a) A lot of the European debt is Euro debt. German bounds held in Italy aren't a problem in currency matters. In exchange rate terms that's internal debt.
b) As you say the debt to non-Euro countries is greatly defused. Very large amounts of US government bonds are held buy China, Japan, other East-Asian export countries en Middle east producers. Which makes their position not only more powerful (and dangerous to them of course) but also more likely for there to be a central effort.
c) Europe isn't depending on the other countries to hold up their currency by buying more bonds. Every day China, Japan etc. keep buying US bonds to prop up the dollar vis-a-vis their local currency.
The large trade deficit in absolute number might be a sign of a large economy. The large trade deficit in relative numbers is a sign of a problem. (was 6-8% of GDP for a long time, it's now back down to ~5%, still huge). Part of the issue is the relation of commodity prices and the level of the dollar. When the dollar falls, commodity prices rise (since other countries can pay more in dollar term while staying at the same level in local currency). That puts export countries in a bind since they want to keep their currencies (and their export products) low against the dollar but have to deal with rising import cost. After a while they *have* to appreciate their currency or raise their export prices. Both of which are bad news for the US economy since this would explode inflation ( a process which is already starting).
That doesn't make it fiction (as long as it's not just promises) The trust fund buys government bonds which are just part of debt. The only way to renege on those would be to default on all debt.
Social security is at the moment in great shape (running a large surplus). There might be some problems round 2030-2040 but those aren't as serious as some politicians make out (curiously enough the kind of politician who want to end SS anyway and replace it with some kind of personal pensionplan; great for the rich, not so much for the poor).
The whole point is that the 'need' is the result of choice made because of cheap oil. Yes the US as a whole is bigger than Europe. But that is not where most of the car use comes from (most people don't regularly drive from NY to LA). It's the way suburbs are set up and where people buy a house when they get a new job (almost no one would move 90 km away from their work if gas was $9). It's the way commerce in rural communities is generally concentrated in a few different places (one Wal-mart for a whole county instead of several shops in each town, one big multiplex etc.). It's the way that driving a few hundred miles is accepted as the norm for visiting family instead of taking trains (or buses or even planes).
Europeans pay so much because they allow their government to financially restrict fuel consumption. This might work in most Europe, but as others have pointed out, it's not feasible in significant parts of the US. If you're tired of paying this ridiculous tax, do something about it, or don't. In either case, stop playing the martyr; it's getting old.
The point was that Europeans have been living with much higher gas prices for decades and are doing fine. Because the petrol taxes where raised slowly they've adapted. It would have been just as feasible in the US (though I think the increases would have to have been much smaller) which would have made the current situation much lass problematic.
(and $9 petrol is $9 petrol, it still gives you the right to complain, especially when its usefullness is finally shown).
I've heard this argument many times and I think there are some serious problems with it. You are basically saying, it's OK for debt to grow as long as the GDP is growing faster.
[..]
It's like someone who's not worried about credit card debt because he knows he can get a new card to pay off the previous one next month. This works great until no-one wants to lend you more money.
That's not quite what it is like. It's more like someone not worrying about increasing their debt as long as they get a comparable raise. Which is actually sort of reasonable if you know can't lose your job. Of course it makes sense not to borrow the maximum, since that will get you into trouble if you get a pay cut which is real the problem with government debt: not deficit but the total debt level.
There are also longer term problems that are slowly sneaking up and for which there are no contingency plans - like the trillions of dollars the social security fund is going to be short by in ten year's time.
Repeat after me: there is no current serious social security problem. The issue was mostly solved by setting up the trust fund. As long as the US economy grows at an even half decent clip it will be solvent until after most of the baby boomers are dead.
That doesn't mean a problem couldn't arise (if the economy tanks for a full decade or baby boomers collectively live ten years longer than the current norm) but that problem could be handled.
As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. debt situation is about the same as Germany, France, and Canada, and is considerably better than Japan and Italy's. It's a common misconception that the U.S. is badly in debt. For some reason people keep looking at the raw dollar values. In raw dollars, the U.S. has huge economic figures because its population is significantly larger than all the other G8 nations, and its per worker productivity is the highest in the world. Once you account for this (by dividing by GDP), its debt load is pretty much in the middle of the other G8 nations.
True, however a significant difference is that far more of US debt (especially government debt) is held overseas. It's even still increasing, which finances the trade deficit. If/when more countries move away from a pure dollar peg that will hurt the US economy significantly.
Also I believe that the figure is for federal debt, and even if it is not, federal debt makes up a large part of the debt. That makes the debt comparatively higher (the federal budget is only ~20-22% of GDP, while spending in other countries goes up to 50%). And of course public debt is only part of the story. Private debt is higher as well, which makes the comparison with Japan a lot less true.
No the US isn't about to crash into the economic abyss (well it's unlikely, if not impossible) but it has been living beyond it means and will have cut back some.
Oh, surely. I mean, it was just by a WHISKER that we beat all those Euros into space, wasn't it? The proof, of course, is in all those successful European space flights that came soon after, the European moon mission, etc.
If by 'Euros' you include the Russians then the Euros actually won the space race (that is the race into space: Sputnik, Latka, Gagarin), and where indeed beaten by a whisker in the moon race (the USSR had a fairly advanced moon program which was hit by some bad accidents and was finally canceled when there was little propaganda to be won).
If you mean just western Europe, well they didn't have the cash. (besides theoretically it's possible that they simply didn't have enough brilliant scientists).
BTW a question to the/. population at large: why is the official (western) version that the US won the space race? As far as I can tell they only won one (though difficult and big) of the events. The USSR won at least two others (into space and space station building).
With all due respect I think this overglorifies. Yes it was a great achievement, especially with the technology of the time. But for the most part it got done because of money, not extreme talent. Any largish nation, willing to spend the money could have done it. Only the relative speed at which it succeeded could be credited in some way to a more than usually talented bunch of scientist (as compared to other talented scientist).
Yes, because the clear language of the commerce clause in the US constitution has made sure that the federal government never oversteps the limits of its power.
The EU had much clearer boundaries where the distribution of powers is concerned than the US, since every power the commission or council has was explicitly given by all member states. Yes, that still leaves room for abuse, or a better distribution but IMHO the problem doesn't lie with the clarity of the language/treaties/documents but with the fundamental way it has been set up.
Back on-topic: TFA shows an agreement that isn't great however there are four things to consider:
1) Some agreement is necessary. At the moment airlines for example are trapped between a rock and a hard place. EU law tells them they can't give information, US law says they must, otherwise they can't land.
2) Some exchange of data seems sensible. I would say that basic data like name, date of birth, nationality and time/date of flight are reasonable. However, other data is worrisome and hopefully the EU will stop that.
3) I'd argue that the much more important issue is how the data is handled. Who has access an din what way.
4)This isn't final, negotiations are still ongoing. One of the key issues seems to be the right of EU citizens to sue the US government to get errors corrected. Which, looking at the no-fly list seems quite important. We will have to see what the final outcome is, especially since in this case it's the US that wants something (as opposed to for example the open skies agreement, which greatly favoured the US).
If they are right then they are instant Billionaires, if the process really worked they would be commercializing it and completely destabilizing OPEC. I'll believe it when I see it and the world will be rejoicing.
As with all these kind of technologies it will take time (either 4-10 years or forever). But at 50$ per barrel it wouldn't exactly destabelize OPEC (production cost of most middle east crude is around 2-6 $).
The current limit of 28 days is already an extreme extention of the original 7 days. it's "just two weeks" but it's two weeks of people beging held prisoner without any real proof (there goes Habeas Corpus). Also: what's the important, urgent reason for doing this? Will it make life more easy for the police? Probably, but then turning the whole country into a police state would make life even easier.
The more important difference (IMHO) is the lack of a barrier to changing it. Most constitutions are significant not because the sum in a hopefully clear way the key provisions of a society, but because they're more difficult to change than ordinary laws. They are the failsafe to make sure the government of the day can't easily screw around with the agreed fundamental way of doing business.
In the UK this is replaced by "tradition" which is supposed to stop governments from going too far, but which seldom works. For example: when the regional government of London was too much of a left wing problem for Margaret Thatcher, she simply abolished it. In a country with a constitution she most likely wouldn't have had the power. This vote is another example, and the early Blair years showed that a PM who has a large enough majority in parliament can ignore most provisions.
By the way, Hitler was elected by the popular vote by spouting populist nonsense.
Not really. He was reasonably popular due to spouting populist nonsense. However the Nazi's never got more than about a third of the vote in free elections (and even in those the SA thugs "helped" a lot of voters).
For the first time in my life, I'm living in a Democratic Republic at the moment (Germany), and while I do love it here and they have yet to do anything that I am strongly against, it does worry me from time to time how much control the government potentially has.
What kind of system where you living in before? I can't think of a modern country (including New Zealand) where the government *doesn't* have enormous potential power. I'd argue that it has more to do with modern society (which need complex arangements) and technology.
Remind me what "Free Speech Zones" are again? And how many people have been arrested for having anti-Bush/war T-shirts or placards during rallies and refusing to leave?
No, they generally weren't convincted of anything, but I'd hardly call being arrested and spending time in jail "a right to free speech.
Ultimately the existence of constitutional protection is only as strong as the enforcement mechanism.
That was to a country who initiated a war with the US with an unprovoked attack on a naval base.
Not exactly unprovoked. The US had an oil embargo against Japan at the time. And since the US back then was the major oil producer (those where the times ey?) it was only a matter of time before the Japanese economy would collapse.
Obviously there were reasons for the embargo (mainly the invasion and treatment of the rest of
China) but I'd argue it was certainly "provoked". I doubt whether the US wouldn't use it's military under similar circumstance even today.
This post brought to you by History Geeks United. HGU annoying people with histroical facts since 450 BC
Always good to see people getting personal. Means you're doing something right:)
Well guess what, a EU country can freely decide not to be member of the EU. Not only that, but any country in the EU can decide whether or not to use the common currency, or their military association, their visa restrictions, or their foreign policy in general. These are just some examples, hopefully putting into some perspective the pointlessness of your comparison.
That's a very nice list of differences between the EU/nation and Nation/city relationships. Unfortunately they all have nothing to do with how the budget is decided. In that regard my comparison stands up fine. Also I could have chosen any other administrative subdivision. How about Scotland deciding it doesn't want to pay for trident? The point is that there are rules and structures in place and apart from actually leaving the appropriate political structure (EU,UK) you have to abide by them. While countries can decide whether or not to take part in EU policy areas (though for the most part only the UK and Denmark do so on a wide basis), once they sign up they are obliged to play by the rules or leave the club.
Conventionally if you find that you have a budget surplus somewhere, you congratulate yourself on lowering costs rather than looking to see where to spend it.
Not exactly the "conventional" approach in pretty much any government budget.
And it while we're at it, lets give the great city of Bristol the power to take back the money for projects *they* don't think are a good idea.
Generally when having a overall budget you do not give the constituent parts the ability to pick and choose. The Galileo project is part of the overall EU budget, therefore the UK doesn't get to second guess the distribution. (never mind that the UK pays far to little into the budget anyway).
The problem is that too many people translate "thoroughly checking their data and their results to make sure that there has been no mistake and no misinterpretation of statistics or whatever" to mean "if I don't like it they should keep looking until they find another answer.
Or to put it differently: there's never a large group of sceptics when the consensus is that a Higgs boson will be found. When the conclusion is something people don't like because it will upset the status quo they tend to reject it irrespectively of statistical result.
Even Dawkins admits that, strictly speaking, he's an agnostic. He doesn't know that God doesn't exist. But there's any number of things that could just as easily apply to.
Actually in The God delusion he brings up specific arguments why God can't exist (at least in the creator of everything, beginning of all version of things). In short he argues that anything that can deliberately create the universe has to be at least as complex. Which creates the question where God came from.
Slashdot Mirror
Couple of things on the debt issue:
a) A lot of the European debt is Euro debt. German bounds held in Italy aren't a problem in currency matters. In exchange rate terms that's internal debt.
b) As you say the debt to non-Euro countries is greatly defused. Very large amounts of US government bonds are held buy China, Japan, other East-Asian export countries en Middle east producers. Which makes their position not only more powerful (and dangerous to them of course) but also more likely for there to be a central effort.
c) Europe isn't depending on the other countries to hold up their currency by buying more bonds. Every day China, Japan etc. keep buying US bonds to prop up the dollar vis-a-vis their local currency.
The large trade deficit in absolute number might be a sign of a large economy. The large trade deficit in relative numbers is a sign of a problem. (was 6-8% of GDP for a long time, it's now back down to ~5%, still huge). Part of the issue is the relation of commodity prices and the level of the dollar. When the dollar falls, commodity prices rise (since other countries can pay more in dollar term while staying at the same level in local currency). That puts export countries in a bind since they want to keep their currencies (and their export products) low against the dollar but have to deal with rising import cost. After a while they *have* to appreciate their currency or raise their export prices. Both of which are bad news for the US economy since this would explode inflation ( a process which is already starting).
That doesn't make it fiction (as long as it's not just promises) The trust fund buys government bonds which are just part of debt. The only way to renege on those would be to default on all debt.
Social security is at the moment in great shape (running a large surplus). There might be some problems round 2030-2040 but those aren't as serious as some politicians make out (curiously enough the kind of politician who want to end SS anyway and replace it with some kind of personal pensionplan; great for the rich, not so much for the poor).
The whole point is that the 'need' is the result of choice made because of cheap oil. Yes the US as a whole is bigger than Europe. But that is not where most of the car use comes from (most people don't regularly drive from NY to LA). It's the way suburbs are set up and where people buy a house when they get a new job (almost no one would move 90 km away from their work if gas was $9). It's the way commerce in rural communities is generally concentrated in a few different places (one Wal-mart for a whole county instead of several shops in each town, one big multiplex etc.). It's the way that driving a few hundred miles is accepted as the norm for visiting family instead of taking trains (or buses or even planes).
The point was that Europeans have been living with much higher gas prices for decades and are doing fine. Because the petrol taxes where raised slowly they've adapted. It would have been just as feasible in the US (though I think the increases would have to have been much smaller) which would have made the current situation much lass problematic.
(and $9 petrol is $9 petrol, it still gives you the right to complain, especially when its usefullness is finally shown).
That's not quite what it is like. It's more like someone not worrying about increasing their debt as long as they get a comparable raise. Which is actually sort of reasonable if you know can't lose your job. Of course it makes sense not to borrow the maximum, since that will get you into trouble if you get a pay cut which is real the problem with government debt: not deficit but the total debt level.
Repeat after me: there is no current serious social security problem. The issue was mostly solved by setting up the trust fund. As long as the US economy grows at an even half decent clip it will be solvent until after most of the baby boomers are dead.
That doesn't mean a problem couldn't arise (if the economy tanks for a full decade or baby boomers collectively live ten years longer than the current norm) but that problem could be handled.
True, however a significant difference is that far more of US debt (especially government debt) is held overseas. It's even still increasing, which finances the trade deficit. If/when more countries move away from a pure dollar peg that will hurt the US economy significantly.
Also I believe that the figure is for federal debt, and even if it is not, federal debt makes up a large part of the debt. That makes the debt comparatively higher (the federal budget is only ~20-22% of GDP, while spending in other countries goes up to 50%). And of course public debt is only part of the story. Private debt is higher as well, which makes the comparison with Japan a lot less true.
No the US isn't about to crash into the economic abyss (well it's unlikely, if not impossible) but it has been living beyond it means and will have cut back some.
If by 'Euros' you include the Russians then the Euros actually won the space race (that is the race into space: Sputnik, Latka, Gagarin), and where indeed beaten by a whisker in the moon race (the USSR had a fairly advanced moon program which was hit by some bad accidents and was finally canceled when there was little propaganda to be won).
If you mean just western Europe, well they didn't have the cash. (besides theoretically it's possible that they simply didn't have enough brilliant scientists).
BTW a question to the /. population at large: why is the official (western) version that the US won the space race? As far as I can tell they only won one (though difficult and big) of the events. The USSR won at least two others (into space and space station building).
With all due respect I think this overglorifies. Yes it was a great achievement, especially with the technology of the time. But for the most part it got done because of money, not extreme talent. Any largish nation, willing to spend the money could have done it. Only the relative speed at which it succeeded could be credited in some way to a more than usually talented bunch of scientist (as compared to other talented scientist).
The EU had much clearer boundaries where the distribution of powers is concerned than the US, since every power the commission or council has was explicitly given by all member states. Yes, that still leaves room for abuse, or a better distribution but IMHO the problem doesn't lie with the clarity of the language/treaties/documents but with the fundamental way it has been set up.
Back on-topic: TFA shows an agreement that isn't great however there are four things to consider:
1) Some agreement is necessary. At the moment airlines for example are trapped between a rock and a hard place. EU law tells them they can't give information, US law says they must, otherwise they can't land.
2) Some exchange of data seems sensible. I would say that basic data like name, date of birth, nationality and time/date of flight are reasonable. However, other data is worrisome and hopefully the EU will stop that.
3) I'd argue that the much more important issue is how the data is handled. Who has access an din what way.
4)This isn't final, negotiations are still ongoing. One of the key issues seems to be the right of EU citizens to sue the US government to get errors corrected. Which, looking at the no-fly list seems quite important. We will have to see what the final outcome is, especially since in this case it's the US that wants something (as opposed to for example the open skies agreement, which greatly favoured the US).
You mean like LA? :)
As with all these kind of technologies it will take time (either 4-10 years or forever). But at 50$ per barrel it wouldn't exactly destabelize OPEC (production cost of most middle east crude is around 2-6 $).
How not? If 2/3 of the people vote for a different party you haven't won the polular vote.
The current limit of 28 days is already an extreme extention of the original 7 days. it's "just two weeks" but it's two weeks of people beging held prisoner without any real proof (there goes Habeas Corpus). Also: what's the important, urgent reason for doing this? Will it make life more easy for the police? Probably, but then turning the whole country into a police state would make life even easier.
The more important difference (IMHO) is the lack of a barrier to changing it. Most constitutions are significant not because the sum in a hopefully clear way the key provisions of a society, but because they're more difficult to change than ordinary laws. They are the failsafe to make sure the government of the day can't easily screw around with the agreed fundamental way of doing business.
In the UK this is replaced by "tradition" which is supposed to stop governments from going too far, but which seldom works. For example: when the regional government of London was too much of a left wing problem for Margaret Thatcher, she simply abolished it. In a country with a constitution she most likely wouldn't have had the power. This vote is another example, and the early Blair years showed that a PM who has a large enough majority in parliament can ignore most provisions.
Not really. He was reasonably popular due to spouting populist nonsense. However the Nazi's never got more than about a third of the vote in free elections (and even in those the SA thugs "helped" a lot of voters).
What kind of system where you living in before? I can't think of a modern country (including New Zealand) where the government *doesn't* have enormous potential power. I'd argue that it has more to do with modern society (which need complex arangements) and technology.
Remind me what "Free Speech Zones" are again? And how many people have been arrested for having anti-Bush/war T-shirts or placards during rallies and refusing to leave?
No, they generally weren't convincted of anything, but I'd hardly call being arrested and spending time in jail "a right to free speech.
Ultimately the existence of constitutional protection is only as strong as the enforcement mechanism.
You mean a certain amount of free minutes (say 120-300) per month? 'Cause that's the standard in most of Europe as well.
Not exactly unprovoked. The US had an oil embargo against Japan at the time. And since the US back then was the major oil producer (those where the times ey?) it was only a matter of time before the Japanese economy would collapse.
Obviously there were reasons for the embargo (mainly the invasion and treatment of the rest of China) but I'd argue it was certainly "provoked". I doubt whether the US wouldn't use it's military under similar circumstance even today.
This post brought to you by History Geeks United. HGU annoying people with histroical facts since 450 BC
Always good to see people getting personal. Means you're doing something right :)
That's a very nice list of differences between the EU/nation and Nation/city relationships. Unfortunately they all have nothing to do with how the budget is decided. In that regard my comparison stands up fine. Also I could have chosen any other administrative subdivision. How about Scotland deciding it doesn't want to pay for trident? The point is that there are rules and structures in place and apart from actually leaving the appropriate political structure (EU,UK) you have to abide by them. While countries can decide whether or not to take part in EU policy areas (though for the most part only the UK and Denmark do so on a wide basis), once they sign up they are obliged to play by the rules or leave the club.
Not exactly the "conventional" approach in pretty much any government budget.
And it while we're at it, lets give the great city of Bristol the power to take back the money for projects *they* don't think are a good idea.
Generally when having a overall budget you do not give the constituent parts the ability to pick and choose. The Galileo project is part of the overall EU budget, therefore the UK doesn't get to second guess the distribution. (never mind that the UK pays far to little into the budget anyway).
Or to put it differently: there's never a large group of sceptics when the consensus is that a Higgs boson will be found. When the conclusion is something people don't like because it will upset the status quo they tend to reject it irrespectively of statistical result.
Actually in The God delusion he brings up specific arguments why God can't exist (at least in the creator of everything, beginning of all version of things). In short he argues that anything that can deliberately create the universe has to be at least as complex. Which creates the question where God came from.
Yes. Why can't we all follow the glorious example of government free Somalia?