[OT] Now America is history: this is the European century
no_one
This could be the moment when the balance of advantage tipped back across
the Atlantic
Mary Dejevsky
The Independent
06 December 2003
When President Bush made his flying visit to Baghdad on Thanksgiving Day, he
waited only as long as it took to leave Iraqi air space to broadcast the news
of his feat all over the world. How differently has Mr Bush handled this
week's big news: the rescinding of the tariffs on imported steel his
administration had introduced less than two years ago.
After days of "will he, won't he" speculation to prepare public opinion, the
White House finally released the news in a short written statement read by an
official. The President positioned himself and his presidency as far as
possible from the unpleasant announcement as he could. It was a text-book
example of how to limit political damage.
Mr Bush may well get away with it. He is generally a fortunate politician.
Voters in next year's presidential election may find the pictures of the
President serving turkey to the troops more beguiling than the claims of
comparatively well-paid workers clinging doggedly to an industry in decline.
Nor will the genteel Europeans be inclined to kick the man when he is down.
They have won and they know it.
Yet this moment deserves to be marked. With the benefit of hindsight and a
wider, more historical perspective, the President's climbdown on steel
tariffs may come to be seen less as an isolated decision than as a watershed.
This could well be the moment when the balance of moral, political and
material advantage tipped back across the Atlantic, from the new world to the
old; the moment, in fact, when the global ascendancy of the United States
started to wane, and the European Century began.
Mr Bush's repeal of his steel tariffs was, of course, born of short-term
domestic expediency. With the 2004 election campaign gathering pace, he
judged, probably correctly, that there were fewer votes in protected steel
than there were in cheap cars and domestic appliances. And the White House
was not being completely disingenuous when it insisted that the reversal on
steel tariffs was dictated by domestic considerations and would have happened
regardless of the World Trade Organisation rulings or the threatened European
sanctions.
But its "local" explanation misses a key point. The steel tariffs might
indeed have had the desired effect in the United States had the WTO had not
existed and had the European Union failed to co-ordinate its response. When
the Europeans shrewdly directed their retaliatory sanctions at states such as
Florida, where support for Mr Bush's teeters on a knife edge, there was no
real contest.
Mr Bush's presidency so far has been distinguished by an American
unilateralism that Mr Bush specifically rejected during his election
campaign. The multilateral approach that his predecessor, Bill Clinton, had
espoused was abandoned even before the shock of vulnerability inflicted by
the attacks of 11 September 2001. Mr Bush had already led the US away from
the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the International Criminal Court, and the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
The attacks of 11 September merely solidified the trend, as Mr Bush proceeded
from his new motto that "anyone who is not with us is against us". To take
his country (and ours) into war with Iraq, Mr Bush (and Mr Blair) disregarded
the majority on the UN Security Council and went it alone. The unhappy
results will be with us for many years to come.
Mr Clinton had many faults, but one of his signal merits was to view the
world in rather broader and longer terms than his successor appears to do. He
said on several occasions that international agreements needed to be drawn up
in such a way that the US would be content to be party to them, even if it
were no longer "top dog". This is a rule that all drafters of international
agreements should obey.
The day when America is no longer "top dog", however, may be closer than
Washington imagines. On steel, the US was held to account by an international
body, the WTO, that it had been instrumental in creating. But it was the
strength of the EU that made the agreement stick. And the strength of the
euro - at record levels against the dollar - is evidence of more
international confidence in Europe than Europeans themselves appreciate.
Last weekend's agreement on European defence, in the face of overt and
unprecedented US pressure, is further evidence of Europe's capacity to
concert its actions. And the fact that Britain, Spain, Italy and Poland have
troops in Iraq, whereas other EU states do not, has disguised two other
facts: that Europe is united in calling for the UN to oversee Iraq and that,
little by little, Washington is being forced to accept its terms.
Economic strength and multilateralism are not Europe's only strengths. Health
systems whose first principle is that all should be treated, regardless of
income; social security nets that - mostly - prevent the abject poverty and
social division that are so near the surface in the US; working hours and
holidays that try to allow a life outside work.
Europe may not live up to all its aspirations. But it is these co-operative
and social principles, not the imperatives of competition and domination,
that increasingly have global appeal. Welcome to the century of Europe.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
I'll believe it when the Europeans start doing more than talking big
smack which is all they ever seem to do.
--
I got a sweater for Christmas last year. I wanted
a screamer or a moaner, but I got a sweater.
-Steven Wright
Woofbert
no_one <no_one@no_where.invalid> wrote:
> Now America is history: this is the European century
>
> This could be the moment when the balance of advantage tipped back across
> the Atlantic
>
> Mary Dejevsky
> The Independent
>
> 06 December 2003
Thanks for the article ... even though it was off-topic and a link to
the article may have been more approprioate.
The article was published here:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/mary_dejevsky/story.
jsp?story=470542
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
C Lund
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Europe may not live up to all its aspirations. But it is these co-operative
> >and social principles, not the imperatives of competition and domination,
> >that increasingly have global appeal. Welcome to the century of Europe.
>
> I'll believe it when the Europeans start doing more than talking big
> smack which is all they ever seem to do.
It takes more than bombing the shit out of third-world countries to
have a dominating place in world politics. The steel tariff debacle
was a symptom of something I've said several times lately; the EU is
going to become a more important economy than the US within a decade
or two.
BTW: This century won't be European; it'll be Eurasian.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Peter Zegelin
C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
Then again:
A Doomsday Scenario for Europe's Economy
ZnU
C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
The EU, for all its faults, is an amazing thing, and I don't think it's
possible to overstate the effects it's going to have on the next 50
years of history. The EU model appears to allow for sustainable and
essentially unlimited expansion -- and as it expands into less developed
countries, it's going to raise them up to full first-world standards of
living.
The United States has no mechanisms in place which would allow it to
easily absorb nations the way the EU can. Nor could it easily create
some kind of supranational organization similar to the EU. No nation
would join a union totally dominated by the US, and the US is so much
more powerful than any potential member nation that a union-of-equals
would be absurd.
30 years from now, the EU probably will have worked its way well into
Asia and Africa. The US probably will look pretty much like it does now.
--
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
Peter Zegelin
C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
And this:
Sick man is Europe: http://www.techcentralstation.com/042403M.html
Doubts Tearing France Apart: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1061130,00.html
Swedish Sense: http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503E.html
And it isnt going to happen while the US manages 6 - 7% growth rates and
most of old Europe only 2%
Peter
Dan Johnson
news:znu-4339DA.0...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <clund-19BA37....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> > BTW: This century won't be European; it'll be Eurasian.
>
> The EU, for all its faults, is an amazing thing, and I don't think it's
> possible to overstate the effects it's going to have on the next 50
> years of history. The EU model appears to allow for sustainable and
> essentially unlimited expansion -- and as it expands into less developed
> countries, it's going to raise them up to full first-world standards of
> living.
Possibly. It remains to be seen if it will work. They have been
tinkering with the basic political formulas that drive the thing
for a long time; I won't believe it's stable until the Europeans
seem to think they've got it right.
> The United States has no mechanisms in place which would allow it to
> easily absorb nations the way the EU can.
It certainly does, and arguably a better one than the EU's
rather ad-hoc treaty negotiations. At least it is more
predictable. The basic outline of the mechanism is this:
a. Areas annexed to the US are territories, governed as
Washington sees fit. Citizens of the territory are citizens
of the United States, but not of any particular state.
b. Any territory (or part of one) that has 60,000 inhabitants
can petition for statehood. To do this it must first propose
a constitution and get it ratified by the inhabitants. It needs to
specify the new states permanent borders at this time also.
c. The Congress may accept or reject the new constitution;
if it accepts, the new state comes into being as an equal with the
others. It gets 2 Senators and at least one Representative, or
more according to population.
Sometimes the first step is skipped (as with Texas), and legally
you can have a caucus instead of a plebicite, but it's been a very
long time since anyone actually did so. It's widely recognized that
trying to foist statehood on an unwilling population is a bad idea,
and nobody wants to risk this by skipping the plebicite.
This approach has the signal advantage of obtaining the consent
of all concerned (or at least half of them), something that seems
to be omitted by the EU's approach in many cases.
Further, it's much easer to add new states when you don't
have to revisit the basic political compromises involved in the
formation of your union. The whole Senate/House/Electoral Colledge
thing may be wise or foolish, but at least it's not up for grabs whenever
a new state joins.
There is, I read, quite some controversy over the new Constitution
for Europe that is supposed to provide for representation for
the new Eastern European members; they are re-arranging hte
European Commission to keep it from getting too large, and
some of the current member states feel they are getting the
short end of the stick this way.
> Nor could it easily create
> some kind of supranational organization similar to the EU. No nation
> would join a union totally dominated by the US, and the US is so much
> more powerful than any potential member nation that a union-of-equals
> would be absurd.
The United States *is* such a supranational organization: it is a federation
of smaller governments. It is very like the EU structurally. The biggest
difference isn't so much in the law as the greater affection that citizens
of the US seem to have for their federation.
Now, it's true that at present foreign governments take Washington
seriously and Brussels not so seriously. But it seems clear that the EU
would like to be taken seriously in the same way.
It faces a challenge the US never did- none of the United States
brought a powerful military into the Union. Convincing the United Kingdom
to hand over its Navy to Brussels is quite a daunting challenge, but it
is hard to see the EU surviving a major war (should one come) if it does
not manage this.
> 30 years from now, the EU probably will have worked its way well into
> Asia and Africa. The US probably will look pretty much like it does now.
Doubt it. If anything expansion is more difficult for the EU at present
because in addition to all the cultural and economic issues that any
federation faces when it expands, it also (for some reason) renegotiates
the basic balance of power. The larger it gets the harder that is going
to be.
Even if they fix this, as well they may, the cultural and economic
issues are still serious. If not for this, Turkey would be a completely
obvious pick-up, for instance: it's a much more credible state that
even Texas was, it wants in, and it's geographic position is such as to
give the EU a lot more influence in some current international disputes-
something they would probably like.
And frankly I don't see that the EU has, or has ever had, the ambition
to become the Everywhere Union (as it were.) It does not appear
to even want to expand accross the Bosporus.
Further, it remains to be seen whether the EU can actually settle
disputes between its members effectively. The EU has bent it's
usual rule about requiring clear borders to let Greece in. But
then, the US bent *its* rules to let New York and New Hamshire
in. The difference is that the NY/NH border dispute was settled
fairly soon; Greece's border dispute with Turkey festers still.
Of course Turkey isn't a member. They want to join,
and maybe if they do this can be resolved. But the recent
business with the Stability Pact is not promising on this
score.
ZnU
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> "ZnU" <z...@acedsl.com> wrote in message
> news:znu-4339DA.0...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > In article <clund-19BA37....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> > > BTW: This century won't be European; it'll be Eurasian.
> >
> > The EU, for all its faults, is an amazing thing, and I don't think it's
> > possible to overstate the effects it's going to have on the next 50
> > years of history. The EU model appears to allow for sustainable and
> > essentially unlimited expansion -- and as it expands into less developed
> > countries, it's going to raise them up to full first-world standards of
> > living.
>
> Possibly. It remains to be seen if it will work. They have been
> tinkering with the basic political formulas that drive the thing
> for a long time; I won't believe it's stable until the Europeans
> seem to think they've got it right.
>
> > The United States has no mechanisms in place which would allow it to
> > easily absorb nations the way the EU can.
>
> It certainly does, and arguably a better one than the EU's
> rather ad-hoc treaty negotiations. At least it is more
> predictable. The basic outline of the mechanism is this:
[snip]
I'm aware of the mechanism for adding new states. It is exceedingly
unlikely that any presently existing sovereign nation of any account is
ever going to voluntarily join the United States by this mechanism. It
simply requires ceding too much power to the US federal government.
> > Nor could it easily create some kind of supranational organization
> > similar to the EU. No nation would join a union totally dominated
> > by the US, and the US is so much more powerful than any potential
> > member nation that a union-of-equals would be absurd.
>
> The United States *is* such a supranational organization: it is a
> federation of smaller governments. It is very like the EU
> structurally. The biggest difference isn't so much in the law as the
> greater affection that citizens of the US seem to have for their
> federation.
Nations perceive that they can join the EU without giving up (too much)
sovereignty. They do not have this perception about joining the United
States. Nor does the United States seem particularly interested in
subsuming other nations. These things are not likely to change any time
soon.
Essentially, the EU model gives up centralized control of many aspects
of government in exchange for a system which makes it much easier for
new members to be absorbed into its unified *economy*. I suspect that
will prove to be a very smart tradeoff.
[snip]
Tim Smith
> formation of your union. The whole Senate/House/Electoral Colledge thing
> may be wise or foolish, but at least it's not up for grabs whenever a new
> state joins.
It has certainly proved to be remarkably stable in practice...something that
cannot be said for most other governments. Depending on how you count the
Civil War, the US government has been basically the same, with orderly power
transitions, for ~150 years or ~200 years.
Most of the rest of the world can't even claim 60 years.
--
Evidence Eliminator is worthless. See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
> federation of smaller governments. It is very like the EU structurally.
> The biggest difference isn't so much in the law as the greater affection
> that citizens of the US seem to have for their federation.
Do EU citizens get full freedom to move between countries, and automatically
obtain all attributes of citizens of those countries?
In the US, all you have to do is move to another state (which the other
state has no say about...state's don't get to have immigration policies),
and you are a citizen of that state if you want to be. They can have a
requirement that you live in the state for a certain amount of time before
you can vote, but that's it...and all you have to do is live there. There
are no tests or anything like that.
Dan Johnson
> In article <vt6ak49...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I'm aware of the mechanism for adding new states. It is exceedingly
> unlikely that any presently existing sovereign nation of any account is
> ever going to voluntarily join the United States by this mechanism. It
> simply requires ceding too much power to the US federal government.
That's probably true. I don't expect to see any well-established
goverments petitioning for statehood.
But then our immediate neighbors are very large themselves.
and I don't see the Russian Federation applying for EU
membership.
The nations applying for membership in the EU know well
that they can be subjected to foreign domination without
getting a vote on any Commission. They have lots of experience
with that. Perhaps if the EU were stronger they'd only feel
the more strongly that they need to be official members, and
have a say.
If the Czech Republic were on the Rio Grande, it might
feel that it would be little able to resist Washington's demands
in any event, and it might as well have some Senators in the
bargain.
Of course that's not the whole story. They may believe that
by joining they can also *prevent* the EU from ever becoming
powerful in the areas where it is not now powerful; that would
not be true with the US.
[snip]
> > The United States *is* such a supranational organization: it is a
> > federation of smaller governments. It is very like the EU
> > structurally. The biggest difference isn't so much in the law as the
> > greater affection that citizens of the US seem to have for their
> > federation.
>
> Nations perceive that they can join the EU without giving up (too much)
> sovereignty. They do not have this perception about joining the United
> States. Nor does the United States seem particularly interested in
> subsuming other nations. These things are not likely to change any time
> soon.
Nations that perceive that may be wrong; I doubt they EU will
succeed if it does not obtain somehow the ability to coerce
compliance with its law from its member states. This may yet
happen.
Or maybe not. Facinating to speculate though.
> Essentially, the EU model gives up centralized control of many aspects
> of government in exchange for a system which makes it much easier for
> new members to be absorbed into its unified *economy*. I suspect that
> will prove to be a very smart tradeoff.
I dunno. The intent of the EU is quite explicitly "ever closer union";
clearly they mean to do much more than a mere custom's union.
You don't really need a central government like the one in Brussels
just for a unified economy- you just need to lower trade barriers
enough. That can be done through conventional treaty negotiations.
But there continue to be moves to strengthen the EU in exactly the
areas where the US federal government is strong. The "rapid reaction
force" is a step in the direction of the EU army, for instance. The
proposed EU constitution states that the EU will have its own "single
legal personality", which seems to mean it will be able to enter into
treaties in its own name.
[snip]
Francis Burton
>have a dominating place in world politics. The steel tariff debacle
>was a symptom of something I've said several times lately; the EU is
>going to become a more important economy than the US within a decade
>or two.
That may depend critically on whether non-US oil comes to be
sold in EU rather than USD.
http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=573
However, I disagree with the author that the collapse of the
US economy would be a good thing for the world (at least in
the short and medium term).
Francis
Dan Johnson
"Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:r7HAb.2719$_r6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In article <vt6ak49...@news.supernews.com>, Dan Johnson wrote:
> > The United States *is* such a supranational organization: it is a
> > federation of smaller governments. It is very like the EU structurally.
> > The biggest difference isn't so much in the law as the greater affection
> > that citizens of the US seem to have for their federation.
>
> Do EU citizens get full freedom to move between countries, and
automatically
> obtain all attributes of citizens of those countries?
I believe they do, or very nearly. As with all things EU, the legalities are
pretty messy. But I understand that the effect is pretty similar to the
US in this regard. Free movement, no papers, and no legal penalties
for being in the "wrong" country.
But there is the problem of the language barrier. No amount of
constitutional cleverness can really eliminate that.
[snip]
Mike Engles
Not with Budget deficits running into trillions of dollars.
The U.S. is being propped up by all the other (mainly Asian) economies
of the world. Bush has made it all worse and you do not feel any more
secure.
Mike Engles
Peter Hayes
> In article <vt6ak49...@news.supernews.com>, Dan Johnson wrote:
> > formation of your union. The whole Senate/House/Electoral Colledge thing
> > may be wise or foolish, but at least it's not up for grabs whenever a new
> > state joins.
>
> It has certainly proved to be remarkably stable in practice...something that
> cannot be said for most other governments. Depending on how you count the
> Civil War, the US government has been basically the same, with orderly power
> transitions, for ~150 years or ~200 years.
>
> Most of the rest of the world can't even claim 60 years.
The Union of the Parliaments, 1707, predates the US by nearly a century.
Peter
Peter Hayes
> Now America is history: this is the European century
>
> This could be the moment when the balance of advantage tipped back across
> the Atlantic
>
> Mary Dejevsky
> The Independent
>
> 06 December 2003
<...>
> Mr Bush's repeal of his steel tariffs was, of course, born of short-term
> domestic expediency. With the 2004 election campaign gathering pace, he
> judged, probably correctly, that there were fewer votes in protected steel
> than there were in cheap cars and domestic appliances.
Bush gave way because the EU intended to target US products from States
favourable to Bush.
Peter
Sean Burke
C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> writes:
> In article <dg65tvotpfp312fdm...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Europe may not live up to all its aspirations. But it is these co-operative
> > >and social principles, not the imperatives of competition and domination,
> > >that increasingly have global appeal. Welcome to the century of Europe.
> >
> > I'll believe it when the Europeans start doing more than talking big
> > smack which is all they ever seem to do.
>
> It takes more than bombing the shit out of third-world countries to
> have a dominating place in world politics.
But it does require at least that, and that capability is something
that Europe completely lacks. Consider Slobodan Milosevich - Europeans
are quite happy to try him for war crimes, but while he was committing
those crimes, Europeans were powerless to stop him. It was only by the
US "bombing the shit" out of Serbia, that his campaignof ethnic cleansing
was brought to a halt.
As long as Europe cannot muster the military muscle to control even the
most pathetic third-world potentate, Europe will not matter.
> The steel tariff debacle
> was a symptom of something I've said several times lately; the EU is
> going to become a more important economy than the US within a decade
> or two.
CAP.
-SEan
Woofbert
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
And considering America's growing xenophobia as evidenced by the
Official English movement, it's not likely that it will welcome new
states where the language isn't English. That leaves Canada, England,
New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and India. None of these is a
likely candidate of US statehood.
(India?! Well, yes. English is the common language. Everybody knows
somebody who speaks it, and because of all the local languages, English
is being used more and more as the common language of business. But the
US would never annex a democracy larger than itself, especially one that
finds Seventh-Day Adventists far too bland.)
> > > Nor could it easily create some kind of supranational organization
> > > similar to the EU. No nation would join a union totally dominated
> > > by the US, and the US is so much more powerful than any potential
> > > member nation that a union-of-equals would be absurd.
> >
> > The United States *is* such a supranational organization: it is a
> > federation of smaller governments. It is very like the EU
> > structurally. The biggest difference isn't so much in the law as the
> > greater affection that citizens of the US seem to have for their
> > federation.
>
> Nations perceive that they can join the EU without giving up (too much)
> sovereignty.
And language and culture! There are worries, but Europeans will figure
out a way and get over them.
> They do not have this perception about joining the United
> States. Nor does the United States seem particularly interested in
> subsuming other nations. These things are not likely to change any time
> soon.
>
> Essentially, the EU model gives up centralized control of many aspects
> of government in exchange for a system which makes it much easier for
> new members to be absorbed into its unified *economy*. I suspect that
> will prove to be a very smart tradeoff.
And ever-larger free-trade zones are really the important feature of the
trend of the past two thousand years. England, France, Italy, Spain had
all congolomerated themselves into those nations, and when Germany
finally caught up, what really scared the rest were Germany's resulting
economic power. The US colonies had economic problems (tariffs on trade)
until the Constitution created a big free-trade zone here. Now Europe is
a big free-trade zone, and is beginning to really understand the
benefits of doing that.
Maybe soon the Republicans will return to their economic-conservative
ideology and play along, instead of setting up all sorts of trade
barriers -- and whining when other countries do the same.
Woofbert
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <vt6ak49...@news.supernews.com>, Dan Johnson wrote:
> > formation of your union. The whole Senate/House/Electoral Colledge thing
> > may be wise or foolish, but at least it's not up for grabs whenever a new
> > state joins.
>
> It has certainly proved to be remarkably stable in practice...something that
> cannot be said for most other governments. Depending on how you count the
> Civil War, the US government has been basically the same, with orderly power
> transitions, for ~150 years or ~200 years.
~125 years. :-)
> Most of the rest of the world can't even claim 60 years.
That's not entirely surprising, given the kinds of changes that have
happened in the past five hundred years.
Yet how old is Switzerland? Iceland? England?
Woofbert
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> "Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:r7HAb.2719$_r6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > In article <vt6ak49...@news.supernews.com>, Dan Johnson wrote:
> > > The United States *is* such a supranational organization: it is a
> > > federation of smaller governments. It is very like the EU
> > > structurally. The biggest difference isn't so much in the law as
> > > the greater affection that citizens of the US seem to have for
> > > their federation.
> >
> > Do EU citizens get full freedom to move between countries, and
> > automatically obtain all attributes of citizens of those countries?
>
> I believe they do, or very nearly. As with all things EU, the
> legalities are pretty messy. But I understand that the effect is
> pretty similar to the US in this regard. Free movement, no papers,
> and no legal penalties for being in the "wrong" country.
The passport of any EU country lets the bearer into any other EU country
without a visa.
> But there is the problem of the language barrier. No amount of
> constitutional cleverness can really eliminate that.
One part of this discussion was about whether the US could expand
anymore the way the EU can. I brought up thefact thatthe US would
probbaly only be keen on annexing English-speaking countries.
And laguage isn't really such a barrier. In many smaller countries,
people learn two or three languages, and just about everybody learns
English. It's only in the US that language is a problem -- many
"experts" claim that teaching foreign languages "confuses" students.
Woofbert
Peter Zegelin <pe...@disorganised.com> wrote:
> Sick man is Europe: http://www.techcentralstation.com/042403M.html
> Doubts Tearing France Apart:
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1061130,00.html
> Swedish Sense: http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503E.html
Woohoo. Proof By Quoting Some Articles That Agree With You.
> And it isnt going to happen while the US manages 6 - 7% growth rates and
> most of old Europe only 2%
Weasel Word!
ZnU
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
Well, if you really want a unified economy, and not just a big free
trade zone, it helps to have a single currency, a centralized economic
policy, low barriers to the flow the labor, standardized labor laws,
etc. All of that requires something like a centralized government.
> But there continue to be moves to strengthen the EU in exactly the
> areas where the US federal government is strong. The "rapid reaction
> force" is a step in the direction of the EU army, for instance. The
> proposed EU constitution states that the EU will have its own "single
> legal personality", which seems to mean it will be able to enter into
> treaties in its own name.
That would be interesting. Even if the EU does pick up most of the
powers of the US federal government though, I think it'll still have
much less trouble picking up new members. It's much easier to join such
a union when it's still in its initial phase of active growth; when
you'd be one new member among many, rather than one new member among 50
old members.
Dan Johnson
news:woofbert.spam-DCD...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > But there is the problem of the language barrier. No amount of
> > constitutional cleverness can really eliminate that.
>
> One part of this discussion was about whether the US could expand
> anymore the way the EU can. I brought up thefact thatthe US would
> probbaly only be keen on annexing English-speaking countries.
That's likely true. I don't see the US expanding significantly
in the foreseeable future. But I also do not see the EU devouring
all in its path. Just seems like that's not in its character.
Why would they *want* to annex, say, North Africa?
> And laguage isn't really such a barrier. In many smaller countries,
> people learn two or three languages, and just about everybody learns
> English. It's only in the US that language is a problem -- many
> "experts" claim that teaching foreign languages "confuses" students.
If you say so. I understand labor mobility remains pretty low
in Europe. I wonder why that is, if it isn't due to language
barriers.
Dan Johnson
> In article <vt6fj8n...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > You don't really need a central government like the one in Brussels
> > just for a unified economy- you just need to lower trade barriers
> > enough. That can be done through conventional treaty negotiations.
>
> Well, if you really want a unified economy, and not just a big free
> trade zone, it helps to have a single currency, a centralized economic
> policy, low barriers to the flow the labor, standardized labor laws,
> etc. All of that requires something like a centralized government.
I don't agree. Standardized labor laws require it (or at least
are very hard without it), and similary a centralized economic
policy. But neither of those things are required or even obviously
desirable. It's notable that in the US, states can and do have
their own labor laws and economic policies.
OTOH, free movement of labor is certainly called for. This is
something countries have negotatied before, successfully even.
I believe there is something in Europe of this sort called the
"Schengen Agreement".
I think I slaughtered the spelling of that, though.
Once you actually have a single economy, it makes a lot of
sense to have a single currency. Currency unions have been
negotatied in the past, though the succesful ones tend to be
between one big and several small countries (where they all
use the big country's currency).
Doing it that way avoids the free-rider problem: only the big
country gets seignorage, but printing money willy nilly is no
more or less attractive to it than it was before the currency
union, because the little lcountries are too little to make a difference.
Clearly this is not the case with the Euro. The question then is
whether the EU can somehow prevent an individual EU
member state from payings it debts by simply printing Euros
to cover them.The Stability Pact was supposed to prevent
member states from getting into a position where they'd need
to, but that seems to be dead now.
Anyway, it turns out you don't need all this complicated stuff
to have a currency union. There are countries that do all or
most of their business in US dollars today (other than the US);
they do not even need permission. Sometimes it's just
that the citizens don't trust the Posylvanian Kroner, so they
use dollars instead- no government action involved.
Of course when that happens, Potsylvania loses out
on the seignorage. (And the US gets it instead. In essense
the US exports *dollars*, themselves, to countries whose
local currencies are junk, or which have intentionally decided
to use dollars. Very convenient for us!)
[snip]
> That would be interesting. Even if the EU does pick up most of the
> powers of the US federal government though, I think it'll still have
> much less trouble picking up new members. It's much easier to join such
> a union when it's still in its initial phase of active growth; when
> you'd be one new member among many, rather than one new member among 50
> old members.
You may be right about that; there is no longer much sense of
"manifest destiny" in the US anymore. Once it was otherwise. Perhaps
there is a sense in Europe that the EU is destined to include all
Europe, and a willingness to sacrifice to make it happen.
OTOH, I've already pointed out some factors that tend to
discourage such expansion. We'll see which factor proves
the stronger. It's all far to complex for me to figure out. :D
But I think there is at least reason to hope that a peace like
the 135 year peace of North America is taking hold in Europe;
we should all breathe easier for that.
Lefty
> Once you actually have a single economy, it makes a lot of
> sense to have a single currency. Currency unions have been
> negotatied in the past, though the succesful ones tend to be
> between one big and several small countries (where they all
> use the big country's currency).
i don't get the point. when i can walk up to an autoteller in canada, get
money, and get my account balance (appearing for them moment in canadian
dollars) what difference does it make what currency it started in?
it's like printing a number in hex or octal ... it doesn't matter what it
started in when you can convert it freely.
Dan Johnson
news:EiOAb.7246$uq1.6...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
>
> > Once you actually have a single economy, it makes a lot of
> > sense to have a single currency. Currency unions have been
> > negotatied in the past, though the succesful ones tend to be
> > between one big and several small countries (where they all
> > use the big country's currency).
>
> i don't get the point. when i can walk up to an autoteller in canada, get
> money, and get my account balance (appearing for them moment in canadian
> dollars) what difference does it make what currency it started in?
Currency risk. How much your account is debited depends
on the current exchange rate. If there were only one currency,
this would not be so.
> it's like printing a number in hex or octal ... it doesn't matter what it
> started in when you can convert it freely.
Currency conversions are not like representing the same
number in hex or octal. It's more like barter- exchanging
one currency for another. You risk getting a lousy deal.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> In article <clund-19BA37....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>
> > In article <dg65tvotpfp312fdm...@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >Europe may not live up to all its aspirations. But it is these
> > > >co-operative
> > > >and social principles, not the imperatives of competition and
> > > >domination,
> > > >that increasingly have global appeal. Welcome to the century of Europe.
> > >
> > > I'll believe it when the Europeans start doing more than talking big
> > > smack which is all they ever seem to do.
> >
> > It takes more than bombing the shit out of third-world countries to
> > have a dominating place in world politics. The steel tariff debacle
> > was a symptom of something I've said several times lately; the EU is
> > going to become a more important economy than the US within a decade
> > or two.
> >
> > BTW: This century won't be European; it'll be Eurasian.
>
> The EU, for all its faults, is an amazing thing, and I don't think it's
> possible to overstate the effects it's going to have on the next 50
> years of history. The EU model appears to allow for sustainable and
> essentially unlimited expansion -- and as it expands into less developed
> countries, it's going to raise them up to full first-world standards of
> living.
You mean like the US did in the 1950's?
--
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
Lefty
> "Lefty" <Le...@Phony.Invalid> wrote in message
> news:EiOAb.7246$uq1.6...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
>>
>>> Once you actually have a single economy, it makes a lot of
>>> sense to have a single currency. Currency unions have been
>>> negotatied in the past, though the succesful ones tend to be
>>> between one big and several small countries (where they all
>>> use the big country's currency).
>>
>> i don't get the point. when i can walk up to an autoteller in
>> canada, get money, and get my account balance (appearing for them
>> moment in canadian dollars) what difference does it make what
>> currency it started in?
>
> Currency risk. How much your account is debited depends
> on the current exchange rate. If there were only one currency,
> this would not be so.
i think "currency risk" was bigger before the network of currency
interdependancies damped out the swings. and, whether it is an
individual drawing occaisional cash, or a corporation making periodic
transfers, the "networking" makes it easy to average out over time,
time payments to your advantage, or (in the case of the corps) offer
an alternate currency for exchange.
"currency risk", given modern options, seems positively 19th century.
>> it's like printing a number in hex or octal ... it doesn't matter
>> what it started in when you can convert it freely.
>
> Currency conversions are not like representing the same
> number in hex or octal. It's more like barter- exchanging
> one currency for another. You risk getting a lousy deal.
i think a lot of that has collapsed out of the system. just use your credit
card and don't worry.
James Stutts
You must understand, George, that when we do this, it's evil globalization or
imperialism When Europe does it, it's a great
thing for humanity. <snort> Frankly, I'm somewhat alarmed by an organization
essentially run by France and GERMANY
with expansionist tendencies.... Couple that with the rising levels of
anti-semitism in Western Europe..... Santayana would
be *so* proud. Hopefully, the UK will come to its collective senses and realize
that they are, after all, not *european*, and act
accordingly.
JCS
Woofbert
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <woofbe...@infernosoft.com> wrote in message
> news:woofbert.spam-DCD...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > > But there is the problem of the language barrier. No amount of
> > > constitutional cleverness can really eliminate that.
> >
> > One part of this discussion was about whether the US could expand
> > anymore the way the EU can. I brought up thefact thatthe US would
> > probbaly only be keen on annexing English-speaking countries.
>
> That's likely true. I don't see the US expanding significantly
> in the foreseeable future. But I also do not see the EU devouring
> all in its path. Just seems like that's not in its character.
>
> Why would they *want* to annex, say, North Africa?
Shrug. How about, say England? I don't think Europe is going to become a
huge world-covering blob.
> > And laguage isn't really such a barrier. In many smaller countries,
> > people learn two or three languages, and just about everybody learns
> > English. It's only in the US that language is a problem -- many
> > "experts" claim that teaching foreign languages "confuses" students.
>
> If you say so. I understand labor mobility remains pretty low
> in Europe. I wonder why that is, if it isn't due to language
> barriers.
In Germanny, for instance, there are still holdovers from the medieval
guild system that limit who, for instance, can call himself a "master"
chimney repairman. The guilds are all up in arms over the threat of
imported cheap labor undercutting their rates. (To which I, who believe
in a relatively free market, respond that if your services are indeed
better, then you will be able to charge more money. Offer a better
warranty, for instance.) (BTW, it was DW-TV where I heard that story.)
George Graves
James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
Actually, I'm not too worried about the EU. Most of the member countries
are getting pretty fed-up with Brussles meddling (remember states-rights
issues in our own country?) in what should be member-nations' business.
I suspect that ultimately, the EU will end up being a bunch of different
countries with a common currency and open borders and that will be that.
Woofbert
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> Anyway, it turns out you don't need all this complicated stuff
> to have a currency union. There are countries that do all or
> most of their business in US dollars today (other than the US);
> they do not even need permission. Sometimes it's just
> that the citizens don't trust the Posylvanian Kroner, so they
> use dollars instead- no government action involved.
>
> Of course when that happens, Potsylvania loses out
> on the seignorage. (And the US gets it instead. In essense
> the US exports *dollars*, themselves, to countries whose
> local currencies are junk, or which have intentionally decided
> to use dollars. Very convenient for us!)
In most Eastern European countries and throughout the Middle East, the
Deutschmark was the most widely accepted currency. The Euro has taken
over that role.
Woofbert
"Lefty" <Le...@Phony.Invalid> wrote:
The thing is, it's not free. Travel trhough Europe used to be
complicated because you had to convert your money every time you entered
some other country, and every transaction had a fee.
Otoh, an interesting thing is happening in England: Many merchants in
touristy places happily accept the Euro, just as places in Canada accept
US dollars.
Steve Hix
Woofbert <woofbe...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
> (India?! Well, yes. English is the common language. Everybody knows
> somebody who speaks it, and because of all the local languages, English
> is being used more and more as the common language of business. But the
> US would never annex a democracy larger than itself, especially one that
> finds Seventh-Day Adventists far too bland.)
???
Woofbert
Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
!!!
Steve Hix
Woofbert <woofbe...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
> In article <sehix-7C630A....@news-central.giganews.com>,
> Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>
> > In article <woofbert.spam-238...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > Woofbert <woofbe...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > > (India?! Well, yes. English is the common language. Everybody knows
> > > somebody who speaks it, and because of all the local languages, English
> > > is being used more and more as the common language of business. But the
> > > US would never annex a democracy larger than itself, especially one that
> > > finds Seventh-Day Adventists far too bland.)
> >
> > ???
>
> !!!
Sigh.
Why, may I ask, does India "find Seventh-Day Adventists far too bland"?
I'm assuming the statement didn't mean to imply as an item of diet.
Woofbert
Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> In article <woofbert.spam-7E0...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> Woofbert <woofbe...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <sehix-7C630A....@news-central.giganews.com>,
> > Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <woofbert.spam-238...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > > Woofbert <woofbe...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > (India?! Well, yes. English is the common language. Everybody
> > > > knows somebody who speaks it, and because of all the local
> > > > languages, English is being used more and more as the common
> > > > language of business. But the US would never annex a democracy
> > > > larger than itself, especially one that finds Seventh-Day
> > > > Adventists far too bland.)
> > >
> > > ???
> >
> > !!!
>
> Sigh.
>
> Why, may I ask, does India "find Seventh-Day Adventists far too
> bland"?
>
> I'm assuming the statement didn't mean to imply as an item of diet.
Ithas something to do with how they were bland business suits. People
in India seem to prefer bright and colorful religions, with noise and
incense. This was the explanation given by a friend of mine who grew up
in India for why other Christian missionaries have better success there.
C Lund
Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org> wrote:
> C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> writes:
>
> > In article <dg65tvotpfp312fdm...@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >Europe may not live up to all its aspirations. But it is these
> > > >co-operative
> > > >and social principles, not the imperatives of competition and
> > > >domination,
> > > >that increasingly have global appeal. Welcome to the century of Europe.
> > >
> > > I'll believe it when the Europeans start doing more than talking big
> > > smack which is all they ever seem to do.
> >
> > It takes more than bombing the shit out of third-world countries to
> > have a dominating place in world politics.
> But it does require at least that,
Only if you want to be militarily dominant.
> and that capability is something
> that Europe completely lacks. Consider Slobodan Milosevich - Europeans
> are quite happy to try him for war crimes, but while he was committing
> those crimes, Europeans were powerless to stop him.
No, Europe wasn't powerless. We had the firepower to take him out. The
problem was that we couldn't decide what to do. IOW Europe lacks a
common foreign politic. Instead of taking action - *any* action - we
Euros ended up squabbling while the Bosnians and Kosovars died.
> It was only by the
> US "bombing the shit" out of Serbia, that his campaignof ethnic cleansing
> was brought to a halt.
And a good thing too.
> As long as Europe cannot muster the military muscle to control even the
> most pathetic third-world potentate, Europe will not matter.
EU will change that.
> > The steel tariff debacle
> > was a symptom of something I've said several times lately; the EU is
> > going to become a more important economy than the US within a decade
> > or two.
> CAP.
"CAP"?
> -SEan
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
fbu...@nyx10.nyx.net (Francis Burton) wrote:
> However, I disagree with the author that the collapse of the
> US economy would be a good thing for the world (at least in
> the short and medium term).
I don't think a collapse of the US economy would be a good thing. We
don't need more third world countries - especially not one with the
world's most powerful army. But four more years of bush may well lead
to just that.
> Francis
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
> And this:
>
> Sick man is Europe: http://www.techcentralstation.com/042403M.html
> Doubts Tearing France Apart:
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1061130,00.html
> Swedish Sense: http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503E.html
Uniting Europe isn't easy. Nobody ever said it would be.
> And it isnt going to happen while the US manages 6 - 7% growth rates and
> most of old Europe only 2%
The growth of the US' economy is irrelevant when the dificit is
growing like crazy:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:J6TrZKhg0KIJ:dean-justinspolitical
journal.cafeprogressive.com/bush_record_budget_deficit.htm+dean-justins
politicaljournal+deficit&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> Peter
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
> 30 years from now, the EU probably will have worked its way well into
> Asia and Africa.
Unlikely. There was some debate some years ago about a former Soviet
republic (Khazakstan?) that applied for a membership in the union. The
state had about 3 square kilometers in Europe and the rest was in Asia.
The existance of countries that lie both in Europe and Asia might make
the Europen Union turn into the Eurasion Union (unlikely, imho). But
there are no nations that are both in Europe and Africa (I don't think
the Canary Isles make any difference here). It's more likely that a
Pan-Africa Union comes into existance.
> The US probably will look pretty much like it does now.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
> Frankly, I'm somewhat alarmed by an organization
> essentially run by France and GERMANY
France and Germany are currently dominating the Union - but the
increasing displeasure with this among all the other nations will
change that in the near future.
> with expansionist tendencies....
You know the difference between taking other countries by force and
accepting membership applications, right?
> Couple that with the rising levels of
> anti-semitism in Western Europe..... Santayana would
> be *so* proud.
Especially after seeing what Israel has been is up to lately...
> Hopefully, the UK will come to its collective senses and
> realize that they are, after all, not *european*, and act
> accordingly.
So what is the UK if not European? American?
> JCS
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> But there is the problem of the language barrier. No amount of
> constitutional cleverness can really eliminate that.
There is no language barrier; most Europeans are bi- or trilingual,
and almost everybody speaks English.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Sean Burke
C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> writes:
> In article <x71xrgl...@bolo.xenadyne.com>,
> Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org> wrote:
>
> > C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> writes:
> >
> > > In article <dg65tvotpfp312fdm...@4ax.com>,
> > > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Europe may not live up to all its aspirations. But it is these
> > > > >co-operative
> > > > >and social principles, not the imperatives of competition and
> > > > >domination,
> > > > >that increasingly have global appeal. Welcome to the century of Europe.
> > > >
> > > > I'll believe it when the Europeans start doing more than talking big
> > > > smack which is all they ever seem to do.
> > >
> > > It takes more than bombing the shit out of third-world countries to
> > > have a dominating place in world politics.
> > But it does require at least that,
>
> Only if you want to be militarily dominant.
Military dominance is not an end in itself, but it is a necessary
means for peacekeeping. Yugoslovia, Kuwait and numerous other
recent cases prove that diplomacy, however earnest, cannot succeed
without a credible threat of military action.
> > and that capability is something
> > that Europe completely lacks. Consider Slobodan Milosevich - Europeans
> > are quite happy to try him for war crimes, but while he was committing
> > those crimes, Europeans were powerless to stop him.
>
> No, Europe wasn't powerless. We had the firepower to take him out.
Only with British participation.
> The
> problem was that we couldn't decide what to do. IOW Europe lacks a
> common foreign politic. Instead of taking action - *any* action - we
> Euros ended up squabbling while the Bosnians and Kosovars died.
You have it backwards - European squabbling did not cause inaction.
Europeans knew that they would not act, because they were incapable.
The squabbling was just to distract the public from this sad fact.
> > It was only by the
> > US "bombing the shit" out of Serbia, that his campaignof ethnic cleansing
> > was brought to a halt.
>
> And a good thing too.
>
> > As long as Europe cannot muster the military muscle to control even the
> > most pathetic third-world potentate, Europe will not matter.
>
> EU will change that.
>
> > > The steel tariff debacle
> > > was a symptom of something I've said several times lately; the EU is
> > > going to become a more important economy than the US within a decade
> > > or two.
> > CAP.
>
> "CAP"?
Common Agricultural Policy. Need I say more?
-SEan
Dan Johnson
> Dan Johnson wrote:
> > "Lefty" <Le...@Phony.Invalid> wrote in message
> > news:EiOAb.7246$uq1.6...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> > on the current exchange rate. If there were only one currency,
> > this would not be so.
>
> i think "currency risk" was bigger before the network of currency
> interdependancies damped out the swings. and, whether it is an
> individual drawing occaisional cash, or a corporation making periodic
> transfers, the "networking" makes it easy to average out over time,
> time payments to your advantage, or (in the case of the corps) offer
> an alternate currency for exchange.
Corporations cannot ensure that they always trade equivalent
volumes of cash in both directions; indeed if they did it would be
hard to see the point.
When a British corporation sells merchandise to the French,
it must bring at least some of the money back and turn it into
Pounds- if for no other reason than to pay taxes. If the Pound
is appreciating against the Euro, then their Euro revenue will
bring them fewer Pounds than if it did not. They can't change
their prices continuously, after all.
Were Great Britain to join the Euro, this would not happen.
There might be price inflation still, but everybody would
inflate together.
> "currency risk", given modern options, seems positively 19th century.
It isn't; back in the 19th century they were very hot for
the gold standard, which effectively locks in the exchange
rates, removing currency risk for as long as you can keep it up.
Currency risk is more of a late 20th century thing.
[snip]
> > Currency conversions are not like representing the same
> > number in hex or octal. It's more like barter- exchanging
> > one currency for another. You risk getting a lousy deal.
>
> i think a lot of that has collapsed out of the system. just use your
credit
> card and don't worry.
You can certainly do that, but you may get a lousy deal
on the currency exchange. Remember that these exchanges
are *not* made at purchasing-power-parity rates. You
are buying a foreign currency, and the price you get is the
price you get.
Dan Johnson
> In article <vt78m0r...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > That's likely true. I don't see the US expanding significantly
> > in the foreseeable future. But I also do not see the EU devouring
> > all in its path. Just seems like that's not in its character.
> >
> > Why would they *want* to annex, say, North Africa?
>
> Shrug. How about, say England? I don't think Europe is going to become a
> huge world-covering blob.
Pardon me; I was thinking that that was exactly what you
were predicting! :D
They've already got Britain. But they showed some
ambivalance about getting Britain before they got it.
[snip]
> > If you say so. I understand labor mobility remains pretty low
> > in Europe. I wonder why that is, if it isn't due to language
> > barriers.
>
> In Germanny, for instance, there are still holdovers from the medieval
> guild system that limit who, for instance, can call himself a "master"
> chimney repairman. The guilds are all up in arms over the threat of
> imported cheap labor undercutting their rates. (To which I, who believe
> in a relatively free market, respond that if your services are indeed
> better, then you will be able to charge more money. Offer a better
> warranty, for instance.) (BTW, it was DW-TV where I heard that story.)
Ah. This is, I think, the kind of thing the EU is supposed to be
able to ameliorate. I hope they manage it.
Lefty
my point is just that we (and corporations) have expanding options, and
that those options mitigate the risks ... to some degree.
on the other hand, even if everybody had to use one currency do you think
everybody's inflation would be the same? why does the economist rate
currency value against the price of each nation's big mac?
http://www.economist.com/markets/Bigmac/Index.cfm
do you think that one currency would make all big macs cost the same?
(perhaps znu would pass a law that they had to be the same)
C Lund
Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org> wrote:
> C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> writes:
> > In article <x71xrgl...@bolo.xenadyne.com>,
> > Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org> wrote:
> > > C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> writes:
> > > > In article <dg65tvotpfp312fdm...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >Europe may not live up to all its aspirations. But it is these
> > > > > >co-operative
> > > > > >and social principles, not the imperatives of competition and
> > > > > >domination,
> > > > > >that increasingly have global appeal. Welcome to the century of
> > > > > >Europe.
> > > > > I'll believe it when the Europeans start doing more than talking big
> > > > > smack which is all they ever seem to do.
> > > > It takes more than bombing the shit out of third-world countries to
> > > > have a dominating place in world politics.
> > > But it does require at least that,
> > Only if you want to be militarily dominant.
> Military dominance is not an end in itself, but it is a necessary
> means for peacekeeping. Yugoslovia, Kuwait and numerous other
> recent cases prove that diplomacy, however earnest, cannot succeed
> without a credible threat of military action.
I agree there. There are people you just can't talk to. But it is not
necessary to have a huge army/being able to put down bad regimes in
order to be a powerful nation.
> > > and that capability is something
> > > that Europe completely lacks. Consider Slobodan Milosevich - Europeans
> > > are quite happy to try him for war crimes, but while he was committing
> > > those crimes, Europeans were powerless to stop him.
> > No, Europe wasn't powerless. We had the firepower to take him out.
> Only with British participation.
Even without the British.
> > The
> > problem was that we couldn't decide what to do. IOW Europe lacks a
> > common foreign politic. Instead of taking action - *any* action - we
> > Euros ended up squabbling while the Bosnians and Kosovars died.
> You have it backwards - European squabbling did not cause inaction.
> Europeans knew that they would not act, because they were incapable.
> The squabbling was just to distract the public from this sad fact.
This is so far fetched I doubt anybody would believe it.
> > > > The steel tariff debacle
> > > > was a symptom of something I've said several times lately; the EU is
> > > > going to become a more important economy than the US within a decade
> > > > or two.
> > > CAP.
> > "CAP"?
> Common Agricultural Policy. Need I say more?
Well, I'd be interested in hearing what that has to do with it.
Dan Johnson
> Dan Johnson wrote:
> > Were Great Britain to join the Euro, this would not happen.
> > There might be price inflation still, but everybody would
> > inflate together.
>
> my point is just that we (and corporations) have expanding options, and
> that those options mitigate the risks ... to some degree.
>
> on the other hand, even if everybody had to use one currency do you think
> everybody's inflation would be the same?
If there were one currency only there would be no
exchange rate fluctuations, of course. This is like
saying that if there were no Big Macs, the Economists
Big Mac index would show the same value for
all currencies.
Even in such a case, though, you could still talk about
"global inflation" in terms of commodities that happen
to have very similar prices everywhere, like a currency
does: perhaps oil would be a good choice. Or perhaps
gold.
> why does the economist rate
> currency value against the price of each nation's big mac?
>
> http://www.economist.com/markets/Bigmac/Index.cfm
>
> do you think that one currency would make all big macs cost the same?
>
> (perhaps znu would pass a law that they had to be the same)
This is not quite the same issue. A purchasing power parity index
like that tries to measure what a currency is worth in terms
of what it will buy; what you get from such an index depends
on what you are buying. Usually the basket of goods considered
is a little more extensive than just a Big Mac. :D
I was talking about exchange rates of the sort you get when
you exchange one currency for another, something companies
had to do a lot of in Europe before the Euro.
Exchange rates don't vary much between *places* because
money is so easy to move around; if any place had much
worse rates the money would just go elsewhere, and those
rates would be ignored.
Big Macs are particularly hard to move around, like. There's
therefore more room for variance in the prices.
James Stutts
> In article <3FD3BEC3...@knology.net>,
> James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I'm somewhat alarmed by an organization
> > essentially run by France and GERMANY
>
> France and Germany are currently dominating the Union - but the
> increasing displeasure with this among all the other nations will
> change that in the near future.
>
Will it now. Perhaps they'll just reconsider whether a tighter Union is
such a good idea.
>
> > with expansionist tendencies....
>
> You know the difference between taking other countries by force and
> accepting membership applications, right?
There are kinds of force that aren't military.
>
>
> > Couple that with the rising levels of
> > anti-semitism in Western Europe..... Santayana would
> > be *so* proud.
>
> Especially after seeing what Israel has been is up to lately...
Which is?
>
>
> > Hopefully, the UK will come to its collective senses and
> > realize that they are, after all, not *european*, and act
> > accordingly.
>
> So what is the UK if not European? American?
English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish, of course. I hope they remember
that.
JCS
Tim Smith
wrote:
>> Most of the rest of the world can't even claim 60 years.
>
> That's not entirely surprising, given the kinds of changes that have
> happened in the past five hundred years.
>
> Yet how old is Switzerland? Iceland? England?
Iceland is interesting. They have the oldest legislative assembly in the
world, the Althing, which goes back to 930. On the other hand, Iceland was
later ruled by Denmark. They got limited self-rule in 1874, and
independence in 1944.
Switzerland looks like about 200 years.
England underwent a big change with the diminishing of the role of the
monarchy and the rise of Parliment, but that took place over a pretty long
period, so it is hard to say with them.
--
Evidence Eliminator is worthless. See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith
C Lund
James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > > Frankly, I'm somewhat alarmed by an organization
> > > essentially run by France and GERMANY
> > France and Germany are currently dominating the Union - but the
> > increasing displeasure with this among all the other nations will
> > change that in the near future.
> Will it now.
Yes it will.
> Perhaps they'll just reconsider whether a tighter Union is
> such a good idea.
And that's why it'll bring about a change.
> > > with expansionist tendencies....
> > You know the difference between taking other countries by force and
> > accepting membership applications, right?
> There are kinds of force that aren't military.
Certainly. But not all kinds of force are coercive.
Maybe you'd like to give some examples of countries that have been
forced to join the union against their will?
> > > Couple that with the rising levels of
> > > anti-semitism in Western Europe..... Santayana would
> > > be *so* proud.
> > Especially after seeing what Israel has been is up to lately...
> Which is?
Go look at that other post I made on the topic.
> > > Hopefully, the UK will come to its collective senses and
> > > realize that they are, after all, not *european*, and act
> > > accordingly.
> > So what is the UK if not European? American?
> English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish, of course.
And all of those are European. You see, it's possible to be all of
that and *also* be European.
> I hope they remember
> that.
> JCS
>
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
ZnU
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> "ZnU" <z...@acedsl.com> wrote in message
> news:znu-8EE644.1...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > In article <vt6fj8n...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > > You don't really need a central government like the one in Brussels
> > > just for a unified economy- you just need to lower trade barriers
> > > enough. That can be done through conventional treaty negotiations.
> >
> > Well, if you really want a unified economy, and not just a big free
> > trade zone, it helps to have a single currency, a centralized economic
> > policy, low barriers to the flow the labor, standardized labor laws,
> > etc. All of that requires something like a centralized government.
>
> I don't agree. Standardized labor laws require it (or at least
> are very hard without it), and similary a centralized economic
> policy. But neither of those things are required or even obviously
> desirable. It's notable that in the US, states can and do have
> their own labor laws and economic policies.
But the federal government establishes baselines. That sort of thing is
necessary. If states were responsible for setting their own minimum
wages, for instance, all the low-end jobs would end up in Texas, where
they'd set theirs at $2/hour, assuming they had one at all <g>. If you
want sustained growth which raises standards of living across a union,
you need to have baselines for labor laws.
Similarly, economic policy can't vary *too* widely from place to place,
or strange things happen when you try to make everyone use the same
currency.
> OTOH, free movement of labor is certainly called for. This is
> something countries have negotatied before, successfully even.
> I believe there is something in Europe of this sort called the
> "Schengen Agreement".
>
> I think I slaughtered the spelling of that, though.
>
> Once you actually have a single economy, it makes a lot of
> sense to have a single currency. Currency unions have been
> negotatied in the past, though the succesful ones tend to be
> between one big and several small countries (where they all
> use the big country's currency).
>
> Doing it that way avoids the free-rider problem: only the big
> country gets seignorage, but printing money willy nilly is no
> more or less attractive to it than it was before the currency
> union, because the little lcountries are too little to make a difference.
>
> Clearly this is not the case with the Euro. The question then is
> whether the EU can somehow prevent an individual EU
> member state from payings it debts by simply printing Euros
> to cover them.The Stability Pact was supposed to prevent
> member states from getting into a position where they'd need
> to, but that seems to be dead now.
I suspect that if anyone started doing it, everyone else would find a
way to make them cut it out.
> Anyway, it turns out you don't need all this complicated stuff
> to have a currency union. There are countries that do all or
> most of their business in US dollars today (other than the US);
> they do not even need permission. Sometimes it's just
> that the citizens don't trust the Posylvanian Kroner, so they
> use dollars instead- no government action involved.
Sure, but they're effectively giving up control of a large portion of
their economic policy.
[snip]
--
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
ZnU
James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>
> > In article <znu-4339DA.0...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <clund-19BA37....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > > C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <dg65tvotpfp312fdm...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >Europe may not live up to all its aspirations. But it is these
> > > > > >co-operative
> > > > > >and social principles, not the imperatives of competition and
> > > > > >domination,
> > > > > >that increasingly have global appeal. Welcome to the century of
> > > > > >Europe.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll believe it when the Europeans start doing more than talking big
> > > > > smack which is all they ever seem to do.
> > > >
> > > > It takes more than bombing the shit out of third-world countries to
> > > > have a dominating place in world politics. The steel tariff debacle
> > > > was a symptom of something I've said several times lately; the EU is
> > > > going to become a more important economy than the US within a decade
> > > > or two.
> > > >
> > > > BTW: This century won't be European; it'll be Eurasian.
> > >
> > > The EU, for all its faults, is an amazing thing, and I don't think it's
> > > possible to overstate the effects it's going to have on the next 50
> > > years of history. The EU model appears to allow for sustainable and
> > > essentially unlimited expansion -- and as it expands into less developed
> > > countries, it's going to raise them up to full first-world standards of
> > > living.
> >
> > You mean like the US did in the 1950's?
>
> You must understand, George, that when we do this, it's evil globalization or
> imperialism When Europe does it, it's a great
> thing for humanity.
The EU is absorbing less developed nations into itself and brining them
up to first-world standards of living. The US is not doing anything
similar at the moment. Most US investment in less developed nations
right now serves the short-term interests of US corporations, not the
people of those nations.
The US has had more far-sighted policies in the past, however, and is
still doing some very good things in a few places. It seems the US is
legitimately interested in turning Iraq into a better place, for
instance.
> <snort> Frankly, I'm somewhat alarmed by an organization
> essentially run by France and GERMANY with expansionist
> tendencies.... Couple that with the rising levels of anti-semitism
> in Western Europe..... Santayana would be *so* proud. Hopefully,
> the UK will come to its collective senses and realize that they are,
> after all, not *european*, and act accordingly.
--
George Graves
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <woofbert.spam-844...@typhoon.sonic.net>, Woofbert
> wrote:
> >> Most of the rest of the world can't even claim 60 years.
> >
> > That's not entirely surprising, given the kinds of changes that have
> > happened in the past five hundred years.
> >
> > Yet how old is Switzerland? Iceland? England?
>
> Iceland is interesting. They have the oldest legislative assembly in the
> world, the Althing, which goes back to 930. On the other hand, Iceland was
> later ruled by Denmark. They got limited self-rule in 1874, and
> independence in 1944.
>
> Switzerland looks like about 200 years.
And in that 200 years? In his 1949 movie "The Third Man",
Producer/Director Carol Reed has Orson Welles, as the shady character
Harry Lime" tell his friend Holly Martins (who has just accused him of
being a racketeer profiting from WWII), in a speech which Welles wrote,
BTW:
"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror,
murder and bloodshed - but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci
and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, five
hundred years of democracy and what did that produce - the cuckoo clock!"
It's one of my favorite movie lines of all times and Sooooooo true! Just
thought I'd share it with you. (Zither music fades..........)
Dan Johnson
> In article <vt7bl9q...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > I don't agree. Standardized labor laws require it (or at least
> > are very hard without it), and similary a centralized economic
> > policy. But neither of those things are required or even obviously
> > desirable. It's notable that in the US, states can and do have
> > their own labor laws and economic policies.
>
> But the federal government establishes baselines. That sort of thing is
> necessary. If states were responsible for setting their own minimum
> wages, for instance, all the low-end jobs would end up in Texas, where
> they'd set theirs at $2/hour, assuming they had one at all <g>. If you
> want sustained growth which raises standards of living across a union,
> you need to have baselines for labor laws.
You may argue that these things would be undesirable, but they
do not represent a barrier to having a single economy.
If what you want is not such much a *single* economy as
a regulated one, obviously a central government is required. And
I think we might argue that this is indeed something that Europeans
seem to want.
> Similarly, economic policy can't vary *too* widely from place to place,
> or strange things happen when you try to make everyone use the same
> currency.
Well, it economic policy can't be completely berzerk in any one place,
or that one place won't be part of the single economy for very long.
However, there will be pressure against policies diverging in this
way, simply because people and capital will flee places where
this happens. This does not produce perfect homogeneity,
but it's far from clear that such is needed.
[snip]
> > Clearly this is not the case with the Euro. The question then is
> > whether the EU can somehow prevent an individual EU
> > member state from payings it debts by simply printing Euros
> > to cover them.The Stability Pact was supposed to prevent
> > member states from getting into a position where they'd need
> > to, but that seems to be dead now.
>
> I suspect that if anyone started doing it, everyone else would find a
> way to make them cut it out.
But how? The original plan was that there would be
a central government that would assess fines; but this
part appears to have failed.
Not that I really expect you to have an answer: it's
a terribly hard problem. But the EU needs an answer,
I think.
> > Anyway, it turns out you don't need all this complicated stuff
> > to have a currency union. There are countries that do all or
> > most of their business in US dollars today (other than the US);
> > they do not even need permission. Sometimes it's just
> > that the citizens don't trust the Posylvanian Kroner, so they
> > use dollars instead- no government action involved.
>
> Sure, but they're effectively giving up control of a large portion of
> their economic policy.
That is quite correct. But it is also true with the Euro, no?
[snip]
James Stutts
> In article <3FD6A6E9...@knology.net>,
> James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> > C Lund wrote:
> > > > Frankly, I'm somewhat alarmed by an organization
> > > > essentially run by France and GERMANY
> > > France and Germany are currently dominating the Union - but the
> > > increasing displeasure with this among all the other nations will
> > > change that in the near future.
> > Will it now.
>
> Yes it will.
We'll see.
>
>
> > Perhaps they'll just reconsider whether a tighter Union is
> > such a good idea.
>
> And that's why it'll bring about a change.
>
> > > > with expansionist tendencies....
> > > You know the difference between taking other countries by force and
> > > accepting membership applications, right?
> > There are kinds of force that aren't military.
>
> Certainly. But not all kinds of force are coercive.
>
> Maybe you'd like to give some examples of countries that have been
> forced to join the union against their will?
Not yet, at least.
>
>
> > > > Couple that with the rising levels of
> > > > anti-semitism in Western Europe..... Santayana would
> > > > be *so* proud.
> > > Especially after seeing what Israel has been is up to lately...
> > Which is?
>
> Go look at that other post I made on the topic.
Why should I? Your side can't be bothered to do the same. Apparently,
Israel
acting to try and stop the senseless murder of hundreds of their citizens
a year
by just putting up a fence is really horrible to you...
>
>
> > > > Hopefully, the UK will come to its collective senses and
> > > > realize that they are, after all, not *european*, and act
> > > > accordingly.
> > > So what is the UK if not European? American?
> > English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish, of course.
>
> And all of those are European. You see, it's possible to be all of
> that and *also* be European.
Are they? Seems to me, they aren't on the Continent. Not too long ago,
they would've bristled at being
called a "European".
JCS
James Stutts
All they while telling them to "shut up, if they no what's good for them"
(paraphrase of Chirac).
>
> similar at the moment. Most US investment in less developed nations
> right now serves the short-term interests of US corporations, not the
> people of those nations.
Against globalization, are we?
>
>
> The US has had more far-sighted policies in the past, however, and is
> still doing some very good things in a few places. It seems the US is
> legitimately interested in turning Iraq into a better place, for
> instance.
It is in our interest and not in the interest of our enemies.
JCS
C Lund
James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> > > > > Couple that with the rising levels of
> > > > > anti-semitism in Western Europe..... Santayana would
> > > > > be *so* proud.
> > > > Especially after seeing what Israel has been is up to lately...
> > > Which is?
> > Go look at that other post I made on the topic.
> Why should I?
Because that other post was made in response to one of your posts on
this same topic. IOW I'm not really interested in running two
identical threadsd with the same person.
> Your side can't be bothered to do the same.
"My side"??
> Apparently,
> Israel
> acting to try and stop the senseless murder of hundreds of their citizens
> a year
> by just putting up a fence is really horrible to you...
When you get around to reading that other post I mentioned above,
you'll see a link to map showing where that fence is being built. The
fence is *obviously* not being built to protect the Israelis from the
Palestinians; it's being built as a part of the ethnic cleansing
taking place down there.
> > > > > Hopefully, the UK will come to its collective senses and
> > > > > realize that they are, after all, not *european*, and act
> > > > > accordingly.
> > > > So what is the UK if not European? American?
> > > English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish, of course.
> > And all of those are European. You see, it's possible to be all of
> > that and *also* be European.
> Are they? Seems to me, they aren't on the Continent.
So a short stretch of water makes them not Euros? That never bothered
the Celts, Vikings, Saxons, Romans, and anybody else from Europe.
> Not too long ago,
> they would've bristled at being
> called a "European".
Some still do.
James Stutts
> In article <3FDD2EB8...@knology.net>,
> James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Couple that with the rising levels of
> > > > > > anti-semitism in Western Europe..... Santayana would
> > > > > > be *so* proud.
> > > > > Especially after seeing what Israel has been is up to lately...
> > > > Which is?
> > > Go look at that other post I made on the topic.
> > Why should I?
>
> Because that other post was made in response to one of your posts on
> this same topic. IOW I'm not really interested in running two
> identical threadsd with the same person.
Your other post was just as lacking in reasonable content.
>
>
> > Your side can't be bothered to do the same.
>
> "My side"??
Apparently, you have a side.
>
>
> > Apparently,
> > Israel
> > acting to try and stop the senseless murder of hundreds of their citizens
> > a year
> > by just putting up a fence is really horrible to you...
>
> When you get around to reading that other post I mentioned above,
> you'll see a link to map showing where that fence is being built. The
> fence is *obviously* not being built to protect the Israelis from the
> Palestinians; it's being built as a part of the ethnic cleansing
> taking place down there.
I visited the link. The fence is OBVIOUSLY designed to keep the Palestinians
out of
Israeli-held territory - or at least limit cross-border movement to the
checkpoints. That is hardly
*genocide*.
>
>
> > > > > > Hopefully, the UK will come to its collective senses and
> > > > > > realize that they are, after all, not *european*, and act
> > > > > > accordingly.
> > > > > So what is the UK if not European? American?
> > > > English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish, of course.
> > > And all of those are European. You see, it's possible to be all of
> > > that and *also* be European.
> > Are they? Seems to me, they aren't on the Continent.
>
> So a short stretch of water makes them not Euros? That never bothered
> the Celts, Vikings, Saxons, Romans, and anybody else from Europe.
They certainly didn't consider themselves "European". Where do you think *we*
got our opinion of France?
Our English cousins.
Actually, France was very popular over here between the years 1776-1798.
After the the French attacks on
our merchant shipping, the XYZ Affair, and the Quasi War, we haven't cared too
much for them since.
>
>
> > Not too long ago,
> > they would've bristled at being
> > called a "European".
>
> Some still do.
Rightly so.
JCS
C Lund
James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> > > Apparently, Israel
> > > acting to try and stop the senseless murder of hundreds of their citizens
> > > a year by just putting up a fence is really horrible to you...
> > When you get around to reading that other post I mentioned above,
> > you'll see a link to map showing where that fence is being built. The
> > fence is *obviously* not being built to protect the Israelis from the
> > Palestinians; it's being built as a part of the ethnic cleansing
> > taking place down there.
> I visited the link. The fence is OBVIOUSLY designed to keep the Palestinians
> out of
> Israeli-held territory - or at least limit cross-border movement to the
> checkpoints.
Really? So why was it not built on the Israeli/Palestinian border
rather than fencing off two small "homelands" inside Palestine?
> That is hardly
> *genocide*.
Where did I say anything about genocide? Oh, I see; you were trying to
build a strawman.
James Stutts
> In article <3FDE9F2A...@knology.net>,
> James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> > > > Apparently, Israel
> > > > acting to try and stop the senseless murder of hundreds of their citizens
> > > > a year by just putting up a fence is really horrible to you...
> > > When you get around to reading that other post I mentioned above,
> > > you'll see a link to map showing where that fence is being built. The
> > > fence is *obviously* not being built to protect the Israelis from the
> > > Palestinians; it's being built as a part of the ethnic cleansing
> > > taking place down there.
>
> > I visited the link. The fence is OBVIOUSLY designed to keep the Palestinians
> > out of
> > Israeli-held territory - or at least limit cross-border movement to the
> > checkpoints.
>
> Really? So why was it not built on the Israeli/Palestinian border
> rather than fencing off two small "homelands" inside Palestine?
It fences off the non-"occupied" areas from the "occupied areas".
>
>
> > That is hardly
> > *genocide*.
>
> Where did I say anything about genocide? Oh, I see; you were trying to
> build a strawman.
"Ethnic cleansing" is what Milosevic - you know, that nice guy that Europe would
do nothing about -
was doing in the balkans. It's a "PC" term for genocide.
If your country was under seige to the point where there was a really good chance
you wouldn't survive a trip out for a pizza and
the enemy had turned *every single offer* away at the peace table - vowing to push
you into the sea and kill you all, perhaps
you'd have a different opinion.
JCS
Invid Fan
<stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
>
> > Where did I say anything about genocide? Oh, I see; you were trying to
> > build a strawman.
>
> "Ethnic cleansing" is what Milosevic - you know, that nice guy that Europe
> would
> do nothing about -
> was doing in the balkans. It's a "PC" term for genocide.
>
The term also refers to kicking members of an ethnic group out of the
country. If the US were to force everyone of Polish decent to leave, or
even just go to a special "homeland" in Idaho, that would be "ethnic
cleansing".
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
C Lund
James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > > > > Apparently, Israel
> > > > > acting to try and stop the senseless murder of hundreds of their
> > > > > citizens
> > > > > a year by just putting up a fence is really horrible to you...
> > > > When you get around to reading that other post I mentioned above,
> > > > you'll see a link to map showing where that fence is being built. The
> > > > fence is *obviously* not being built to protect the Israelis from the
> > > > Palestinians; it's being built as a part of the ethnic cleansing
> > > > taking place down there.
> > > I visited the link. The fence is OBVIOUSLY designed to keep the
> > > Palestinians
> > > out of
> > > Israeli-held territory - or at least limit cross-border movement to the
> > > checkpoints.
> > Really? So why was it not built on the Israeli/Palestinian border
> > rather than fencing off two small "homelands" inside Palestine?
> It fences off the non-"occupied" areas from the "occupied areas".
No it does not. The border between the OT and Israel follows the green
line, as pr this map:
http://www.palestinercs.org/images/Maps/westbankmaplg.jpg
Sharon's Wall is for creating Palestinian "Homelands" like those of
Apartheid South Africa.
> > > That is hardly
> > > *genocide*.
> > Where did I say anything about genocide? Oh, I see; you were trying to
> > build a strawman.
> "Ethnic cleansing" is what Milosevic - you know, that nice guy that Europe
> would do nothing about - was doing in the balkans. It's a "PC" term for genocide.
No it is not. Let me educate you on the topic:
"Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial,
political, or cultural group.
Ethnic Cleansing: The elimination of an unwanted group from a society,
as by genocide or forced migration."
http://www.munfw.org/archive/50th/4th1.htm
Understand the difference now?
> If your country was under seige to the point where there was a really good
> chance you wouldn't survive a trip out for a pizza and
> the enemy had turned *every single offer* away at the peace table - vowing to
> push you into the sea and kill you all, perhaps
> you'd have a different opinion.
That's not a bad description of the situation of the Palestinians. Of
course, they couldn't afford any pizza even if there was any pizza to
be had, and the Israelis aren't specifically trying to push them into
the sea; just out of Palestine.
James Stutts
What forced migration is going on there in the present day?
>
>
> > If your country was under seige to the point where there was a really good
> > chance you wouldn't survive a trip out for a pizza and
> > the enemy had turned *every single offer* away at the peace table - vowing to
> > push you into the sea and kill you all, perhaps
> > you'd have a different opinion.
>
> That's not a bad description of the situation of the Palestinians. Of
Right. Sure.
JCS
C Lund
James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> > No it is not. Let me educate you on the topic:
> > "Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial,
> > political, or cultural group.
> > Ethnic Cleansing: The elimination of an unwanted group from a society,
> > as by genocide or forced migration."
> > http://www.munfw.org/archive/50th/4th1.htm
> > Understand the difference now?
> What forced migration is going on there in the present day?
The one that's been going on for the past thirty years or so. The one
that put all those Palestinians in those refugee camps.
James Stutts
Further back then that. Well before Europe's last exercise in genocide.
Sorry, "ethnic cleansing".... I guess that makes all those dead people not
as dead, or something.
JCS
>
Peter Hayes
I seem to recall the US indulging in ethnic cleansing, cleansing all the
native Americans into reservations, and more recently Bikini Atoll
David Fritzinger
Huh? While we did move Native Americans onto reservations, and could
certainly be accused of treating them terribly, I know of no occasion
where we moved anyone onto Bikini Atoll. We moved the native
population of Bikini Atoll off the island before we used it as a
testing ground for Nuclear weapons, but I am unaware of any forced
movement of people onto Bikini Atoll.
--
Dave Fritzinger
James Stutts
> native Americans into reservations, and more recently Bikini Atoll.
Bikini Atoll was unfortunate, considering there were islands available that were
not inhabited.
The reservations predate Lund's European colonialism.... You can't really
consider either of those
"ethnic cleansing", since the cultures were not destroyed.
JCS
Andrew J. Brehm
I'm afraid that was the surrounding Arab countries calling the
Palestinians to leave Israel for the war and come back when Israel was
beaten, which of course never happened.
It is, of course, customary in certain circles to blame the Jews for
that, but it cannot hurt to correct the claim when it comes up.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Peter Hayes
> occasionwhere we moved anyone onto Bikini Atoll. We moved
> the native population of Bikini Atoll off the island before we used
> it as a testing ground for Nuclear weapons, but I am unaware of
> any forced movement of people onto Bikini Atoll.
Surely moving people off Bikini Atoll, to be replaced by US personnel is
ethnic cleansing?
Peter
Peter Hayes
Mayor of R'lyeh
to bless us with the following wisdom:
You would have rather we tested H-bombs there with the people in
place?
--
I got a sweater for Christmas last year. I wanted
a screamer or a moaner, but I got a sweater.
-Steven Wright
Peter Hayes
David Fritzinger
m...@privacy.net (Peter Hayes) wrote:
I really hate to agree with the Mayor, but, I don't think it counts as
ethnic cleansing. And, we are moving them back, if they want to go, IIRC.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Francis Burton
David Fritzinger <dfri...@macNoSpam.com> wrote:
>I really hate to agree with the Mayor, but, I don't think it counts as
>ethnic cleansing.
"T h e i n h a b i t a n t s h a v e b e e n t a k e n a w a y"[*]
A translocation of an entire people - it was a place, not a society,
that was "cleansed".
>And, we are moving them back, if they want to go, IIRC.
http://www.bikiniatoll.com/home.html has some interesting stuff.
([*] Steve Reich and Beryl Korot's video opera THREE TALES has a
2nd movement called "Bikini" which presents film footage shot in
the lead-up to the bomb tests.)
Francis
Mayor of R'lyeh
I've no idea what the criteria were that lead to the selection of
Bikini for the test.
In any case still that doesn't make an exercise of eminent domain
an act of genocide.
C Lund
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> > In article <3FE7B6D1...@knology.net>,
> > James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> > > > No it is not. Let me educate you on the topic:
> > > > "Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial,
> > > > political, or cultural group.
> > > > Ethnic Cleansing: The elimination of an unwanted group from a society,
> > > > as by genocide or forced migration."
> > > > http://www.munfw.org/archive/50th/4th1.htm
> > > > Understand the difference now?
> > > What forced migration is going on there in the present day?
> > The one that's been going on for the past thirty years or so. The one
> > that put all those Palestinians in those refugee camps.
> I'm afraid that was the surrounding Arab countries calling the
> Palestinians to leave Israel for the war and come back when Israel was
> beaten, which of course never happened.
Even the Israelis don't believe that one anymore.
> It is, of course, customary in certain circles to blame the Jews for
> that, but it cannot hurt to correct the claim when it comes up.
Uh huh... meanwhile, why don't you take alook at what an *Iraeli* has
to say on the issue:
"In the 1948 war, some 750,000 people were uprooted from their homes
and lands. It is not so important exactly how this happened - how many
fled in order to save their children from the approaching fighting,
how many fled in panic after Dir Yassin and similar massacres, how
many were physically expelled by the victorious Israeli forces. It's
more important to realize that the expulsion was an integral part of
that war. The Jewish side wanted to acquire as much territory as
possible in order to establish a homogeneous Jewish state, without
Arabs. The Arab side wanted to prevent the establishment of a Jewish
state and give the whole country back to the Arabs. Therefore, there
was no need for a special decision on expulsion - things were done
more or less automatically. Whether the intention was there beforehand
or not - when the opportunity presented itself, it was seized.
Now Ariel Sharon says that the present confrontation ("Arab violence")
is a continuation of the 1948 war. Sharon was a soldier in that war,
therefore he knows what happened then. Meaning: the possibility of
ethnic cleansing is indeed hovering somewhere in the air."
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article145.html
Notice the use of the word "ethnic cleansing" in that last line?
Here's some comments about a documentary on the topic:
"Focusing primarily on the situation of Haifa and Jaffa, the film
lays out how Jews took control of the towns, scared or even killed
Palestinians, and then moved into their homes."
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk980731/sffiery.htm
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > > > No it is not. Let me educate you on the topic:
> > > > "Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial,
> > > > political, or cultural group.
> > > > Ethnic Cleansing: The elimination of an unwanted group from a society,
> > > > as by genocide or forced migration."
> > > > http://www.munfw.org/archive/50th/4th1.htm
> > > > Understand the difference now?
> > > What forced migration is going on there in the present day?
> > The one that's been going on for the past thirty years or so. The one
> > that put all those Palestinians in those refugee camps.
> Further back then that. Well before Europe's last exercise in genocide.
> Sorry, "ethnic cleansing".... I guess that makes all those dead people not
> as dead, or something.
What are you trying to say?
C Lund
James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> > I seem to recall the US indulging in ethnic cleansing, cleansing all the
> > native Americans into reservations, and more recently Bikini Atoll.
> Bikini Atoll was unfortunate, considering there were islands available that
> were not inhabited.
> The reservations predate Lund's European colonialism....
Yep. We Euros were just as bad back then.
> You can't really
> consider either of those "ethnic cleansing", since the cultures were not destroyed.
Ethnic cleansing has nothing to do with the destruction of a culture.
Ethnic cleansing is about removing a given ethnic group from a
specific location, and since the native Americans were herded into
small reservations, then what took place ws an ethnic cleansing.
C Lund
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Surely moving people off Bikini Atoll, to be replaced by US personnel is
> >ethnic cleansing?
> You would have rather we tested H-bombs there with the people in
> place?
How about testing H-bombs somewhere devoid of people?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Surely moving people off Bikini Atoll, to be replaced by US personnel is
> >> >ethnic cleansing?
> >> You would have rather we tested H-bombs there with the people in
> >> place?
> >No. I'd rather you tested H-bombs on some deserted isle.
> I've no idea what the criteria were that lead to the selection of
> Bikini for the test.
> In any case still that doesn't make an exercise of eminent domain
> an act of genocide.
And yet another idiot (that's you, faux) stands up and proclaims
loudly that he does not understand the difference between ethnic
cleansing and genocide...
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1g6gc4z.16pyv1h1gzb2yqN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> > C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> > > In article <3FE7B6D1...@knology.net>,
> > > James Stutts <stu...@knology.net> wrote:
> > > > > No it is not. Let me educate you on the topic:
> > > > > "Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial,
> > > > > political, or cultural group.
> > > > > Ethnic Cleansing: The elimination of an unwanted group from a society,
> > > > > as by genocide or forced migration."
> > > > > http://www.munfw.org/archive/50th/4th1.htm
> > > > > Understand the difference now?
> > > > What forced migration is going on there in the present day?
> > > The one that's been going on for the past thirty years or so. The one
> > > that put all those Palestinians in those refugee camps.
>
> > I'm afraid that was the surrounding Arab countries calling the
> > Palestinians to leave Israel for the war and come back when Israel was
> > beaten, which of course never happened.
>
> Even the Israelis don't believe that one anymore.
They do and it's the truth.
> > It is, of course, customary in certain circles to blame the Jews for
> > that, but it cannot hurt to correct the claim when it comes up.
>
> Uh huh... meanwhile, why don't you take alook at what an *Iraeli* has
> to say on the issue:
>
> "In the 1948 war, some 750,000 people were uprooted from their homes
> and lands. It is not so important exactly how this happened - how many
> fled in order to save their children from the approaching fighting,
> how many fled in panic after Dir Yassin and similar massacres, how
> many were physically expelled by the victorious Israeli forces. It's
> more important to realize that the expulsion was an integral part of
> that war. The Jewish side wanted to acquire as much territory as
> possible in order to establish a homogeneous Jewish state, without
> Arabs. The Arab side wanted to prevent the establishment of a Jewish
> state and give the whole country back to the Arabs. Therefore, there
> was no need for a special decision on expulsion - things were done
> more or less automatically. Whether the intention was there beforehand
> or not - when the opportunity presented itself, it was seized.
>
> Now Ariel Sharon says that the present confrontation ("Arab violence")
> is a continuation of the 1948 war. Sharon was a soldier in that war,
> therefore he knows what happened then. Meaning: the possibility of
> ethnic cleansing is indeed hovering somewhere in the air."
>
> http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article145.html
>
> Notice the use of the word "ethnic cleansing" in that last line?
So you found an actual Israeli who said that? Big deal. Words do not
change the truth, even though your likes will have us believe that.
The plain fact is that in that time Jews were expelled from Arab
countries and Israel offered them a new home. Why couldn't the Arabs do
the same for their brethren?
> Here's some comments about a documentary on the topic:
>
> "Focusing primarily on the situation of Haifa and Jaffa, the film
> lays out how Jews took control of the towns, scared or even killed
> Palestinians, and then moved into their homes."
>
> http://www.jewishsf.com/bk980731/sffiery.htm
Films do not change the truth either.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <p15kuvkkjs6c3n5gp...@4ax.com>,
We all know the code words, Lund.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <u4vjuv0a64ob6jrmr...@4ax.com>,
For whatever reason the military deemed Bikini the best place.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <3FE8F1E7...@knology.net>,
So in your benighted view we should have just tolerated the attacks
from them and not done anything about it.
Peter Hayes
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:57:45 +0100, C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article <u4vjuv0a64ob6jrmr...@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Surely moving people off Bikini Atoll, to be replaced by US personnel is
> >> >ethnic cleansing?
> >> You would have rather we tested H-bombs there with the people in
> >> place?
> >
> >How about testing H-bombs somewhere devoid of people?
>
> For whatever reason the military deemed Bikini the best place.
I'm sure they did - they're just doing their job. The fault lies with
the politicians who should have over-ruled them.
--
Peter
Mayor of R'lyeh
to bless us with the following wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:57:45 +0100, C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >In article <u4vjuv0a64ob6jrmr...@4ax.com>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Surely moving people off Bikini Atoll, to be replaced by US personnel is
>> >> >ethnic cleansing?
>> >> You would have rather we tested H-bombs there with the people in
>> >> place?
>> >
>> >How about testing H-bombs somewhere devoid of people?
>>
>> For whatever reason the military deemed Bikini the best place.
>
>I'm sure they did - they're just doing their job. The fault lies with
>the politicians who should have over-ruled them.
Why should they have been over ruled? The tests were important. Using
the best place made them as good as they could be.
Peter Hayes
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:53:26 +0000, m...@privacy.net (Peter Hayes) chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:57:45 +0100,
> >> C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>
> >> >In article <u4vjuv0a64ob6jrmr...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Surely moving people off Bikini Atoll, to be replaced by US
> >> >> >personnel is ethnic cleansing?
> >> >> You would have rather we tested H-bombs there with the people in
> >> >> place?
> >> >
> >> >How about testing H-bombs somewhere devoid of people?
> >>
> >> For whatever reason the military deemed Bikini the best place.
> >
> >I'm sure they did - they're just doing their job. The fault lies with
> >the politicians who should have over-ruled them.
>
> Why should they have been over ruled? The tests were important. Using
> the best place made them as good as they could be.
Because sometimes in life compromises have to be made. Just as in Iraq
compromises had to be made during the war to minimise civillian
casualties, the US should have sought an alternative site that didn't
require the relocation of an entire population. Shows you how radically
different the mindset of the late '40s was compared to today - there's
no way ther US would get away today with what they did then.
--
Peter
ZnU
m...@privacy.net (Peter Hayes) wrote:
Off the top of your head (no cheating and looking things up), how big
would you say the 'entire population' in question was?
--
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
Peter Hayes
:)
> how big would you say the 'entire population' in question was?
An atoll - maybe a couple of hundred.
Nevertheless, however many there were, and even if it was only a couple
of dozen, *they* were relocated at the behest of the US.
The US could have tested on some deserted island. Aren't there any
deserted islands in the Hawaiian archipeligo?
--
Peter
ZnU
m...@privacy.net (Peter Hayes) wrote:
167.
> Nevertheless, however many there were, and even if it was only a couple
> of dozen, *they* were relocated at the behest of the US.
Governments relocate people who get in the way of government projects on
a fairly regular basis. It's not generally considered to be particularly
immoral.
> The US could have tested on some deserted island. Aren't there any
> deserted islands in the Hawaiian archipeligo?
You don't just need a deserted island. A thermonuclear detonation
produces more than a big boom -- it also produces radioactive fallout
over a large area. You need an island in the middle of nowhere, and even
then you need to be careful about prevailing wind directions.
Mayor of R'lyeh
to bless us with the following wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:53:26 +0000, m...@privacy.net (Peter Hayes) chose
>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:57:45 +0100,
>> >> C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
>> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <u4vjuv0a64ob6jrmr...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Surely moving people off Bikini Atoll, to be replaced by US
>> >> >> >personnel is ethnic cleansing?
>> >> >> You would have rather we tested H-bombs there with the people in
>> >> >> place?
>> >> >
>> >> >How about testing H-bombs somewhere devoid of people?
>> >>
>> >> For whatever reason the military deemed Bikini the best place.
>> >
>> >I'm sure they did - they're just doing their job. The fault lies with
>> >the politicians who should have over-ruled them.
>>
>> Why should they have been over ruled? The tests were important. Using
>> the best place made them as good as they could be.
>
>Because sometimes in life compromises have to be made.
Exactly. And the Bikinians made them.
> Just as in Iraq compromises had to be made during the war to minimise civillian
>casualties
Not really comparable as the quest to minimize civilian casualties has
been a longstanding goal of the US military because killing
non-combatants is when it can be avoided is a moral issue. Eminent
domain is not.
>, the US should have sought an alternative site that didn't
>require the relocation of an entire population.
You keep repeating that is it were a given. Its not. You've yet to
back it up with anything more than a sanctimonious moral outrage
sitting comfortably 50 years and half a world away from the events.
> Shows you how radically different the mindset of the late '40s was compared to today
Actually it shows you how radically different the political situation
is now.
> - there's
>no way ther US would get away today with what they did then.
Slept through that whole 'Fuck off UN we're doing the right thing in
Iraq no matter how long you children hold your collective breaths'
thing did ya'?
Mayor of R'lyeh
What a giveaway! Instead of moving 167 people you'd rather irradiate
the whole of Hawaii. Anything's ok as long as it kills Americans, eh
Peter?
Tell Osama I said 'Fuck you' the next time you see him won't you?
Peter Hayes
Perhaps not if it's the government's citizen, but the Bikini people
weren't even US citizens of the 48 states as it was then. That
diminishes the legitimacy of the US's actions somewhat.
> > The US could have tested on some deserted island. Aren't there any
> > deserted islands in the Hawaiian archipeligo?
>
> You don't just need a deserted island. A thermonuclear detonation
> produces more than a big boom -- it also produces radioactive fallout
> over a large area. You need an island in the middle of nowhere,
Bikini Atoll isn't exactly in the middle of nowhere, it's at the north
end of the Marshall Island chain.
> and even then you need to be careful about prevailing wind directions.
That was the point I was making about the Hawaiian archipeligo - it
contains islands just as remote as Bikini.
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
> >The US could have tested on some deserted island. Aren't there any
> >deserted islands in the Hawaiian archipeligo?
>
> What a giveaway! Instead of moving 167 people you'd rather irradiate
> the whole of Hawaii. Anything's ok as long as it kills Americans, eh
> Peter?
Bikini is not some atoll in the middle of nowhere, it's part of the
Marshall Island chain and the risk to the locals is the same as the risk
to the locals in Hawaii. That's my point - neither is satisfactory. As
it is, I recall some Japanese fishermen were badly affected by fallout
from the Bikini tests.
--
Peter
Steve Carroll
C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
So are you saying that you agree with what this Israeli had to say?
Steve