Can the EU become a superpower like the U.S.?

Originally posted by dark_one At this time US is spending on military more than the whole planet combined. You do realize that it is impossible, right?

Is it shocking? Unfortunately it is true. In fiscal 2004 US spent $399 billion (milliard) dollars on defense. Article below is already obsolete as I believe US passed the world. This info is readly available and easy to find. By comparison French spent $30 billion (milliard).  In 2010 projections are for $500 billion (milliard) on defense. Amazing.

Note: US billion is counted as a milliard outside of US.


I cut and pasted some info from :
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending .asp#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld

Consider the following:

• The US military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's.
• The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
• The US military budget is more than 29 times as large as the combined spending of the seven �rogue� states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.4 billion.
• It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty three nations.
• The United States and its close allies account for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
• The seven potential �enemies,� Russia, and China together spend $116.2 billion, 27.6% of the U.S. military budget.

 It is impossible becasue your budget cannot be bigger than the entire world's because you were part of the world the last time I checked.

Originally posted by Genghis You say that like we should reduce it, but we have interests in every region and need a massive and mighty army.

Maybe US doesn't need to have interest in every single place on this planet. We could rely on allies. What we have, is a classic preliminary to the arms race.
US evolved into a very insular place, scared of unknown and not understanding the world. We think arming up to the teeth is an answer to the ignorance.

Originally posted by cavalry4ever Originally posted by Genghis You say that like we should reduce it, but we have interests in every region and need a massive and mighty army. Maybe US doesn't need to have interest in every single place on this planet. We could rely on allies. What we have, is a classic preliminary to the arms race. US evolved into a very insular place, scared of unknown and not understanding the world. We think arming up to the teeth is an answer to the ignorance.

We have less interests than in the Cold War, that's why we don't give a damn about Africa anymore.  And it's always a bad idea to rely on the troops of other countries, then you are not truly in control of your own nation.  Machiavelli devoted a whole chapter of the Prince to that subject. 

I'm not sure what you're saying in the last part, but isolationism is not a wise choice for America, we have too many vital interests to make that smart, and we must get more involved in some places to keep the Chinese in check.

America is also hardly armed to the teeth, that's why there aren't enough troops in Iraq, and our army is smaller than it was during the Cold War.  I also think it's much better to be well-armed than vulnerable.  No country in history was ever defeated because they were too well-armed. 

No. Europe can and will never be a super power.

The sucess for European Union will be to preserve its "unity".

Please show me some evidence for that claim, I really doubt that the the US military goes into business meetings and makes a businessman give an American x amount of foreign currency for the dollar.  That's total rubbish, and is just a way for you to bash America's business friendly and successful capitalistic.

Furthermore, no currency has any real value because almost no one backs up their currency with precious metals anymore.  So what you just said for the dollar goes for every other currency.  Learn a little about economics before you try to slander my country's economy, it'll make you look smarter.

Genghis, I really can't bother myself with your mere opinion... I have studied economics, and at a rather fine institution, so I would remarkably appreciate your little personified rants not to include suggestions about my background. Comprende? Good, now this little gem of yours

Please show me some evidence for that claim, I really doubt that the the US military goes into business meetings and makes a businessman give an American x amount of foreign currency for the dollar.  That's total rubbish, and is just a way for you to bash America's business friendly and successful capitalistic.

is utterly precious, as it demonstrates in the most profound way your inability to comprehend with even the simpliest economics and politics. Not to mention that I am beginning to wonder whats's going on... either my written English sucks (highly unlikely) or you can't read.

Here it is again, in the most simplistic way I could possibly put it:

International business and especially the flow of the rather large investments is not, as you might think, a series of free transactions among free individuals. It's a rather complicated power play, involving a large amount of variables you (and even me) can't possibly account for all.

IF country A has a huge military, while country "B" does not, country "A" has a clear advantage when it comes on doing business with country "B". So, businesspeople from country "A" are lobbying their government (who is, usually, a mere servant of those, anyway) to give them the edge in transactions abroad. If you know anything about arms deals, for instance, you'd understand that US companies have always the edge, since USA is leading NATO, USA is offering a "protective umbrella" to several of it's allies and USA has the largest military sector (by far) on the globe.

Do you understand that, or should I spell it out even more simplistically?

Furthermore, no currency has any real value because almost no one backs up their currency with precious metals anymore.  So what you just said for the dollar goes for every other currency.  Learn a little about economics before you try to slander my country's economy, it'll make you look smarter.

If you were my student, you'll never get a degree, matey. Currency certainly has REAL value: it's the value (strength, you might call it) of the economy that backs it up. And a rather huge part of that value is dependant upon the deficit. In US case, if the dollar would be to be held at the actual value of the American economy... you would be maybe able to buy a bubble gum with a 100 dollar bill... maybe even get some change.

Your (it ain't yours, but I can't see you understanding that in the foreseeable future)  country's economy is not something I'd have any reason to slander, not even your country. I am simply stating the obvious and that's not "slander".

Originally posted by Aristoteles Genghis, I really can't bother myself with your mere opinion

Then why did you reply?

Originally posted by Aristoteles I have studied economics, and at a rather fine institution

Yes, I can see, was it the University of Moscow or Leningrad?

Originally posted by Aristoteles Please show me some evidence for that claim, I really doubt that the the US military goes into business meetings and makes a businessman give an American x amount of foreign currency for the dollar.  That's total rubbish, and is just a way for you to bash America's business friendly and successful capitalistic. is utterly precious, as it demonstrates in the most profound way your inability to comprehend with even the simpliest economics and politics. Not to mention that I am beginning to wonder whats's going on... either my written English sucks (highly unlikely) or you can't read. Here it is again, in the most simplistic way I could possibly put it: International business and especially the flow of the rather large investments is not, as you might think, a series of free transactions among free individuals. It's a rather complicated power play, involving a large amount of variables you (and even me) can't possibly account for all. IF country A has a huge military, while country "B" does not, country "A" has a clear advantage when it comes on doing business with country "B". So, businesspeople from country "A" are lobbying their government (who is, usually, a mere servant of those, anyway) to give them the edge in transactions abroad. If you know anything about arms deals, for instance, you'd understand that US companies have always the edge, since USA is leading NATO, USA is offering a "protective umbrella" to several of it's allies and USA has the largest military sector (by far) on the globe. Do you understand that, or should I spell it out even more simplistically?

Thank you for giving me a sweeping generalization.  If all that is true, then please tell me why the United States hasn't forced China to revalue it's currency, or why America has a trade deficit, or why America doesn't stop the OPEC cartel.  Please give me one specific example.

Originally posted by Aristoteles Furthermore, no currency has any real value because almost no one backs up their currency with precious metals anymore.  So what you just said for the dollar goes for every other currency.  Learn a little about economics before you try to slander my country's economy, it'll make you look smarter. If you were my student, you'll never get a degree, matey. Currency certainly has REAL value: it's the value (strength, you might call it) of the economy that backs it up. And a rather huge part of that value is dependant upon the deficit. In US case, if the dollar would be to be held at the actual value of the American economy... you would be maybe able to buy a bubble gum with a 100 dollar bill... maybe even get some change.

Wow, again, another sweeping generalization without any empirical evidence.  I'm not going to take such garbage at face value.  Show me one respectable economist who says this.  And by the way, the United States economy is valued at roughly a trillion dollars according to www.nationmaster.com, so I fail to see how it has no strength.

 

Originally posted by Aristoteles If the dollar was measured at it's true value, your economy would be worth then... what, 15-20 billion Euros? Not very impressive...

Again, how do I know you didn't just make up that number or that you did not get it from Noam Chomsky or some other such biased source?

Edited by Genghis

I am terribly sorry but this is not stuff that can be found with a simple googling -  I've read quite a number of books to be able to come to these conclusions without resorting to pre-chewed food and one-size-fits-all solutions.

I am sure if you google around in depth, you'll come up with something but it will be raw data or some of the sources you seem to despise. So, forget about the latter and let's try the former.

To start, try the official US gov. sites, they'll provide you with the numbers on the deficit of the american economy.  Write that down. Be careful: go for "US budget deficit" not "US trade deficit".

Then you might try to find a little detail about oil transactions. That will be a bit harder, but you'll come up with a universal truth: that the currency used in oil transactions is the US dollar. And if you dig a bit more, you'll understand that this trend was established post WW2 - until then it was either gold or pounds.

Then try to find some data on weapon deals. If you are lucky enough, you'll find out that all weapon deals are being made in US dollars as well. If you are even more lucky, you'll establish that a host of NATO countries are forced to buy weapons from US companies and pay for them in US dollars.

Then you can check the spendings of the US gov. for military and how much it costs to the US taxpayer to maintain a military 10X larger of what you would need for your defense.

Then you can check how much the preparation and execution of that little show-off in Iraq has costed the American taxpayer and how much it is costing everyday to maintain a large military presence and fight off the guerillas (economically-wise, I am not even getting on the humane side of the equation).

If you have some time left, you can check out the new deals for Iraqi oil. Post-war, that is. Which companies got them, how much they profit off it, that kind of things. You might wish to investigate which US officials hold stock in these companies or how many of them have been on their payroll - that would be a side investigation, not crucial for our main point. Another side investigation: had Sadham signed deals for selling oil and accepting Euros (and not dollars) as payment? A third side investigation: Had Iran (the next target of Bush&Co.) done the same thing recently?

(optionally, you could then start reading economist books. I can give you a decent bibliography, starting from the very basics and proceeding to very advanced stuff - in all sides of the spectrum: Classicist, Marxist, Neo-Classicists, pure Monetarists, Keynesian, Neo-Keynesian, everything. unfortunately, this would take too much time so feel free to skip it).

When you have finished and digested all that data, please share with me your conclusions.

Fair enough?