What would the world be like if US pulled out of everywhere? - Page 3

Bereta_Eder · April 30, 2003, 06:06

Chaos would reign! The world decends into regional conflicts
Peace would reign! The world's problem causer has gone home

A correlation of the two.

DinoDoc · April 30, 2003, 06:11

Turkey would have crushed Greece long ago without us. I'll let the reader decide if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

Bereta_Eder · April 30, 2003, 06:13

Simplicity, simplicity.

US going away would also mean the US stops playing Greece and Turkey against eachother and selling weapons.

Bereta_Eder · April 30, 2003, 06:23

Also it means that Turkey, a vile abuser of human rights and international law, will stop having a carte blanche and support from the US etc etc

Chemical Ollie · April 30, 2003, 06:25

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

The presence of 200,000 soldiers and their dependents, plus the local people employed by the US Army, has quite a large effect on the German economy. Withdrawal of the US personel and the...

That sounds like plain BS to me. What difference would 200 000 people (or 70 000 according to Sir Ralph) make on the economy in a rich country with 80 millon inhabitants? Especially if they don't buy that much local goods. A friend of mine was working in Germany for a while and said that the Americans imported their own cars with American plates and everything. What's wrong with BMW:s?

I could imagine that large American bases could have some impact on the economy of Phillipines (especially bars and nightlife) but not in Germany.

Bereta_Eder · April 30, 2003, 06:27

And what do you mean good or bad thing? People dying can be perceived by you as "good thing"?

11 Sept, Vietnam or violence in US streets is a good thing?

Or I should just let the reader decide.

Jack the Bodiless · April 30, 2003, 07:41

Presumably, if the US pulled out of everywere else, then the Navajo would want their ancestral lands back. And the Sioux, and the Cherokee etc.

So everyone else in the US would have to emigrate to the only place with a US flag on it that nobody else has visited and that has no native inhabitants: the Moon.

TCO · April 30, 2003, 08:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

You are greatly overestimating these forces. The bulk already withdrawed in the 90s. There are barely 70,000 soldiers plus their families left, who most of the time are abroad. The numbers you may have heard, are obsolete, and the often mentioned damage to our economy, if it's an issue at all, happened long ago. I think it's time for the rest to go home, too.

I think the French and Belgians and such like us staying there...

Spiffor · April 30, 2003, 08:58

There are no American bases in France, and I really don't miss them

American bases in Germany are nearly autarchic, and bring much less to the German economy than a German city of 70.000.

The real loss for the Germans, if the Yanks leave, is that many very American products won't be found anywhere. Americans sure can teach a lesson to the Germans when it comes to T-bones :yum:

TCO · April 30, 2003, 09:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
There are no American bases in France, and I really don't miss them

American bases in Germany are nearly autarchic, and bring much less to the German economy than a German city of 70.000.

The real loss for the Germans, if the Yanks leave, is that many very American products won't be found anywhere. Americans sure can teach a lesson to the Germans when it comes to T-bones :yum:

You didn't understand my point. I'm saying those other countries like having occupution of Germany.

TCO · April 30, 2003, 09:21

I;m not really serious.

PLATO · April 30, 2003, 10:45

Okay, let's assume a force level of 70,000 for US forces in Germany (I'll admit my original data could be dated and I can't find a link to get current data.)

Lets also assume that each soldier provides a modest US$700 per month to the local economy. What do these numbers really mean?

700 X 70,000 = US$49,000,000

Annualized, this equals 49,000,000 X 12 = $588,000,000

The last generally accepted multiplier effect for dollars spent that I am aware of is an economic impact of $3 for every $1 spent. This gives us an economic impact of:

588,000,000 X 3 = $1,764,000,000

per year!

This figure does not include regular employment provided to German nationals (which is extensive) and the economic impact of their incomes upon the German economy.

As long as I am assuming, then lets assume 15,000 German nationals employed at an annual salary of US$20,000. (Admittedly these figures are simply pulled out of the air and are only for sake of argument)

15,000 X 20,000 = 300,000,000

Using the multiplier effect gives us:

300,000,000 X 3 = $900,000,000

per year.

This would make the total direct impact on the German economy:

1,764,000,000 + 900,000,000 = $2,664,000,000

Now let's further assume that the cost in wages lost due to German business contracting due to the above mentioned economic loss at 1/3 of the total and we get:

2,664,000,000/3 + 2,664,000,000 = $3,552,000,000

With an economic impact of over $3.5 billion per year, one could hardly say that the German economy wouldn't notice.

TCO · April 30, 2003, 11:26

There is undoubtedly some beneficial economic aspect of having US troops there. But I would also add the value of the bases to the other side. If the Germans convert some of the land used to civilian use, that may have benefits to the economy.

DarthVeda · April 30, 2003, 13:06

$3.5 billion worth? I doubt that.

gunkulator · April 30, 2003, 13:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
American bases in Germany are nearly autarchic, and bring much less to the German economy than a German city of 70.000.

Hard to say. The few soldiers I've known in Germany note that it really is one of the better places to be stationed as far as going out into the country. All applaud the beer (of course) but most also take advantage of tourism along with the chance to buy a German car at a much better price than they could get back home.

Spiffor · April 30, 2003, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by gunkulator
Hard to say. The few soldiers I've known in Germany note that it really is one of the better places to be stationed as far as going out into the country. All applaud the beer (of course) but most also take advantage of tourism along with the chance to buy a German car at a much better price than they could get back home.

Yes, but on a daily life, all commodities of these soldiers are directly imported from the US. Sure, there are some interactions with the local economy, but nothing buying your everyday food at a German store, getting your fuel at a German Tankstelle, etc etc.

DinoDoc · April 30, 2003, 13:21

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
And what do you mean good or bad thing?

It took you 3 posts to notice that. You really are slipping.

TCO · April 30, 2003, 13:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes, but on a daily life, all commodities of these soldiers are directly imported from the US. Sure, there are some interactions with the local economy, but nothing buying your everyday food at a German store, getting your fuel at a German Tankstelle, etc etc.

You have a point there. But there is also the issue of not using much social services. (so less of a cost.)

PLATO · April 30, 2003, 13:46

My original assumptions are based on an influx of only $700 per month from the US soldiers. Considering that they are living there, and most have spouses I don't think that this is unrealistic even given that much of their staples come from the US. The are still using German utilities and German fuel, as well as buying many things "on the economy". My wife lived in Germany for 3 years with her 1st husband in the late 1980's and tells me that $700 per month would be conservative even back then.

Chemical Ollie · April 30, 2003, 20:23

3.5 Billion dollars? First of all, Germany doesn't use $, they use €...

And assuming your calculation is correct, which I doubt, as the American soldiers bring a lot of goods from home instead of buying it in Germany (according to what I heard and what others said in this thread), 3.5 billion € is only about 44 € per citizen. About half a days salary for a German industry worker. A fart in cosmos.

yavoon · April 30, 2003, 20:26

half a days salary for every citizen in a country is hardly a fart in ne cosmos. but if u think otherwise. then I would like to request that every swedish citizen fart half a days worth of salary into a lil cosmos I call "yav's bank account."

in which case I will agree w/ u.

PLATO · April 30, 2003, 20:30

Olaf, Sorry I didn't put it in Euros. Unfortunately, I just don't have a use to keep up with exchange rates nor the inclination to do the math.

Obviously and as repeatedly stated the calculations were based upon assumptions. So far I haven't seen a resonable reply to refute them. It is easy to say "I doubt that" without providing any logical alternative, isn't it?

kmad · April 30, 2003, 20:32

OK, so if this is a debate about what the world would be like without US intervention.....
Allies probably still would have won WWII, German forces were annihilated on the Russian front, the whole Cold War would most likely still have happened, but not have been the all out paranoia fest that it was, more or less simliar to the 'phoney war' that the Germans staged before their invasion of Poland, only more threatening, but would still have ended 15 years ago. (yes, if this really were, we'd still have Pav here for those few years)
And if the Americans had stayed out of Japan's business in the 30's and not put embargoes on oil, they wouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbour, but would most likely had control of all of China and the Orient, and the Americans woudln't have needed to go to war against the japanese. And w/Japanese control in Asia, who knows what kind of economic influence woulda come out of it. Would China have become Communist or not? What about N.Korea, and N.Vietnam? Those two wars would not have happened if Japan had taken over China, and kept Communism out, and preventing further leakage of it.
So, there goes those conflicts.
The wars in the Arabic nations? Those would probably have happened still. USA's didn't really cause anything there.
Gulf War I? Obvious...
same for Gulf War II..
US would not have trained Osama, or put Saddam in power if they had just stayed out, the whole Middle East would be more at peace if they had just let things go there as well..there'd still be ur screw ups, like in afghanistan, etc, but things'd be bettr off...
The world wold be completely different if the US hadnt intervened and stayed out of most nations business. I dont see these terrorist attacks happening against American posts happening either. US basically trying to be the great problem solver seems to always make things worse and causing more harm than good, with a couple exceptions...

PLATO · April 30, 2003, 20:34

kmad, what about if we pulled out now? How do you think the world would be different for the next 50 years as opposed to the last 50?

Chemical Ollie · April 30, 2003, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Olaf, Sorry I didn't put it in Euros. Unfortunately, I just don't have a use to keep up with exchange rates nor the inclination to do the math.

A good estimation is 1:1. Right now, the $ is 10% or so below the € but a year ago it was the other way around.

I won't reply more on the thread topic tonight, as it's far beyond bed time for me already ...

PLATO · April 30, 2003, 20:47

Nite Olaf. Sleep well

Kirnwaffen · April 30, 2003, 21:10

A US pullout around the world would have a drastic effect on US military preparedness. We lose training grounds, air bases for transport, forwardly deployed troops, etc.

If you ask me, that translates into trouble when some of the less scrupulous folks in the world realize that we can't touch 'em. And no offense to Europe, but I don't exactly see anyone there intervening in place of the US, except for perhaps Britain.

Unfortunately, as much as British military power is appreciated, they simply don't have the same ability to project it as the US currently does.

I don't think that any of this translates into less resentment towards the US. In fact, the perception of weakness combined with resentment will probably encourage more terrorism, blackmail, etc.

BTW, Plato: The only reason I might question your figures is US Army salary. $700 a month translates into a third or a fourth of the average soldier's salary. With most goods being purchased on base, I just don't see that much being contributed to the local economy.

PLATO · April 30, 2003, 21:20

Kirnwaffen, that was the exact discussion I had with my wife about that figure. She tells me that most of the stuff on base is purchased locally when possible. In addition, she says that after you have been there for a year or so you tend to go out "on the economy" (her words for doing things off base) much more often. She tells me $700/mo is probably conservative.

Any 'poly posters been in the USArmy in Germany?