Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The idea that Europe would be stable and peaceful without a strong NATO appears rather idealistic. The threat of mutually assured destruction is what keeps everybody in their place. It is not related to some kind of modern enlightenment. Some humans will instinctively take advantage of a perceived weakness no matter how enlightened you may believe them to be. It will only be a matter of time before such a person finds power somewhere in Europe and the only way to keep such people in check is by being stronger than them. Nukes are why there hasn't been a major war in the world for 75+ years, not enlightenment.
When I read some of this stuff, it makes me sort of wish that the US would withdraw into its borders, withdraw from all military alliances, protect itself and let the rest of the world's chips fall where they may.
Gross debt-to-GDP ratios are hardly ever useful (just think of what happens when someone buys a house) and this is no exception. You cannot carry out a meaningful conversation unless you know how those numbers were constructed and assess whether it represents any real risk or debt. Long story short, this shows that the 200%+ number that's thrown around is due to the fact that German governments control many banks; customer deposits are obviously considered as liabilities for those banks and they end up in the total debt numbers for Germany. Of course by law all these liabilities and then some have to be covered by assets.
We could argue whether the government should be involved in the banking sector and that would be an interesting debate, but my point is that your "very bad fiscal shape" argument looks rather poor.
Aha! Thank you for explaining where these ominous 200% come from.
The idea that Europe would be stable and peaceful without a strong NATO appears rather idealistic. The threat of mutually assured destruction is what keeps everybody in their place. It is not related to some kind of modern enlightenment. Some humans will instinctively take advantage of a perceived weakness no matter how enlightened you may believe them to be. It will only be a matter of time before such a person finds power somewhere in Europe and the only way to keep such people in check is by being stronger than them. Nukes are why there hasn't been a major war in the world for 75+ years, not enlightenment.
When I read some of this stuff, it makes me sort of wish that the US would withdraw into its borders, withdraw from all military alliances, protect itself and let the rest of the world's chips fall where they may.
Well, I wouldn't be that pessimistic. A strong NATO and especially EU has of course been important, but so much has changed. The economies are so entangled to each other, and partly so are the people. In 1940 Germans invaded France and people did it with joy. If Germany would invade France tomorrow, the people would say that hell no, we won't go. Not to mention that a democracy vs democracy war has never happened.
Never say never, but very much must change and for a long time that we would even a dramatically changed situation. Maybe war in Western Europe is like dueling. They have their heyday, but with time people start to think it's just stupid.
Well, I wouldn't be that pessimistic. A strong NATO and especially EU has of course been important, but so much has changed. The economies are so entangled to each other, and partly so are the people. In 1940 Germans invaded France and people did it with joy. If Germany would invade France tomorrow, the people would say that hell no, we won't go. Not to mention that a democracy vs democracy war has never happened.
Never say never, but very much must change and for a long time that we would even a dramatically changed situation. Maybe war in Western Europe is like dueling. They have their heyday, but with time people start to think it's just stupid.
I highly doubt such a threat would come from within Western Europe itself, but you never know what the future holds. While quite unlikely, it would probably come from the south or from the east. It would only take one lunatic to gain power in a place with a strong military. The only way to keep that in check is a stronger military. Lunatics don't listen to reason.
Well, I wouldn't be that pessimistic. A strong NATO and especially EU has of course been important, but so much has changed. The economies are so entangled to each other, and partly so are the people. In 1940 Germans invaded France and people did it with joy. If Germany would invade France tomorrow, the people would say that hell no, we won't go. Not to mention that a democracy vs democracy war has never happened.
Never say never, but very much must change and for a long time that we would even a dramatically changed situation. Maybe war in Western Europe is like dueling. They have their heyday, but with time people start to think it's just stupid.
A democracy vs a democracy war never happened?
Hitter was democratically elected.
Not to mention the US invaded plenty of democratic countries, such as the America-Mexican war.
But I agree times are different now and people are less likely to support wars
I am with you regarding Eurostat and biased numbers regarding everything that has to do with the migrant crisis or with other stuff that politicians do not want people to know.
However regarding the fiscal situation, Germany is indeed very robust. It is OECD that is constantly criticising Germany for not spending enough money in infrastructure, economy and other stuffs while wasting to much money on useless stuffs. So, the priorities are wrong, but the overall budget situation remains stable. You cannot only look at the debt, but you also have to look at the assets of an economy. If they invest in infrastructure etc. of course the debt may go up, but those investment give a yield in return, while other investments don't. Statistical Insights: Government assets matter too, not just debt | OECD Insights Blog
You post a link to support your opinion that Germany's fiscal health is very robust. Yet, that link shows Germany's Net Debt picture to not be very pretty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
The US spends 70% of NATO's readiness, but only a fraction of that is targeted towards NATO or Europe. Much of the defence budget is targeted on the defence of the US itself. A large chunk is also targeted towards Asia and the Pacific, which has nothing to do with NATO.
For NATO, Readiness has nothing to do with "spending targeted towards Europe" or where the forces are located.
NATO defines Readiness as the capabilities / capacities to use a force rapidly. Readiness has three major parts: combat readiness, operational, and strategic.
Long-held definition for NATO readiness was "flying hours, steaming days, tank miles and training events".
Again, NATO can use force RAPIDLY from Gibraltar to the Baltic.
Most of the U.S. military isn't designated for the defence of Europe. Most of it is absolutely needless for Europe's defence.
Read above about how and what NATO is supposed to respond to. US shoulders 70% of NATO, while NATO provides no national defense to US borders.
Yes, NATO invoked Article 5 after 9/11 terrorist attacks, but that was to carry out operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and provide political cover for US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukas1973
To think that there will be a comprehensive war between Russia and Europe in the future is completely absurd. No one needs large ground forces with thousands of battle tanks anymore.
For the last 5000 years when has Europe never had an armed conflict? To think that history starts now is pretty idiotic. Germany actually has lost two world wars in the 100 years, and had about 10 million germans killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg
Gross debt-to-GDP ratios are hardly ever useful (just think of what happens when someone buys a house) and this is no exception. You cannot carry out a meaningful conversation unless you know how those numbers were constructed and assess whether it represents any real risk or debt. Long story short, this shows that the 200%+ number that's thrown around is due to the fact that German governments control many banks; customer deposits are obviously considered as liabilities for those banks and they end up in the total debt numbers for Germany. Of course by law all these liabilities and then some have to be covered by assets.
We could argue whether the government should be involved in the banking sector and that would be an interesting debate, but my point is that your "very bad fiscal shape" argument looks rather poor.
Before you make personal attacks while making a duet with Lucas who always has denied reality, you should understand that the people that make the argument of the 200% of the TRUE public Debt to GDP, and not 75% that Eurostat reports, attribute the UNFUNDED liabilities to this discrepancy, and not deposits.
Axel Weber (former head of Germany's Central Bank) made the same statement a few years back. He said REAL number is 200% not 75%. For PUBLIC debt.
Jagadeesh Gokhale, an expert on American and European public liabilities even argued a few years ago that his calculation for Germany's PUBLIC debt-to-GDP was 418%.
Just last year Citi noted that Germany, France, Italy, the U.K., Portugal and Spain had estimated public sector pension liabilities that topped 300 percent of gross domestic product. -- http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/rich-...n-problem.html
Lucas in the past has made the argument that these don't count, because this is a Pay-as-you-go scheme. But this leaves out the "unfunded" part.
Secondly, given Germany's low birth rates and shrinking population, this argument is an ostrich hiding its head in the sand.
I guess the last argument is -- Germany needs migrants to make up for population loss. So far, migrants seem to be economic deficits, rather than surpluses. And 2nd generation of migrants are radicalizing, which is the opposite of "assimilation"
Waw...that's quite absurd! Retired people that consume in Germany are extremely important ! It gives job to your youth, even if it is disappearing slowly!
Actually the guy you replied to understands brutal essence of economy. Americans are fixated on money and they dont even want to understand the root causes of their fixation. Tornadoes, btw, create many jobs too. A Job is another economic abstraction, it has real value only under certain circumstances. People could have jobs and economy, supplying real goods, crushing down all at the same time, that what happens during natural disasters, wars or when unproductive population is exploding in numbers. Money is just that, it is an abstraction, it has value until it doesnt. Mushrooming population of geezers (with money) is the surest way for the money to lose its value.
The only absolute value is your time spent working. You dont really exchange money, you exchange time of your life with another economic monkey. If you exchange your time for money and that money cannot be exchanged for somebody's time, your money is worthless. Old geezers have no/little time to exchange with working age groups. Thus, in the free market paradigm suckers are a must to balance economic equation, third world suckers as a rule who leave their ailing parents behind to wipe butts of the German geezers. Btw, mushrooming inequality is a major danger for exactly the same reason, we must exchange more and more of our time working to procure less and less of the time people closer to the trough, and that just cannot last without major social calamities.
Last edited by RememberMee; 03-11-2017 at 09:21 AM..
For NATO, Readiness has nothing to do with "spending targeted towards Europe" or where the forces are located.
NATO defines Readiness as the capabilities / capacities to use a force rapidly. Readiness has three major parts: combat readiness, operational, and strategic.
Long-held definition for NATO readiness was "flying hours, steaming days, tank miles and training events".
Again, NATO can use force RAPIDLY from Gibraltar to the Baltic.
Read above about how and what NATO is supposed to respond to. US shoulders 70% of NATO, while NATO provides no national defense to US borders.
Yes, NATO invoked Article 5 after 9/11 terrorist attacks, but that was to carry out operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and provide political cover for US.
Yes, and NATO is capable of doing that. For example Libya 2011 where the US were last to enter. So what's the problem?
There's no foreign NATO troops on US soil. The US wouldn't allow it. Take your geopolitical position as a blessing.
Europe shoulders 98% of NATO's European defence. What's the problem?
Actually the guy you replied to understands brutal essence of economy. Americans are fixated on money and they dont even want to understand the root causes of their fixation. Tornadoes, btw, create many jobs too. A Job is another economic abstraction, it has real value only under certain circumstances. People could have jobs and economy, supplying real goods, crushing down all at the same time, that what happens during natural disasters, wars or when unproductive population is exploding in numbers. Money is just that, it is an abstraction, it has value until it doesnt. Mushrooming population of geezers (with money) is the surest way for the money to lose its value. The only absolute value is your time spent working.
Sure, let's talk brutal. Let's say you are 30 or 40 year-old, and now we tell you -- "when you become 65, you are useless, you are a drain, we will despise you, and get rid of you."
Let's see how you would think about retirement, or in more general sense -- how would you approach life. Go ahead, tell me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
