End of European Age?

the real ramon

Ever since the Portuguese set out by boat to round Africa and find a new route to Asia that by-passed Muslim lands Europe or it's offshoots (USA, USSR) have had a near total hegemonic control of the world. However a number of trends since the fall of the Soviet Union have led me to believe that we're seeing the end of the European Age and the beginnings of a new age of multi-polar regionality.

Not only has Western European and North American economic growth been slowing down gradually on the whole since the 70's and 'western' society been in general decline, but we have been witnessing the re-emergence of India and China as economic and military powers; the slow rise in solidarity oamong the Islamic world; the re-emergence of the confidence of Latin America and it's 'left' and it's willingness to work together economically and politically; and the gradual re-emegence of a strong Russia.

These trends I think will continue and we will enter eventually into a multi-polar world where North America, Europe, Russia, China, India, Islam and South America will all form blocks which will all be jockeying with each other and be no loger dominated or controlled by the single super-power. I would also add a African Union and South-east Asia as bit-players in this, although ther's a fair amount of potential in both to be big-time players. There doesn't seem to me to be many countries falling outside of this scenario, Mexico would be the obvious one: North America, Latin America or the outside bet Zapatista-led revolution: which way will it go?

Or will the USA manage to keep all the rising areas from slipping out of it's hegemonic grasp. Idoubt it myself as it doesn't seem to be able to contain Iraq, or am I wrong? what do others think?

ivan087

The war on terror is a small part of a strategic war.

The US has control over central america and has a lot of control over south america (Colombia and Brazil). Europe is an economic, but not a military rival. Asia is well controlled with Australia, Japan and Korea as watchdogs. Chinas economy is dependent on Americas (as is Americas economy on China). The same could be said of India.

That leaves the middle east. Suadai Arabaia, Israel and Kuwuit are strategic partners. America is investing its military in Iraq as Suadui Arabia will not always be dependable (just like Iraq went from allie to foe).

All across the world the US has strong allies (UK, Poland, Israel, Australia, Colombia, etc) It also has big bases across all the continents. The biggest two American bases will be in Iraq.

Africa is the next continent to be colonised by America, but not for some time yet. Europe was their project during and after world war 2, Asia was their proect after world war 2 (50s, 60s and 70s), South America during the 80s and the middle east during the 90s and 00s. So maybe its Africa next, who knows. 'The US - coming to a country near you!'

My argument is that we need a stronger Europe to at least pressurise America. Or are we just prepared to have the US make all the decisons, with the UK running behind them sniffing their butt. Even though theres a lot of slagging about the EU, we still have the power to influence america through economics.

The Corinthian

the real ramon wrote:

Ever since the Portuguese set out by boat to round Africa and find a new route to Asia that by-passed Muslim lands Europe or it's offshoots (USA, USSR) have had a near total hegemonic control of the world. However a number of trends since the fall of the Soviet Union have led me to believe that we're seeing the end of the European Age and the beginnings of a new age of multi-polar regionality.

Actually, the European age pretty much ended between 1914 and 1945, between the two World wars and the abandonment of the British gold standard in 1929. You cannot really compare the Cold War superpowers, et al to La Bel Epoc of European imperialism.

To quote Sir Edward Grey on the eve of outbreak of World War I, “The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime”.

Not only has Western European and North American economic growth been slowing down gradually on the whole since the 70's and 'western' society been in general decline,

Post World War II the West saw a huge economic boom. However, simply because that particular boom is no longer in existence would, it would be presumptuous to believe that it meant the West was in decline.

but we have been witnessing the re-emergence of India and China as economic and military powers;

The re-emergence of China. India was never an economic and military power as it was never actually properly unified until recently.

the slow rise in solidarity oamong the Islamic world;

Rubbish. There’s actually practically no solidarity amongst the Islamic World, outside of the most basic lip service to the Palestinian issue. In the case of the Arab league, their summits have become a joke as one Arab despot vies to squabble with another Arab despot.

In fact, the only Islamic movement that has ever sought any actually solidarity amongst other Islamic nations is Ba’athism, and that movement seems to have pretty much died a death outside of Syria.

the re-emergence of the confidence of Latin America and it's 'left' and it's willingness to work together economically and politically;

Until they get voted out, or they fall out with each other. Getting South America agreeing to a single purpose is not too far removed to trying to herd cats, I’m afraid.

I would also add a African Union

Roffle. Dream on.

Or will the USA manage to keep all the rising areas from slipping out of it's hegemonic grasp. Idoubt it myself as it doesn't seem to be able to contain Iraq, or am I wrong? what do others think?

I think we will get a more multi-polar World, but largely for two reasons. Firstly the neo conservatives played the Pax Americana card to obviously and too early. America, while by far the most powerful nation in the World, does not have the full spectrum dominance it assumed it had and in throwing it’s weight around over the Iraq issue it spectacularly and fatally killed off its image as a benign and well meaning superpower, resulting in a virtual collapse in trust towards the US.

One has to look as the explosion of Anti-Americanism Worldwide. Anti-Americanism predated the Iraq invasion, but tended to be limited to the, largely left-wing, fringes and Islamic extremists. The Iraq invasion turned it mainstream, not only in the Middle East but pretty much everywhere, as the US began to be treated with less affection and more suspicion.

Secondly, the US public don’t like the idea of being an Empire. Most Americans haven’t even left their state, let alone the US - why would they care about the rest of the World? And for them the idea of being an empire does not rest easy, so long term public opinion will always oppose it.

So both of these factors will make it very difficult for the US to consolidate Pax Americana, and entities such as the EU, Russia, China and India will further vie to limit US influence in their sphere’s of interest.

However, there’s very little danger of South America, Africa or the Islamic World uniting for the near future. They make some temporary noises about it and maybe even a conference or two, but that’s about it.

ivan087

The Corinthian wrote:

Secondly, the US public don’t like the idea of being an Empire. Most Americans haven’t even left their state, let alone the US - why would they care about the rest of the World? And for them the idea of being an empire does not rest easy, so long term public opinion will always oppose it.

I've spent some time in the US and they do not see the US as an empire. Thats the problem. To ordinary Americans - the British, the French and the Spannish - had an empire. What matters to them is superiority and security. If they are told by their government that by invading Vietnam or Grenada or Iraq, America will be safe and rich, then they will agree to it.

America is a new kind of empire, the likes we have never seen. I think its going to be here to stay for a long long time. Its built itself up steadily and if it were to fall, the rest of the world would fall. Its in the interests of the world to keep America at the top.

Bam Bam

Here's one for you.

Africa will never unite, their are radical difference's throughout the continent and for the most part its societies are backward and its governments corrupt.
When they aren't fighting with each other they're sharpening their knifes. This situation is brought on by a lack of education and a lack of interest by their "governments" and the west.

As for the Muslim question. The majority are only united because of their hatred, dare I say jealously, of the west. Middle eastern society is radically different to ours. For the most part we have an open society will liberty for all. Muslim countries seem to favour a closed society which supports strict control of the media and citizens. They have no concept of free speech because they are not allowed to express themselves, again because of a lack of education.

Western society is not without its flaws. We have become decadent. Mostly we are well educated, well fed and the majority want for nought. Our society has evolved to exploit the less developed sociieties. Its a sorry state but its the world we live in. Our survival is dependent on the situation in the middle east, africa and asia. The higher their productivity the worse ours gets.

Our survival as a society depends on the exploitation of their's.

As for America and Europe. We are at war and have been for years. However our governments have come to realise that a military conflict is too expensive both for the victors and the losers. So our war is an economic one.

The US has been clearly in the lead but soon with the middle east proposing to change the currency they trade oil in to euros instead of dollars, this represents a shift of balance into europes favour.

I believe this is the beginning of the European age. Eventually we will become a super state. The single currency was the start of an intergrated European economy. EU battle groups, which are a good idea, is the first stage of an intergrated european defence force. And the European Union was the first step towards a central government..

I don't know when it'll happen but eventually our national bountries will become regionals ones and we will unite under one flag its just a matter of time.

ivan087

Bam Bam wrote:

As for America and Europe. We are at war and have been for years. However our governments have come to realise that a military conflict is too expensive both for the victors and the losers. So our war is an economic one.

The US has been clearly in the lead but soon with the middle east proposing to change the currency they trade oil in to euros instead of dollars, this represents a shift of balance into europes favour.

I believe this is the beginning of the European age. Eventually we will become a super state. The single currency was the start of an intergrated European economy. EU battle groups, which are a good idea, is the first stage of an intergrated european defence force. And the European Union was the first step towards a central government..

I don't know when it'll happen but eventually our national bountries will become regionals ones and we will unite under one flag its just a matter of time.

i think you hit the nail on the head. its bound to go this way. hopefully we'll learn some lessons from america when europe does get its act together. of course there will be many people in europe who will wave their national flags and shout out national slogans (SF will be the ones ranting for ireland, UKIP for england etc).

it wont be a united states of europe, it will be more like a united kingdom of europe. its better to be with a group, then to sit alone.

the real ramon

Yeah, maybe I looked too much into some trends, African Union in particular, that would be a long way off, though I think it will happen eventually, there's a tradition Africa Unite politics there to build on, but like I said a long way off.

India might never have been united till recently but it now becoming a military and economic super-power.

The European Age might technically have ended with WW1 but I was including in it it's cultural off-shoots.

I do think the trend towards some form of unity in South America will continue: it is now no longer torn between USA and USSR, and the anti-americanism prevalent there will give it impetus to slowly unite. Europe might have squabbled with itself for centuries but after WW2 it gradually put differences behind it and formed gradually economic unions which is what is happening in South America at the moment with Merconorte and Mercosur, and I see in that the beginning of a South American Union.

Granted it's anyboby's guess as to what will happen in the Islamic world over the next few decades.

All in all I do think the trends point to a more multi-polar world developing over the next few decades, no matter what the US influence is in specific countries is at present I do think it will gradually lose control of its hegemonic position, as the post previously said they perhaps played the neo-liberal card too soon. But maybe it's to soon to tell, trends can change and in world politics at the moment its all up in the air (slightly, but putting my money on multi-polarism)

Sand

I believe this is the beginning of the European age. Eventually we will become a super state. The single currency was the start of an intergrated European economy. EU battle groups, which are a good idea, is the first stage of an intergrated european defence force. And the European Union was the first step towards a central government..

Theres a number of things counting against this.

A) Europe has not developed its military budget enough to throw its weight around. As the Iran embarrasment shows, its sometimes useful in diplomacy to have a really big stick. Its even handy to be feared as being mad enough to use that stick.

Europe lags behind the US in terms of patents and higher education. The US secondary education system is bad (they incidentially spend an enormous amount of money on kids up to 15 so its not funding, but my mother, a teacher, still remarks on the US teachers who visited her class and couldnt get over the difference in standards at the same age group) but their 3rd level education is the best in the world.

C) Europe is getting older, and is going to be stung with an almighty bill quite shortly by its OAPs welfare and benefits. What counts against reform is that as Europe gets older, OAPS form a larger, and more focused voting bloc who will punish attempts at reform.

D) As the French riots demonstrated, theres some seething social issues beneath the placid surface of European society. This will require more funds being diverted to social issues as opposed to being a superpower, and also the large muslim populations in Europe also acts as a restraint on European action in the Middle East, or any muslim country. I reckoned Chiracs opposition to the Iraq war was based on french commercial interests, but maybe it had more to do with the millions of French muslims he didnt need voting against him.

E) Were very far from a European superstate, and already brakes are being applied. I am pro-integration, but only to a point. I do not wish to see us adopting the French model of high taxation, high unemployment. And our low tax regime is all the more attractive to investment because of the EUs average being higher. And Im not in favour of political integration that gives the continental communist/union axis any levers to implement intolerable policies here.

Big move toward regionalism worldwide. Look at the profileration of regional trade agreements in recent years. EU was the first major one and look how that economic consolidation has crossed over into the political and social arenas. Same thing will happen with eventually happen across most of the world. Kinda like 1984..........

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

Theres a number of things counting against this.

I see our resident europhobe has made an appearance.

A) Europe has not developed its military budget enough to throw its weight around. As the Iran embarrasment shows, its sometimes useful in diplomacy to have a really big stick. Its even handy to be feared as being mad enough to use that stick.

How has the Iran embarrassment shown this? I hope you’re not suggesting that threats of military force would do better, because that would simply be speculation on your part.

Europe lags behind the US in terms of patents and higher education. The US secondary education system is bad (they incidentially spend an enormous amount of money on kids up to 15 so its not funding, but my mother, a teacher, still remarks on the US teachers who visited her class and couldnt get over the difference in standards at the same age group) but their 3rd level education is the best in the world.

Actually, some of their 3rd level education is the best in the World. The top bit. The rest is crap. The fact that there is little or no regulation of who can call themselves a university would probably be part of this problem.

Anyone can set themselves up as a college and start awarding degrees - by mail. And they frequently do.

C) Europe is getting older, and is going to be stung with an almighty bill quite shortly by its OAPs welfare and benefits. What counts against reform is that as Europe gets older, OAPS form a larger, and more focused voting bloc who will punish attempts at reform.

The US is in the same situation.

D) As the French riots demonstrated, theres some seething social issues beneath the placid surface of European society. This will require more funds being diverted to social issues as opposed to being a superpower, and also the large muslim populations in Europe also acts as a restraint on European action in the Middle East, or any muslim country.

Name any country in the World without social issues beneath the surface.

I reckoned Chiracs opposition to the Iraq war was based on french commercial interests, but maybe it had more to do with the millions of French muslims he didnt need voting against him.

Nice theory. Hope you’re wearing your tin foil hat though.

E) Were very far from a European superstate, and already brakes are being applied. I am pro-integration, but only to a point. I do not wish to see us adopting the French model of high taxation, high unemployment. And our low tax regime is all the more attractive to investment because of the EUs average being higher. And Im not in favour of political integration that gives the continental communist/union axis any levers to implement intolerable policies here.

Firstly, I’ve been posting here long enough to know that you’re one of the people most against European integration here.

Secondly, I do think it unlikely that the EU will transform into a super state, but then again only a fool would realistically try to claim they can see what will happen to the EU in twenty years. As things stand we are slowly on a path of becoming a type Super-Switzerland, which is perhaps not such a bad thing, but only time will tell if this does happen.

After all, Switzerland doesn’t need to fire a single shot to pull a hugely disproportionate number of the World’s political and economic strings.

The Corinthian wrote:

India was never an economic and military power as it was never actually properly unified until recently.

Erratum. I forgot the Mughal Empire covered most of India and was a huge economic and military power for several hundred years.

Mjollnir

The Corinthian wrote:

I see our resident europhobe has made an appearance.

Actually, some of their 3rd level education is the best in the World. The top bit. The rest is crap. The fact that there is little or no regulation of who can call themselves a university would probably be part of this problem.

Anyone can set themselves up as a college and start awarding degrees - by mail. And they frequently do.

The rest is 'crap'? I'd label that pig-ignorance, but I don't wish to offend pigs.

Anyone can set themselves up as a college and start awarding degrees - by mail. And they frequently do.

Which has absolutely no bearing on the actual quality, or lack thereof, in the academic instiutions of the US.

And as to all countries having some sort of social problems, I wouldn't exactly place litter on the streets of Luxembourg City in the same basket as tens of thousands rioting for weeks at a time in the streets and burning and looting across an entire country.

Perhaps our standards differ.

The Corinthian

Mjollnir wrote:

The rest is 'crap'? I'd label that pig-ignorance, but I don't wish to offend pigs.

Your relationship with farm livestock is your own business.

Which has absolutely no bearing on the actual quality, or lack thereof, in the academic instiutions of the US.

Of course it does, because if there is a lack of regulation in the awarding of educational qualifications, as there is in many US states, then by definition means that there is lack of standard. Here’s a tip; look up the definition of the word standard.

And as to all countries having some sort of social problems, I wouldn't exactly place litter on the streets of Luxembourg City in the same basket as tens of thousands rioting for weeks at a time in the streets and burning and looting across an entire country.

And neither would I put Luxembourg in the same boat as France as country go - you may have noticed that there’s a wee disparity between them in terms of population for a start. Of course you did, that’s why I suppose you picked that example.

Perhaps our standards differ.

Good for you. When you develop some, you might come back and post again.

Mjollnir

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course it does, because if there is a lack of regulation in the awarding of educational qualifications, as there is in many US states, then by definition means that there is lack of standard. Here’s a tip; look up the definition of the word standard.

Ah, but you see, you issued a blanket endictment of the larger part of US higher education, implying that they constitute some sort of problem here. They don't. Credentials are quite easy to check, and there are only so many 'diploma mills'. Anyone stupid enough to rely on using a 'degree' from such can expect the obvious. Much like those who offer histrionic objections to problems that don't exist.

And neither would I put Luxembourg in the same boat as France as country go - you may have noticed that there’s a wee disparity between them in terms of population for a start. Of course you did, that’s why I suppose you picked that example.

Irrelevant. Again, you spoke in broad and unspecific terms, playing down a major issue/trend by stating that all countries have such issues.

No, they don't.

The Corinthian

Mjollnir wrote:

Ah, but you see, you issued a blanket endictment of the larger part of US higher education, implying that they constitute some sort of problem here. They don't. Credentials are quite easy to check, and there are only so many 'diploma mills'. Anyone stupid enough to rely on using a 'degree' from such can expect the obvious. Much like those who offer histrionic objections to problems that don't exist.

Whether or not you can do a check of the credentials or not is irrelevant as we are discussing standards. And if you have standards you don’t have to check the credentials of a university as it would not be, legally, a university without certain standards.

Again, I invite you to look up the definition of the word standard.

Irrelevant. Again, you spoke in broad and unspecific terms, playing down a major issue/trend by stating that all countries have such issues.

No, they don't.

I said all countries have social issues. Where did that go from social issues to all have the same level of social issues? That a country a tenth the size of another should have the same scale of problems? Why don’t offer us another straw man?

And all to play down a supposed “major issue/trend”? Quite a fantasy there.

My response to Sand, who I’ve observed in the past will take any opportunity to Eurohit and run, was not to particularly criticise the US, but to demonstrate that his points either could be levelled at the US or anywhere else or were even conspiracy theories.

What I do find amusing is that this is coming from a poster who’s posted six times in the last four and a half years. My personal favourite post was this prophetic beauty.

If I didn’t know any better I’d have said this was a secondary account...

Mjollnir

The Corinthian wrote:

Whether or not you can do a check of the credentials or not is irrelevant as we are discussing standards. And if you have standards you don’t have to check the credentials of a university as it would not be, legally, a university without certain standards.

Again, I invite you to look up the definition of the word standard.

Ok, I'll make this easy for you: kindly cite the data you have used to come to your Never-Never Land conclusions. Bonus points: indicate exactly how this data supports the contention that a lack of a universal standard is some sort of problem.

I said all countries have social issues. Where did that go from social issues to all have the same level of social issues? That a country a tenth the size of another should have the same scale of problems? Why don’t offer us another straw man?

I'm sorry, could you show exactly where I stated that all countries have the same level of social issues? Now, what was that about a straw man again?

What I do find amusing is that this is coming from a poster who’s posted six times in the last four and a half years.

How quaintly irrelevant.

My personal favourite post was this prophetic beauty.

If I didn’t know any better I’d have said this was a secondary account...

Ah, I see now. You're unable to read what's right in front of you, and don't understand the proper use of the word 'prophetic'.

The Corinthian

Mjollnir wrote:

Ok, I'll make this easy for you: kindly cite the data you have used to come to your Never-Never Land conclusions. Bonus points: indicate exactly how this data supports the contention that a lack of a universal standard is some sort of problem.

Which aspect of the term ‘standard’ do you not understand?

Many states in the US have few if any laws regulating college charters - in particular Louisiana, Alabama, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri, South Dakota, Utah and Washington. Some have cleaned up their act in the last few decades, such as California. However, the fact remains that the level of education is very poorly regulated in many states.

This is what is called standards.

This is not to say that the US has a poor college system throughout. Quite the contrary, she has some of the best colleges in the World. However there is a difference between that and claiming, “their 3rd level education is the best in the world”.

I'm sorry, could you show exactly where I stated that all countries have the same level of social issues? Now, what was that about a straw man again?

By your straw man example, where you took two countries of vastly differing sizes and attempted to argue that because Luxemburg did not have the same level of social issues as France, ergo my argument was flawed. Or are you backtracking now?

How quaintly irrelevant.

Ah, I see now. You're unable to read what's right in front of you, and don't understand the proper use of the word 'prophetic'.

It was prophetic because that’s exactly what he went on to do shortly after you posted that. There’s another definition you can look up.

So who are you normally on Boards?

FAO The Two Gob****es: Don't hijack the thread with your bickering.

samb

If you don't have wealthy parents you will not go to any of the top ten US universities. This statement is almost a rule, so much for the land of oportunity:mad:

Victor

samb wrote:

so much for the land of oportunity:mad:

Where anyone can come president.*

* Terms and conditions apply. Immigrants may not apply. Women and ethnic minorities haven't a hope. Non-protestants and those under 45 can get in at a push. But lets be honest, you need to belong to the old boys club.

the real ramon

Deleted User wrote:

Kinda like 1984..........

that did spring disturbingly to mind........

Sand

I see our resident europhobe has made an appearance.

Youve already made clear your view that you support European actions and positions blindly. Seeing as I dont, this will obviously clash from time to time with my own calling the shots as I see them which may include criticism of Europe. Youre going to have to develop a coping mechanism other than assigning me a new nationality or calling me a Europhobe. I am European, well Irish, so Im pro-Europe but for the Europe I want, not the Europe Im given.

How has the Iran embarrassment shown this? I hope you’re not suggesting that threats of military force would do better, because that would simply be speculation on your part.

Well we know what doesnt work - having no military threat to back up the "or else!!!!" part of diplomacy.

Actually, some of their 3rd level education is the best in the World. The top bit. The rest is crap. The fact that there is little or no regulation of who can call themselves a university would probably be part of this problem.

Anyone can set themselves up as a college and start awarding degrees - by mail. And they frequently do.

Actually their 3rd level education is the best in the world, most of it is as good or bad as the European average, the best are better than pretty much anything in Europe, facilitating a rather excellent R&D industry and no, mail order degrees are not the only 3rd level facilities that exist outside the top 20. Theres no denying their secondary system is rubbish, but to fail to give credit where its due might strike some people as being begrudgery.

The US is in the same situation.

No Europe is in a far worse position. Its fertility rate is well below replacement rate and it is encountering grave difficulties attempting to integrate immigrants. The US has neither problem. Looking at this study, The US is going to grow faster than Europe in absolute terms to 2050 ( i.e. its going to add more population than Europe, despite Europe currently having twice the population - thats how bad the fertility rate comparison is). At the same time, Europes population will drop in the 0-14 age brackets and 15-59 age brackets but the US will actually increase in these brackets. What this means is that by 2050, the US media age will be 41, whilst Italys median age will be 52, Irelands will be a relatively youthful 45. Italys population over 80 years old will outnumber the population under 15 years old. The US will have over twice as many under the age of 15 as over 80

You do the maths and tell me who needs to be most worried about an aging population, and who will have the better dependency ratio? Thats even before you factor in the tradition of the welfare state is more prevalent in Europe politically and financially than in the US. And given the differing economic models, whose going to have more workers providing a tax base than sitting on the dole?

Nice theory. Hope you’re wearing your tin foil hat though.

Somethings motivating his retreat from another Frenchmans defence of free speech. Any theories?

Firstly, I’ve been posting here long enough to know that you’re one of the people most against European integration here.

Im in favour of open markets and free movment of goods and services. Im not in favour of political integration that imports the radical trade unionism that we see on the continent and letting them set our tax rates or social policies.

Secondly, I do think it unlikely that the EU will transform into a super state, but then again only a fool would realistically try to claim they can see what will happen to the EU in twenty years. As things stand we are slowly on a path of becoming a type Super-Switzerland, which is perhaps not such a bad thing, but only time will tell if this does happen.

Given the backlash to mild integration measures so far, I think it highly unlikely. Increasing hostility to competition and immigration, and the rise of extremist nationalist socialist movements make it less than likely.

Name any country in the World without social issues beneath the surface.

As divisive as whats emerging in Europe? On the one hand rioting in British and French cities from marginalised and ghettoised inhabitants and on the other the rise of extremist and xenophobic movements mirroring rejection of integration on either side of the divide? In the shape of the Danish cartoon protests in places like London weve seen that there is some extremely screwed up views being paraded by marchers. Every country has social issues, not all social issues are equivalent though.

samb

Sand wrote:

You do the maths and tell me who needs to be most worried about an aging population, and who will have the better dependency ratio? Thats even before you factor in the tradition of the welfare state is more prevalent in Europe politically and financially than in the US. And given the differing economic models, whose going to have more workers providing a tax base than sitting on the dole?
.

There are only two ways that a country can have a young population. 1) The population is increasing, and 2) Low life expectancy. Because we cannot have an increasing population forever (and presuming we want a good life-expectancy) then at some stage we are going to have to adapt to an ''old population''. America will also have to deal with this, therefore.

The only way I can see around this is to allow immigrants into the country constantly but somehow make sure they leave again before retirement age. We also might be able to avoid educating them. In other words, the only way around this is to exploit.

Yes America will not be hit by this problem as soon as Europe but I'm not sure what you are referring to with your last sentance. Are you saying that America does and will generally look after ALL it's elderly better than Europe because of thier economic model. We shall see. Personally I believe that the scandanavian model of state investment in people coupled with free market access will prove to be both relatively prosperous and sustainable.

Captain Trips

Yes, super great integration in the US, as we saw in New Orleans.

The retirement of the baby-boomers - totally different to the aging and decrepid European population.

Where do people get the idea that birth rates are such a big deal? I'm sure they have gone up and down for centuries, with migration such as from North Africa to Spain, the Moore's, the Roman Empire.

If anything, the EU will dwarf the US and probably most other economic blocs by 2050 (Already, the combined exports of Germany and France are more than the US and China) . It's now at what, 450 million?

http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-31082004-BP/EN/3-31082004-BP-EN.PDF
Some soundbites:
1. 1 in 14 people on the planet now live in the EU25
2. Fertility Rates:
- EU25 is 1.48 in 2003 (up from 1.46 in 2002). Japan is lower at 1.38. The core industrialised countries are similar to the population dense Japan
- the US was 2.07, India 2.91 and China 1.68.

EU population, according to that official document, is now 454 million.

Poverty Rates: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_pop_bel_med_inc
- 17% of US population is below median income. COmpare it to the EU countries which are FAR FAR less (UK doesn't help here, it being the 51st state and everything)

Exports: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_exp
- Germany and France real exports alone are almost equal to the US and China combined. If you throw in the UK, Italy and Netherlands, then you basically can only compete in total exports by adding the US, Canada, China, Japan all together.

Basically, you'd need the entire rest of the sort of developed world (US, China, and Japan and Canada and more) to equal the EU25 as it stands now in 2006, and this can only continue in our favour I would imagine.

There is no comparison to the EU in the world as it is an bloc of enormous economic strength.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

Youve already made clear your view that you support European actions and positions blindly. Seeing as I dont, this will obviously clash from time to time with my own calling the shots as I see them which may include criticism of Europe. Youre going to have to develop a coping mechanism other than assigning me a new nationality or calling me a Europhobe. I am European, well Irish, so Im pro-Europe but for the Europe I want, not the Europe Im given.

You’re not pro-European. The only time you mention being pro-European is when you can then follow up with the word “but...” in your argument. It’s not unlike David Irving arguing that he’s not anti-Semitic and then saying “but...” - in other words it’s simply an argumentative tactic.

If that’s not the case feel free to point to any post where you’ve done otherwise.

If you do I’ll happily point to posts where I have been unashamedly critical of the EU, so that you can be happy in the knowledge that I’m not so ‘blind’.

Glad to see you’re posting under this identity again, BTW.

Sand

Yes America will not be hit by this problem as soon as Europe but I'm not sure what you are referring to with your last sentance. Are you saying that America does and will generally look after ALL it's elderly better than Europe because of thier economic model. We shall see. Personally I believe that the scandanavian model of state investment in people coupled with free market access will prove to be both relatively prosperous and sustainable.

The US is facing an aging population as well ( China is actually in a worse boat than Europe with its media age rising to 52 thanks to the one child policy, so most of their spending will have to be diverted into social spending as well rather than being a superpower, if it is to cope) but it will have more time to prepare and the impact will be more manageable because it will still be growing. And it will be able to take warning from what happens in Europe. Right now, few politicians dare even mention that the welfare state will have to be stripped down in a major way, and unions and socialists will fight tooth and nail to defend the European social model. And OAPs wont vote to deny themselves the benefits they were taxed to provide to others all their working lives. I wouldnt blame them.

As for the point about the different economic models...the US and other followers of les anglo-saxon model have a good record in employment levels and thus tax base, the european social model does not. More than likely Europe will have to sustain both high levels of unemployment and an aged population, more than likely the US will have to deal with an aging population alone and a smaller one at that.

At the end of the day, this implies that the chances of a new European age are reduced than what they would be otherwise. On top of which, Europes wealth is due in some part to not having to pay a realistic amount for their own security which is guaranteed by the US in NATO. Europeans are not generally supportive of military actions or military spending while Americans generally are. European attitudes to the use of military force could change over time - afterall Europeans have traditionally been quite fond of force when they think they can win - but whats going to spark that change, or the diversion of funds from social spending to bombs, guns and star wars equipment?

Yes, super great integration in the US, as we saw in New Orleans.

And we didnt even need an unprecedented natural disaster to reveal the level of integration in Europe...

Where do people get the idea that birth rates are such a big deal? I'm sure they have gone up and down for centuries, with migration such as from North Africa to Spain, the Moore's, the Roman Empire.

If anything, the EU will dwarf the US and probably most other economic blocs by 2050 (Already, the combined exports of Germany and France are more than the US and China) . It's now at what, 450 million?

In and of itself, its not a major issue. But when you have to factor in how you are going to fund the welfare of OAPs it becomes an issue. The fraction of the population that are OAPs is rising, due to extended life spans and falling birth rates. That means that every worker has to support more OAPs, and there are less and less workers as the younger people simply age and are not replaced by new births. This implies a growing problem to fund more elderly people with a smaller and smaller tax base. This problem was not considered when the welfare state was introduced. OAPs have been taxed all their lives to provide benefits to retirees, well now theyre retiring and they want whats owed under the "social contract". Unfortunately, we (not so much so in Ireland thankfully) will have difficulties paying up.

Eventually it will all pan out as the elderly die and the populations in Europe simply die off ( Countries like Italy will simply lose 7 million people in the next 45 years, countries like Russia will lose 35 million people). But for the span between the retirement and death of this population bulge, there will be a hard choice to either slash benefits or to raise taxes and slash other budgetary concerns. The possibility of mass immigration has proven to be quite troublesome both politically and socially, more so for Europe than the US, mostly I think because Europe is a collection of nation-states, whereas US integration is based on adherence to institutions like the constitution and activities like flag waving.

If that’s not the case feel free to point to any post where you’ve done otherwise.

Well I support the Danish position that they cannot and should not punish JP for the Mohammed cartoons. But that would be because I think theyre right, not because theyre Danish. On similar lines I disagree with David Irving because I think hes wrong, not because hes English. If I disagree with the European social model its because I think its wrong, not because its European. If I agree with the US decision to ignore the UN when it comes to toppling dictators its because I think its right, not because theyre American.

Being Pro-Europe to your mind would seem to imply that I would have to support high taxation, trade unionism and socialism which are dominant European idealogies. I dont. I think the facts, that count against a European revival, have to be considered.

If you do I’ll happily point to posts where I have been unashamedly critical of the EU, so that you can be happy in the knowledge that I’m not so ‘blind’.

You might, IIRC but youve already told me in that Germany/Uzbek thread that you support European actions even if theyre wrong because theyre carried out by Europeans and thus to your benefit as a European?

Glad to see you’re posting under this identity again, BTW.

You should report dual accounts you know, its in breach of the boards charter and is punished by permament bannage. Seriously Corinithian, why would I need a second account for this? Because were great mates and I wouldnt want to fall out with you?

samb

Sand wrote:

As for the point about the different economic models...the US and other followers of les anglo-saxon model have a good record in employment levels and thus tax base, the european social model does not. More than likely Europe will have to sustain both high levels of unemployment and an aged population, more than likely the US will have to deal with an aging population alone and a smaller one at that.

At the end of the day, this implies that the chances of a new European age are reduced than what they would be otherwise. On top of which, Europes wealth is due in some part to not having to pay a realistic amount for their own security which is guaranteed by the US in NATO.

With regard the economic models I believe that Europe is better positioned to eventually adapt (which we inevitably must) to an older population because europeans generally are better savers and not as indulgent consumers. I think that eventually we will have to put up with higher taxes or larger pensions and that europeans will find these less troubling. If you look at the amount of manufacturing jobs leaving the US I would not be so confident that they will maintain high employment.

With regard Military spending, I think Europe will continue to get away with spending little on security, while the US will continue to waste money. Europe's superior average education will make it the brain of the world economy. The US's education will deteriorate further because of thier unwillingness to raise taxes to pay for it. thier greed will be the death of them.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

Well I support the Danish position that they cannot and should not punish JP for the Mohammed cartoons. But that would be because I think theyre right, not because theyre Danish. On similar lines I disagree with David Irving because I think hes wrong, not because hes English. If I disagree with the European social model its because I think its wrong, not because its European. If I agree with the US decision to ignore the UN when it comes to toppling dictators its because I think its right, not because theyre American.

You’ve not answered by question, for all that waffle, I accused you of only claiming a pro-European stance as preamble to making a typically anti-European argument and asked you to show me where you have not done so.

So, again, feel free to cite such an example.

Being Pro-Europe to your mind would seem to imply that I would have to support high taxation, trade unionism and socialism which are dominant European idealogies. I dont. I think the facts, that count against a European revival, have to be considered.

No at all, I’ve never suggested this, neither have I suggested that the present structure of the EU is perfect or even going in the right direction. However I do believe in the ideal of a united Europe and that we share a commonality with our fellow Europeans. You do not and have repeatedly shown greater affinity to the US, typically to the detriment of your fellow Europeans, in past threads.

So that would make you pretty anti-European, TBH.

You might, IIRC but youve already told me in that Germany/Uzbek thread that you support European actions even if theyre wrong because theyre carried out by Europeans and thus to your benefit as a European?

Real Politik should not be confused with blindness.

You should report dual accounts you know, its in breach of the boards charter and is punished by permament bannage. Seriously Corinithian, why would I need a second account for this? Because were great mates and I wouldnt want to fall out with you?

How would I know? You get all sorts of weirdoes on the Interweb after all.