the EU in the future?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

The Iraq war was farily atypical, really, if you consider things in the long term. Most of the differences that have occured have been over the implementation of a certain idea rather than an idea itself.

I thought the "idea" was pre-emptive attack, which we and Spain seem to agree with and France and Germany don't.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

What has that got to do with foreign policy issues?

The countries of what was once Yugoslavia fought each other, didn't they?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Do I actually need to answer this question?.

thats why i asked it, so YES, please.

So?

Did it occur to you that it is in Europe, and so it might be in the EU in the future?

but it isnt right now. if was a foreign affairs issue, just like afganistan and iraq.
would the us consider a civil war in mexcio an internal problem?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Unfortunately, that won't be what this will be.

Why not? It seems to be that's the only real thing being proposed atm.

Originally Posted by Proteus

And I still see no point in creating a force that will do its job no better than the existing forces would, but with very limited control by the individual nations on their own armed forces.

Well, technically, it's simply a force with better political organisation than NATO, with a more specific remit. I don't know how exactly how it results in any greater a loss of soverignty than NATO produces tbh. It's the same esential principle, but better organised and guided.

Originally Posted by Proteus

Well that's what it always should be.

Mutual-attack pacts aren't generally a good idea.

I can't tell if you're being dopey or just disengenuous here.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

thats why i asked it, so YES, please.

Iraq.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

but it isnt right now. if was a foreign affairs issue, just like afganistan and iraq.
would the us consider a civil war in mexcio an internal problem?

No, but the US isn't advocating a policy of eventual common American foreign policy, is it?

If countries in Europe can fight each other as recently as the 1990s it makes the concept of common European foreign policy look rather silly.

If the Yugoslav countries can do it, why not Spain and Portugal?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Iraq.

that one vs three i mentioned. and one that could have been avoided, if some politicians would have some sence of what is good for europe (this includes schröder and chirac).

No, but the US isn't advocating a policy of eventual common American foreign policy, is it?

the usa already has a common foreign affairs policy.

If countries in Europe can fight each other as recently as the 1990s it makes the concept of common European foreign policy look rather silly.

If the Yugoslav countries can do it, why not Spain and Portugal?

so, if there can be a cvil war somewhere in america, why not between, lets say california and nevada?

PS great, now we write a whole page and bunga misses my post 15 minutes for nothing

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Why not? It seems to be that's the only real thing being proposed atm.

Well, technically, it's simply a force with better political organisation than NATO, with a more specific remit. I don't know how exactly how it results in any greater a loss of soverignty than NATO produces tbh. It's the same esential principle, but better organised and guided.

"The European Union pushed ahead Friday with efforts to build its own defense arm but sought to ease U.S. concerns by insisting the plan would neither duplicate nor undermine NATO"

NATO is a mutual defence pact.

If the new EU force isn't duplicating it, then it must be something else.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

No, but the US isn't advocating a policy of eventual common American foreign policy, is it?

The US isn't an organisation where progress rests on the continuing consensus of it's members; The EU is.

Originally Posted by Proteus

If the Yugoslav countries can do it, why not Spain and Portugal?

Now you are either being seriously diengenuous, or seriously stupid.

We have created, in case it has passed you by, an understanding between Western European nations, that they should co-operate fully, and work with each other cordially and peacefully. Such has been the understanding since the second world war, resulting in an unprecendented era of peace and cordiality.This has resulted in a total abscence of inter-state hostilites in said area for over fifty glorious years. How any sane person could extrapolate from this continuing clement situation that a war between tha nations involed is likely anytime soon is beyond me.

Needless to say, Yugoslavia is a completely different issue. It was subject to dictatorship, opression, and the like within it's own borders, and then fragmented. It was a failed state, and has absolutely nothing to do with European foreign policy directly.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

that one vs three i mentioned. and one that could have been avoided, if some politicians would have some sence of what is good for europe (this includes schröder and chirac).

As far as I am aware, one counter-example normally disproves an assertion.

And why should politicians put what is best for Europe above what is best for their own country?

We don't elect politicians to look after other countries' interests.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

the usa already has a common foreign affairs policy.

Yes, but America doesn't.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

so, if there can be a cvil war somewhere in america, why not between, lets say california and nevada?

It wasn't a civil war once the countries had split.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I thought the "idea" was pre-emptive attack, which we and Spain seem to agree with and France and Germany don't.

I said that the case here was fairly atypical.

Originally Posted by Proteus

The countries of what was once Yugoslavia fought each other, didn't they?

Yugolsavia was a state that fragmented. There were no 'countries' until the state of Yugolavaia faltered.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Now you are either being seriously diengenuous, or seriously stupid.

I'm just arguing from a particular viewpoint becuase it's fun.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

We have created, in case it has passed you by, an understanding between Western European nations, that they should co-operate fully, and work with each other cordially and peacefully. Such has been the understanding since the second world war, resulting in an unprecendented era of peace and cordiality.This has resulted in a total abscence of inter-state hostilites in said area for over fifty glorious years. How any sane person could extrapolate from this continuing clement situation that a war between tha nations involed is likely anytime soon is beyond me.

All it takes is one crazy leader to mess up all that peace.

I doubt we'd be having very cordial relations with France right now if that le Pen guy had been elected.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

As far as I am aware, one counter-example normally disproves an assertion.

And why should politicians put what is best for Europe above what is best for their own country?

We don't elect politicians to look after other countries' interests.

whats good for europe is good for the member countries, that is because they are part of that union. if the eu would speak with one voice on foreign affairs issues it would have more influence in the world than 25 foreign affairs minsters of 25 different 2nd and 3rd class countries who all express slightly different opinions. of course, the us doesnt want us to archive that. "divide et impera" is still valid.

Yes, but America doesn't.

so ? they dont have an eu-like organization either, do they?

It wasn't a civil war once the countries had split.

so, if scottland and wales form an alliance and attack england you wouldnt consider it a civil war?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I said that the case here was fairly atypical.

But it's the atypical situations we need to prepare for.

If Europe does agree, which it does on most issues, then the individual countries can say individually what they want to say (which in my opinion is better than one Foreign Minister - I'd respect the opinion of 20 medium sized countries more than that of one big country).

When there is disagreement, however, we need to be able to disagree.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

whats good for europe is good for the member countries, that is because they are part of that union. if the eu would speak with one voice on foreign affairs issues it would have more influence in the world than 25 foreign affairs minsters of 25 different 2nd and 3rd class countries who all express slightly different opinions. of course, the us doesnt want us to archive that. "divide et impera" is still valid.

What is good for the whole is not necessarily good for each of the individual parts.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

so ? they dont have an eu-like organization either, do they?

Well of course they don't, which is why your comparison was silly.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I'm just arguing from a particular viewpoint becuase it's fun.

I don't see how making one's self look diliberately stupid is fun.

Takes all sorts, I suppose.

Originally Posted by Proteus

I doubt we'd be having very cordial relations with France right now if that le Pen guy had been elected.

Le Pen being elected = impossiblity.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

What is good for the whole is not necessarily good for each of the individual parts.

if its makes it easier for the individual part to archive its goal that statement is wrong.

Well of course they don't, which is why your comparison was silly.

not any more silly then your statement that a war within the EU is likely to happen because there was a war in ex-yugoslavia.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if its makes it easier for the individual part to archive its goal that statement is wrong.

But it doesn't always do that, so it's not wrong.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

not any more silly then your statement that a war within the EU is likely to happen because there was a war in ex-yugoslavia.

You're the one who wants the EU to keep on expanding, not me.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

But it doesn't always do that, so it's not wrong.

on average you will archive more as a part of a bigger union than as a part of a relativly small country. if we stay divded as we are now the rest of the world will completly forget europe as a whole in the next 50 years and we will lose all relevance in the world. if we want to keep our position we have to stop fighting each other and stick together. the important continent of this century will be asia, not europe. europe wont be the center of the world any more.

You're the one who wants the EU to keep on expanding, not me.

i dont want ex-yugoslavia in though. they had their war for independence, so let them have it. they can associate with the EU, even join the common market if they want, but thats about it.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

on average you will archive more as a part of a bigger union than as a part of a relativly small country. if we stay divded as we are now the rest of the world will completly forget europe as a whole in the next 50 years and we will lose all relevance in the world. if we want to keep our position we have to stop fighting each other and stick together. the important continent of this century will be asia, not europe. europe wont be the center of the world any more.

That's a rather dramatic prediction.

Do you have any particular reason for making it?

Originally Posted by wu_trax

i dont want ex-yugoslavia in though. they had their war for independence, so let them have it. they can associate with the EU, even join the common market if they want, but thats about it.

And I thought you wanted one big happy European family.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

That's a rather dramatic prediction.

Do you have any particular reason for making it?

just look at the economical growth rates, demographic development etc. it wont be long until china overtakes uk in economical strength, after that they will overtake us aswell. and after a few years they will be larger than the whole eu, probably even than the usa. they and the usa will will make the world politcs. why should anyone care about a divded europe anymore? of course a more unified europe wouldnt change that, but at least we could keep some relevance.

And I thought you wanted one big happy European family.

sure i want that, but sometimes even i am realistic. i dont think that after such a bloody conflict these countries are ready to join an organization like the eu.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

just look at the economical growth rates, demographic development etc. it wont be long until china overtakes uk in economical strength, after that they will overtake us aswell. and after a few years they will be larger than the whole eu, probably even than the usa. they and the usa will will make the world politcs. why should anyone care about a divded europe anymore? of course a more unified europe wouldnt change that, but at least we could keep some relevance.

But I would have thought that their economic growth was due to the fact that they were so far behind in the first place.

Even China, with a population of more than a billion, isn't even approaching the importance of Europe.

Firstly, they are communist, and that is inevitably bad for economies, and secondly they have a gigantic population. Yes, it's a huge labour force, but to use it to generate more advanced industry than making things in factories for Europe and the US would take some doing, especially for a communist government. Also, they have to feed their huge population, and if they become more advanced will have to import massive amounts of oil (of which I don't think they have any) for transport and industry. Then there's the infrastructure they'd have to build and the education their population would need...

In short, I'm not worried yet.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

But I would have thought that their economic growth was due to the fact that they were so far behind in the first place.

Even China, with a population of more than a billion, isn't even approaching the importance of Europe.

Firstly, they are communist, and that is inevitably bad for economies, and secondly they have a gigantic population. Yes, it's a huge labour force, but to use it to generate more advanced industry than making things in factories for Europe and the US would take some doing, especially for a communist government. Also, they have to feed their huge population, and if they become more advanced will have to import massive amounts of oil (of which I don't think they have any) for transport and industry. Then there's the infrastructure they'd have to build and the education their population would need...

In short, I'm not worried yet.

are you insane? china is VERY far away from beeing a communist country. its rather a combination of manchaster style capitalism and a dictatorship
further more they massively buy know-how from all over the world. they launched more comercial satelites than the esa did, for example. factories in europe and especially the us have huge problems with competing with china.

are you just trolling or did you really miss what happened the last ten years ??

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

are you insane? china is VERY far away from beeing a communist country. its rather a combination of manchaster style capitalism and a dictatorship
further more they massively buy know-how from all over the world. they launched more comercial satelites than the esa did, for example. factories in europe and especially the us have huge problems with competing with china.

Factories in the US don't compete all that much with those in China. China produces primarily manufactured goods--machinery, furniture, clothing, shoes, textiles, etc. Basically, all the labor-intensive industries in which the US hasn't been competitive in decades. China is competitive in these industries because their wages are so low. If we weren't buying these goods from China then we'd be buying them from South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan, Brazil, etc. Those are the countries that China is competing with at the moment.

are you just trolling or did you really miss what happened the last ten years ??

Actually, I think he's far closer to the mark than you are.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Factories in the US don't compete all that much with those in China. China produces primarily manufactured goods--machinery, furniture, clothing, shoes, textiles, etc. Basically, all the labor-intensive industries in which the US hasn't been competitive in decades. China is competitive in these industries because their wages are so low. If we weren't buying these goods from China then we'd be buying them from South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan, Brazil, etc. Those are the countries that China is competing with at the moment.

Actually, I think he's far closer to the mark than you are.

and what makes you think china isnt able to build cars / mashines /whatever else the us exports? they already do, in addition to the labor intensive work.
why do you think bush trys to stop the chinese fixing their exchange-rates against the dollar? its not general principle, but the fact that it costs american jobs.
its not like all the companies in the us and the eu that outsource to china produce labour intesive products.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

and what makes you think china isnt able to build cars / mashines /whatever else the us exports? they already do, in addition to the labor intensive work.
why do you think bush trys to stop the chinese fixing their exchange-rates against the dollar? its not general principle, but the fact that it costs american jobs.

Actually, it's both. Most governments of the world permit their currencies to "float" relative to each other partially as a means to correct imbalances--the Chinese do not. It is the contention of the US government (and the IMF, for that matter) that the Chinese currency is being kept at an artificially low value relative to other currencies. This has two effects: it makes Chinese exports cheaper and imports into China more expensive then they would be otherwise. It is the later which is hurting the US the most (as I already mentioned, we don't produce many labor-intensive goods domestically anyway and getting them cheaper from China is actually better than paying more for them from, say, Singapore; but with better exchange rates we could also be selling more goods to China). China is the fastest growing exporter to the US but what is often overlooked is that China is also the fastest growing importer of US-produced goods. It is the reduced access to the Chinese market that is costing the most US jobs.

In the medium term, China will go the way of all developing nations. As their middle class develops and their standard of living increases so too will their wages. China will begin to lose it's competitive advantage in the labor market and not even their government's currency manipulations can stave off this effect indefinitely.

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

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.

If the risk involved is 10%, then the average US bond will give 4.5%, the same as an EU bond. In this example at least, the choice isn't at all clear. But I'll assume that marginally greater than 10% just for the sake of the argument

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%)

What you just showed is that people will want to buy US bonds rather than EU bonds. People will buy the bond with the highest interest rate, not the lowest, and this causes money to flow into the US, not out of the US. At least for the first 14 years or so, and who the hell assumes static economies for longer than even 5 years? People will buy US bonds.

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.

I see this meaning that because of the increased demand for US bonds, the price will rise and therefore people and companies inside the US will sell their bonds and buy stock instead.

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

Well, I get the opposite

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.

This is when the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates. But it wouldn't happen anyway for above reasons.

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.

Reiterating the above...

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.

Agreed that the Bush Administration's fiscal and monetary policies aren't the most well thought out or consistent. Very much agreed.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Bunga

If the risk involved is 10%, then the average US bond will give 4.5%, the same as an EU bond. In this example at least, the choice isn't at all clear. But I'll assume that marginally greater than 10% just for the sake of the argument

if you loose 10% of the value you invested and get 5% interest this means -5% for me ?
and im quite certain that the dollar will drop, because of that extreme trade-deficit.

What you just showed is that people will want to buy US bonds rather than EU bonds. People will buy the bond with the highest interest rate, not the lowest, and this causes money to flow into the US, not out of the US. At least for the first 14 years or so, and who the hell assumes static economies for longer than even 5 years? People will buy US bonds.

why should a foreigner invest in us-bonds, if the exchange-rate risks are larger than the actual money they can get out of it?

[Bunga]

Losing 10% of the value invested is a one-off occurance. The next year you get back 5%, or half of what you lost. Next year you have made up your loss again and after 5 years you are once again better off than if you had placed it in a 4.5% interest bond.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Losing 10% of the value invested is a one-off occurance. The next year you get back 5%, or half of what you lost. Next year you have made up your loss again and after 5 years you are once again better off than if you had placed it in a 4.5% interest bond.

well, how much did the dollar lose in the last year (not because of the wonderful shape of the eu-economy ( ) but because of simple market-logic (demand < supply), caused by the trade-balance )?

[Bunga]

I attributed it to the fact that the US National Debt is somewhat larger than the entire Gross World Product.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Bunga

I attributed it to the fact that the US National Debt is somewhat larger than the entire Gross World Product.

well, not yet. the national dept of the us is at around 60% of its GNP, which still is somewhat ok. the budget deficit is between 4-5% of the GNP which also would be ok for a few years (if he would spend it on something that makes sence, which he doesnt.)
the problem i see is the following: the trade deficit of the us is more than 400 billion a year. this means that the us needs to attarct foreign investments (or another form of dollar-demand) of more than 1 billion a day, just to keep the exchange rates as they are right now.

[Bunga]

GDP:
purchasing power parity - $10.4 trillion (2002 est.)

Debt - external:
$862 billion (1995 est.)

They don't list GNP at all, but ok I did exxagerate a bit.
Source: CIA Factbook. I know they make lots of mistakes, but what the hell.

[Intrepid00]

Each one of our stealth bombers cost more then most small countries GNP.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Bunga

GDP:
purchasing power parity - $10.4 trillion (2002 est.)

Debt - external:
$862 billion (1995 est.)

They don't list GNP at all, but ok I did exxagerate a bit.
Source: CIA Factbook. I know they make lots of mistakes, but what the hell.

i think it was taticus who once gave me a link about the national dept of the us. it was something around 6 trillion. (and i dont think the GNP and the GDP are that far apart in case of the us. the purchasing power parity makes the whole statistic somewhat useless for other countries, but in case of the us i dont think its wrong, after all, 1$ is 1$)

[Intrepid00]

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[wu_trax]

thanks

[Bunga]

So why does the CIA give a much higher number? Either they are just plain old incometent as usual, or someone is wrong.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Bunga

So why does the CIA give a much higher number? Either they are just plain old incometent as usual, or someone is wrong.

its billion not trillion. its a much lower number (and its only external dept and 8 years old...)

[Intrepid00]

Yeah, a lot of the US Debt is due to those lovely Savings Bonds.

[Azof]

Originally Posted by Bunga

GDP:
purchasing power parity - $10.4 trillion (2002 est.)

Debt - external:
$862 billion (1995 est.)

They don't list GNP at all, but ok I did exxagerate a bit.
Source: CIA Factbook. I know they make lots of mistakes, but what the hell.

What many people seem to miss when looking at the debt of the US Government is that it is mostly internal. Last I checked external debt was a little more than one trillion dollars which is hardly anything to worry about. The government, however, owes around four trillion dollars to its own citizens.

Once again, stop hoping the US Economy is going to crash because you're right, we buy all your crap, and if the US Economy goes into depression so will the rest of the world. The fact of the matter is that the dollar is still the international currency, and as long as it is, the US Economy will not crash.

[wu_trax]

the problem with debts is the interest you have to pay for them. for that it doesnt really matter if they are external or internal. but as i already said 60-70% of the GNP ist all that much.
belgium used to have more than 100% and still got around. japan has even more.

[Intrepid00]

I don't know about that, the Euro is strong. Still it is new and no history of stability yet. I would say the China could take over but they screw with their money system by playing with its value.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

the problem with debts is the interest you have to pay for them. for that it doesnt really matter if they are external or internal. but as i already said 60-70% of the GNP ist all that much.
belgium used to have more than 100% and still got around. japan has even more.

I found a page that projected that it would only be 40%-60% and it was much lower then it was back in the 70s and 60s.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

I don't know about that, the Euro is strong. Still it is new and no history of stability yet. I would say the China could take over but they screw with their money system by playing with its value.

other countrys will decide which currency they use to trade their goods in. mostlikely it will be one of those they already do much buiness with. this means either dollar or euro.
using the yuan would make much sence, because it has fixed exchange rates to the dollar. in that case you can aswell keep the dollar.
but it doesnt matter which currency is the world leading currency, since there would be no influence on the prices for exports and imports for the us or the eu.