I've decided to bend the rules a little bit by recreating a forum discussion that was locked out by administration becase of conflict between two members. So, I must remain firm in my stance that I will not tolerate any offensive postings of any kind. If someone fails to comply I will confront them my self.

I decided to reopen this discussion because in the short time the original was accessable it was very popular with AE members so I can't understand why it was locked. I will accept any implication the administration may choose to impose on me. However, I greatly resent that the original forum was locked up when there are so many forums that hold no intellectual validity.

Therefore, in this forum I would like to discuss whether the European Union is capable of becoming an Economic and Mlitary Superpower like the United States. If you need any ideas, please read the orginal forum. Thank you and let's debate!! 

My opinion:

The EU is already an economic superpower as it outproduces and outweighs USA in each and every field. Plus Europe is a healthy economy, with only average  deficits and has got an extremely healthy and vibrant currency. OTOH, USA has got a humangous deficit and bases most of it's economic strength on the power of the dollar.

Military superpower in the range of USA, Europe is not likely to become in the next years. USA has to pay a humangous social cost in order to keep an extraordinarily high spending to maintain it's capability to project her power worldwide and Europe has not shown that is willing to pay such a price, even if all EU members follow Germany and France in the creation of Euroforce.

Europe is perfectly capable of defending herself, even without the help of USA, but does not have the means to project her power outside the continent.

Yes, USA has a higher GDP per capita than Europe (IIRC USA is #2 on the world rankings, far behind #1 Luxemburg) but that does mean very little, due to the buildout of the American economy: In USA a very small minority of people (something like 1.5%) controls about 84% of the national income. So, if you take out the "extremely rich", what is left is VERY low compared to the European standards.

Europe's wealthier countries have a wealthier middle class than USA (this might not sit well with those coming from USA, but it's true) and throughout Europe the poor are much better off than their American counterparts (due to increased social spendings, free healthcare and schooling for everybody etc.). That is because of two reasons:

1. Too few earning too much in USA

2. Extremely high "defense" spendings again in USA

Also, constant growth is not necessarily a good thing. When you reach a certain level (for instance the one Germany has reached) and what you yearn for is social stability, you don't go have to seek for more and more growth - it only shall produce social instability and greater disrepancy between the rich and the poor (what we see happening in USA in the past 15 years constantly). And there is one little thing called standards of living.

Growth is just a numerical figure. GDP per capita is another figure. Standards of living is a completely different thing altogether.

I'll give you an example: I am living in Greece for the past few years. Previously I've lived in Italy, France and Germany. My income during my stay in Greece is like 65-70% of what I got when I was in Germany (for the same - roughly - job done - and that was 5 years ago).

Yet, my standard of living has vastly improved, even with less money. I've got a bit more time, I've got more things to do with my time and money, things are overall cheaper than in Germany, the pace is not exhaustive or inhuman as it was sometimes in Germany... I am living better. On the contrary, my relatives in NYC are working their butts off (they got a little Italian restaurant) for 90+ hours a week, and all they know of life is that it's hard. Out of three kids (cousins of mine) only one managed to actually go to college - the other two, although accepted by quite fancy schools, had to stay at home to help run the business. Quite a difference, I must say.

Here's a report by the two Swedish economists that accounts for the higher rates of growth, and much higher GDP per capita of the US than Europe, I found it very, very interesting.  Their arguments are objective, well-presented, and sited with extremely thorough statistics:

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf - http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

Ah. Genghis my friend, I wouldn’t mind accepting such a study at face value, if it wasn’t conducted by TIMBRO, http://www.timbro.com/ - http://www.timbro.com/ , a swedish ultra-liberal (in the European meaning of the term: you can call it neo-con, that’s it’s rough equal in American terminology), ultra-capitalist, ultra-pro-free market, think tank. One of their most acclaimed publications is in defense of global capitalism.

If you actually read the report, you would see that they present plenty of statistical evidence that shows the fallacy of arguments made by liberal "economists".  They statistically show beyond a reasonable doubt that the US is not the have and have-not society you accuse us of being.  They show that all levels of American society live with much more material amenities than Europeans and that the American people do not live in squalor while CEO's dine on Dom Perignon and caviar.

Yes, I see. I've read the report - the whole of it. Funny thing. Some date are from dubious sources (I for sure know that the statistics for several EU countries are pretty off, especially concerning phones and cars - google yourself) while some other don't prove didly (yes, Americans are happier because they own 1 TV set more than Europeans per 100 people...). As I said, I've read it. It was... funny.

I guess the fact that it comes from neo-cons "economists" is enough for you and you won't even consider alternatives.

As everything "liberal" (by the US definition, ie. what we would call here "non-conservatives") is crap, right?

Yes, Faith is an interesting beast. It resists any logic, any rationale, any dialogue. You got Faith, you don't need no crappy liberals, uh?

Way to dodge the question and try to belittle my intellect comrade.

I would appreciate if you didn't try to belittle my arguments by calling me - for the second time - "comrade".

According to your ideals I could call you "kamerad" (in the German way... see Nazionalsocialistisches partei) and that would label you as "a nazi" as you label me "a commie".

I am not belittling your intellect, you are, by your constant refusal to engage in dialogue, by just stating your faith to the happy free for all neo-cons.

As I said before, if an argument can't stand the trial by debate, it ain't worth much. You must be aware of that, as you constantly avoid debating anything regarding your faith.

I beg your pardon but that's precisely the point: There is no US economic supremacy. There appears to be a 7% distance in the GDP (and we all know now how dillusional this measure is) and there is a higher growth rate of USA than the main Euroeconomies (Germany and France, that is).

But that does not mean US has any "economic supremacy", on the contrary. And I am not talking about the widening gap between poor and rich, or about the social unrest that is bound to break loose in the near future. I am talking about sheer numbers.

USA has a deficit 11X the combined deficit of the European economies together. The dollar is still strong, but the only factor really keeping them at track (and the dollar strong) is the US military might. USA is the sole superpower and has the means to pull one string or another. That's what keeps them going.

Any other country, without the military supremacy USA enjoys, irregardles how large and strong economically, having the deficit of USA, would've collapsed.

IF Europe pulls truly together (joint defense) USA won't be much worth as an ally. So in a few years, if everything works out fine, we'll be able to cut off the oxygen of the US economy, by denying them what they get today for free: international support for their currency (which keeps the US inflation at minimal, while it should - according to the deficit - go through the roof).

But we still shall value USA as a business partner. So, most probably, Europe won't let USA collapse, on a pure gain-basis. USA is buying many, many Europan products. The US exports to EU countries are 1/2 of their imports from the same countries.

Why would we want to lose a business partner like that?

Yes, I understand that the U.S. has not dominated the world economy since the early 1960s, but my intentions in my last posting was to revert attention back to the topic since it has become quite clear that this discussion is getting out of hand and departing from the actual perpose.

I think that if the EU eliminates their budgetary deficits and begin to produce in the positive it would counter U.S. economic power. In Germany and France the GDP per Capita divided by the hours worked is higher than the United States average. Therefore, Americans work more because they must rely on higher incomes.   

You say this, but I'm the only one whose cited outside evidence, which is based upon US Census and Eurostat statistics, and all you've done is make gross generalizations and pull numbers out of thin air.

the 11th commandment: thou shall not ask for facts and number if thou don't really want to read them

The US trade deficit widened by more than expected in October, hitting record levels after higher oil prices raised import costs, figures have shown. The trade shortfall was $55.5bn (£29bn), up 9% from September, the Commerce Department said. That pushed the 10 month deficit to $500.5bn.

Imports rose by 3.4%, while exports increased by only 0.6%.

A weaker dollar also increased the cost of imports, though this should help drive export demand in coming months.

Source: BBC

Consider the following:

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

In my opinion,I think EU is capable of reaching US economy,as it already has and might pass it.Military wise,I say yes,that EU can compare to US military standards.Why?Because its not the money or idiotic waste of spending taxes on military weapons that kill people,but the army's skill at using these new technologies.EU,in my opinion,is already as great as the US economy,and both will continue to get better.Plus,the US owes billions of dollars,and yet,many countries owe the US,its almost at debt.

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. 

The US hasn't evolved into a insular place,scared of unknown and not understanding the world.Every country is like that.Thats being very stereotype,that all of the US has evolved like that.Every country has its ups and downs on their economy and military,there is no way to stop it,we're humans,we're not perfect.I think that the US is spending way too much on the Iraqi War.

Spending money on worthless peices of crap like weapons is no way to support the economy,but guess what?The world isn't safe.

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

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

There are two carefully hidden from the american public reasons, that USA has to spend so much money to maintain a war machine that is 10X times bigger (and 50X more expensive) than it would need for self defence and control over their "vital interests".

Those reasons are:

1. A rather large part of the American economy is run by industries of the arms industry. US Government has always been extremely generous with those, and favors go round: half US gov. retirees get a job in the arms industry. One shouldn't forge about the all powerfull armed forces and secret services, kratos en kratei as Greeks say.

2. USA has brought herself into a position (by creating a deficit that's also larger than that of the rest of the world combined together, just as military spending) that her currency (and consequently her economy) has no real value. So, as any economics student that is not blinded by Friedmanism (SIC!) can tell you, if US armed forces seize being the scarecrow for the whole world, USA will lose face rabidly and in consequence, the dollar shall seize being the mighty currency it is. That would result into a Depression that would make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park - and there is no FDR nor any Maynard Keynes around to save the day this time.

In brief: US dollar and US economy are kept alive thanks to the military might of USA.

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.

America needs to walk a fine line, isolationism is not good and is the last thin I would ever advocate, but what we are doing now is uneccesary, we dont need troops anywhere in Europe, South America, or Africa.  We do not need to use the army for humanitarian purposes (armies kill people not help them) and we dont need too invade countries with secular dictators who in a roundabout way uphold our inteerests against our enemies!  We suppoerted Pinochet discreetly against communism, why not have supported Saddam discreeetly against fundamentalists and Iran?  He hated them more than he hated us anyhow...

I hate how (even though I predicted mass chaos and there are no WMDs) people like me are criticized for being against the Iraq war, Im not against it because Im against war or some such nonsense, war is mans most common past and future activity, Im against it because Im against idealistic crap that harms greater strategic goals, like Somalia, like even sending an aircraft carrier to help with the tsunami, thats NOT the job of the military.  Thus is you scaled it back it could be made cheaper, more efficient.

Even to this day we still buy tanks we dont need, have to many of them, and then dump them into the ocean to help build coral reefs, why the hell is that?

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

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?

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".

Then why did you reply?

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

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.

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 http://www.nationmaster.com - www.nationmaster.com , so I fail to see how it has no strength.

Because I am in that benevolent, caring mood of mine and because I think everybody - no matter how narrow minded or silly - has a right to be exposed to the truth... if one rejects it, you can only blame that one

London School of Economics. Yes, nowhere near what it was 50 years ago, but quite alright still. Where do you study? Redneck high for the economically challenged?

I really think you should visit an online dictionary, you got your English all messed up

Errr... what?

Because you are consuming - thanks to the strong dollar - waaaaay more than what you produce. That's why
On a further notice, USA has not only a huge trade deficit.

Because the OPEC are close business partners of the Corps that helped build America - Oil companies. If you need more data on that, please don't ask. It's all on the internet, google and you'll find it.

Check out from whom NATO countries buy their arms and with what kind of contracts. Specific enough?

Thank you for your kind words.

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?

Okay, because my name is attached to this forum I feel it is my duty to step in and say something. Firstly, I will not permit false imformation. And secondly, I want people to begin tolerating each other's posts. We are not on the verge of a new Cold War, so let's not act like we are.

Please post a link to the site or the name of the source that you are using so there are no accusations.

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?