|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bigfeet
Joined: 29 May 2008
Location: Grrrrr.....
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Good, you guys are doing so well that I can't wait for the EU to put together its rapid response force. So they can police their own backyard and not have to depend on NATO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mervsdamun
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's scares me when I see my fellow Americans so completely oblivious about the position we are in at the moment. USA is still by far the strongest country in the world and is likely to remain in that position for a long, long time.
However, there is no doubt its influence is shrinking. This doesn't mean we will be weak and poor, it's just that we will not be able to dictate terms to everyone.
The more people are aware of that, the easier it will be for US to slow down the pace of this change, or worse suffer a crash.
Take a look at:
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scotticus
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bovinerebel wrote: |
Any nation that ever is or was is going to fail. It's just a question of "when". |
I fixed that for you. Predicting the doom of a nation is about as edgy and informed as proclaiming that someday everyone alive today will be dead. It's not a predication, it's an inevitability.
And I'd argue that the US's current position is very much tied to policy, but I grow increasingly tired of Dave's pissing matches. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suwon23
Joined: 24 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Beej wrote: |
| Europe has much bigger problems than its defense. Birth rates so low that if they dont increase, extinction is inevitable. Quickly growing Muslim populations that dont share European values. A completely unsustainable welfare state that will piss everyone off when it goes broke. |
My challenge still stands from the last time you said this. Tell me one simple fact about welfare in Europe. Any fact. How many people are on benefits in Romania? What percentage of GDP does Denmark spend on benefits? How easy is it to qualify for benefits in Spain? Just one measly fact. It would take thirty seconds of Googling. But you can't do it. Don't you feel a little bit embarrassed making claims when you can't even give that much support?
| jkelly80 wrote: |
The EU and China are the only two 'states' that have the economy to challenge the US. Russia's pretty big, but its economy is in shambles, no matter the rising price of oil.
I can't see why the US and EU would ever come to blows, however. But should it happen, the EU would have to play catch up on military spending. I find this to be very very unlikely anytime in the next century. |
I'm confused. In the first half of your post, you say that China is the only economy that can challenge the US, but then you talk about the military comparison between the US and the EU. What are we comparing here, economies or armies? If it;s economies, I think the EU deserves some credit. Their total GDP is higher, though their per capita GDP is lower. One single member state, Germany, managed to pass the US in total exports recently. The Euro is doing well, and I think it's no exaggeration to say it is the next great international investment currency, alongside the dollar and the yen. But maybe I misunderstood you.
| Bigfeet wrote: |
| The EU is slowly falling apart. They can't even agree on a constitution. |
With the current attempt, the Treaty of Lisbon, it's quite possible that every member state will ratify it legislatively except Ireland, which was constitutionally bound to have a referendum, and voted against it. That would be kind of like every state ratifying the constitution except Rhode Island. Oh wait, that's just what happened! Rhode Island and North Carolina did not ratify the current constitution (at least not at first), but unanimity was not a concern, so the constitution succeeded. The EU constitution requires a unanimous agreement for ratification to succeed, so they can't ignore Ireland. If our own ratification process had been the same, we might have been arguing over a new constitution for many years.
EDIT: mervzdamun: I agree. If global politics are a poker game, the US's chips are no fewer than before. But there are a hell of a lot more players at the table than there were just 30 years ago, so we represent a smaller percentage of an ever-increasing pot. The US had about 50% of the world's GDP in 1950, and about 20% in the early 90s, despite increases in quality of life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aka Dave
Joined: 02 May 2008
Location: Down by the river
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, in 1950, all of the European nations, and many Asian nations had suffered from a massive war, so the fact that the USA had 50 percent of the gdp was exceptional and should'nt even be quoted as representative of anything.
Secondly, economics is not a zero sum game, unlike stuff posted on message board. Growth in one economy is *good* for growth in another.
That's really the one thing you need to bang into your head with a metal plate. Yes, we're competing. But competition doesn't mean that losers can't benefit. Losers just have to adapt. If Samsung wins, the Korean govt. needs to tax them to re-train the farmers, who lost, who can't compete.
As far as the USA, we need to improve our primary and secondary educational sytems, rein in our debt, and enact national health care. Our strengths are our higher educational system, our (mostly before Bush/Cheney) relatively transparent politcal system, and (if you want to call this an advantage, it's debatable, it could be labelled a disadvantage) our massive military machine.
Europe? I would love to see Europe as a cohesive, organized political player on the world scene. I really doubt this will ever happen, however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Location: Eungam Loop
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Suwon23 wrote: |
| Beej wrote: |
| Europe has much bigger problems than its defense. Birth rates so low that if they dont increase, extinction is inevitable. Quickly growing Muslim populations that dont share European values. A completely unsustainable welfare state that will piss everyone off when it goes broke. |
My challenge still stands from the last time you said this. Tell me one simple fact about welfare in Europe. Any fact. How many people are on benefits in Romania? What percentage of GDP does Denmark spend on benefits? How easy is it to qualify for benefits in Spain? Just one measly fact. It would take thirty seconds of Googling. But you can't do it. Don't you feel a little bit embarrassed making claims when you can't even give that much support?
| jkelly80 wrote: |
The EU and China are the only two 'states' that have the economy to challenge the US. Russia's pretty big, but its economy is in shambles, no matter the rising price of oil.
I can't see why the US and EU would ever come to blows, however. But should it happen, the EU would have to play catch up on military spending. I find this to be very very unlikely anytime in the next century. |
I'm confused. In the first half of your post, you say that China is the only economy that can challenge the US, but then you talk about the military comparison between the US and the EU. What are we comparing here, economies or armies? If it;s economies, I think the EU deserves some credit. Their total GDP is higher, though their per capita GDP is lower. One single member state, Germany, managed to pass the US in total exports recently. The Euro is doing well, and I think it's no exaggeration to say it is the next great international investment currency, alongside the dollar and the yen. But maybe I misunderstood you.
| Bigfeet wrote: |
| The EU is slowly falling apart. They can't even agree on a constitution. |
With the current attempt, the Treaty of Lisbon, it's quite possible that every member state will ratify it legislatively except Ireland, which was constitutionally bound to have a referendum, and voted against it. That would be kind of like every state ratifying the constitution except Rhode Island. Oh wait, that's just what happened! Rhode Island and North Carolina did not ratify the current constitution (at least not at first), but unanimity was not a concern, so the constitution succeeded. The EU constitution requires a unanimous agreement for ratification to succeed, so they can't ignore Ireland. If our own ratification process had been the same, we might have been arguing over a new constitution for many years.
EDIT: mervzdamun: I agree. If global politics are a poker game, the US's chips are no fewer than before. But there are a hell of a lot more players at the table than there were just 30 years ago, so we represent a smaller percentage of an ever-increasing pot. The US had about 50% of the world's GDP in 1950, and about 20% in the early 90s, despite increases in quality of life. |
What is your arguement? Birth rates in Europe are not in decline? There is not a pension time bomb in Europe? Tell me exactly what you refute then I can show you why you are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Location: Eungam Loop
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Euro zone is going to have some huge challenges with a single currency. These countries will all have different levels of pension payments, entitlements. Not to mention different levels of taxation and unemployment. One size does not fit all. Wouldnt be surprised to see the eurozone fall apart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ryouga013
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whistleblower wrote: |
| Korea is the *beep* who bends down and likes to take it. |
Without the use of any lube |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suwon23
Joined: 24 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aka Dave wrote: |
Secondly, economics is not a zero sum game, unlike stuff posted on message board. Growth in one economy is *good* for growth in another. |
I strongly agree. If my post implied that I do not agree, I've done something horribly wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suwon23
Joined: 24 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Beej wrote: |
What is your arguement? Birth rates in Europe are not in decline? There is not a pension time bomb in Europe? Tell me exactly what you refute then I can show you why you are wrong. |
As I've said many times, I'm not the one making the argument. You are. I am perfectly willing to admit that I (like you, apparently) don't know diddly about European welfare systems. You, on the other hand, refuse to admit your own ignorance and even make assertions based on knowledge you don't have. You habitually claim "X." I keep asking you "prove X." You proceed to accuse me of making claim "Y," and refuse to support your own claim until this imaginary claim "Y" is addressed. This is a very common fallacy. In fact, it's so common there's a term for it: a red herring.
The challenge goes unanswered again.
EDIT: I actually agree that the unified currency will have some strong negative effects. A struggling economy that uses the same currency as a booming economy gets the wrong kind of feedback from its currency. A high Euro will make exports from these less developed areas less attractive overseas, but will make imports easier, hindering local industrial development. The US hasn't had much success dealing with this problem (transplanted capital and hydroelectric resources during several decades of the TVA failed to create lasting economic development), and I can't imagine the EU will do any better. Jane Jacobs talks a lot about that in Cities and the Wealth of Nations. It'll be interesting to watch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plus99
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: Re: Korea ultimately must do whatever America tells it to do |
|
|
| legalquestions wrote: |
I had an older student tell me this recently. He said Korea can't afford not to do whatever the USA demands, due to economic/business concerns and defense/safety concerns.
He went on to say that most Koreans realize this fact and that is what causes most of the anti-American sentiment here in Korea. "We realize that without America there to prop us up by defending us and buying our imports in disproportionate numbers we would suffer tremendously," he said.
Was he both wise and candid, or was he just telling me what he thought I wanted to hear? |
wow, id love to hear this during one of my classes.
unfortunately, i run the wombat show at a local circus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plus99
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| maybe i will save this post and use it as a lesson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OnTheOtherSide
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Korea and America are both bowing down to Kazachstan. Ever since Borat came out, they have been in control of the world. Just quit being racist and admit it people! Asaaaaa! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plus99
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ha ha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusty1983
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just like Britain before it, the American Evil Empire will eventually be curtailed.
I think that the fate of the US is going to be largely down to the next few Presidents. A good leader may be able to go some way to repairing the damage done, but another President of Bush's destructive tendencies could mean curtains.
I dont know that much, but I know all this 'defense' spending and his war efforts have plunged the US into severe debt. I know the US has become dangerously unpopular worldwide over the last 20 years or so, to the point where I believe most other countries do not trust it to handle world affairs anymore, and are more intimidated than respectful of American might. In my eyes thats not a particularly safe position, and there is enough brow-beating and flag-waving going on in America at the moment to make me think tha 20 years from now we might be looking at these times as the pride before the fall.
The EU is potentially more powerful, I believe, but needs stronger leadership. An EU willing to stand up to Bush and co could potentially be heaven-sent, but has yet to be seen.
A sane America and developed EU together would be ideal.
But perhaps even better would be a big coalition of all the most powerful countries in the world, who agree to make an effort to solve the pressing problems of the future (environment etc). They could also have the final say on whether it is just and necessary to go to war, and they could bare in mind past wars, such as World War 2, and do everything in their power to prevent such attrocities happening again.
And, if Bush or anyone went against them, they could at least try and hold him accountable for starting clearly illegal wars.
They could be called 'Nations United' or something |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
