W. Bush: Destroyer of the US Empire

Where to start? A number of observations.

Governments driven by ideology create instability - domestic and international - and eventually becomes the victim when their system's incompatibility with global economic/political reality flounders (domestically in the UK, Labour of the 70's, Thatcher's reign in the 80's; Old Soviet Union, Republicans today, but also the Democrats of tomorrow).

The US is paralysed regarding Iran because there is too much economic vested interest of big players – Russia, China, India. Plus, you have the political ramifications of invading yet another Muslim country – a potential time-bomb.

I doubt anyone takes the outpourings from Davos serious – mainly freeloaders and self-publicists with little influence and even less qualification (however, despite being anti-EU I was impressed by a brief speech of Trichet). Davos is an extended jolly on a par with G-7 meetings – ineffectual and irrelevant.

As I was reading through the posts, and prior to reading one of BSD’s, the thought occurred, what happens as the US expands it’s military capacity (and infrastructure), for example, but the economy grinds to a halt? Obviously, it goes further into debt financing and maintaining. But what happens when the economy starts to decline? The debt problem compounds and accelerates.

What is the net affect of banks’ and insurers’ bail-outs? Stability, but the debts still remain and cost money to maintain (a moratorium on interest payments is a lost opportunity-cost). How long will pay-back be in a declining economy? Write it off?

And all because of a French futures trader?

Grant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BSD
Interesting footnote, just read on Reuters:

By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. nuclear power reactors will be able to obtain more supplies of Russian enriched uranium for fuel, under a trade deal signed by the two countries late on Friday.

The agreement will provide U.S. utilities with a reliable supply of nuclear fuel by allowing Russia to boost exports export to the United States while minimizing any disruption to the United States' domestic enrichment industry.

Full article:

U.S. nuclear power plants to get more Russia uranium | U.S. | Reuters

Grant.
 
Where to start? A number of observations.

Governments driven by ideology create instability - domestic and international - and eventually becomes the victim when their system's incompatibility with global economic/political reality flounders (domestically in the UK, Labour of the 70's, Thatcher's reign in the 80's; Old Soviet Union, Republicans today, but also the Democrats of tomorrow).

The US is paralysed regarding Iran because there is too much economic vested interest of big players – Russia, China, India. Plus, you have the political ramifications of invading yet another Muslim country – a potential time-bomb.

I doubt anyone takes the outpourings from Davos serious – mainly freeloaders and self-publicists with little influence and even less qualification (however, despite being anti-EU I was impressed by a brief speech of Trichet). Davos is an extended jolly on a par with G-7 meetings – ineffectual and irrelevant.

As I was reading through the posts, and prior to reading one of BSD’s, the thought occurred, what happens as the US expands it’s military capacity (and infrastructure), for example, but the economy grinds to a halt? Obviously, it goes further into debt financing and maintaining. But what happens when the economy starts to decline? The debt problem compounds and accelerates.

What is the net affect of banks’ and insurers’ bail-outs? Stability, but the debts still remain and cost money to maintain (a moratorium on interest payments is a lost opportunity-cost). How long will pay-back be in a declining economy? Write it off?

And all because of a French futures trader?

Grant.

Government idealogies can be a good thing. It depends on the idealogy. I'm all for freedom and liberty and support the USA... BUT not at the end of a gun point.

The US is not paralysed by re:Iran. It is simply that it has been stopped by events in Iraq! The plan was for the Axis of Evil to be eliminated... Iraq - Suriye and then Iran... It's a little like the darleks invading Earth as the superior race only to find out they can't climb up stairs... :LOL:

Davos is very serious imo. May not have teeth but has great minds - like us expending great effort outlining their vision and interpretation of today and tomorrow. Whether anybody considers what they say or not is purely opinion. I would say to ignore the thoughts of Davos going forward means the ignorers are in denial.

What happens as US expands it's military capacity but fails internaly is like a bully it will use muscle instead of intellect to take what does not belong to it.

I also do believe that super powers normally don't get defeated externally but destroyed from within. Lack of judgement, misadventure, greed, corruption. Quest for more power what ever. Pretty much what we are seeing in the US. I concur 100% with BSDs excellent write up - that it's not what the terrorists have done but what the US has done to itself in the last 20 years. Even it's accounting practices and the actual valuation of it's top companies are in dispute. Not by the people ie US citizens who are a great nation, but by it's very elite rich rulers and controllers and their ultra greed.
Payback is already happening in health and pensions. With a declining birth rate and shifting economic power the worst is yet to come and we can expect the US to turn to more military extensions in failed attempts to maintain superiority - only speeding up its decline further.

As for the French futures trader $5bn or what ever is a drop in the ocean when you consider $250bn from the sub-prime fall out. Even more so when it doesn't impact the US. I disagree with your last sentence in full.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BSD
Governments driven by ideology create instability - domestic and international - and eventually becomes the victim when their system's incompatibility with global economic/political reality flounders (domestically in the UK, Labour of the 70's, Thatcher's reign in the 80's; Old Soviet Union, Republicans today, but also the Democrats of tomorrow).

Beautiful !
grinning-smiley-003.gif


US is paralysed regarding Iran because there is too much economic vested interest of big players – Russia, China, India. Plus, you have the political ramifications of invading yet another Muslim country – a potential time-bomb.
I'm absolutely baffled where Americans can let themselves be conned into seeing a threat emanating from Iran, particularly after they've been scaremongered into the disastrous mess of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Loads and loads of countries have weapons of mass destruction without anybody losing any sleep over that.

We all know that the story about Iraqs alleged threat to Western well-being was one huge lie from start to finish.

Thing I NEVER understood was why on earth, even if Saddam had had all those weapons, ANYBODY with an IQ north of his birthdate , would ever have believed why on earth he should have given up his glorious life style on starting a fight against the USA, why on earth he as a very intelligent human being would have started a fight he knew he would not survive.

The fact that the entire argument made by the Bushies for war was so utterly ridiculous is another major reason why the USA has lost most of it's previous convincing power and hence influence in the world.

And now Iran is supposed to be sold as being equally dumb like Saddam who wasn't ?

Lob an atomic bomb against Israel ?

Give me a break Mr. Bush, you could hold a referendum in a mental asylum that would come up with the conclusion that that would equal a suicide mission.

Does Iran appear suicidal ?

Exactly.

The USA probably wants to project an image of strength with all it's posturing RE alleged threats popping up all over the place.

The view the rest of the world has is an image of massive paranoia and cowardice as the enabling force behind oil driven, disastrously unsuccessful, military engagements.

Not that Iraq had anything at all to do with 9-11, but when the latest terror bomb blew up in India killing and injuring hundreds a few years back they did not go balllistic, they treated it as all it was, just another major crime that was to be dealt with as all crimes are.

Same like the way you Brits dealt with decades of IRA terror.

No big fuss, you just got on and eventually learned that the only way to solve the problem was to remedy the causes.

THOSE examples are a displays of true strength and courage.

despite being anti-EU

Grant, you come across as an intelligent guy.

I really do not understand why so many Brits are anti-EU.

It was Winston Churchill who was one of the first to come up with a United States of Europe idea.

The idea behind a united Europe stems from the sad realization that we wasted the largest part of our common history in blood drenched wars.

THAT is what the EU is all about, putting an end to the madness.

It's worked, haasn't it.

History has never treated any part of this planet better than it has us in Europe for the last 50 years.

Is the EU perfect ?

Of course not.

What is ?

But the future is up to us to form and improve, isn't it ?

There is and always will be lots that can and must be improved, but we aren't doing that badly right now are we:

"Europe, The Comeback Continent

By Paul Krugman
The next time a politician tries to scare you with the European bogeyman, bear this in mind: Europe's economy is doing O.K.
Today I'd like to talk about a much-derided contender making a surprising comeback, a comeback that calls into question much of the conventional wisdom of American politics. No, I'm not talking about a politician. I'm talking about an economy -- specifically, the European economy, which many Americans assume is tired and spent but has lately been showing surprising vitality.
Why should Americans care about Europe's economy? Well, for one thing, it's big. The G.D.P. of the European Union is roughly comparable to that of the United States; the euro is almost as important a global currency as the dollar; and the governance of the world financial system is, for practical purposes, equally shared by the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve.

But there's another thing: it's important to get the facts about Europe's economy right because the alleged woes of that economy play an important role in American political discourse, usually as an excuse for the insecurities and injustices of our own society.
For example, does Hillary Clinton have a plan to cover the millions of Americans who lack health insurance? "She takes her inspiration from European bureaucracies," sneers Mitt Romney.
Or are top US executives grossly overpaid? According to a Times report, Michael Jensen, a professor emeritus at Harvard's Graduate School of Business whose theories helped pave the way for gigantic paychecks, considers executive excess "an acceptable price to pay for an American economy that he believes has outstripped Japan and Europe in growth and prosperity."

In fact, however, tales of a moribund Europe are greatly exaggerated.

It's true that Europe has had a lot of economic troubles over the past generation. In the mid-1970s the Continent entered a prolonged era of sluggish job creation, which contrasted with vigorous employment growth in the United States.

And in the 1990s, Europe lagged behind America in the adoption of new technology. For example, in 1997 fewer than 15 percent of French homes contained personal computers and fewer than 1 percent were connected to the Internet.

But that was then.

Since 2000, employment has actually grown a bit faster in Europe than in the United States -- and since Europe has a lower rate of population growth, this has translated into a substantial rise in the percentage of working-age Europeans with jobs, even as America's employment-population ratio has declined.

In particular, in the prime working years, from 25 to 54, the big gap between European and US employment rates that existed a decade ago has been largely eliminated. If you think Europe is a place where lots of able-bodied adults just sit at home collecting welfare checks, think again.

Meanwhile, Europe's Internet lag is a thing of the past. The dial-up Internet of the 1990s was dominated by the United States. But as dial-up has given way to broadband, Europe has more than kept up. The number of broadband connections per 100 people in the 15 countries that were members of the European Union before it was enlarged in 2004, is slightly higher than in the US -- and Europe's connections are both substantially faster and substantially cheaper than ours.

I don't want to exaggerate the good news. Europe continues to have many economic problems. But who doesn't? The fact is that Europe's economy looks a lot better now -- both in absolute terms and compared with our economy -- than it did a decade ago.

What's behind Europe's comeback? It's a complicated story, probably involving a combination of deregulation (which has expanded job opportunities) and smart regulation. One of the keys to Europe's broadband success is that unlike US regulators, many European governments have promoted competition, preventing phone and cable companies from monopolizing broadband access.

What European countries definitely haven't done is dismantle their strong social safety nets. Universal health care is a given. So are a variety of programs that support families in trouble, helping protect Europeans from the extreme poverty all too common in this country. All of this costs money -- even though European countries spend far less on health care than we do -- and European taxes are very high by US standards.
In short, Europe continues to be a big-government sort of place. And that's why it's important to get the real story of the European economy out there.
According to the anti-government ideology that dominates much US political discussion, low taxes and a weak social safety net are essential to prosperity. Try to make the lives of Americans even slightly more secure, we're told, and the economy will shrivel up -- the same way it supposedly has in Europe.

But the next time a politician tries to scare you with the European bogeyman, bear this in mind: Europe's economy is actually doing O.K. these days, despite a level of taxing and spending beyond the wildest ambitions of American progressives."

Paul Krugman: Europe, The Comeback Continent - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
 
Atilla,

Ideology – left or right - is a straitjacket incompatible with the pragmatism necessary to survive a myriad of international interests and economic forces.

Iran is now a no-go area for US military ambitions. How can you say otherwise? Are the vested interests incidental? The “Axis of Evil” (used following the Twin Towers attack?) was nothing more than political “posturing” (to steal a word from BSD’s next post).

“Davos...IMO”. “IMO” is irrelevant – the international economies and institutions ignore it.

My last sentence was meant to be ironic.

BSD,

I have little regard for Winston Churchill – p*ss and wind dressed up in purple prose and rhetoric. A maverick.

The reason I’m against the EU is because it’s an ideology based principally on anti-American hegemony. On a very basic level, it lack coherence – Germany is not Spain; some rely on imports, others on exports; some industrial, others agricultural; higher inflation, lower inflation. The UK’s experiments at devolution with Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parliaments are nothing more than cynical attempts to shift blame from central government in Whitehall, resulting in over-spending, lack of accountability, and narrow interests (and no doubt expenses fraud).

Europe’s economies are doing fine. Are they? They’d do a lot better if they could route out the corruption in Brussels, the fraud in farm subsides, end all farm subsidies (I know the US subsidises their farmers but this doesn’t make it acceptable), and evict ministers from their “grace-and-favour” apartments on the Champs Elysees.

Widespread, low-cost internet access does not constitute liberation nor alleviate poverty.

Grant.
 
Does any of this mean the Indians will get their families back, their land back , their buffalo back?

what a shame, how tragic, ahh that was then this is now though..... ya.. exactly in 100 years from now who will give a sh1T.... ! ieeeght, sup dawwwg, I hear ya hommie.....

It will not matter.
 
I agree that knowing more is usually preferable to knowing less, which is why I'm reluctant to endorse your view of democracy in India. But I don't know that this is the thread to debate it. :)

If Ignorance is bliss, then why does man seek knowledge ?


man , GET A JOB....... funk this.. have a good weekend DB. :D
 
Why was Suddam hung from the neck until dead, other countries have obtained great wealth because of such actions... ?
 
Atilla,

Ideology – left or right - is a straitjacket incompatible with the pragmatism necessary to survive a myriad of international interests and economic forces.

As I was growing up through my teens Elvis Presley, Tom Cruise, Back to the Future, Beverley Hills Cop, Rambo, Rocky and so forth were all heroes to me. Big Macs were great along with their apple pies. :clap: Music, rap, dancing in the streets. Fame. Saturday Night Fever, the Bee Gees, Grease - you know the full works American culture at it's height. I believed and still believe in that ideology of Freedom of Enterprise and Liberal values.

This is why USA was so ahead of the game and Russia with China were held back.

There is nothing wrong with ideology when it is held in high esteem and the constitution adhered to. If you don't have idealogy there is no foundation. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

THEN the Berlin wall fell down and Russia and China had an ideological change. The state does not know what's best. Individuals do.

Look at USA now and I see tyrants in control who manipulate the press their government voting wars the finance institutions the lot. People wonder where they are going wrong. It's simply because they are moving away from their core beliefs.


Iran is now a no-go area for US military ambitions. How can you say otherwise? Are the vested interests incidental? The “Axis of Evil” (used following the Twin Towers attack?) was nothing more than political “posturing” (to steal a word from BSD’s next post).

I agree with you on Iran. I never said it was a go area. Would be suicide for USA to do anything against it.

“Davos...IMO”. “IMO” is irrelevant – the international economies and institutions ignore it.

I agree it has no teeth but summary and conclusion spot on imo.

My last sentence was meant to be ironic.

Did notice the question mark - thought I'd make my point any way... Sorry :cheesy:

BSD,

I have little regard for Winston Churchill – p*ss and wind dressed up in purple prose and rhetoric. A maverick.

The reason I’m against the EU is because it’s an ideology based principally on anti-American hegemony. On a very basic level, it lack coherence – Germany is not Spain; some rely on imports, others on exports; some industrial, others agricultural; higher inflation, lower inflation. The UK’s experiments at devolution with Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parliaments are nothing more than cynical attempts to shift blame from central government in Whitehall, resulting in over-spending, lack of accountability, and narrow interests (and no doubt expenses fraud).

Europe’s economies are doing fine. Are they? They’d do a lot better if they could route out the corruption in Brussels, the fraud in farm subsides, end all farm subsidies (I know the US subsidises their farmers but this doesn’t make it acceptable), and evict ministers from their “grace-and-favour” apartments on the Champs Elysees.

Widespread, low-cost internet access does not constitute liberation nor alleviate poverty.

Grant.


I do agree about European Union though. This Federal States of Europe is a bad idea imo. The whole continent is too widely spread out with differing cultures and habits. People need to express them selves. By all means allow people expression and freedom but once you get into the FSE stuff it only means silly rules and regulations. Top that with bereaucracy and corruption and wastage. Take countries parliementary rules which are relatively small and combine them to make one big gigantic monster of a rule making machine across 25 countries... Germany and France still wanting a bigger share of the decision making process irrespective of all the smaller Balkan countries they just let in.

Single currency seems to be a good idea and is working remarkably well. Tax harmonisation is cool. Free movement of labour I'm ok with. Border controls and spot checks I would still keep but not enforce rigidly.

Power needs to be delegated to where it will be applied. Even down to local authority levels.

Talk about over engineering a process Federal States of Europe (n) Recipee for disaster in monumental scale.
 
Davos, eh.

Davos is nothing more and nothing less than an informal opportunity for the most powerful people on earth to get together, one can like or dislike them, but they are the people currently running the show.

RE the EU, of course we are diverse, but it is exactly that that is our strength, monocultures die and wither, it is only multicultures that survive to flourish.

I also do not think that the EU is or ever was anti-American, to be honest, Britain apart, in most other parts of Europe there simply is no fixation of any sort with the US to warrant such a thing.

For most of us, the USA is just another player on the world stage, and that is it, unless of course they start wreaking havoc like they are at the moment.

The way I have always read us is that the most important defining element of Europe is live and let live.

Europe is something that is being built up, a work in progress that is being shaped by all of us, it really is up to us all to decide where it is going to go.

To be honest, I can understand when people say that they are against something, what I do not understand about you Brits is why you have spent the last decades yaggling around massively against the EU like absoutely no other member state does, but all without ever actually getting up and doing something about it.

In the EU, way over half of people below the age of 35 feel European first, and their nationality second.

If that is different in Britain, why not do something about it ?

Nobody is forcing you to stay in the EU after all, of course it is possible to leave.

If I don't like a restaurant I don't stay, do I.

This here is why I am for the EU:

"Globe and Mail / Canada

Worlds Apart on the Vision Thing

by Jeremy Rifkin


In a partisan America, where virtually every value has become fair game for criticism and controversy, there is one value that remains sacrosanct: the American Dream -- the idea that anyone, regardless of the circumstances to which they're born, can make of their lives as they choose, by dint of diligence, determination and hard work. The American Dream unites Americans across ethnic and class divides and gives shared purpose and direction to the American way of life.

The problem is, one-third of all Americans, according to a recent U.S. national survey, no longer believe in the American Dream. Some have lost faith because they worked hard all their lives only to find hardship and despair at the end of the line. Others question the very dream itself, arguing that its underlying tenets have become less relevant in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. For the first time, the American Dream no longer serves as the rallying point for everyone in America.

A new European Dream, meanwhile, is beginning to capture the world's imagination. That dream has now been codified in the form of a draft European constitution, and Europeans are currently debating whether to ratify its contents and accept its underlying values as the core values of a new Europe. Europe's vision of the future may have greater resonance -- a kind of grand reversal, if you will, of what occurred 200 years ago when millions of Europeans looked to America in search of a new vision.

Twenty-five nations, representing 455 million people, have joined together to create a "United States" of Europe. Like the United States of America, this vast political entity has its own empowering myth. Although still in its adolescence, the European Dream is the first transnational vision, one far better suited to the next stage in the human journey. Europeans are beginning to adopt a new global consciousness that extends beyond, and below, the borders of their nation-states, deeply embedding them in an increasingly interconnected world.

Americans are used to thinking of their country as the most successful on Earth. That's no longer the case: The European Union has grown to become the third-largest governing institution in the world. Though its land mass is half the size of the continental United States, its $10.5-trillion (U.S.) gross domestic product now eclipses the U.S. GDP, making it the world's largest economy. The EU is already the world's leading exporter and largest internal trading market. Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European; only 50 are U.S. companies.

The comparisons are even more revealing when it comes to the quality of life. In the EU, for example, there are 322 physicians per 100,00 people; in the United States, it's 279 physicians per 100,000 people. The United States ranks 26th among the industrial nations in infant mortality, well below the EU average. The average lifespan in the 15 most developed E.U. countries is now 78.2 years, compared to 76.9 years in the United States.

When it comes to wealth distribution -- a crucial measure of a country's ability to deliver on the promise of prosperity -- the United States ranks 24th among the industrial nations. All 18 of the most developed European countries have less income inequality between rich and poor. There are now more poor people living in America than in the 16 European nations for which data are available.

America is also more dangerous: The U.S. homicide rate is four times higher than the EU's. Even more disturbing, the rates of childhood homicides, suicides and firearms-related deaths in the United States exceed those of the other 25 wealthiest nations. Although the United States has only 4 per cent of the world's population, it contains one-quarter of the world's entire prison population.

Europeans often say Americans "live to work," while they "work to live." The average paid vacation time in Europe is now six weeks a year. By contrast, Americans, on the average, receive only two weeks. When one considers what makes a people great and what constitutes a better way of life, Europe is beginning to surpass America.

Nowhere is the contrast between the European Dream and the American Dream sharper than when it comes to the definition of personal freedom.

For Americans, freedom has long been associated with autonomy; the more wealth one amasses, the more independent one is in the world. One is free by becoming self-reliant and an island onto oneself. With wealth comes exclusivity, and with exclusivity comes security.

For Europeans, freedom is not found in autonomy but in community. It's about belonging, not belongings.

The American Dream puts an emphasis on economic growth, personal wealth and independence. The new European Dream focuses more on sustainable development, quality of life and interdependence. The American Dream pays homage to the work ethic and religious heritage. The European Dream, more attuned to leisure, is secular to the core. The American Dream depends on assimilation. The European Dream, by contrast, is based on preserving one's cultural identity in a multicultural world.

Americans are more willing to use military force to protect what we perceive to be our vital self-interests. Europeans favor diplomacy, economic assistance to avert conflict, and peacekeeping operations to maintain order. The American Dream is deeply personal and little concerned with the rest of humanity. The European Dream is more systemic in nature and, therefore, more bound to the welfare of the planet.

That isn't to say that Europe is a utopia. Europeans have become increasingly hostile toward newly arrived immigrants and asylum-seekers. Anti-Semitism is on the rise again, as is discrimination against Muslims and religious minorities. While Europeans berate America for having a trigger-happy foreign policy, they are more than willing, on occasion, to let the U.S. armed forces safeguard European security interests. And even its supporters say the Brussels-based EU's governing machinery is a maze of bureaucratic red tape, aloof from the European citizens they supposedly serve.

The point, however, is not whether the Europeans are living up to their dream. We Americans have never fully lived up to our own dream. What's important is that a new generation of Europeans is creating a radical new vision for the future -- one better suited to meet the challenges of an increasingly globalizing world in the 21st century.

Canada finds itself caught between these two 21st-century superpowers. Sharing a common border with the most powerful economy in the world makes Canada more vulnerable to U.S. economic and political influence, and some observers even suggest that Canada might be forced eventually to become part of a greater American transnational space. The North American free-trade agreement may be the first step down that road.

On the other hand, Canadians' own deeply felt values are more closely attuned to the emerging European Dream. Could Canada lobby to become part of the European Union? In a world of instant communications, fast transportation and global economic integration, the prospect of Canada's enjoying at least a special associational partnership with the EU is not inconceivable. The EU and Canada laid the foundation for such a possibility in their 1996 joint political declaration on EU-Canada relations, designed to focus on economic, trade, security and other transnational issues. Canada could edge ever closer to its European soulmate in the decades to come."

America & Europe: Worlds Apart on the Vision Thing
 
I do agree about European Union though. This Federal States of Europe is a bad idea imo. The whole continent is too widely spread out with differing cultures and habits. People need to express them selves. By all means allow people expression and freedom but once you get into the FSE stuff it only means silly rules and regulations. Top that with bereaucracy and corruption and wastage. Take countries parliementary rules which are relatively small and combine them to make one big gigantic monster of a rule making machine across 25 countries... Germany and France still wanting a bigger share of the decision making process irrespective of all the smaller Balkan countries they just let in.

Single currency seems to be a good idea and is working remarkably well. Tax harmonisation is cool. Free movement of labour I'm ok with. Border controls and spot checks I would still keep but not enforce rigidly.

Power needs to be delegated to where it will be applied. Even down to local authority levels.

Talk about over engineering a process Federal States of Europe (n) Recipee for disaster in monumental scale.

You can't cherrypick. A single currency removes one of the corner stones of independence.

I believe that UK has realised this. Brussels would wish that Britain joins the Euro.

I am not saying that I am against a common currency. What I say is that countries must realise the consequences of such action.

Spain (because I live here, I use it as an example) is fully dependent on the CBE as regards interest rates. Low interest rates are in the interests of France and Germany but are not, always, in Spain's interests. What does Spain have to do to defend its economy? Inflation in our zone means that other members can produce more cheaply than us. The GBP can float against the Euro. Spain, no longer can allow its currency to do this. It has to do so as part of the EU.

Instead of being unable to control interest rates, countries are given subsidies. Is this a good idea? Cataluña is a net provider to Madrid. Madrid gives to Brussels and Extremadura gets a subsidy.The Catalans are not happy!

The people's reluctance to forget their currency is brought to my notice by the way that they still, after all these years, talk in millions of pesetas. That is why I say that currency is part of a nation's culture.

Split
 
Does any of this mean the Indians will get their families back, their land back , their buffalo back?

what a shame, how tragic, ahh that was then this is now though..... ya.. exactly in 100 years from now who will give a sh1T.... ! ieeeght, sup dawwwg, I hear ya hommie.....

It will not matter.

Unfortunately, this type of genicide takes place up to the present day, especially when a powerful race decides to settle on your land. US is not the only place. It has happened in Canada, Australia, South America too, where everyone turned a blind eye to the deportation of small chidren, so that they can become "civilised".

To come nearer to home, how about the urbanisation of rural land in our own countries?

This is an unpleasant, but natural, part of being a human.

Let's see what happens to us over the coming two centuries.

Split
 
Markus,

First off, while most of the UK may be anti-EU this does not mean they are anti-Europeans. Big difference. (I think the concept of “Britishness” is a load of b*llsh*t invoked by politicians when it’s expedient. I am English.)

The article you reproduce is based on a false dichotomy – the choice of assuming a US model or an EU model. That’s the choice is it? Of course not. If I’m awaiting medical treatment and facing a long wait, the fact I may be waiting longer in the US is irrelevant. Wtf has the US got to do with it? It’s a red herring.

Germany is the wealthiest member of the EU. Is Germany perfect re health, education, transport, provision for the elderly? I doubt it but I reckon it would be far better if part of its wealth was reinvested domestically rather than extending largesse to third-world European current and aspiring members.

EU membership is predicated on a myth similar to that generated by the fall of the Berlin wall – swap your Trabants for Mercedes. Improvement for the East Germans was marginal – they were still exploited by Western companies; paid considerably less than their West German counterparts with a negligible improvement over their previous condition. Isn’t this the experience of Eastern European citizens – aspire to Mercedes, still paid for Trabants?

So what is the solution? I can’t see an EU-wide minimum wage. The transition would be financial suicide for former Eastern bloc members - isn’t that why the citizens can’t wait to move to the richer member countries which generates local resentment and tensions? We have a minimum wage in the UK (a good thing too) but it is far from adequate and not always applied.

“Live and let live”. If you can afford it.

Grant.
 
Grant, actually I am very glad that you guys are in the EU.

And criticism is always justified and the only way forward, nobody needs a load of yes men, that only leads to bad decisions.

Generally I believe that the world is our place to do with as we see fit, and all results are our responsibility.

If something is going wrong it's up to us to fix it, sell it or close it.

We have the power to form our future in the exact way we want it to be.

The biggest benefit I see from the EU is the peace dividend it's given us over the last half century, after we spent most of our common history bashing our heads in.

The rest is up to us to form together in the future in whatever way we jointly decide.

And yes, there is always lots of room for improvement, absolutely no doubt about that, nothing and nobody is perfect.

Anyway, glad you guys are in this with us, nothing like good old British or English common sense, that always comes very handy.

:)
 
W. Bush, the worlds ruling Terrorist-in-Chief isn't only a personal coward whose sole talent in life is lying, deceiving and spin doctoring, and whose only legacy is having started a counterproductive

To actually believe that the US President is given the power to do whatever he wants and pull the strings, is at best - naive.
Think about it - Ronald Regan was an actor before President. Do you really think the Military industrial financial complex is actually going to give any President the license to do as they please. Maybe its a case of the President having their strings pulled.
 
LOL.

Really wondering, Hitler could be overcome, the Soviet Union contained, and all without torture or getting rid of civil rights like the abominable custom these days in America, but a handful of loonies in turbans scare the living daylights out of a few US citizens ?

Nobody else in the world believes that terrorism is a war that must be fought, let alone a threat any greater than normal crime.

What on earth is going on in that country that they are acting like the biggest cowards on earth, afraid of everything and it#s shdow, and fall for such scaremongering bull**** ?

goering-quote.jpe


Having said that. just read about Ron Paul, and he sounds like the sort of person I would vote for.

If there were more people like him in the States we wouldn't have the enormous mess we have now.

What Americas loonies don't get is that the world is not anti-american.

What we want is a partner who believes in democracy, human rights and decency.

In other words, what the USA USED to be all about before the loonies took over.

BSD, I completely agree with you accept one thing. One thing your not quantifying.

First off these guys are lunitics.

Second off, the going to collapse the USA on purpose then create the NAU, they still have all there military might but with no debt, there going to scrap the american debt and start a new credit balance with a new NAU country.

What do you not want to admit?


Depth Trade
:)
 
DT, believe me, I sincerely hope you guys get your stuff together again.

Not saying that the NeoCons are even remotely similar to Hitler, he was a monster on a far greater scale, but what is similar is that things can go wrong in countries quite easily.

Happened in my country, Germany, and is happening in your country now.

The only good thing is that Germany shows that no matter how bad things have become, there is always hope, things can always get better, sanity can always return, and the same will happen in the USA eventually.

The NeoCons had their go, messed up, and are now on the way to the rubbish heap of history where they belong, and things can only become positive again from now on, with the USA as a good and democratic partner for the rest of the world, a partner who believes in human rights and decency.
 
There's a difference between fighting a war fifty years ago and today's fanatics.

In WWII we were boxed in, at one point, but we had confidence that we were all on the same side. The odd spys and traitors were few and far between to the man in the street. We were all together when the bombs were dropping.

With this lot, we don't know who or where they are. So we attack what we think that we can see, i.e. Afghanistan and Iraq and, if we are not careful, we can attack our own people, just because they are muslims.

There's a big psychological difference.

Split
 
One thing I never quite see is where there is any real, actionable threat worth losing any sleep over.

More people die in car crashes every year than have throughout the last decades (!) died as a result of Muslim based terror.

Not to forget that this new milleniums greatest atrocity to date are the over one million innocent people who died in Iraq because Bush wanted his oil war, a war that had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 or terror or anything else.

Now, if there is a terror attack in one of our countries treat that as the crime it is with boring but effective police and intelligence work, and then just get on with life.

The thing that baffles the rest of the world most when listening to the Bushies scaremongering is that according to them it sounds as if the threat from Al Qaeda et al is greater than Hitler, Stalin and Djingis Khan combined, rather than the threat we are faced with in real life, a few loonies, even though their numbers have obviously inflated as a result of Iraq etc.

The following article hits the nail on the head.

A regular American, Mike Huckabee, calls a handful of loonies the greatest threat the USA has ever been confronted by.

That is really so laughable that it's no wonder the Bushies have lost most of their ability to convince anyone of anything in the world, the New York Times Paul Krugman debunks Bush's scaremongering perfectly as the obvious nonsense that it is:

"...And Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, "I'm not sure we'll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country's ever faced in Islamofascism."

Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power -- which aren't even allies -- pose a greater danger than Hitler's panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.

All of this would be funny if it weren't so serious.

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was -- an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary -- the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.


Continued:
Paul Krugman: Fearing Fear in the US Presidential Campaign - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
 
BSD, I would still like you to comment on the NAU and what you think about the perpetuated collapse.

I think you need to look at this from a different angle. Not that americans are fighting terrorists, but want to form the NAU and in order to make the americans accept it, they had to create a panic/fear of economic & terrorist collapse/attacks.


This whole event has been in the makings for decades.



DT
:)
 
Top