The Euro and the U.S. Dollar!

[Asher Kelman]

A good sprinkle of humor, a joke in passing, by my very good friend Nicolas Claris, got me to thinking about where we are today as the dollar has trouble holding its own against those of other equally massive economies.

just my 2 cents of Euro, that every one knows is worth than $…

Source is found in Post # 20, here.

But why is it so? Because thousands of US boys came to Europe and sacrificed to free it from tyranny and then helped defend and rebuild with US treasure. We helped rebuild it it from the ashes. We continued for the past 3/4 century in like fashion, that's why! The Euro is a wonderful thing and represents, to me at least, the promise of the end of wars in Europe, cooperation, peace and prosperity. Still, the value of the Euro is tied to the US dollar. If we fail, so does Europe. This is one boat. We sink or swim together. At the moment Europeans can be welcomed here with their valuable Euro and get bargains. Everything is practically 30% to 50% off European prices. You can have a vacation in a prince's style for a plebeian price.

Back to our history of giving away treasure! The fight against Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany was financed by American wealth and the blood of tens of thousands of American, British and British commonwealth young men and women. (The Russians too lost men beyond count!) Since then the USA has been the major non-military donor to developing countries. Europe has often ignored her former colonies as they descended to genocide. It costs a lot of resources to be involved and this the European populations found excuses each time not to do.

The USA, by contrast, has extended itself, (sometimes with big errors in emphasis), but often with a good sense of purpose. The money and troops contributed by other nations has been often just symbolic, as in Srebrenitsa.

"The Srebrenitsa genocide can be considered far worse than the Rwanda genocide, even though less people were killed. It was far worse because the UN peace keepers deceived the innocent civilians. The UN set up Srebrenitsa as a 'safe haven' for vulnerable Muslim civilians and those civilians believed the UN's promises of protection.

Yet their protectors, 400 Dutch peacekeepers, handed the civilians over to the Serbians knowing that they would be slaughtered. Kofi Annan was the man in charge of the peacekeepers." Source].

Now the above pointing to the Dutch is looking at the issue from a limited viewpoint. This withdrawal behavior has often happened before. It comes from the passive involvement of UN troops. That's the mission, just to stand in between the two sides. However, there is no background support and moral power to support aggressive intervention from most of the U.N. Anyway, this incident shocked the world and the Dutch felt shame and searched their national conscience. They were pained by the fact that Dutch values did not supercede a U.N. set of laissez-faire lack of responsibility.

It appears that Europeans will send token forces but not risk the lives of their men. And who is willing to risk their treasure? The wealth of Europe may not be well reflected in how much aid is given. Thus conflicts which might be avoided are common. Without a lot of investment of our wealth, solutions to Ethnic tensions and violent eruptions cannot be so easily prevented by giving people a path to a better future without such conflict. This is expensive. Europe talks good values, but hardly ever stands behind the good words with money and muscle.

In all these events, mostly US treasure was drained, not that of the Europeans! The Europeans can thwn look at the USA from the sidelines and comment on how the ball is played. Even in Afghanistan, most European, troops, except perhaps the British, have been limited to non-combat duty. In any case the cost of this has generally been born by the US economy and this drains us. When Europe starts to really contribute to the vast extent of the USA in non-military foreign aid, we'll be all better off and the Euro may also drop in relationship to the rising Eastern currencies.

Meanwhile, I'll celebrate the Euro, enjoy French wines and cheese and listen to Debussy, Beethoven, Sir Elton John, Sting, The Beatles and Benjamin Britten and drink English tea from my Delft teapot!

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A good sprinkle of humor, a joke in passing, by my very good friend Nicolas Claris, got me to thinking about where we are today as the dollar has trouble holding its own against those of other equally massive economies.
[...]
But why is it so? Because thousands of US boys came to Europe and sacrificed to free it from tyranny and then helped defend and rebuild with US treasure.

Dear Asher,

I assume you are just provoking for the sake of it, because especially from you I would have expected better, much better, informed opinions.

There are so many things to refute, let me address just a few for now, the rest can follow.

1. The Euro. It only came into existence in 1999, and initially was just used as a fixed exchange rates equivalent for the member states (http://www.x-rates.com/faq_euro.html). Not all European countries were allowed to participate, and some chose not to. It was only used internally by the national banks, the actual introduction of the coins and paper was on January 2nd, 2002. The initial exchange rate between US dollar and Euro was roughly intended to be close to parity at introduction time (if I recall correctly).

1999-01-04: 1 USD = EUR 0.846596 (Fixed exchange rates between member states)
2000-01-03: 1 USD = EUR 0.984736
2001-01-02: 1 USD = EUR 1.05652
2002-01-02: 1 USD = EUR 1.1073 (introduction as currency to the memberstate populations)
2003-01-02: 1 USD = EUR 0.965158
2004-01-02: 1 USD = EUR 0.794155
2005-01-03: 1 USD = EUR 0.74206
2006-01-02: 1 USD = EUR 0.844452
2007-01-01: 1 USD = EUR 0.757748
2008-01-01: 1 USD = EUR 0.684791
2008-08-27: 1 USD = EUR 0.6365113818 (as of 19:09:25 UTC)
(Source: http://www.x-rates.com/cgi-bin/hlookup.cgi).

Hint, there seems to be a connection with the current US administration, which let the money presses run literally so fast that they had to stop publishing the monthly money creation accounts, in an attempt to confuse Joe public. The great thing (for the USA) is that since international banks were forced to agree on keeping a large percentage of their balance in USD currency (to make the USD the standard instead of gold), thus the international community pays for the abundance of dollars, their balances devaluated, while masking what was happening! Part of it was payed by selling international gold reserves, that's why the gold price was kept low. Now it is no longer possible to hide the catastrophic effects of turning the US national budget surplus into a growing deficit, and the war in Irak doesn't help either (unless one has interests in the weapons industry).

Spending more than the value one creates, leads to lower value, it's as simple as that. The Euro is not strong, the USD is weak.

We helped rebuild it it from the ashes. We continued for the past 3/4 century in like fashion, that's why!

You make it sound as if there was no self interest involved. May I remind you that the USA only got involved in the 2nd WW when that started to hurt its own interests! Sure there was a lot of sacrifice (my parents were very grateful to all brave soldiers for being liberated) but don't mistake sacrifice with selflessness. The Russians, Polish troops, Canadians, British, and Americans in a joint effort liberated my country (one reason for that was because the Netherlands was on the route to the West German industrial Ruhr area). The Marchall plan (formally the European Recovery Plan) had strong economic motives (and a lot of demands to benefit the USA), and also was meant to repell the Soviet Union (remember the cold war). Don't mistake generosity with self interest.

The Euro is a wonderful thing and represents, to me at least, the promise of the end of wars in Europe, cooperation, peace and prosperity. Still, the value of the Euro is tied to the US dollar. If we fail, so does Europe.

If only for the reason mentioned, we (our banks) are already paying the price for the devaluation of the US dollar. The European Economic Area is a huge internal market, but sure the effects of the US economy will have an impact on Europe as well. But don't forget, the Euro is not strong, it's the USD that's losing its intrinsic value due to overspending and money creation without foundation.

Back to our history of giving away treasure! The fight against Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany was financed by American wealth and the blood of tens of thousands of American, British and British commonwealth young men and women. (The Russians too lost men beyond count!) Since then the USA has been the major non-military donor to developing countries.

Let's put that into perspective a little. Countries of the Group of Seven (G-7) gave 0.19% of the gross national product (GNP) in aid in 2000, a far cry from the target of 0.7% (source :http://www.un-ngls.org/documents/text/go.between/gb91b.htm). The Netherlands (hey, we're only 16.5 milion people so what can you do) in 2006 spent 0,82% of it's GNP to aid developing countries, the amount was raised again in 2007. How much does the USA spend, has it been increased to 0.13% of GNP? And how much of that is by donating USA made goods, like subsidised corn (which kills international price levels and production in the developing world)? Do I (again) detect self interest, more than benevolence?

That's it for now.
Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

Dear Asher,

I assume you are just provoking for the sake of it, because especially from you I would have expected better, much better, informed opinions.

There are so many things to refute, let me address just a few for now

Yes, Bart, I was provocative and timely. I see a value, especially now at the transition in American administrations, for us to look more closely at what each of us considers factual. Obama, welcomed as he was in Europe like the second coming of Elvis, made reference to the need for Europe to do much more in providing real combat troops for Afghanistan. Europe, according to the new policy, should be out in front with the USA as partners not just filling in here and there for US and UK military manpower shortfalls. There is still a feeling here and a resentment that Europe caricatures the USA. There is humor, for sure, but the secondary gain (akin to economical benefit joined to USA generosity) to the Europeans is a red slip to excuse them from the real game: war with casualties. That's the perception that many Americans have of Europe.

Yes you interpreted my comments correctly on the printing of money by the US treasury. In the short term it may be hidden but the price in the long term is inflation and devaluation of the buying power of the US currency. My own feeling is that we do not insist that oil rich countries, Russia and China pay their fair share for development aid. But at least Europe could come up with more money and more fighting men. Of course, I'm assuming that we have wars we want to fight on a moral basis and doing this with joint planning and purpose:

Poverty
Freedom of women
Education and opportunity and hope for the new generation
Massive Intervention in Darfur
A surge of Troops in Afghanistan
Global Food Supplies
Contraception and so many other issues we can and must tackle together.

So I have raised the issues from the US point of view that Europe really does not support the causes they are passionate about. One good example was tears for the muslims in Kosovo but no troops! The U.S. had to intervene!

Asher

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Half of the world's population lives on less than 2 dollar per day. Ops, 1,27 Euro to be correct.



Seriously though, a deliberate and major shift of wealth distribution has occured begining of this decade.

The DOT.CON area I would call it.

I remember that time well, Banks, on the forefront of this unbelievable scam enabled a small but preferred elite to fill their pockets with profits beyond your wildest dreams.

IPO was the name of the game, and they played it well. They "flipped" trillions of dollars into carefully selected pockets. I am astonished that Hamprecht was not shot after he suggested the Dutch Auction to be used instead of the preferential share allocation system.

So what about the dollar and the american way of printing money if they see fit? Anyone ever wondered why Oil is not traded in Euro but exclusively Dollar? Yeah well, Saddam threatened to trade his oil in euros, what happened then we all know.

Now, whole Europe talks about recession, so does the US, and again, Banks were the inherent cause for the deliberate crash we inevitably face now. Throwing money at people, knowing they will not be able to repay!

We are in need of a major overhaul of this system that enables a handful of people to secure major control, control of essential energy ressources that is!

I am still having a good laugh here. Europe and the Lisbon treaty, and there is only one tiny memberstate with a somewhat neglectable contribution and population, but thankfully they have it embossed in their constitution, they have to ask the people, they have to have a referendum on such issues, the Irish that is.

NO they said, and rightly so I might add.

We do ned a major restructuring process, but we need to tackle the problem at the source, and that is where we need to have a long and hard look at banks and who does exactly what, from your local branch to the world bank, this is where the main problem is, blatantly obvious and easy to nail it all into a single word description of the problem...

....Greed....

As for the Irish, here is food for thought.... This referendum clause, should it not be part of ANY european constitutional attempt?

Yes, it should be engraved into the concept of Europe, on major decisions, the people have to be asked, period, full stop!

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

The Netherlands (hey, we're only 16.5 milion people so what can you do) in 2006 spent 0,82% of it's GNP to aid developing countries, the amount was raised again in 2007.

How much does the USA spend....

On what? Military expenditure? Just kidding...

The FY2008 budget requests $481.4 billion in discretionary authority for the Department of Defense base budget, an 11.3 percent increase over the projected enacted level for fiscal 2007, for real growth of 8.6 percent; and $141.7 billion to continue the fight in the Global War on Terror (GWOT)

The fiscal year (FY) 2004 Department of Defense (DoD) budget request was $379.9 billion in discretionary budget authority -- $15.3 billion above FY 2003. The fiscal 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, passed by Congress 07 November 2003, authorizes DoD to spend $401.3 billion. The fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, which actually provides the money, became law 30 September 2003.

On April 16, 2003 President Bush signed the FY2003 $79 billion wartime supplemental to cover the needs directly arising from Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reconstruction of Iraq. The Defense Department received $62.6 billion as a result of the emergency supplemental bill.

On Nov. 6, 2003 President Bush signed the FY2004 $87.5 billion supplemental appropriations bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill provides $64.7 billion for military operations in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, including about $51 billion is for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and $10 billion for Operation Enduring Freedom. The remaining $22.8 billion in non-DOD monies will cover costs with Operation Noble Eagle and support for allies in the war on terror.

That flippin Idiot signed a lot of big tickets, didn't he? <grin>....However.... Let's put that into a global context as well.

World military expenditure is estimated to have been $1339 billion in 2007—a real-terms increase of 6 per cent over 2006 and of 45 per cent since 1998. This corresponded to 2.5 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP) and $202 for each person in the world.

The subregion with the highest increase in military expenditure over the 10-year period 1998–2007 was Eastern Europe, at 162 per cent. It was also the region with the highest increase in 2007, at 15 per cent. Russia, with a 13 per cent increase in 2007, accounted for 86 per cent of this regional increase. Other subregions with 10-year growth rates exceeding 50 per cent are North America (65 per cent), the Middle East (62 per cent), South Asia (57 per cent), Africa and East Asia (both 51 per cent). The subregions with the lowest growth in military spending over the past 10 years were Western Europe (6 per cent) and Central America (14 per cent).

The USA’s military spending accounted for 45 per cent of the world total in 2007 <personal comment by GB: Let's keep that in mind when we try to analyse possible sources of agression and the inherent motivation!> followed by the UK, China, France and Japan, with 4–5 per cent each. Since 2001 US military expenditure has increased by 59 per cent in real terms, principally because of massive spending on military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also because of increases in the ‘base’ defence budget. By 2007, US spending was higher than at any time since World War II. However, because of the growth of the US economy and of total US Government spending, the economic and financial burden of military spending (i.e. its share of GDP and of total US Government outlays) is lower now than during previous peak spending years in the post-World War II period.

China has increased its military spending threefold in real terms during the past decade. However, due to its rapid economic growth, the economic burden of military spending is still moderate, at 2.1 per cent of GDP.

Military spending is rising rapidly in the South Caucasus—Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia—largely due to the region’s three ‘frozen’ conflicts and the involvement of external actors. The rises have been made possible by economic upswings largely based on oil and gas revenues.
The number of countries that increased their military spending in 2007 was higher than in recent years. The factors driving increases in world military spending include countries’ foreign policy objectives, real or perceived threats, armed conflict and policies to contribute to multilateral peacekeeping operations, combined with the availability of economic resources.

Sources:

www.sipri.org

www.globalsecurity.org

P.S. The usage of CTRL B, U, or I in the sipri.org quote is at my discretion.

P.P.S. <grin>

.....This corresponded to 2.5 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP).....

Which is pretty much what we need to tackle major issues concerning our very surrvival on that planet in the future! We do run out of time rapidly, and it is about time to stop feeding the jackasses with more profits from blood money!

 

[Asher Kelman]

So what about the dollar and the american way of printing money if they see fit? Anyone ever wondered why Oil is not traded in Euro but exclusively Dollar? Yeah well, Saddam threatened to trade his oil in euros, what happened then we all know.

Georg,

Was this you humor or do your seriously propose that there is some connection?

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Percentage of GDP!

China has not provided health care beyond the cities. People in villages still have a primitive health support system. The massive Chinese economy spending just a few percent of GNP means much more than in a Western state were pay and fringe benefits have to be many times higher. So forget about percent of GNP rather talk in terms of some basket of essentials for that society and also the ranking of the military expenditures to provision of basic services and educational opportunity.

China with trillions of trillions US$ of excess wealth has not addressed health care, civil rights, freedoms and pollution. Their massive military spending must be considered in relationship to the lack of development of the rural communities.

I simply ask about Europe contributing resources and fighting men and women to Darfur, Afghanistan and other spots where meat, muscle and involvement are needed.

So forget about GNP! Europe is rich enough to match the U.S. alottements of funds. Just 10,000 troops in Darfur would change the lives of 1 million refugees. 30,000 new troops in Afghanistan and 10,000 specialists could stabilize the country, rebuild the infrastructure and coax things towards a peaceful alliance among the different communities.

Asher

 

[Gary Ayala]

Self Interest?????

I actually find that remark insulting.

At the end of WWII, the US had 50% of the world GNP. We deliberately gave that away via the Marshal Plan in Europe, Macarthur in Japan and again in Korea, et al.
Name one other nation, in all of history, which repeatedly returned conquered land back to the indigenous people ... and then used its own wealth to rebuild that country as a peer?

In a similar situation what did France and Britain do to Germany after WWI?

Look at post WWII Germany ... the USSR stripped all the German factories and sent them eastward ... the US built skyscrapers ... the Soviets built a wall ... the Soviets shut down the rail and roads to Berlin ... the Americans flew in supplies for an entire city ... 24/7 we flew in along thin narrow air corridors escorted by Migs ready to bring down any plane which went astray.

Why do other dismiss and belittle all this and more as self-interest? Regardless of what others may think ... self-interest or other reasons ... we did it.

Ask any American why American citizen-soldiers died in Africa, Asia and dare I say it ... Europe, time and time again ... their answer be a collective "... because it was the right thing to do." Self-interest? You won't hear that from this side of the Atlantic. I guess we are just a bunch of unsophisticated country bumpkins, not as clever as you Europeans to recognize self-interest from doing the right thing.

When I lived in Paris, my French was lacking, when the discussion of business turned serious ... I would go into English. At one restaurant, when I dropped into English, the food server started dropping my food nearly in my lap ... my Spanish business partner (a former Olympian) got fed up pushed the waiter against the wall and while lifting him off the floor explained to the waiter that if it wasn't for Americans like moi speaking English, that he would be speaking German. When I lived in Korea, many Koreans took me aside and told me that everything they have, from the tall buildings in Seoul, the cars in the streets to the very shirts on their back ... everything is owed to the Americans. (When I first heard this from a Korean I was speechless ... I didn't quite know how to respond.)

In recent history, perhaps self-interest has been given a greater role than doing the right thing. But history will determine the final opinion. But for every Iraq there are ten Bosnia's, (there the US directly intervened to save Muslim lives ... but most of the world, I guess, has dismissed that as just another act of self interest).

I have literally seen Americans die in Asia, Central America, Middle East, Africa ... to say that it all for self-interest ... is insulting. If other nationalities think this way ... well maybe it's time to start handing them a bill.

Gary

PS- When in England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building' by George Bush. He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'

"A group of Americans, retired teachers, recently went to France on a tour. Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane.. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on. ‘You have been to France before, monsieur?’ the customs officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. ‘Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.’ The American said, ‘The last time I was here, I didn’t have to show it.’ ‘Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France!’ The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained. ‘Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in ‘44 to help liberate this country, I couldn’t find any Frenchmen to show it to."

Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying ‘Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intend to do, bomb them?’ A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: ‘Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have? ‘

PPS- Recently, a radio interview show asked "Who is an American?" Some concepts are greater than nationalities. Similar to what John F. Kennedy said in Berlin, "... All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words, 'Ich bin ein Berliner' ... I do not believe that the American can be classified as who they are ... but rather what they are.
G

PPPS- I am an American.
G

 

[Cedric MASSOULIER]

Hi Gary,

I understand what you say, and i disagree with a lot of my compatriots who suffer from a well-known disease : primary antiamericanism, a quite ambiguous behaviour because most of them live in a kind of "american way of life" (food, clothes, culture like movies or music, etc...).

I understand your explanations and your indignation when you're facing such dumb people, but i think your vision is also too idyllic. Yes, american soldiers have made great things but, alas, USA also have their dark side (support to dictatorships in South America for instance)...

 

[Asher Kelman]

European ideas of rank and lower peasant classes, fitted in. It took hundreds of years for the USA to find its conscience and try to bring about justice and equality for all men.

Europe has never atoned for the rape of Africa, the turning of one village against another by the divisive sects of Catholicism versus Protestant churches which decimated native cultures, undermined tribal authority and made peoples foreign to one another. The people were not educated for self governance of the massive territories the Europeans carved out. Instead, missionaries educated children just enough to not want to work the fields. Cities filled with men looking for work and tribal society was undermined. Girls followed to urban centers as prostitutes. They brewed beer for the natives and gave them more bibles! For none of this Europe has apologized, shown contrition or delivered compensation.

The museums of Europe have antiquities of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Italy and South America and more, but on what moral basis?

The USA was started by the same Europeans for sure, but they were fused together in a cauldron that still churns. In all this struggle what came out was a passion for freedom and a generous heart. Yes, there is a long way to go in the USA. However, we try hard to do things right.

So under what moral stance do the Europeans think they are clean enough to be dismissive of the USA, perhaps the most generous country on the planet? Don't talk GNP. If one needs food, the percent of GNP does count, just a handful of food for today. That, the USA supplies each and every day.

America is no utopia, it's rich, dynamic but also has twisted inner cities were people miss out on the passage of time and progress. However we see this and try to address it.

For sure, as much as one can find self-interest in the generosity of the USA we can see ten times more self interest in the lack of action by the Europeans in their own former colonies when strife breaks out. Why are there no European troops in Zimbabwe or Darfur? They are not there because that would not be in the interest of Europe. There's nothing to steal. There's no gold and no oil so these places are not worth dying for!

When 300,000 black Darfur people re massacred, there are no tears, no mass marches of angry protestors demanding government action! Ask yourselves why no anger? Why no shame?

All the basic values are there in all our communities.

I ask the Europeans to not be so dismissive of the USA's good deeds. We all need to question our own motives for intervening in any sovereign nation state. However, we must equally ask ourselves why we manage to distance ourselves from disasters and tragedies in countries with little natural resources.

Asher

 

[Cedric MASSOULIER]

Asher,

These are very complex questions which can't be solved on a photographer's website ;o)

But there's a simple reality : since 1945, Europe has developped itself under military protection of USA, so consequences are :

- Europe allways had a poor military budget compared to american one (because we didn't need it), so Europe of today can't send troops to every place which need to because they don't have them, while USA have massive presence all over the world due to their military bases network. But you should know that french army maintains peace in some regions as Ivory Coast or Lebanon for many years. French troops are also very involved in Afghanistan... Today, there are 50000 french soldiers deployed in troubled regions, essentially in Africa...

- Due to low military budgets, Europe could develop a strong social system (health care and job insurance) while USA seem to not protect their weakest people. I think it is the real point that we european can't understand. I went once to USA, to make a trip in all Louisiana, and i was really very surprised by the differences i saw among people and cities... Sometimes, i passed from extreme poverty and devasted neighbourhoods (where life conditions were not better than in thirld world) to very clean and rich places, just walking few hundred meters or driving few miles in the country, it was really shocking for my french and european mind. Those huge social differences are something we don't have in Europe, even if we are actually in a social crisis which slowly drives us to a similar situation.

So, due to all these historic conditions, i think European and American don't see the world through the same prism... There are "clichés" on the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean, while we are essentially the same people...

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I understand your explanations and your indignation when you're facing such dumb people, but i think your vision is also too idyllic.

I agree, and it is common. All nations suffer from myopia, not just the USA. History is written by the victors!

Yes, american soldiers have made great things but, alas, USA also have their dark side (support to dictatorships in South America for instance)...

Or what about Irak, which was supported by the USA as an opposing force to Iran and a control mechanism over the region, until they weren't able to control it anymore by funding their war machine (and the US war industry).
Or how about Afghanistan. The current issues are for a lange part a direct result of American support to the Taliban (to get rid of the Russians), now we're fighting the same Taliban.

For sure, there are others to blaim, as well. However, that doesn't dismiss the USA from being held accountable for their own actions (and they are mostly based on self-interest, just like with other countries).

I am amazed. Have people already forgotten the 'Wolfowitz doctrine' (formally the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG)). Not driven by self-interest?

Again, history is written by the victors! The other side of the story, and there is always another side, is seldomly heard from ever again. And thus our views get colored.

Just some thoughts,
Bart

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Georg,

Was this you humor or do your seriously propose that there is some connection?

Asher

Hi Asher,

This is no joke, the oil currency war is a fact.

I think I quoted him early this year on another thread already, but Joseph Stiglitz (Clinton economic advisor) and a Nobel prize-winner in economics, has concluded that the Iraq war cost $3trillion so far. Three trillion could have fixed America's social security problem for how long?

Half a century approximately.

The Bretton Woods Conference at the end of World War II enabled Nixon to take the dollar off the gold standard at $35 per ounze, ever since and under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971 which placed the US dollar in a undisputed and de facto major international trading currency, simply becuase you guys are the only one allowed to print it. It is as simple as that.

If other nations have to pile up huge amounts dollars to be able buy oil, then they want to use that pile of greenbacks for other trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading advantage.

The hegemony of the dollar is the real problem here with the Euro literally being the only challenger!

The recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US sucked from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973. Because oil is denominated in dollars through US state action and the dollar is the only currency, the US essentially owns the world's oil for free.

But Asher, have read on John Chapman's article in the Guardian from 2004:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa

or this here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/dollar/2003/03oil.htm

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The Bretton Woods Conference at the end of World War II enabled Nixon to take the dollar off the gold standard at $35 per ounze, ever since and under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971 which placed the US dollar in a undisputed and de facto major international trading currency, simply becuase you guys are the only one allowed to print it. It is as simple as that.

If other nations have to pile up huge amounts dollars to be able buy oil, then they want to use that pile of greenbacks for other trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading advantage.

Correct. That second article you linked to, that's a pretty good analysis (in 2003 already), thanks.

For those interested in some more background, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency#Bretton_Woods and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

Bart

 

[Cedric MASSOULIER]

Hi,

I agree with my "european fellows" ;o)

That is a fact that US dollar gives economical hegemony to USA and that Euro is slowly but surely replacing it as international currency. I work in international finance and here analysts think it's a question of years or decades before to see Euro as global international currency.

US dollar hegemony is a well-made and simple system :
- oil trade is based on dollar and represents a huge monetary transfer between consumer countries and producers. At the end, producers have mass of such-called "Petrodollars" which are re-invested in western economies. Dollar is so the reference currency, its value is fixed by USA so USA rule the world economy.
- debt and financing : USA are financing their recurent deficit by issuing treasury bonds which are massively bought by asian banks. These bonds are bought because they are denominated in US dollar and dollar is the reference currency. As USA fix the value of the dollar, they totally control their debt. One day, Henri Kissinger said about this situation : "Our debt is in dollar so we don't have any debt". Cynical but largely true.

Today, Euro vs Dollar competition is the real underground war which will determine all our future. And it explains a lot of things...

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

[...] The USA, by contrast, has extended itself, (sometimes with big errors in emphasis), but often with a good sense of purpose. The money and troops contributed by other nations has been often just symbolic, as in Srebrenitsa.

"The Srebrenitsa genocide can be considered far worse than the Rwanda genocide, even though less people were killed. It was far worse because the UN peace keepers deceived the innocent civilians. The UN set up Srebrenitsa as a 'safe haven' for vulnerable Muslim civilians and those civilians believed the UN's promises of protection.

Yet their protectors, 400 Dutch peacekeepers, handed the civilians over to the Serbians knowing that they would be slaughtered. Kofi Annan was the man in charge of the peacekeepers." Source].

Now the above pointing to the Dutch is looking at the issue from a limited viewpoint. This withdrawal behavior has often happened before. It comes from the passive involvement of UN troops. That's the mission, just to stand in between the two sides. However, there is no background support and moral power to support aggressive intervention from most of the U.N. Anyway, this incident shocked the world and the Dutch felt shame and searched their national conscience. They were pained by the fact that Dutch values did not supercede a U.N. set of laissez-faire lack of responsibility.

Indeed, there are still many question-marks why the Dutch troops were denied air support when that was called in to discourage the advancing opponents. The opposing troops were just testing the allied forces' resolve. The hours after that became a dark episode in our national conscience. Although being overrun and outnumbered, could we have done anything to prevent it? It's not likely, some say that Srebrenica was deliberately sacrificed in order to advance the political war agenda (see the shocking findings of the Srebrenica Research Group).

It also places the role of the USA, and others, in a different perspective. Politics has little to do with selflessness...

Bart

 

[Gary Ayala]

Hi Gary,

I understand what you say, and i disagree with a lot of my compatriots who suffer from a well-known disease : primary antiamericanism, a quite ambiguous behaviour because most of them live in a kind of "american way of life" (food, clothes, culture like movies or music, etc...).

I understand your explanations and your indignation when you're facing such dumb people, but i think your vision is also too idyllic. Yes, american soldiers have made great things but, alas, USA also have their dark side (support to dictatorships in South America for instance)...

Cedric-

No agument there, as stated earlier, for every Iraq there are ten Bosnias. We are far from perfect ... but we try.

Gary

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

In all these events, mostly US treasure was drained, not that of the Europeans! The Europeans can thwn look at the USA from the sidelines and comment on how the ball is played. Even in Afghanistan, most European, troops, except perhaps the British, have been limited to non-combat duty.

Sorry, that's not entirely true in practice for all participating nations, although it may look like that on paper. I can only speak from a Dutch perspective, because I am better informed (I hope) about our contributions there. While the Dutch deployment (Task Force Uruzgan) was sold to us as a 'peace keeping and reconstruction mission', there was no peace to keep. There are increasing numbers of Taliban to combat.

"Dutch troops: 1,770 as of June 2008. The main Dutch contingent, Task Force Uruzgan, consists of 300 troops in Deh Rahwod and 1,100 troops in Tarin Kowt, at Kamp Holland (both in Orūzgān Province). The Air Task Force consists of a AH-64 Apache detachment (six helicopters) in Tarin Kowt and a CH-47 Chinook and F-16 Fighting Falcon detachment (six helicopters and jets) at Kandahar Airport. The command and liaison staff for Regional Command South are also located in Kandahar. An unknown number 'Korps Commandotroepen' (special operations) forces operate in southern Afghanistan as well." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force).

That is a significant drain on the resources (financial, material, and people) of our small country below the sea, and we also were not the ones to finance the Taliban to begin with ...

I'm confident that other nationalities also do more than just drinking tea with the tribal leaders, but more effort is required.

Bart

 

[Cedric MASSOULIER]

Even in Afghanistan, most European, troops, except perhaps the British, have been limited to non-combat duty

Asher,

Situation has changed since beginning of operations in Afghanistan. What you say was true last year but not now : French army is a complete actor of combats against Talibans, french soldiers have been killed. Special Commandos and Foreign Legion are now combatting beside of Americans and are responsible for training units of the regular afghani army in south of Afghanistan : training doesn't consist in wasting time in trainings camps and schools, french soldiers are combatting directly with Afghans. French aviation also bombs talibans positions...

 

[Gary Ayala]

I haven't any expertise in economics. But, (the big but), I feel that the emergence of the Euro as a counter currency to the Dollar is due to a world economy and the leadership of the US shifting the burden of the Iraq war by paying the extreme costs today with tomorrow's money.

I think currencies which are competitive against the dollar is a good thing. A wake up call to get our (the US) ecomomy in order. The present banking upheaval has been brewing for some time. Many experts have been predicting the crisis for years and the present sdministration did very little to nothing to corrrect the problem(s).

Between the dwindling value of the dollar (contributing to the increase cost of oil), the banking industry crisis, the unification of Europe (vis-a-vis a common currency and government institutions), the emergence of China and India as industrial powers, has caused the US to be knocked around and hopefully out of its complacency.

Gary

 

[Gary Ayala]

...
- Europe allways had a poor military budget compared to american one (because we didn't need it), so Europe of today can't send troops to every place which need to because they don't have them, while USA have massive presence all over the world due to their military bases network. But you should know that french army maintains peace in some regions as Ivory Coast or Lebanon for many years. French troops are also very involved in Afghanistan... Today, there are 50000 french soldiers deployed in troubled regions, essentially in Africa...

- Due to low military budgets, Europe could develop a strong social system (health care and job insurance) while USA seem to not protect their weakest people. I think it is the real point that we european can't understand. I went once to USA, to make a trip in all Louisiana, and i was really very surprised by the differences i saw among people and cities... Sometimes, i passed from extreme poverty and devasted neighbourhoods (where life conditions were not better than in thirld world) to very clean and rich places, just walking few hundred meters or driving few miles in the country, it was really shocking for my french and european mind. Those huge social differences are something we don't have in Europe, even if we are actually in a social crisis which slowly drives us to a similar situation.

So, due to all these historic conditions, i think European and American don't see the world through the same prism... There are "clichés" on the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean, while we are essentially the same people...

I do understand much of what you are saying. Living under the umbrella of the US ... sorta like the little brother of the US ... it is hard for the little brother to realize one day that he has grown up and the equal of the older brother.

As for Louisiana, I cannot comment on that state as I have never been there. Here are some sterotypical remarks:

1) There is more opportunity for wealth and higher education in the US than in Europe.
2) The US economic and educational opportunities are open for all people of all classes and age, not as open in Europe.
3) While one can rise higher in the US, one can also fall farther. Europe has a higher and better "safety net" than the US.
4) Europeans laugh at Britain because it has half the government of Europe and the US has half the government of Britain.
5) California and Californian cities are a lot cleaner than European cities.

I've lived in Japan, Korea and Paris and experienced the daily lives of the average citizenry of those countries. Comparing my life, (which is pretty average for a Californian), to European standards ... I say materialistically I live better than a comparable European. I have a three bedroom house with big yards, everybody I know (under 70 years) has a computer and most everybody under 50 years have both a laptop and a desktop computer, everybody I know over 20 years old owns a car.

I know many adults in their 40's and 50's who are returning back to school to advance their education. Albeit I have limited contacts, but I didn't see that happening in other countries.

I believe that I would live a very comfortable life in Europe, as a European would here. I believe that I enjoy more here than I would in Europe ... more house, more car (my car wouldn't even fit in an alley in Europe), more opportunity.

I also believe that Europe, (especially France which is probably the best in the world), has a 1000% better health care system then the US (it is crimminal that many in the US still fight against universal health care). I believe that access to health care should be a fundimental right and not reserved only to those who qualify by job or wealth.

Gary

 

[Asher Kelman]

I also believe that Europe, (especially France which is probably the best in the world), has a 1000% better health care system then the US (it is crimminal that many in the US still fight against universal health care). I believe that access to health care should be a fundimental right and not reserved only to those who qualify by job or wealth.

Gary,

There are lots of confused, but generally accepted opinions about the USA and Europe in many spheres including healthcare. I think this idea of the US health system being inferior is to a considerable extent simplistic and in many sectors false. Infant mortality is perhaps one area where poorer people can have worse outcome since they do not make use of free facilities for prenatal care as much as other sectors.

However let's take prostate cancer and breast cancer survival rates. For the USA ~90% survival is expected for both diseases. I'd expect a lower rate say 75-85% for poorer communities. That's just my estimate. By contrast in the U.K. and much of Europe survival is only 55-65%!

It so happens that in the nationalized U.K. health system, breast mammograms start at age 50 v. age 40 in the USA! Also we retest each year whereas in the U.K. there has to be a 3 year interval. Furthermore, the availability of major equipment such as CT and MRI scanners and Radiation Therapy machines is only a small fraction of those serving similar population in the USA.

Poor people here in the USA get free treatment at County hospitals. So the net catches them. They are less likely to worry about diet and there's more cigarette smoking and less interest in health maintenance.

A 72 year old relative of mine had post menopausal bleeeding in London May 10th 2008. Ultrasound reveals a several cm uterine mass. Of course it could just be merely a benign fibroid! The report for that May 20th visit was typed May 20th 2008, 10 days after the initital exam!! She was promised diagnostic hysteroscopy and blood tests screening for cancer. She still has not gotten an appointment!

It's now the end of July! So if this is cancer, look at the degradation of chance of cure!!! So it's simplistic to think the healthcare is more inclusive in Europe! The standards may in fact be lower!

Asher

 

[Dierk Haasis]

Anyone with a half-assed education should be able to come up with the correct starting point to show why Country A is inherently better than Country B - that's the basis for any 'Stammtisch-Diskussion' [usually translated as armchair dicussion but not really; Stammtisch = regular's table].

Let's see how the claim about the US of A's supremacy concerning enlightnement, democracy and revolution goes.

- First ever democratic revolution after the Middle Ages: England [Oliver Cromwell's role afterwards is still highly debated but the revolution as such was alright]
- Major philosophers in America not building on French, Scottish and German thinking before the mid-1900s: zip, zero, nil [most of the Revolutionary philosphers, like Jefferson or Paine, just took French and British thinking over to the colonies]
- Development of habeas corpus: sorry, goes back to the Middle Ages in England
- Constitutional strict separation of church and state: yes, this is the work of Jefferson and cohorts [his political descendants - in the widest sense - are doing everything to nullify this]
- Major defender of freedom in the world: this is a hard one since Americans will insist it was their doing Germany was defeated twice during the 20th century. To be honest, they were instrumental but not necessarily in fighting. Much more important was their industry providing Great Britain [and partly France during WW1] with weaponry. In both world wars the US maintained a non-fighting, neutral position for much of the time. BTW, many Germans didn't much like being "freed" by allied troops in 1945, they'd rather have been the ones taking freedom as they understood it to the world.
- Major fighter against Communism: more or less this is the USA, they've invaded loads of countries, supported loads of dictators, paid loads of would-be freedom fighters to fight Communism. Unfortunately in many cases the actual people living in the countries fought over didn't like dying for some abstract cause.

I can do similar lists for any country through history. It's essentially cherry-picking for whatever position one holds. A major side-effect is off-setting, which is most prevalent in the usual discussions on who was worse, Hitler or Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot, Nazis or GDR Socialists. A job for dimwits, who have not the foggiest about ethics.

As long as there are more than a handful courages people in the US and outside believing the US Constitution to be the best and fighting for it, I am convinced the USA will stay on top. If, OTOH, incumbent politicians - and I am not speaking so much about the current President but his nominal adversaries in Congress - prevail in burning the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence [not to speak of the Federalist Papers] ...

No country is better than another, no people is better than another. This thinking only leads to missing teeth.

 

[doug anderson]

Asher: this is not the same country it was during World War II. I sense you already know this and are posting in order to encourage debate.

The present president and his fellow criminals have destabilized the economy through reckless acts designed to make them richer and the rest of us poorer. The US economy is irrevocably tied to global economy, and the consequences of our acts affect others. Further, this country has lost political and moral credibility because of the war in Iraq, and the obtuse behavior of our president toward the leaders of other nations.

The World War II dead in foreign cemeteries remain unblemished, but there is a great bloody stain on the present version of our country. It will take quite some years to recover from this, provided the country regains some integrity. Given the state of our Congress, I'm not optimistic.

Also, professional politicians, who love to sniff the jockstraps of corporate CEOs, are all but useless. They are bought and sold the minute they enter politics.

Slightly over half of the American electorate is clueless, and has allowed this condition to prevail. They are all too willing to be lulled into an over privileged stupor; unfortunately, with the collapse of the housing market and the fragility of credit in general, this has come back to haunt them.

This government, by screwing its electorate, has created a condition whereby the electorate no longer has the money to buy things. The Bush administration and its brand of feudal corporatism have grabbed their share of the money, and left considerable destruction behind them as they exit the White House.

All Empires peak and fade. This may very well be our twilight.

D

 

[Asher Kelman]

Anyone with a half-assed education should be able to come up with the correct starting point to show why Country A is inherently better than Country B - that's the basis for any 'Stammtisch-Diskussion' [usually translated as armchair discussion but not really; Stammtisch = regular's table].

But, as you imply, you knew the destination of your search for answers. Merely the route was devised to appear open.

I can do similar lists for any country through history. It's essentially cherry-picking for whatever position one holds. A major side-effect is off-setting, which is most prevalent in the usual discussions on who was worse, Hitler or Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot, Nazis or GDR Socialists. A job for dimwits, who have not the foggiest about ethics.

But you could just as easily do far better and actually weigh the values in the origins and development of their societies, heir power structure and decisions and then look at consequences to their own people and those they control and or subjugate.

As long as there are more than a handful courageous people in the US and outside believing the US Constitution to be the best and fighting for it, I am convinced the USA will stay on top. If, OTOH, incumbent politicians - and I am not speaking so much about the current President but his nominal adversaries in Congress - prevail in burning the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence [not to speak of the Federalist Papers] ...

I believe you mean this part and I appreciate you declaring it here.

No country is better than another, no people is better than another. This thinking only leads to missing teeth.

I think you, especially you with your knowledge, your witty analytical thinking, might do far better than this superficial presentation of "moral equivalence". I admit that I don't consider that this was your intention. Instead you have given an entertaining armchair dismissal of common approaches to justifying what are generally narcissistic self-assessments of each nation's worth in the world.

Beyond that, I'd love you to share what you might really develop as you weigh different factors in each state and relative to one another and their current position and chartered course as a nation and on the world stage.

Allow my use of multiple "ands" to separate my imperatives. Thanks for knocking down a few walls of ignorance and simplistic thinking. That was the "forshpeis". My appetite is whetted. What comes next?


Asher

 

[Dierk Haasis]

I think you, especially you with your knowledge, your witty analytical thinking, might do far better than this superficial presentation of "moral equivalence".

There is not the slightest hint of 'moral equivalence' in my statement, nor is there in me. Countries do not have morals, they are just slabs of terra firma and water. Nations have no morals, they are just slabs of earth and water divided by arbitrary legal lines [sometimes called boundaries]. Not even peoples can have morals, since they are a haphazard, artificial band mostly down to the legal lines mentioned before.

Individuals have morals. Individuals can and should be judged on moral behaviour.

Unfortunately the basic idea of anthropolgists about neutrally researching cultures has been co-opted and distorted by self-proclaimed philosophers of cultural relativism. Curiously this has been taken up now by the very movement originally opposed [self-proclaimed conservatives]. The same happened to politeness, which is now seen - due to Political Correctness - as weak, stupid, uncalled for, spin.

Do you really think you can weigh one mass murderer against another by counting their victims? In that case the prize goes to Mao, who had the big advantage of having much more material to play with.

The two big ones in the 20th century came about the world because a lot of idiots thought they, as an abstract entity, were better than the other abstract entities. Wow. What crap. War is a matter of politics, it should not be the first or second or even penultimate measure. It's the last.

But what has all that to do with current exchange rates? And how can you compare the EURO to the Dollar on anything but short-term economical criteria? You cannot. Neither has the Marshall Plan anything to do with it - except in the very long range argument that Europe could be in ruins if others had prevailed with theirt plans - nor American and European troops in Afghanistan - except that someone has to pay for them. It's definitely not about morals.

Haven't heard Americans complaining when the EURO was going down.



PS: Not every critique of an American president or some culturla phenomena is 'anti-Americanism'. Actually, a good friend is characterised by not being a yay-sayer.

PPS: Thanks to John McCain I now know what Germans are - either anti-American or fawning.

 

[doug anderson]

PS: Not every critique of an American president or some culturla phenomena is 'anti-Americanism'. Actually, a good friend is characterised by not being a yay-sayer.

PPS: Thanks to John McCain I now know what Germans are - either anti-American or
fawning.

Right you are. Democracy depends upon a good deal of dissent to remain a democracy, something the present administration has done its best to suppress. It is not "UnAmerican" to find fault with an administration, and we are lost if we do not, occasionally, clean house and start over. I think simply reading a list of people in this administration who have been indicted for corruption is a good place to start. I think also a list of the number of lies George Bush has told that have cost human lives is also a good place to start. In my opinion, it requires one to be delusional to not observe what is actually happening. Or brainwashed, or downright sociopathic as to be so fond one's money that one does not care who or how many die, are maimed, are have their lives destroyed, or be cast into economic hardship. As someone put it, "Denial ain't a river in Egypt."

 

[Gary Ayala]

... Do you really think you can weigh one mass murderer against another by counting their victims? In that case the prize goes to Mao, who had the big advantage of having much more material to play with.

The two big ones in the 20th century came about the world because a lot of idiots thought they, as an abstract entity, were better than the other abstract entities. Wow. What crap. War is a matter of politics, it should not be the first or second or even penultimate measure. It's the last.

...

Haven't heard Americans complaining when the EURO was going down.

...

PPS: Thanks to John McCain I now know what Germans are - either anti-American or fawning.

Really ... Mao ... I guess I have to do some research on the Cultural Revolution and Forcible Collectivization ... off the top of my head I thought it would have been Stalin with footnotes on Hitler and Truman.

So you say WWI and WWII was all about abstract philosophy ... not about power and land/resource grabbing????

Don't think most Americans give a rats ass about the Euro as long as gasoline is around $2 a gallon. (Only tourists complain about the Euro.)

... Obama in Germany is an interesting sidebar ... but I forgot ... how many Electoral College votes does Germany have ...

Gary

 

[doug anderson]

Don't think most Americans give a rats ass about the Euro as long as gasoline is around $2 a gallon. (Only tourists complain about the Euro.)


Gary

About half the electorate doesn't give a rat's ass about anything except how many pounds Oprah has gained/lost this week.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

You should get the twist out of your knickers, Dierk.

<grin>

Asher,

thanks for starting this thread here, you always seem to find a way of constructive provocation, love it!

Sorry, but it was a bit short notice! Don't say I would not have asked you before, 4 weeks ago that was!

<grin>