NationStates Jolt Archive

Chancellor Merkel has thought of a pet project for her EU presidency which will begin next year. And quite a project it is too.

http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=5942
"The west needs to pull together," Gabor Steingart, Berlin bureau chief for the Spiegel weekly, told the FT yesterday. His book, World-War for Prosperity, a warning about the dangers of globalisation published this week, is credited with influencing the debate in the chancellery.

"What Nato did for the west under the cold war, Tafta (Transatlantic free-trade area) can do in the current battle."

The idea seems to find some support: http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=5980

And for good reason, according to some: http://www.heritagetidbits.com/archives/2006/09/implications_of_1.htm

What do you think of this idea? I mean, over the long term the state-directed economies of China, Russia and to some extent India will be serious contenders for reestablishing the economic image of the world as it was before the Industrial Revolution. And the West will lost its current hegemony of the world economy and, by extension, global politics and the like.

Before some of you start yelling that you're quite fine with that...remember that this would also mean the end of the hegemony Western values have in the world. Especially China and Russia have demonstrated preciously little interest in helping out the people outside their borders, or indeed freedom of any kind. We'd have to get used to quite a brutal age of Realpolitik in its purest form.

I don't see this connection between "economic freedom" (using that word liberally, because the way the Chinese economy is run for example can't be called anything resembling a free market) and political freedom. Aside from the fact that China and India aren't even nationstates in the traditional European sense, to paraphrase Henry Kissinger.

So is TAFTA the answer? And how far should it go, looking far into the future?

Europeans are talking about helping the U.S. retain it's position as Numero Uno??

That's the funniest shit I've heard this month.

Delator can you link me to the American Football thread?:p
-----------------------------------------------------
I think Globalisation is bad.
It is State sanctioned Rape of Mother nature.

Can't you run a search? :p

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=492726

Europeans are talking about helping the U.S. retain it's position as Numero Uno??
Well, a few Europeans are talking about building a viable long-term competitor to the nations which seem currently set to take over the world economy. It's not like the EU doesn't need the help itself.

Found a good example: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,441467,00.html

I'm not saying that it wouldn't benefit both sides to form such an agreement, nor that it might prove necessary to move in that direction in the future.

I just find it amusing that at times Europe seems to do everything it can to distance itself from American policies...especially economic policies.

Yet now, at risk of being economically marginalized, they plan to tie themselves permenantly to the same system that is often villified by European people, media and politicians alike.

The article explains just how this will ensure continued American economic dominance, so I don't really need to go into that.

Methinks this won't go over too well in Europe, at least not until the need becomes greater.

Methinks this won't go over too well in Europe, at least not until the need becomes greater.
Okay, firstly, you're definitely right.

Secondly...Europe isn't nearly as hostile towards "neoliberal" ideas as you think. The French are, and there are various parties in other countries that are - but it's hardly all-pervasive. Most Europeans will probably sit somewhere in the middle, seeing both the need for economic freedom and some sort of state protection of the weak.

Thirdly...it's a Free Trade Zone. If it does end up becoming more than that, with free travel and the like, it is not a given that it won't be the US too that will move towards some more socialised government functions. Indeed, one of the ideas floated in connection with a TAFTA would be import restrictions for goods that don't fulfill certain criteria. For example, neither the EU nor the US would allow the import of shrimp that are stuffed with growth hormones and antibiotica. Some are considering whether such restrictions could be widened to include labour laws...such that goods from China or India can only be imported if the people who make them are treated properly. Alone it would be difficult to even think about such a policy, but a combined TAFTA has a lot more clout in that regard.

And finally, to repeat myself, yes, the idea would face almost insurmountable resistance from both sides. Especially in agriculture. In the end, they will call it a success if they allow the free trade of wigs and nothing else. Still, it is a fascinating idea.

And finally, to repeat myself, yes, the idea would face almost insurmountable resistance from both sides. Especially in agriculture. In the end, they will call it a success if they allow the free trade of wigs and nothing else. Still, it is a fascinating idea.



The agriculture part is the weak spot, also, in the EU.

Aprox. half the budget of the EU is used subsidicing the farmers

We have farmers producing food/crops for no reason but the subsidices.

A lot of it, is even destroyed, instead of sending it where it could be used or was needed:headbang: Or simply not grown!

Especially France will never vote for lower subsidices for their farmers.

Alone for that reason TAFTA seems deadborn, but the general idea of a closer economical "union" with the U.S. seems ok too me.

Both sides would/could benefit both economical and social

Thirdly...it's a Free Trade Zone. If it does end up becoming more than that, with free travel and the like, it is not a given that it won't be the US too that will move towards some more socialised government functions. Indeed, one of the ideas floated in connection with a TAFTA would be import restrictions for goods that don't fulfill certain criteria. For example, neither the EU nor the US would allow the import of shrimp that are stuffed with growth hormones and antibiotica. Some are considering whether such restrictions could be widened to include labour laws...such that goods from China or India can only be imported if the people who make them are treated properly. Alone it would be difficult to even think about such a policy, but a combined TAFTA has a lot more clout in that regard.Hm. NAFTA and CAFTA sucked, but if TAFTA includes these types of things, it might be a good idea.

Hm. NAFTA and CAFTA sucked, but if TAFTA includes these types of things, it might be a good idea.
That particular idea came from a pretty long German article from Spiegel. It was really quite long, and pretty lefty at times (calling the emerging powers "attacker states") but that was an idea that might not even have been half-bad. I mean, assuming that we think that a basic level of human rights at the work place (and we will certainly disagree on how far those go) is a good thing, and knowing that pure competition with China and India will erode those rights, is there a case for a "market correction"?

I have my doubts on whether such a thing would ever be pushed through though. So my tip is...get out of the unskilled labour market. The demand is rising slowly - but the supply is increasing by hundreds of millions every few years. A cookie for whoever can guess what'll happen to the price...

EDIT: The book in question is called "Weltkrieg um Wohlstand", and I wonder whether there will be an English translation. For those who do speak German though....http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,k-6981,00.html

Europeans are talking about helping the U.S. retain it's position as Numero Uno??

That's the funniest shit I've heard this month.

Why? It's basically the U.S., Russia or China.

Even if you hate the U.S. it still beats the shit out of a Chinese or Russian "controlled" world.

I think it's a great idea. When you get right down to it, North America and Europe have far more in common than they do differently, and it should help to reduce both group's natural insularity, as NATO has helped to do over the last fifty years (there's still a long way to go, but at least they're out of the "head in the sand" phase).

I would have thought this would be more interesting to people. So I bump it and hope for the best.

Even if you hate the U.S. it still beats the shit out of a Chinese or Russian "controlled" world.

I'm not persuaded.

Europeans are talking about helping the U.S. retain it's position as Numero Uno??

That's the funniest shit I've heard this month.

I think they realize that if they accomplish good, free trade behaviors between the US and the EU, we'll both get richer!

I think they realize that if they accomplish good, free trade behaviors between the US and the EU, we'll both get richer!

Gee, - that much more capital to preserve. Truly a great day for democracy, or something.

Delator can you link me to the American Football thread?:p
-----------------------------------------------------
I think Globalisation is bad.
It is State sanctioned Rape of Mother nature.

Yes. Yes it is.

Hm. NAFTA and CAFTA sucked, but if TAFTA includes these types of things, it might be a good idea.

How?

How?How did NAFTA and CAFTA suck, or how might TAFTA be a good idea?