quote:
Gary, my point is that the Europeans will lose their discretionary income to defense spending/taxes. It's as simple as that. no?
Lose your choice as to what you spend your money on then your standard of living is lower, no?
Yes, So? Do you think that they're going to buy F16s or Saabs?? ..or just sit there and do nothing. Maybe they don't need such a "global theater" class defence anymore ..and this was the last part of our end to "economic aid" (throw all that into a "shake and bake bag" and filter it out anyway you want). Maybe Europe (eastern and western) is finally able to cope with their own problems. The Soviet bloc is destroyed ...everything is reduced to regional conflicts.
..but you've got to balance our needs with theirs. It may just be that we can't "afford" to do this anymore for them ..or our list of priorities in "backdoor economic aid" has to be realigned. This can also be "smoke and mirrors savings".
Pakistan is getting Saab fighter aircraft with the economic aid that we're giving them. This was probably to maintain our parting of ways due their nuke program (we denied them F16 because they developed nukes)..yet still give them the green light for advanced tactical weapons. We're paying for it ...Sweden gets the money ..they buy GE turbines ...yadayada
I'm sorry ..I'll drift
Let's say, for a moment, that we're still fighting a world war. Except now we do it mainly on an economic level and have eliminated the need for the destruction of whole societies in the process. So ..first we establish a bunch of economies to fight in that arena (we're talking purposely in nebulous terms here and don't focus too much on the chicken or the egg aspects of what I'm saying). Wouldn't you call the Japanese invasion during the Reagan Administration an all out raid on the most vulerable economic sectors of our nation?? Didn't we see a ruthless and coordinated assault that resulted in the single highest transfer of wealth from one nation to another over the same time span? You can also look at it as a social/economic "technical correction".
So? They thought that they were going to be kings since they appeared to be the master of the US $$$. They would either buy or sell them to keep their yen even and the flow of Japanese goods constant into the US. Well, that manipulation of the US $$$ kept it high for everyone else as well, Korea, Malasia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, etc. This effectively subsidized the dollar's buying power in EVERY OTHER NATION. Japan won a very BIG battle ..but in the end had to yield to the weight of not being able to maintain their "edge" of ever increasing lifestyle and wealth in the global community. They finally revalued the yen ..devaluated the US $ and took their hits. They ended up having to import US products so that we could afford their Sonys.
If we can't afford to buy their Sony's ..they can't afford to employ their people as long as they depend on the US market for revenue. Since we are STILL the biggest single consumer market on the planet ..where else are they going to sell their stuff? So reluctantly ...begrudedly ...they fell to the "common sense" approach of a two way street ...and it is STILL is expensive to live in Japan and they have all the other problems that a mature, productive, and advanced economy has in the present.
They are enslaved to our $$$ whether they like it or not ...but many, many, third world nations would gladdly swap places with them.
The Euros have been somewhat a different animal. You don't see a substantial foreign market in Europe. No Japanese cars to speak of ..maybe electronics. Most of Europe has a trade balance with the world. This was West Germany's (as well as many others) way of keeping things stable at home. They would allow or disallow foreign workers as needs dictated and keep a lid on things. We're still their number one trading partner.
Yes, we propped them up with our money ..whether it be militarily, trade, or outright/backdoor aid.
Do you think that our generosity rebuilt most of the world? Sure it was a nice thing to do ..but what else would you have done with a totally intact economy @ 100% industrial and agricultural output at the end of WWII ...put it into depression? We cleaned the clocks of every country that we sold stuff to ...and they needed it all.
Well ...we had to put it back ..and we've been doing that since the Fair Trade laws were abolished in the early 70s (about 1973) near the end of the Vietnam War. We were doing it all along ..but this was when the flood gates opened up for the US $$$ to go offshore. There was no such thing as a consumer electronics market (aside from televisions) before that time. You probably could not have afforded a domestically made stereo ..you still can't.
If you really want a long sighted view of things (my view) ...look at it like we've got our plans for the future of the planet. We grant concession where they are due and afford those who need it our "allowances" to further our agenda. We also have the most powerful military to assure that no one decides to revert back to the former modality of wealth/resource aquisition or the maintenance of power.
Do you really think that Kim wants nukes to use them in war? No ..he wants a bargaining chip to get more money from the USA. He's having trouble feeding his people and maintaining "his" society. We (our leaders) sit down and weigh the costs of just leveling N Korea (keeping mind the trouble this may cause with China) and, after a fashion, give him what he needs to keep a lid on things. Sooner or later Kim will die and the replacement government will hopefully be in the mood for a more "open" society. The same thing happened in Russia.
Time wounds all heels.
Global passification via commerce for a better tomorrow.
