11-03-2003 09:33									#31
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by el freako I think that america's fall from 'hyperpower' status will be exacerbated by the fact that it's spending too much on it's military - the US accounts for around 30% of global GDP (estimated using exchange rates) but 45% of world defence spending. This means that other countries have more resources to devote to investing in their economy and that any future arms race between the major powers will hit the US hardest. For example, if China and India grow as expected over the next 20 years (China going from 53% of the US to 74%, India from 25% to 40%) then even if they limit their defence spending to the same share of GDP as it is now the US is going to have to raise their spending from the current 4.3% to 6.2% just to keep the ratio between it's spending and theirs the same.

The ratio is not as important as you think. Hard dollar numbers and time will keep the gap widening for some time.

	11-03-2003 09:36									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 Afghanistan? Pakistan already is the 1st "Islamic" nuclear power. Iran will probably be next. I just can't see Afghanistan in the "club" under any circumstances.

Sorry, I miswritten this (I'm exhausted, it's 05:41 here ). I meant Pakistan of course. Pakistan is sure a "Islamic Republic", but its military and administration hasn't fallen to the fundamentalists AFAIK. Should Musharraf fall because of the impossiblity to foster both domestic and American support, Muslim fundamentalists may well get into power - and get their hands on nukes.

	11-03-2003 09:38									#33
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: In general, I think countries who vocally support the US either need them for protection (Japan, South Korea) or try to snatch some power by being buddy-buddy with the hyperpower.

Japan doesn't need US protection and it is not clear that South Korea does either. Your case on the UK and Australia was weak as well. Your best case was with Spain, but I think you underestimate the natural affinity between the conservative Spanish government and the Bush administration. They were cooperating on issues long before Iraq became an issue again, so I doubt you can ascribe Spanish actions to the power struggle in the EU...

	11-03-2003 09:39									#34
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor In general, I think countries who vocally support the US either need them for protection (Japan, South Korea) or try to snatch some power by being buddy-buddy with the hyperpower. They all have their interests. And I remain sure your "friends" will disappoint you as soon as their interests will be diverging. After all, some Americans call France an "enemy" because our interests don't coincide with yours on the Iraq issue. Interesting view of what an ally is, don't you think ?

Would not the same be true of countries on the other side of the issue?

Is this not the fundamental failure of the UN? Countries will always look out for their own national interests first as opposed to their friends?

	11-03-2003 09:41									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Sorry, I miswritten this (I'm exhausted, it's 05:41 here ). I meant Pakistan of course. Pakistan is sure a "Islamic Republic", but its military and administration hasn't fallen to the fundamentalists AFAIK. Should Musharraf fall because of the impossiblity to foster both domestic and American support, Muslim fundamentalists may well get into power - and get their hands on nukes.

This is a scary thought. It is entirely possible that India would take unilateral action to prevent this.

	11-03-2003 09:59									#36
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 Would not the same be true of countries on the other side of the issue? Is this not the fundamental failure of the UN? Countries will always look out for their own national interests first as opposed to their friends?

Even though I'm pro-peace, I acknowledge most countries on this issue have ugly motivations. Bush's emotional appeals to 'liberate Iraq from its evil dictator' only match the hypocrisy of Chirac's emotional appeals of 'avoiding the useless death of women, men, children and elderly'.
Some undecided UNSC members will vote only according to whom gives them most $$$, which is a poor excuse of a foreign policy.
Sure, I think only the Bush admin had ugly reasons to go to war at the beginning of the crisis, so many months ago (simply because they ahd time beforehand to think about it). But it appears to me every country has now taken the stance it believed to bring the most interests or prestige to them or their leaders. Their love towards the US or their care for the Iraqi people do not weight any bit in their decision now, but I admit I'm a pessimist.

As you say it, this is the fundamental failure of the UN. It has plagued the UN from the beginning, as it has always been instrumentalized by the powerful countries, when it comes to security matters.
The UN remains the most solid institution when it comes to international human rights, reconstruction, democratization and such, but it sucks at avoiding the war. I don't remember any war waged by a superpower being rejected by the UN, and I don't remember any UN-led war which went against the interests of a superpower.
Maybe this crisis will make the UN change, and being more efficient on security matters. But this hope is raised everytime the UNSC messes up, which is nearly everytime it decides something

	11-03-2003 10:00									#37
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Sorry to threadjack, just an off question. As has been stated, the US accounts for about 30% of the world's GDP, what was it before the Bush regime? What is it estimated to be in the next while?

	11-03-2003 10:04									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 The "Patriot Act" http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html

Just realized that doesn't work. Try this one:

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr2975terrorismbill.pdf

Well, I can't get that one to work eithier.

The links should work if you copy them

	11-03-2003 10:08									#39
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The link worked if you copy/paste it in the adress bar, but thanks anyways
I'll read it tomorrow. I know really have to sleep
Good night !

	11-03-2003 10:09									#40
	Put an end to popups!

"I think that america's fall from 'hyperpower' status will be exacerbated by the fact that it's spending too much on it's military - the US accounts for around 30% of global GDP (estimated using exchange rates) but 45% of world defence spending."

Actually, the US does not spend that much as a percentage of its GDP on the military, i think it is still under 5%. Also keep in mind a good amount of that spending goes to research and development, which will maintian a US technological edge.

	11-03-2003 10:13									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Their love towards the US or their care for the Iraqi people do not weight any bit in their decision now, but I admit I'm a pessimist. Maybe this crisis will make the UN change, and being more efficient on security matters. But this hope is raised everytime the UNSC messes up, which is nearly everytime it decides something

Spiffor, this is not pessimism. These are the reasons that countries got together to form the UN in the first place. They recognize their failings...they just can't overcome them.

I think that it is doubtful that the UNSC will change in the forseeable future. As you said, the 5 permanent members (or superpowers) have been able to do what they have wanted to in the past. They have no desire to change the status quo.

	11-03-2003 10:14									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor The link worked if you copy/paste it in the adress bar, but thanks anyways I'll read it tomorrow. I know really have to sleep Good night !

Nite Spiffor

	11-03-2003 10:14									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Posted by Zykla:
"Sorry to threadjack, just an off question. As has been stated, the US accounts for about 30% of the world's GDP, what was it before the Bush regime? What is it estimated to be in the next while?"


Well that figure was using exchange rates (which I felt was more appropriate relative to millitary spending which I compared it with)

Here are estimates of the US's share of Global GDP when converted using PPPs to the nearest 0.25% of world GDP:

1920: 25.75%
1930: 26.25%
1940: 24.25%
1950: 30.75%
1960: 26.50%
1970: 24.00%
1980: 22.75%
1990: 21.75%
2000: 21.50%
2010: 20.50%
2020: 19.75%

The 1990-2000 figure is flattered by the large fall in GDP (around 30% to 40%) in the former USSR (10% of world output in 1990, but only 4% in 2000).

In my forecasts I am correcting China's overstated growth rate using PPP data.

	11-03-2003 10:17									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Actually, the US does not spend that much as a percentage of its GDP on the military, i think it is still under 5%. Also keep in mind a good amount of that spending goes to research and development, which will maintian a US technological edge.

If you will actually deign to read the post I clearly state that the current level is 4.3% - the 6.2% is what it will have to rise to to ensure equivalent US military dominance in 2020 over China and India.

	11-03-2003 10:18									#45
	Inflate your Upload Space

Interesting. I would like to look at this data myself. Where did it come from?

	11-03-2003 10:23									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

4.3% seems a little high, unless you are factoring in a potential war this year.

	11-03-2003 10:25									#47
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Most of the data for 1950-1980 is using World Bank estimates of GDP growth (this is from an old set I copied out of one of their yearbooks in the library over a decade ago not sure how to find the data online, sorry).

Data for 1980-2000 is using the IMF figures for world growth however I adjusted US growth to take into account the different measure of inflation that they use - when they switched it added around 0.5% a year to US growth and studies I have done using PPP data suggest that the overstatement of US growth vis-a-vis other countries is also around 0.5%.

Data prior for 1920-1950 is obtained by using industrial production figures from old League of Nations statistical yearbooks and aggregating several studies estimating GDP for other major economies.

Last edited by el freako on 11-03-2003 at 10:30

	11-03-2003 10:27									#48
	Tired of ads?

There is absolutely NO telling if Bush is good or bad for the US until at least 10 years later. It really depends on the Iraq war and the aftermath. If it all goes well, then he is a good prez, if it doesn't, then he is a bad one. The economy and alliances don't matter, the end result of the war do (because of what it would mean for the world).

	11-03-2003 10:28									#49
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DanS 4.3% seems a little high, unless you are factoring in a potential war this year.

Data from the BEA:

Defence Spending in 2002: $447.5bn
GDP in 2002: $10,445.6bn

447.5 / 10,445.6 = 4.3%

It's likely to be at least 4.5% this year.

	11-03-2003 10:28									#50
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DanS Bush has been good for the US.

Congratulations, I missed the announcement you'd got the job as the administration's new Press Secretary.

	11-03-2003 10:44									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

MTG!

Bush hasnt made anyone i know optimistic about the future though. he has no vision of where this country is heading, rather he is just enduring his presidency

	11-03-2003 10:46									#52
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

ef: I would be interested in how that number is disaggregated.

	11-03-2003 10:49									#53
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: he has no vision of where this country is heading,

I think it is actually the opposite; Bush has a clear vision for US foreign policy and that scares people overseas who are fond of the pointless foreign policy of the Clinton years.

	11-03-2003 10:56									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

foreign policy does not make an entire country

	11-03-2003 10:58									#55
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: foreign policy does not make an entire country

It's the aspect most affected and controlled by the executive branch...

	11-03-2003 11:06									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

yet its not the most important aspect of the excutive branch. what has bush done to inspire hope in the american people?

	11-03-2003 11:09									#57
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: yet its not the most important aspect of the excutive branch.

Yes it is...

quote: what has bush done to inspire hope in the american people?

Didn't you see his speech at Ground-Zero?

	11-03-2003 11:10									#58
	Got spare money?

part of it. didnt really help me feel better about the direction of the nation.

	11-03-2003 11:12									#59
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by MRT144 part of it. didnt really help me feel better about the direction of the nation.

just becasue you are cynical, doesnt mean Bush has no vision. Could there ever be a president that would please you?

	11-03-2003 11:23									#60
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I thought he gave an ok speech. Definitely could have been better. You would have to be pretty damn bad to give a bad speech in a time like that. I honestly think that most US presidents could have given a better speech. Probably Ford could have given a speech about as good.