Next Superpower?

[ranskaldan]

ok.... i'll take back that point because of... well, let's just call it biased information sources.

but WFHermans, you still haven't explained:

1. the point that you're trying to prove
and 2. the reason why you have constantly pumped out stereotypical, racist, offensive, and untrue claims.

I don't get it, since you seem to know about a lot of stuff (the difference between Tibet and the TAR, the Communists and Nationalists, the ethnic situation in Taiwan) and yet you persistently pump out strange, wildly unproven claims.

[Transcend]

I don't see how EU can become the next superpower. Pacifism and socialism are destroying European competiveness.

The current Chinese government is too corrupt to get the country to a superpower status. Also, suicide bombings are getting rampant in China....

[Transcend]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
ok.... i'll take back that point because of... well, let's just call it biased information sources.

but WFHermans, you still haven't explained:

1. the point that you're trying to prove
and 2. the reason why you have constantly pumped out stereotypical, racist, offensive, and untrue claims.

I don't get it, since you seem to know about a lot of stuff (the difference between Tibet and the TAR, the Communists and Nationalists, the ethnic situation in Taiwan) and yet you persistently pump out strange, wildly unproven claims.

He was trying to piss you off.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Transcend


He was trying to piss you off.

very good observation.
that explains his moronic claims and behavior.

[Bereta_Eder]

How can I not notice that Israel has exactly 3 votes aka Siro, Eli and Dalgetti Natan propably resisted the urge to click it

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
What has that got to do with it?

Your definition was: "project those forces to countries beyond their immediate neighbors"

They can and have done this in the recent past, therefore your definition is a poor one.

Actually that was my definition and not his. And the definition was strong conventional and nuclear forces which can be projeced beyond the immediate neighborhood.

Britain and France are by my definition still (albeit somewhat weakly) on the superpower list. They don't have the capability to take on a regional power across an ocean, but they can still drop a decent amount of force over a large portion of the globe, and are part of an alliance system which allows them to potentially use all of their national force in an overseas war without jeopardizing their own national territory.

My definition is flexible enough when you consider that how you define strength can have a lot to say about who makes the list.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander


Actually that was my definition and not his. And the definition was strong conventional and nuclear forces which can be projeced beyond the immediate neighborhood.

Britain and France are by my definition still (albeit somewhat weakly) on the superpower list. They don't have the capability to take on a regional power across an ocean, but they can still drop a decent amount of force over a large portion of the globe, and are part of an alliance system which allows them to potentially use all of their national force in an overseas war without jeopardizing their own national territory.

My definition is flexible enough when you consider that how you define strength can have a lot to say about who makes the list.

Sikander: Good move with the definition. The surprising thing is that everyone was talking about superpowers without defining what it meant until your previous post.

These days, the most important power of a superpower is economic force (which you mentioned in your previous definition).

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by WFHermans
Well, the USA has the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. But their names don't mean that the Republican Party is against democracy or the Democratic Party is against the republic. Same with the Nationalist and Communist Party.
Since long the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China has been on a nationlist course. Although they got a lot of help from stupid US presidents like Carter (who wanted to hand them over Taiwan) and Bush the younger with his unreasonable threats after the spy planes debacle.

What's your definition of nationalist.

[el freako]

Transcend,

"I don't see how EU can become the next superpower. Pacifism and socialism are destroying European competiveness."

Whilst failing to see how pacifism relates to competitiveness I agree that the average european is probably less inclined to get into foreign wars than the average american - but you could say that reformed alcholic's are less inclined to get drunk than other people, but does that make them weaker?
When europe does go to war the butcher's bill usually runs into the tens of millions - compare that with the US's total for all of the wars in the last century which is probably not much more than 1 million.
That said I don't think that europe would hesitate to go to war if it's territory was threatened.

It is also a common american myth that europe's competitiveness is less than america's.
On all the important measures of wealth; growth in GDP per head, productivity etc. the EU has outperformed the US since the second world war and even the improvement in your competitveness in the 1990's only brought your levels of growth up to ours.


There are only two area's where the US outperfoms the EU - population growth and the level of employment:

On population growth the US will almost certainly outperform the EU and so will probably see faster growth in it's total output even as it's average income falls compared to the EU's.
The EU can make up some of the difference in total output by taking in more countries as we expand across eastern europe - although this will lower our average income.

On employment the gap is now narrowing sharply.
In 1996 the US employed 72% of it working age population (that's 15-64 year old's) compared with Europe's 60%, in 2001 the US's level was still at 72% but the EU's had gone to 64% - eliminating one third of the gap in just 5 years - the gap in unemployment rates has also fallen from more than 5 percentage points in 1996 to less than 2 now.
It is also important to remember that the EU consistantly had lower unemployment than the US until 19 years ago so who is to say what the position would be in 20 years time?

[Tingkai]

deleted

[Imran Siddiqui]

On all the important measures of wealth; growth in GDP per head, productivity etc. the EU has outperformed the US since the second world war and even the improvement in your competitveness in the 1990's only brought your levels of growth up to ours.

Are you refering to the EU as a whole or certain countries in the EU? Because if you are refering to the EU as a whole I have to dispute the productivity edge goes to the EU.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by el freako
Transcend,

It is also a common american myth that europe's competitiveness is less than america's. On all the important measures of wealth; growth in GDP per head, productivity etc. the EU has outperformed the US since the second world war ....

You mean when the U.S. was producing huge amounts of everything and Europe was a smoldering pile of rubble? It's hardly a surprise that Europe's economy would grow more quickly.

[Transcend]

Europe's high tax rate has a very negative impact on new business initiatives and thus on creation of new jobs, while old established businesses would rather go into foreign countries to get cheaper labors.

Europe's inability to attract high-skilled immigrants is another major weakness I forgot to mention. If your country loses 20 million over the next 50 years(Germany) and doesn't attract skilled immigrants, what does it say about the competitiveness of your country?

[el freako]

Imran,

"if you are refering to the EU as a whole I have to dispute the productivity edge goes to the EU."

Please note I said the 1990's, not just the period 1996-2000.

Here are the apropriate figures for the period 1990-2000:

GDP:
USA: +37.5%
EU: +23.1%

Employment:
USA: +13.0%
EU: +5.4%

Total Hours Worked:
USA: +16.6%
EU: +1.5%

Hourly Productivity:
USA: +17.9%
EU: +21.3%



Sikander,

"You mean when the U.S. was producing huge amounts of everything and Europe was a smoldering pile of rubble? It's hardly a surprise that Europe's economy would grow more quickly."

Ok then let's take the period since 1938 - that should flatter the US much more as europe was running close to capacity then whilst the US had large amounts of idle capacity.

Since then western europe's GDP per head has gone from around 50% of the US level to around 70% now - still a significant rise.


Transcend:


Whilst I agree with you about the low level of immigration into the EU (around 700, 000 a year compared with 1.5m in the US) your comments about job creation are not bourne out by the facts:

For 1990-2000:

Growth in working age population:
USA: +13.2%
EU: +2.8%

Growth in employment:
USA: +13.0%
EU: +5.4%

If the tax rates were having 'a very negative impact on new business initiatives and thus on creation of new jobs' please explain why the EU had employment growth much faster than the rise in working-age population whilst the US's 'low-tax' economy had growth slightly slower.

If you are referring to the actual level of employment instead then why do Sweden and Denmark, the two countries with the highest tax burden in the EU (57% for Sweden and 53% for Denmark compared with 44% for the EU average and 32% for the US) have the highest employment rates in the EU (around 75% of working age population) and why does Spain, which has one of the lowest tax burdens in the EU (38% of GDP) also have one of the lowest rates of employment (55%)?


All three of you would do well to do some extensive research instead of relying on 'what everyone knows'.