The Future of Europe

I totally disagree that capitalism itself is the problem. Capitalism is the natural result of any free society that uses money. The alternate is a controlled economy, such as the old USSR. A far more frightening prospect.

Having said that, there may be ways to make capitalism fairer. Limits on inheritances possilbly, above some agreed figure. Another idea being proposed is a national Bond scheme, whereby every child has a fund opened for it at birth, into which the parent or government pay. (depending on income). The idea is that EVERYBODY would get some starting capital, at the age of 25 or whatever. Everyone would get a fair crack at the whip.

Even better education as to how it all actually worked would make a massive difference. Economics, business and politics should be mandatory subjects at school.


[edit on 3-7-2004 by muppet]

if we start talking about internal problems i'd just like to add stupidly high population to the UK's probelms.

European countries with smaller populations have higher standards of living and stronger econmies.

There's nothing wrong with capatalism it's just that massive super companies (MCDonalds, Shell Oil, Nike) aren't taxed enough

I still think that my plan is still best (see first post)

[edit on 9-9-2004 by UK Wizard]

Originally posted by FredT
On what are you basing the economic collapse of the US economy? Also given the pace of globalization don't you think that the worlds economies are going to become inceasingly dependant on each other? If one collapses it will have a ripple effect on each other. If the EU's on its way to becomming the economic superpower, then why does the EU kep changing the requirements for membership downward? Esp when some of its biggest members ie. France is struggling.

The USA effectively steals oil from the rest of the world to the tune of $350 million a day.

I can hear half of you gasp in disbelief and the other half of you shout in indignant outrage but I'm afraid it is true.

You can only buy oil for $US and guess who prints those. The average oil price for the last 6 months has been on average $6 higher than the 6 months before that, costing the USA an extra $24 billion. How can the USA afford to do this when it runs a $500 billion trade deficit you ask. Easy, by printing money in the form of US government bonds.

Aha but you say:

"Don't those dollars eventually get spent in the USA ?"

Nope. Almost all dollars spent abroad by the are reused as trading and reserve currency, especially for buying more oil because the dollar is still a universally accepted store of wealth.

The dollar is inexorably dropping in value because dollars are so abundant that they effectively represent no redeemable value in the country that issued them. The only reason the dollar hasn't crashed completely yet is because people can still spend their dollars in lots of places and they still think they can spend their dollars in the USA and get goods in return, which they can as long as everyone doesn't at the same time.

Every dollar that the USA prints out of thin air adds to their problem and will just make it all the more worse when it all comes crashing down:


1. USA prints money from thin air and buys oil and goods with it.
2. Value of dollar goes down because of over supply of dollars.
3. Oil price goes up so oil retailers can retain purchasing power in rest of the world.
4. USA's oil dependent economy goes into decline because of higher oil prices.
5. Economic decline causes value of dollar to decline more.
6. Higher oil price causes USA to print more dollars from thin air.
7. Back to 1.



This cycle has taken a strong hold in the last 4 years, made evident by the fact that the oil price has stayed exactly the same in Euros but the oil price in dollars has increased because the value of the dollar has decreased.

Eventually this cycle will go into a nosedive and all the people owning dollars will panic and sell leaving the USA with no ability to buy anything from the rest of the world and the biggest military in the world. Hmmmm I wonder what that would mean ?

Ahhh but you don't think this will ever happen because you are generally optimistic ?

There is the slight problem of peak oil production and the fact that 65% of the worlds remaining oil reserves are in the middle east. Why else does the USA have 140,000 troops stationed there.

I can confidently predict that the USA will never withdraw its troops from the middle east. After all, it went to such lengths to get them there in the first place. It didn't send them there to depose a corrupt dictator, that was just the excuse to get them there so they maintain a force in the region.

Still don't think it can happen ? Consider the rise of the EU as the new world economic superpower. Its not there yet obviously but even the fact that the Euro offers an alternative to the dollar as a currency that can store value and be spent among 400 million people means that people are starting to convert their dollars to Euros.

As soon as you can buy oil in Euros (which Iraq allowed in 2000 hmmm) the $US will be worth nothing.


A good article to read is the July newsletter by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO).

Also read:

www.fromthewilderness.com...
www.currentconcerns.ch...
www.currentconcerns.ch...

A google search for "euro oil iraq" or "euro oil dollar" yields alot too.

but what will happen when we change to another format of energy...
would america's economy crash because that definationly what would happen in the middle east

There are no other forms of energy that can replace oil well enough to maintain current living conditions even vaguely. Why else is the USA occupying the middle east, or trying to.

Besides humans always screw things up beyond belief.

have a little faith in humanity, why don't you try and think of solutions instead of just problems for a change

Believe my I'm thinking but its hard to come up with an alternative energy source to oil because of the sheer volume of it and the energy density of oil.

So this i guess is the true answer to why Europe would like brittain to join. It has the north sea oil/gas reserves. If we dont join Europe then I guess sooner or later we will be at odds with Europe over our oil/gas.

Perhaps then Europe will have to invade the UK for its reserves just like another battle which is going on at present.

The only problem being for Europe is that we have already developed our Nuclear Techniques.

Which is not and will not be the case for the other battle which is currently going on in the mid-east.

I wont bring myself to say the name of the country because there are other threads out there specificaly about this war.

I would like to see this thread continue on the subject it was originally designed for. EUROPE IS IT GOOD OR NOT?

Me personally Im thinking not. Especially when you consider France's line in the other battle which i care not to mention. With friends like that who needs enemies

Originally posted by 1Ting4SureWeAreNotAlone
Perhaps then Europe will have to invade the UK for its reserves just like another battle which is going on at present.

Yes, of course it will. You've uncovered the whole reason behind the EU - they just want to get their dirty European hands on our oil. We must immediately build an enormous wall around Dover and seed the English Channel with mines. That'll teach Johnny Foreigner!

The only problem being for Europe is that we have already developed our Nuclear Techniques.

Well, thank God for our "techniques". I'm sure that's all that's stopping Luxembourg from annexing Norfolk tomorrow.

I would like to see this thread continue on the subject it was originally designed for. EUROPE IS IT GOOD OR NOT?

No, I think you'll find the thread was started to discuss UK Wizard's ideas about alternatives. The first post is the clue.

... Meanwhile...

I don't think the oil thing is as important as it's being made out to be. As soon as supplies run low and profits are harder to come by, big business will turn to alternative energy. Before you know it, we'll be wondering what held up solar, wind and hydroelectric power for so long. We could switch to clean, sustainable energy tomorrow, if only we had the commitment and the investment.

Energy will, of course, be one of the defining issues of the next century, but I honestly don't see that either energy requirements, nor the energy market, will unduly influence the growth and consolidation of the EU.

The question about the EU being competition for the US is something else entirely...

Originally posted by UK Wizard
have a little faith in humanity, why don't you try and think of solutions instead of just problems for a change

Ah, you have learned much, young one. It's nice to see that optimism is still alive and well!

I've been thinking about some of your earlier posts, Wizard. You've stated several times that the EU might be good for Britain, if we wait 20 to 30 years. Can I ask why you think that? What will happen in the next generation that will make the EU a viable, enticing organisation?

The people who are currently in charge of the EU don't wish to compromise, they want change the way they've design it, if we wait then those leaders will hopefully be gone and europe would have naturally begun to become more united without the need for this centralisation

thanks for returning the thread to it's original topic

[edit on 4-7-2004 by UK Wizard]

Originally posted by 1Ting4SureWeAreNotAlone
So this i guess is the true answer to why Europe would like brittain to join. It has the north sea oil/gas reserves. If we dont join Europe then I guess sooner or later we will be at odds with Europe over our oil/gas.

Perhaps then Europe will have to invade the UK for its reserves just like another battle which is going on at present.

The beauty of the North Sea oil reserves is.. they are at sea, and close to shore, and we have the biggest navy in Europe to protect it if the time came. I don't think anyone will steal our oil.

One point to note is that London is a major financial centre, so the French and Germans might want a looksee.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
but what will happen when we change to another format of energy...
would america's economy crash because that definationly what would happen in the middle east

When oil is not making the Big Oil companies richer they will release another source of energy to keep their strangle hold on the energy of the planet. When a new power source is let out it will cost alot of money to build the infrastructure to use it and guess were that money is going to come from.

Big Oil but then they will be big Hydrogen.

There is a limit to how high oil prices can go before they are not worth it anymore thats whats stopping other power sources from comming right now. Oil prices will keep going up if you use the euro the USD it will not matter there is a limit to the oil.

damn this thread went WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off topic
although some of it was my fault

any how thanks for the replys to my idea's

Originally posted by UK Wizard
damn this thread went WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off topic

although some of it was my fault

any how thanks for the replys to my idea's

I think your idea is fantastic, the only problem is that France won't let it happen.

I'm firmly convinced that France want to create an EU state with Paris controlling it.

Originally posted by TenPin

Originally posted by FredT
On what are you basing the economic collapse of the US economy? Also given the pace of globalization don't you think that the worlds economies are going to become inceasingly dependant on each other? If one collapses it will have a ripple effect on each other. If the EU's on its way to becomming the economic superpower, then why does the EU kep changing the requirements for membership downward? Esp when some of its biggest members ie. France is struggling.

The USA effectively steals oil from the rest of the world to the tune of $350 million a day.

I can hear half of you gasp in disbelief and the other half of you shout in indignant outrage but I'm afraid it is true.

You can only buy oil for $US and guess who prints those. The average oil price for the last 6 months has been on average $6 higher than the 6 months before that, costing the USA an extra $24 billion. How can the USA afford to do this when it runs a $500 billion trade deficit you ask. Easy, by printing money in the form of US government bonds.

Aha but you say:

"Don't those dollars eventually get spent in the USA ?"

Nope. Almost all dollars spent abroad by the are reused as trading and reserve currency, especially for buying more oil because the dollar is still a universally accepted store of wealth.

The dollar is inexorably dropping in value because dollars are so abundant that they effectively represent no redeemable value in the country that issued them. The only reason the dollar hasn't crashed completely yet is because people can still spend their dollars in lots of places and they still think they can spend their dollars in the USA and get goods in return, which they can as long as everyone doesn't at the same time.

Every dollar that the USA prints out of thin air adds to their problem and will just make it all the more worse when it all comes crashing down:


1. USA prints money from thin air and buys oil and goods with it.
2. Value of dollar goes down because of over supply of dollars.
3. Oil price goes up so oil retailers can retain purchasing power in rest of the world.
4. USA's oil dependent economy goes into decline because of higher oil prices.
5. Economic decline causes value of dollar to decline more.
6. Higher oil price causes USA to print more dollars from thin air.
7. Back to 1.



This cycle has taken a strong hold in the last 4 years, made evident by the fact that the oil price has stayed exactly the same in Euros but the oil price in dollars has increased because the value of the dollar has decreased.

Eventually this cycle will go into a nosedive and all the people owning dollars will panic and sell leaving the USA with no ability to buy anything from the rest of the world and the biggest military in the world. Hmmmm I wonder what that would mean ?

Ahhh but you don't think this will ever happen because you are generally optimistic ?

There is the slight problem of peak oil production and the fact that 65% of the worlds remaining oil reserves are in the middle east. Why else does the USA have 140,000 troops stationed there.

I can confidently predict that the USA will never withdraw its troops from the middle east. After all, it went to such lengths to get them there in the first place. It didn't send them there to depose a corrupt dictator, that was just the excuse to get them there so they maintain a force in the region.

Still don't think it can happen ? Consider the rise of the EU as the new world economic superpower. Its not there yet obviously but even the fact that the Euro offers an alternative to the dollar as a currency that can store value and be spent among 400 million people means that people are starting to convert their dollars to Euros.

As soon as you can buy oil in Euros (which Iraq allowed in 2000 hmmm) the $US will be worth nothing.


A good article to read is the July newsletter by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO).

Also read:

www.fromthewilderness.com...
www.currentconcerns.ch...
www.currentconcerns.ch...

A google search for "euro oil iraq" or "euro oil dollar" yields alot too.

You mean, we didn't invade Iraq to set people free? You must be one of those people that hate freedom!

What's scarier than us actually invading them to preserve economic strength is if we actually lose the war, which by all accounts is happening. Interesting times ahead, my friends.

Originally posted by Cjwinnit
I think your idea is fantastic, the only problem is that France won't let it happen.

I'm firmly convinced that France want to create an EU state with Paris controlling it.

thanks, i'm surprised how many people acutally liked the idea

France has got major problem with any alliance in which they don't hold a large percentage of the power, (EU and UN come to mind), or they can atleast make life difficult for those who don't follow their way of thinking

Has anybody else got any alternative Europe alliance ideas?

Originally posted by UK Wizard
France has got major problem with any alliance in which they don't hold a large percentage of the power, (EU and UN come to mind),

Case in point: NATO.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Has anybody else got any alternative Europe alliance ideas?

Perhaps getting "new europe" to stay friendly to the UK and the US, then tell France to piss off?

Edit: Ally with Italy too

i was trying to find out how many MEP's each EU member country has.
I've been searching the web and can't find anything, any help?

I wanted to know so i could compare which countries had the greater power

Originally posted by UK Wizard
the one vote idea is pretty bad i'll admit that

It should be done on a population basis

I don't see this as viable. The UK, Germany or France would have serious problems allowing a small number of high population 'states' to gang up on rule.

but you can see why i want to split the EU into different alliances, due to different countries wanting different things out of the EU

I guess I miss the whole EU concept. For a few hundred years what you propose has been in place and we've all suffered wars and the like because of it.


Not too many years back a few U.S. states decided they wanted to opt out of certain agreements (not the civil war ). After much discord the federal power was finally used to force the general consensus upon them (voting rights). The same kind of thing will happen in your view of Europe except that there will be no uniformity.

Germany decides to sell nuclear power plants to Iran
France balks and wants it stopped
The UK dithers
Italy and Greece, after an oil deal is made, agree with Germany and the power plants are built.

Then what?

France and the UK now have no Iranian oil. Iran has a new power plant. Israel bombs - - - -

Am I missing something in your European concept?

I thought the EU is established for a common coin and laws facilitating trade, both inside the EU and outside it. I thought specific governance of countries would still be up to that country. This doesn't sound completely unlike the antebellum US.