sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|7066|InGerLand

Turquoise wrote:

Varegg wrote:



You really see this as a sellout ?

The US needs help getting back to a sound economy so why not use a closer relationship with Europe, this should be great news for US citizens if you ask me.
I'm generally against free trade.  I prefer fair trade and some protectionism.
lol at the man from the capitalist country
pure capitalism such as there is on the stock market is one of the most free ways to trade their is, everyone with a little money could make a fortune, and its very unfair on some people if they loose out whilst others don't and there isn't much protectionism, if you invest in stock and that stock goes tits up so does your money for example.
its free(ish), its not fair, its hardly protected, but your economy is based on it and you hate it...?
The_Mac
Member
+96|6672

Varegg wrote:



You really see this as a sellout ?

The US needs help getting back to a sound economy so why not use a closer relationship with Europe, this should be great news for US citizens if you ask me.
uhh...the US economy is more sound than the Europeans...

sfarrar33 wrote:

pure capitalism such as there is on the stock market is one of the most free ways to trade their is, everyone with a little money could make a fortune, and its very unfair on some people if they loose out whilst others don't and there isn't much protectionism, if you invest in stock and that stock goes tits up so does your money for example.
How is it unfair? No one is pressuring you to invest. You do it at your own risk based on the calculations you made. Life may be "unfair" if thats how you call it, but I'd rather be able to invest, and hit it rich, than have the government invest for me, take about 25% of it and then feed me the money over the course of several years.

Last edited by The_Mac (2007-05-09 17:08:13)

sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|7066|InGerLand

The_Mac wrote:

sfarrar33 wrote:

pure capitalism such as there is on the stock market is one of the most free ways to trade their is, everyone with a little money could make a fortune, and its very unfair on some people if they loose out whilst others don't and there isn't much protectionism, if you invest in stock and that stock goes tits up so does your money for example.
How is it unfair? No one is pressuring you to invest. You do it at your own risk based on the calculations you made. Life may be "unfair" if thats how you call it, but I'd rather be able to invest, and hit it rich, than have the government invest for me, take about 25% of it and then feed me the money over the course of several years.
oh no its very fair in that sense
i just meant that its unfair in that two people equally the same in just about everyway, invest in two different companies stocks and one gets rich of the proceeds of that stock and the other doesn't then that is unfair (ok in a kind of 'life is unfair' way but still) whilst a fair system would mean both people got equally rich (though both actually rich, not the tried and tested communist version of equally 'rich')
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

The_Mac wrote:

Varegg wrote:



You really see this as a sellout ?

The US needs help getting back to a sound economy so why not use a closer relationship with Europe, this should be great news for US citizens if you ask me.
uhh...the US economy is more sound than the Europeans...
No it isn't. The EU is the biggest and strongest economy in the world.

apollo_fi wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Does the US meet the standards for EU membership anyway?
Nope.

National debt has to be below 60 percent of GDP.
Ha!

Good luck meeting that requirement.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-09 17:27:56)

Liberal-Sl@yer
Certified BF2S Asshole
+131|6903|The edge of sanity
Meh, I dont think the US needs to have EU addmitance. I think we need to settle down and focus form a import country to an export country. Increase our maufacturing wing ten-fold i say. Have our boats leave with goods and come back with raw materials. If we do that then our economy will fluish, our debt will become a surplus, and we will need no teratys with anyone. We all ready have the driving work force. All we need to do is say "hey mexican illegal immigrants, spend 5 years in a factory, learn english (fluently), and dont commit crimes and you can become a citizen."
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Meh, I dont think the US needs to have EU addmitance. I think we need to settle down and focus form a import country to an export country. Increase our maufacturing wing ten-fold i say. Have our boats leave with goods and come back with raw materials. If we do that then our economy will fluish, our debt will become a surplus, and we will need no teratys with anyone. We all ready have the driving work force. All we need to do is say "hey mexican illegal immigrants, spend 5 years in a factory, learn english (fluently), and dont commit crimes and you can become a citizen."
You're optimistic.

US national debt is currently $8,829,693,663,727 - rising by about 1.5 billion a day for the past year.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6852|North Carolina

jonsimon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Varegg wrote:



You really see this as a sellout ?

The US needs help getting back to a sound economy so why not use a closer relationship with Europe, this should be great news for US citizens if you ask me.
I'm generally against free trade.  I prefer fair trade and some protectionism.
What's wrong with free trade? It's the easiest way to gaurentee fair trade. If you can't produce something as well as I can, you shouldn't be producing it. Protectionism and the world bank destroy the economies of poorer nations in the name of American business.
I would argue the "free trade" agenda helps the MNC's more than any country.  It's outsourcing American jobs while keeping most of the profits in the hands of wealthy MNC executives.  In the long run, globalization only serves one purpose: widening the wealth disparity between laborers and executives throughout the entire world.

We're headed for a much more powerful worldwide aristocracy than the one that exists today, and it's happening at the expense of the First World's middle class.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6852|North Carolina

Varegg wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Varegg wrote:



You really see this as a sellout ?

The US needs help getting back to a sound economy so why not use a closer relationship with Europe, this should be great news for US citizens if you ask me.
I'm generally against free trade.  I prefer fair trade and some protectionism.
Fair trade i agree but that will never happend until Africa is allowed to start trading on equal terms as the rest of the world, fair trade as a global phenomenon is currenly not working the way it should and prolly never will.
Well, it just doesn't have the support of most people in power....  It doesn't take away from the integrity of the principles though.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6852|North Carolina

sfarrar33 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Varegg wrote:



You really see this as a sellout ?

The US needs help getting back to a sound economy so why not use a closer relationship with Europe, this should be great news for US citizens if you ask me.
I'm generally against free trade.  I prefer fair trade and some protectionism.
lol at the man from the capitalist country
pure capitalism such as there is on the stock market is one of the most free ways to trade their is, everyone with a little money could make a fortune, and its very unfair on some people if they loose out whilst others don't and there isn't much protectionism, if you invest in stock and that stock goes tits up so does your money for example.
its free(ish), its not fair, its hardly protected, but your economy is based on it and you hate it...?
Yep...  that's why I'm eventually moving.
The_Mac
Member
+96|6672

Bertster7 wrote:

You're optimistic.

US national debt is currently $8,829,693,663,727 - rising by about 1.5 billion a day for the past year.
No he's not. The debt was going away in the H.W. and Reagan's administrations...only with the wars does the national debt increase.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

The_Mac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You're optimistic.

US national debt is currently $8,829,693,663,727 - rising by about 1.5 billion a day for the past year.
No he's not. The debt was going away in the H.W. and Reagan's administrations...only with the wars does the national debt increase.
US national debt decreased under Reagan did it? I must've missed that.

Whitehouse.gov wrote:

The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

You are talking rubbish.

There was a surplus under Clinton, but that has been dwarfed by the size of the recent deficits. Bush has broken the US deficit record 3 times now, I think.

You'd better get paying that debt off quick. You do realise the US is paying half a trillion in interest alone.

Here's a graph to illustrate it against GDP.

https://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-09 18:46:34)

Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6792|Twyford, UK
Hm. This appears to be the US banding together with the EU against the might of the far east.

I'm not sure where I stand on this. Certainly, the economy could use a boost here, but on the other hand, my job depends on cheap trade from India.
Liberal-Sl@yer
Certified BF2S Asshole
+131|6903|The edge of sanity

Bertster7 wrote:

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Meh, I dont think the US needs to have EU addmitance. I think we need to settle down and focus form a import country to an export country. Increase our maufacturing wing ten-fold i say. Have our boats leave with goods and come back with raw materials. If we do that then our economy will fluish, our debt will become a surplus, and we will need no teratys with anyone. We all ready have the driving work force. All we need to do is say "hey mexican illegal immigrants, spend 5 years in a factory, learn english (fluently), and dont commit crimes and you can become a citizen."
You're optimistic.

US national debt is currently $8,829,693,663,727 - rising by about 1.5 billion a day for the past year.
Are you seriously that ignorant when it comes to economics? china makes billions in thier trade defict with the US and other countries why cant the US do the same? if our trade defict when to crumble and become a huge surplus then we could easily turn our economny right side up. We already have the workforce for it, and we have the rust belt which can be reviatalized.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6852|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You're optimistic.

US national debt is currently $8,829,693,663,727 - rising by about 1.5 billion a day for the past year.
No he's not. The debt was going away in the H.W. and Reagan's administrations...only with the wars does the national debt increase.
US national debt decreased under Reagan did it? I must've missed that.

Whitehouse.gov wrote:

The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

You are talking rubbish.

There was a surplus under Clinton, but that has been dwarfed by the size of the recent deficits. Bush has broken the US deficit record 3 times now, I think.

You'd better get paying that debt off quick. You do realise the US is paying half a trillion in interest alone.

Here's a graph to illustrate it against GDP.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif
Don't mind Mac, he's using Republican math.

Clinton was the most recent president to decrease our debt, but it's doubtful we'll have any presidents in the near future with any concern for balancing the budget.

Politicians simply cannot resist the temptation to spend money they've neither earned nor even have.

It's one of the worst aspects of having a fiat money system.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Meh, I dont think the US needs to have EU addmitance. I think we need to settle down and focus form a import country to an export country. Increase our maufacturing wing ten-fold i say. Have our boats leave with goods and come back with raw materials. If we do that then our economy will fluish, our debt will become a surplus, and we will need no teratys with anyone. We all ready have the driving work force. All we need to do is say "hey mexican illegal immigrants, spend 5 years in a factory, learn english (fluently), and dont commit crimes and you can become a citizen."
You're optimistic.

US national debt is currently $8,829,693,663,727 - rising by about 1.5 billion a day for the past year.
Are you seriously that ignorant when it comes to economics? china makes billions in thier trade defict with the US and other countries why cant the US do the same? if our trade defict when to crumble and become a huge surplus then we could easily turn our economny right side up. We already have the workforce for it, and we have the rust belt which can be reviatalized.
Because China don't think it is necessary to spend half a trillion a year on defence, nor do they need to pay half a trillion in interest payments. The sum of those two figures is about equal to the bigger Chinese trade surpluses.

You do realise there is a difference between a trade surplus and a budget surplus?

US industry is in decline. The areas in which the US can surpass other nations are not in the industrial sector - just look at the US automobile industry for a shining example of how well US industrial exports are doing. Agricultral output is down too, what with all the bees dying.

The sector the US dominates is the service sector. You don't make stuff in the US, it's too expensive. You make it in China, or somewhere similar and design it in the US. Financial services, intellectual property, ideas - that is where the US stands to make most money. You seem to be completely deluded if you think the US can match China in industrial production.

The US economy is working very well. There are no major problems there. Spending is just way too high. You need a democrat in charge to spend less money.
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|7112|NT, like Mick Dundee

Turquoise wrote:

Varegg wrote:



You really see this as a sellout ?

The US needs help getting back to a sound economy so why not use a closer relationship with Europe, this should be great news for US citizens if you ask me.
I'm generally against free trade.  I prefer fair trade and some protectionism.
Look at the US free trade agreement with Australia. Hardly fair at all.

Bullfuckingshit if you ask me. Our government are pussies when it comes to the US. Gotta stop bending over backwards.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|7066|InGerLand

Flecco wrote:

Look at the US free trade agreement with Australia. Hardly fair at all.

Bullfuckingshit if you ask me. Our government are pussies when it comes to the US. Gotta stop bending over backwards.
haha I know what you mean, it isn't just Australians who think that their government is a little too soft with the US
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7048|132 and Bush

Is everyone aware that it is ultimately Congress that controls spending (or is supposed to)? Everything the President does economically must pass through congress. An example. Clinton was under a Republican majority in Congress. The deficit shrank as a result in intelligence and military cuts.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
skeptic griggsy
Member
+1|6646
As a liberal free trader, I agree with Paul Krugman, that free trade helps the poor by stretching their dollars. Fair trade is just a mask for silly protectionism which increases prices for all and destroys export jobs. Workers need the trade adjustment act bettered and better retraining. Our entrepreneurs now use machinery to compete with the rest of the world as a comparative advantage as Jeffrey Sachs, the capitalist inspirer of former Soviet countries[ if only Russia had followed his counsel], notes. Our regulated free market can indeed compete effectively with the rest of the world! Regulated capitalism is the known ideal! It has not led to the road to serfdom. Neither Rand nor Hayek knew reality.  We no more need Spencer-Randism than we need Marxist-Leninism.
jonsimon
Member
+224|6942

Flecco wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Varegg wrote:



You really see this as a sellout ?

The US needs help getting back to a sound economy so why not use a closer relationship with Europe, this should be great news for US citizens if you ask me.
I'm generally against free trade.  I prefer fair trade and some protectionism.
Look at the US free trade agreement with Australia. Hardly fair at all.

Bullfuckingshit if you ask me. Our government are pussies when it comes to the US. Gotta stop bending over backwards.
US free trade isn't free. The US subsidizes so much of it's industry that American corporations demolish the economies of nations with 'free' trade agreements.

Last edited by jonsimon (2007-05-10 19:41:30)

The_Mac
Member
+96|6672

Bertster7 wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

Varegg wrote:



You really see this as a sellout ?

The US needs help getting back to a sound economy so why not use a closer relationship with Europe, this should be great news for US citizens if you ask me.
uhh...the US economy is more sound than the Europeans...
No it isn't. The EU is the biggest and strongest economy in the world.
pfft...what's your reasoning for that? lol...
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

The_Mac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

uhh...the US economy is more sound than the Europeans...
No it isn't. The EU is the biggest and strongest economy in the world.
pfft...what's your reasoning for that? lol...
Collectively, the economy of the European Union's twenty-seven member states is the world's largest economy, accounting for 30.3% of the world's total GDP in 2005 (World Bank figure). As such, it is the world's principal agricultural, industrial and service provider.
Top 15 countries in the world by GDP per capita.


1     Luxembourg     87,955     2005
2     Norway     72,306     2005
3     Qatar     62,914     2005
4     Iceland     54,858     2005
5     Ireland     52,440     2005
6     Switzerland     51,771     2006
7     Denmark     50,965     2005
8     United States     44,190     2006
9     Sweden     42,383     2006
10     Netherlands     40,571     2006
11     Finland     40,197     2005
12     United Kingdom     39,213     2005
13     Austria     38,961     2006
14     Canada     38,951     2006
15     Belgium     37,214     2006


Bringing PPP into the equation give this:

1     Luxembourg     80,471     2005
2     Ireland     44,087     2005
3     Norway     43,574     2005
4     United States     43,444     2005
5     Iceland     40,277     2005
—     Hong Kong, China     38,127     2005
6     Switzerland     37,369     2005
7     Denmark     36,549     2005
8     Austria     36,031     2005
9     Canada     35,494     2005
10     Netherlands     35,078     2005
11     United Kingdom     35,051     2005
12     Finland     34,819     2005
13     Belgium     34,478     2005
14     Sweden     34,409     2005
15     Qatar     33,049     2005

The US also has higher inflation and a lower valued currency than the majority of member states of the EU.

It isn't even debatable that the US economy is a strong as the EUs, because it simply isn't. You'd have to be a retard to think it was. The EU is an economic hyperpower.

In an article which compared the US against averages of varying states of the EU, the US figures looked pretty good. But there is only one US and about 30 members of the EU.
Average gross domestic product (GDP) in the US is about 40 per cent higher than average GDP of the EU-15 when measured at purchasing power parity (PPP). The gap is slightly greater if we consider either the twelve Eurozone members (EU-12) or add the accession states (EU-25). Although GDP is a poor indicator of measure of welfare or happiness, let’s agree to use it for the sake of comparison.

The main reason the US is richer is because, first, a higher proportion of Americans are in employment and, secondly, they work about 20 per cent more hours per year than Europeans. When we look at GDP in 2005 per person per hour worked, there is virtually no difference between Germany, France and the US.
The article goes on to conclude that neither economic model is great, but that the EU have a better one than the US, who are borrowing massive sums of money to keep the economy ticking over, a policy which will collapse on itself at some point.
Comparing the economic performance of the European Union and the USA does not lead one to conclude that America has the more dynamic economy, or that it has performed better in the past or will do so in future. The most crucial feature of the comparison’ is neither the growth nor the unemployment record of the US and the EU. It is, rather, that US growth, unlike that in the EU, is funded by a dangerously high mountain of foreign debt. US external indebtedness in turn is driven by the US house price bubble, enabling US consumers to spend more than they earn. Ironically, it is the EU which, together with China and Japan, continues to lend the money to the US which keeps their households spending and their economy growing.

The truth is that neither side ‘wins’ in this beauty contest. Europe merely does less badly than the USA in some crucial respects. Yes, while it is true that the core Eurozone countries could perform far better, Germany, France and Italy have quite different problems - in comparison both to the US and to each other - which require quite different solutions. Anybody who claims that the US provides a model which the EU should copy needs to consider the basic economic facts of the case.
Looking at US economic growth and its correlation with US borrowing, it becomes clear that a large proportion of US economic might is actually just temporary.

In any case, it is typical for studies of US and EU economies either to focus on averages for EU states or for the economies of just the EU-12, 15 or 25.

When sources for total economic purchasing power are compared, the EU comes out on top across the board.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-14 17:42:36)

The_Mac
Member
+96|6672
While it may be Economically larger in GDP (a value of how much is sold and income earned in the area) as a whole (in these terms, I concede the argument in your favor) does not help each individual country. (What I was thinking of).
The problem with what you said below is about the dollar versus the Euro. I'll explain:
A country like the US has a higher rate of development, if this is true, then it comes as no surprise that the dollar is worth less that the Euro. This is because if the prosperity of a country grows, the demand for (any type of) goods goes up. This includes foreign things like BMWs (for car fans) etc. So what it is is that Americans are buying euros with (American) dollars to buy European products.
This in turn means that the euro is naturally going to be in demand more than the dollar. Now, its not that simple. Europeans come here, and invest money in stock and all that good stuff. So technically it evens out. But you can see the rate of development is higher in the US, because the euro is in more demand, simply because the US businessmen have to purchase euros to purchase cars and whatever else comes from Europe.

Keep in mind, this is good for some Americans and not so good for others. Exporters are having a day dream, while importers have to hope their product sells well over here, or else they're screwed.

Turquoise wrote:

Don't mind Mac, he's using Republican math.
I'm not even Republican, dipshit.

Last edited by The_Mac (2007-05-14 17:44:52)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

The_Mac wrote:

While it may be Economically larger in GDP (a value of how much is sold and income earned in the area) as a whole (in these terms, I concede the argument in your favor) does not help each individual country. (What I was thinking of).
The problem with what you said below is about the dollar versus the Euro. I'll explain:
A country like the US has a higher rate of development, if this is true, then it comes as no surprise that the dollar is worth less that the Euro. This is because if the prosperity of a country grows, the demand for (any type of) goods goes up. This includes foreign things like BMWs (for car fans) etc. So what it is is that Americans are buying euros with (American) dollars to buy European products.
This in turn means that the euro is naturally going to be in demand more than the dollar. Now, its not that simple. Europeans come here, and invest money in stock and all that good stuff. So technically it evens out. But you can see the rate of development is higher in the US, because the euro is in more demand, simply because the US businessmen have to purchase euros to purchase cars and whatever else comes from Europe.

Keep in mind, this is good for some Americans and not so good for others. Exporters are having a day dream, while importers have to hope their product sells well over here, or else they're screwed.

Turquoise wrote:

Don't mind Mac, he's using Republican math.
I'm not even Republican, dipshit.
That's why I included the figures for PPP, Purchasing Power Parity. Which takes this into account.

The thing you haven't taken into account is national debt. If I took out a vast bank loan, I wouldn't run around saying I was rich, because I would owe that money + interest to someone else. That's what the US have been doing.
The_Mac
Member
+96|6672

Bertster7 wrote:

The thing you haven't taken into account is national debt. If I took out a vast bank loan, I wouldn't run around saying I was rich, because I would owe that money + interest to someone else. That's what the US have been doing.
The unfortunate flaw in your philosophy is that the money the government has or lacks does not reflect the wealth of the nation.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard