About 'debt collection agencies ireland'|week ending Dec 17
Introduction Over 50 years has passed since western European countries started banning together to form what is today known as the European Union. This transition has been gradual but significant, and today most of Western Europe is a part of this sub-continental union. In exchange for a portion of their individual country sovereignty (Reid, 2004, pg. 1), members of the European Union have acquired added power in international trade, internal economic stability and the ability to travel, live and conduct business with other EU entities without the political barriers that once existed. (Lerner, 2004). However, while there is an obvious advantage to forming such a union, the United States has been somewhat blind to the growing power the European Union has developed, and has even been blind to their growing interest in American businesses. The economic power that the European Union has established is derived from their amassed wealth, their majority presence in most international trade organizations and from their strategic investments in both U.S. businesses and in other foreign businesses and markets. (Reid, 2004, pg. 1 and Ahammad & Glaister, 2008). Their publicized position on their new found economic power is that it will be benignly used to lead the world towards responsible economics and peace. (Anonymous, 2008). However, one can only wonder if the role as a new world economic superpower will lead the EU to revive its leaders' thirst for world domination via moral/economical neo-colonialism. History of the European Union Shortly after World War II many Western European nations worried about the potential that Europe would be a battleground for the next World War, this one waged primarily between the United States and Russia. (Peters, 1999). After half a century of intense warfare, Europe had no superpowers left, their economies were drained and their lands ravaged. (BBC, 2003). This made each country vulnerable to invasion and manipulation by the last two remaining superpowers, the U.S. and Russia. In an attempt to protect their remaining assets, several Western European countries started talks about the possibility of a European unification. The Development of the EU The first step towards a European Union was the development of a 1950 agreement aimed at combining the steel and coal resources of European countries. (Peters, 1999). This agreement was proposed by Robert Shuman, who was the French foreign ministers at the time, and a revised version of this proposal was implemented in 1952 as the European Coal and Steel Community. This collaboration involved the steel and coal resources of Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg and West Germany. (Peters, 1999). By 1958 this successful cooperative expanded to include numerous commodities and trade activities, and was renamed the European Economic Community. This organization was the foundation of what we now call the European Union, however, a few steps were still required before the official unification would occur. In 1992 the Treaty of Maatricht created the official European Union and it added defense, home affairs, justice and a common currency to the activities managed by the cooperative. (Peters, 1999). By 2005, the European Union had 25 official members including: "Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom." (Peters, 1999). The EU also had 4 candidate countries waiting to be admitted to the union. Organization of the EU The EU is made up of three main governing bodies, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission. (Peters, 1999 & Anonymous, 1995). The Council of the European Union is made up of representatives from each member country and it is the main governing body for the EU. This is where most of the decision making is made. The European Parliament is intended to represent the interests of the citizens of the European Union. This governing body is mainly responsible for establishing and managing the EU budget. The final governing body, the European Commission focuses its efforts on the wellbeing of the entire continent of Europe. This is the EU's representative arm. This is where issues are discussed and debated before they are sent to the other governing bodies for action. (Peters, 1999). Membership Requirements While it may seem logical that a governing body called the "European Union" would open its membership to all of the countries in Europe, this is not the case. Since one of the purposes of this organization is to promote democracy and human rights, there are several requirements that countries have to meet before they are allowed to pledge their application to this group. The most important requirement is that the country has to have some form of representative government, this includes democracies and parliamentary government systems. (Lerner, 2004). The second requirement to join the EU is that the candidate country has to have a "functioning market economy." (Larobina, 2001). Other requirements include "the ability to compete competitively with existing market forces within the Union," the ability to "meet the obligations of Union members" including accepting the laws that have already been established by the EU and the accession of the new country "can't jeopardize the level of integrity the Union has already attained." (Larobina, 2001). As can be ascertained by these requirements, the EU is dedicated to creating a politically and economically stable organization that will be strengthened with each new member. European Union Financial Profile Overall, the European Union has the strongest economic profile in the world. Even the United States is outperformed by the EU in terms of economic strength and viability. With a population of 490.426 million people the EU has a GDP of US$13.08 trillion (2006 est.). (Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, 2007). In comparison, the United States' GDP for the same year was US$12.4558 trillion (World Bank, World Development Indicators online Database, 2006), which is nearly five percent less than the EU's GDP. In addition to having a strong GDP the EU also has a reasonable unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, a low inflation rate of 1.9 percent and a steady and strong annual growth rate of 2.9 percent. (Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, 2007). Compared to the United States, the EU has a higher unemployment rate, as the U.S.'s unemployment rate is about 4.63 percent (Anonymous, 2006) so in this area the U.S. is stronger, however, the United States inflation rate is higher at 3.24 percent (Anonymous, 2006) and its annual growth rate is lower at 1.88 percent. (Anonymous, 2008). Economic Resources EU's stellar GDP was created by utilizing the amazing stores of natural resources, agricultural resources and industrial resources that the EU members have at their disposal. In terms of natural resources the EU has: iron ore, natural gas, petroleum, copper ore, lead, hydropower, arable land, uranium, coal, potash and zinc. (Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, 2007). These natural resources are primarily used to support the EU industrial activities, which include the production and processing of ferrous metals and nonferrous metals, machining tools, producing electronics, fishing, manufacturing furniture, producing textiles, manufacturing metal products, designing and producing automated manufacturing systems, building telecommunication equipment, producing foodstuff products, and manufacturing paper products. (Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, 2007). Agriculture is also an important factor in the strength of the EU economy. EU countries spend a lot of their money on supporting agricultural industries so that they are less dependent on food imports and to support their foodstuff export market. Some of the agricultural products that EU members produce include: wheat, oilseeds, wine, dairy products, sheep, poultry, barley, sugar beets, grapes, cattle, pigs and fish. (Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, 2007). This diversity in economies and money making industries further strengthens the EU economic profile. The Euro Perhaps the most instrumental factor to the emergence of the EU as an economic superpower is the Euro. (Peters, 1999). The simple act of having a single currency for Europe has allowed the EU to create a much stronger and stable currency (Pomeroy, 2004) and consequently a mush more secure economy. This has allowed EU members to bypass many problems that are currently affecting many foreign currencies including fluctuating currency exchange rates and cross border price dispersion. (Gil-Pareja, 2004). As the global economy has evolved many countries have had to deal with the fluctuations in exchange rates. (Anonymous, 1999). These fluctuations can make international trade difficult because the value of each country's currency changes on a daily basis. This can make a lucrative trade agreement less valuable or more valuable depending on what the current exchange rates are for the countries involved in the deal on the day the deal is executed. The EU gets around this problem by having a single currency for all its member countries. This means that a trade deal proposed by a U.K. firm will be valued the same in Spain as it would in Slovakia because they all use the Euro as their official currency. This minimizes confusion and makes trade between EU members easier and more efficient to do. (Peters, 1999). Price dispersion is another issue that international trade has to deal with. Price dispersion is a variation in prices charged to different buyers for the same exact product. (Gil-Paregaj, 2004). The EU gets around this problem by using the Euro as their common currency. By eliminating, or at least reducing the amount of price dispersion within the EU trade circles, political tension can be reduced, mutually beneficial trade relationships can be developed and a stronger negotiating platform can be developed for EU members. This provides the EU with a very stable economic structure that will keep the EU in the top economic position as a world superpower. European Union Individual Member Contributions The operating budget for the European Union is comprised of contributions made by each member country. Each member country is required to pay to the EU one percent of their GDP. This contribution process produced an operating budget of US$129.2 billion in 2008 alone. (Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, 2007). This money is used to run projects funded by the EU, as well as to maintain EU organizations. However, the real economic power that the EU has derives from the pooled resources of its member countries. (Reid, 2004, pg. 247-270) EU Member GDP ($US Billion) EU Member GDP ($US Billion) Ireland 92.722 Austria 227.14 U.K. 1441.449 Italy 1442.5 Portugal 113.8 Poland 370.5 Spain 595.728 Czech Republic 157.59 France 1432.448 Slovakia 65.88 Belgium 247.86 Hungary 134.33 The Netherlands 437.92 Slovenia 34.2 Luxembourg 2.22006 Greece 201.4 Norway 161.9968 Cyprus 11.505 Denmark 159.03 Malta 6.749 Sweden 225.72 The Baltic States 15.26 Finland 136.24 Latvia 19.92 Germany 2215.78 Lithuania 29.88 Switzerland 231.41 Total EU GDP 10211.17786 (Reid, 2004, pg. 247-270) As is illustrated by the above figures, the GDP of each EU member is small and relatively insignificant when compared to the GDP of the United States. However, when the financial resources, natural resources and labor resources from all of the individual member countries are combined, they create a GDP and economic profile that will be difficult to rival by any single country, including the United States. Threat Analysis From the most basic standpoint the evolution of the European Union has steadily created an economic threat to the United States simply by pooling their available economic resources. This pooling allows the EU to remain strong even when one country struggles with higher unemployment rates or low GDPs, because the stronger members make up for the struggling countries' deficits. This pooling also provides the EU with the largest collection of wealth in the world to work with to fund its program, to invest in foreign and domestic commerce and to provide its citizens with social services that allow them to live a comfortable lifestyle regardless of their actual annual income. (Reid, 2004, pg. 144-176). This strategy not only produces loyal internal members to the EU, but it forces external players to take a submissive role when dealing with EU firms and governmental agencies. This is a role that the U.S. has not had to play since before the World Wars of the 20th century. It is unclear how the U.S. will respond to this new role, or how much tension it will cause between the EU and the U.S. The largest economic threat that the European Union poses to the United States comes from the strength of the Euro. The Euro, which the United States has all but ignored, has taken control of both EU markets and foreign markets as "the" currency of choice. Its stability and high value has lead many nations' central banks to use it as its primary valuation currency as opposed to the U.S. dollar, which has traditionally been used as the primary valuation currency. Because of this, American businesses and government agencies conducting international business deals have to carry the expense for currency exchange rates. (Reid, 2004, pg. 85-86). Another problem that has emerged from the worldwide preference of the Euro, is that the U.S. government now has to pay higher interest rates to finance its debt via U.S. Treasury bonds because foreign country central banks have devalued the U.S. dollar's performance potential. This means that financing the growing U.S. budget deficit is now more expensive than ever before. (Reid, 2004, pg. 85-86). Foreign Investments Right now the European Union is the "largest trading entity in the world." (Anonymous, 1995). This is due to several factors including the EU's dedication to creating lucrative trade agreements that promote free trade arrangements with countries outside of the EU. For example, in 1992 the EU entered into a very lucrative deal with European Free Trade Association that broadened the trade possibilities with then non-members of the EU. (Anonymous, 1995). By 1994 the EU had negotiated several new trade deals with the Ukraine, Kyrgystan, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Moldova, as well numerous African, Pacific and Caribbean countries. (Anonymous, 1995). The United Kingdom The United Kingdom is one of the most active investors in foreign markets. Between 1996 and 2005 they spent over 520 billion pounds sterling, or US$772.98 billion on cross-border mergers and acquisitions (Ahammad and Glaister, 2008) as can be seen in the graph found below. However, the amount of direct foreign investments into the U.K. has been a relative rollercoaster over the last decade. In 1997 the U.K. received US$30.17595 billion (Anonymous, 1999) in direct foreign investments. This amount increased in 1998 to US$57.3789 billion. (Anonymous, 1999). The growth in direct foreign investments continued to increase to a record high of US$130 billion in 2000 (Anonymous, 2001 and Thornton, 2003). However, this peak was followed by a sharp decline in 2001 to US$62 billion and another decline in 2002 to US$25 billion. (Thornton, 2003). After several disappointing years, things finally started to turn around for the U.K. and by 2005 direct foreign investments in U.K. firms were up 33 percent (Thornton, 2005) producing a record year of US$219 billion, which pushed U.K. ahead of the United States in FDI (foreign direct investments). (Anonymous, 2006). (Ahammad and Glasiter, 2008) Interest in the United States The strength of the EU is heavily tied to their trade with the United States. In fact, the United States is the number one trade partner that the EU has. (Anonymous, 1995). EU investments in the U.S. account for 66 percent of the world's foreign direct investments. (Moravcsik, 2007). The U.S. has also invested a sizable amount of money in EU firms. For example, the U.S. invests more capital in small EU countries like Switzerland and Belgium, than they do in large countries like China and India. The reason behind these investment strategies is obvious, U.S. firms make more money with their EU investments then their China/India investments. In 2006 the U.S. investment earnings produced by U.S. direct foreign investments in Swiss firms produced 400 percent larger returns than its investments in Chinese firms produced and 2300 percent larger returns than its India investments produced. (Moravcsik, 2007). Brand Corporation Country Annual Revenue DKNY LVMH France 95.80 M (DKNY only) Pearl Vision Luxottica Italy 232.60M (Pearl Vision only) Brooks Brothers R.B.Alliance Italy 260.20M (Brooks Brothers only) Archway Cookies Parmalat Italy 900.9M* (Total Parmalat) Hellman's Mayonnaise, Dove Soap, Vaseline, Bird's Eye Frozen Foods, and more Unilever Netherlands 58.214B (Total Unilever) Mazola Oil and other Best Foods Products ABF U.K. 8.6B (Total ABF) Libby's Pineapple, Taster's Choice and other Nestle Products Nestle Switzerland 74.6586B (Total Nestle) Hawaiian Punch, Snapple and other products Cadbury Schweppes U.K. 527.1915M (Total Cadbury Schweppes) Total 143.489B * Based on 9 month revenue 1998 (SEC, 2008, CNBC.com, 2008, Anonymous, 2000, CNNMONey.com, 2008, Anonymous, 2007, & Yahoo! Finance, 2008) Over the last decade European companies have been focusing a large portion of their capital on American investments. The appeal of buying American companies or opening companies in the U.S. as opposed to buying EU companies and opening companies in an EU country is that the strength of the Euro and the relative weakness of the US dollar make it much cheaper to own and operate businesses in the U.S. (Naim, 2008, pg. 97). The affordability of U.S. commerce can be illustrated by looking at how the shift in currency strength has made it possible for so many EU firms to move across the Atlantic. For example, the growth of the Euro and the decline of the U.S. dollar over the last five years now make it about 26.5 percent cheaper for EU firms to buy a company in the U.S. (Naim, 2008, pg. 97). In addition to the affordability of acquiring new businesses, EU firms are also finding it cheaper to operate their businesses in the U.S. than in EU countries. The operating cost difference between an American firm and an EU firm is caused by a 16 percent higher EU payroll cost and a 60 percent higher EU energy cost. (Naim, 2008, pg. 97). Threat Analysis The European Union is "the largest trading entity in the world." (Anonymous, 1995). However, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is the strongest or most influential. When you examine the EU as a trading entity it is difficult to predict how it will shape the future of the global economy. What is obvious is that the EU has the financial resources and the size needed to take control of the global economy and to direct transactions and trade methodologies. However, as to date, the EU has really only established trade relationships that benefit the EU and that are designed to open trade up for the EU as well as other non-EU countries. These activities are beneficial to the United States in that they break down some trade barriers, such as large tariffs and price dispersions, however, an underlying threat does exist. If the EU is seen as the puppet master of the world's trade relationships, they can easily manipulate these relationships to give themselves an overt advantage in international trade, or they can punish the U.S. for non-compliance to their political and economic demands. This could cost the U.S. significantly, and could create trade and political barriers between the world's two economic superpowers. It is not practical to predict if the EU will be able to retain its current title as the world's top economic superpower. After all it really has only been a solvent union since 1992. In the years since it was officiated, the EU has experienced ups and downs, and has faced internal turmoil. For example, the historical political rivalries and tension between European nations continuously causes turmoil in the EU. In 2003 a tasteless comparison of a German socialist MEP to a Nazi concentration camp leader sparked political and social turmoil throughout the EU. (Castle, 2003). This is not an isolated incident, as name calling and internal feuds between countries and political parties seems commonplace within the governing bodies of the EU. Just look at the fallout from the remarks made by a member of the social democratic party that stated that the "U.S. wants to stay in Iraq to control the oil." (Anonymous, 2003). This remark was not criticized because it attacked the U.S., but because it went against the majority opinion of the EU Commission. This suggests that dissent from the majority opinion of the EU governing bodies is going to be fuel for turmoil and this will undoubtedly weaken the longevity and stability of the EU. The real threat to the United State derives from the substantial number of foreign investment relationships that exist between United States firms and EU firms. These relationships have become so numerous that the failure of one economy will inevitable lead to the failure, or at least the weakening of the other. The United States invests most of its foreign investment capital in EU firms and vise versa. This creates a situation where the U.S. needs to be more aware of how inter-twind the US economy now is with the EU economy. If U.S firms and consumers fail to understand how present the EU is in the United States, we could fall prey to economic manipulation by the EU. For example, the EU could threaten to pull its investments from the U.S. causing the U.S. to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in taxable business revenue, if the U.S. doesn't bow down to their international trade morals and philosophies, such as opening up trade with countries that the U.S. now boycotts like Cuba. Controlling International Business In addition to having a the largest pool of wealth to draw from to orchestrate its own internal business deals, the European Union also uses its new position as an economic superpower to control business on an international level as well. The European Union has made it known that they not only have the power to monitor and control large business deals that affect their members, but that they are more than willing to flex their economic muscle power to ensure the outcomes they want are achieved. (European Union, 2008). The most blatant example of this flexing was witnessed during the annihilation of the GE/Honeywell merger back in July of 2001. (Reid, 2004, pg. 88). This merger, if it had been completed, would have been worth US$45 billion, which was the largest deal in history. (Reid, 2004, pg. 89). However, the European Union felt that the merger would infringe on international antitrust laws and so they went head to head with the U.S. Justice Department to stop the merger. To the United States' surprise, and to the surprise of G.E. and Honeywell, the EU was successful at shooting down this merger. This was not the first big merger that the EU had been successful at stopping, in 2000 it had preemptively shot down a merger between MCI and Sprint before the U.S. officials even had a chance to review the deal. (Reid, 2004, pg. 90). Other deals that were halted by the EU include mergers proposed by the Coca Cola Company and by Microsoft. (Reid, 2004, pg. 90-91). However, what is interesting, is that if you look at the track record reported by the European Union, they only claim to have stopped the G.E.-Honeywell merger. They do not list the other above mentioned proposed mergers. (European Union, 2008). The European Union claim that they are working towards open but responsible international trade and economic methodologies. They report that their heavyhandedness towards international mergers, especially those that involve U.S. companies, is exaggerated. They claim that the only merger they stopped was the one proposed on July 3, 2001 by General Electrics and Honeywell. (European Union, 2008). They further claim that nay sayers are failing to report on are their 906 mergers that involve U.S. companies that they have approved. (European Union, 2008). This creates a somewhat contradictory portrait of the European Union, one that will need to be clarified quickly by the United States to prevent international static from inhibiting valuable mergers and international deals from being successful executed. Threat Analysis While the European Union claims that its goal is not to impede international business (Von Wogau and Rapp-Jung, 2008, pg. 47) but to develop a more lucrative and level playing ground for international trade, their actions seem to contradict this position. To start with, they have routinely punished and impeded the international business practices of large U.S. corporations by imposing large fines and implementing merger impediments. For example, in 2004 the EU fined Microsoft, which does about "30 percent of its business in Europe" (Geitner, 2004) $615 million for "alleged antitrust abuses." (Geitner, 2004). In 2000 it caused so much problems for the MCI/Sprint merger that it was abandoned before the U.S. Justice System had the chance to evaluate the merger, and in 2001 it effectively shot down the General Electrics/Honeywell merger. (Reid, 2004). In addition to taking control of international mergers and antitrust situations, the European Union has begun to branch out its controlling mechanisms and strategies for international business. For example, in 2007 the EU coerced Kraft to sell new brands in Spain and Hungary, in exchange for the EU's approval of their acquisition of the Danone's Biscuit Business. (Anonymous, 2007). They further extended their reach by implementing new legislation that would address the validity of lumber acquisitions for building and manufacturing by their members as well as by non-EU members. (Anonymous, 2008). It is clear that the current strategies used by the European Union to control international business have the potential for both good and bad. On the positive side, the EU is taking steps to stop illegal logging and immoral trade practices (Anonymous, 2008), however, they are also taking more liberties on what business deals they feel that they are entitled to weigh in on and control. This is where the threat to the United States is going to stem from. If the European Union continues to interfere with large scale mergers, and to override judgments on antitrust cases, the United States may find it difficult to maintain control of their own economy and businesses. This could be devastating to the U.S. economy as well as to the worldview of the United States. For example, if the EU takes control of all international mergers and large U.S. company mergers, then the world's countries may feel that the U.S. government is weakening and this would make the U.S. a target for hostilities, international terrorism strikes and possible invasion conspiracies. EU Military Power While the European Union has not made formal declarations that they intend to become a military superpower, or that they intend to try and overtake the United States as a military superpower, recent activities by the EU suggest otherwise. In 2004 funding was approved by the foreign minister of the European Union to create the European Defense Agency. (Anonymous, 2004). This agency was developed to sure up the defense deficiencies of its member countries. As reported, the European Defense Agency will be spending two million Euros to start up this agency and spend an average of 25 million Euros a year on hardware purchases, staffing, and promoting European defense research. (Anonymous, 2004). This is the first step in a six year program that intends on developing nine battlegroups with quick deployment capabilities, the acquisition of an aircraft carrier, the development of an air and naval escort for their aircraft carrier, the development of an airlift command system and a defense communications network (with satellites) by the year 2010. (Anonymous, 2004). The Threat While the European Union is starting to spend money on defense and they are starting to develop their own defense system, their spending is minute compared to what the United States spends. (Dempsey, 2008). For example, in 2005 the EU planned to spend 25 million Euros which is about US$37.1625 million (Anonymous, 2004), while the United States spent US$521 billion on defense in 2004. (Anonymous, 2004). As this comparison shows, the military threat produced by the EU is almost non-existent. However, this first figure is somewhat misleading, after all the European Union's defense spending is only a small portion of what each member of the union is also spending on their defense systems. When these figures are taken into account a much more impressive defense budget is realized. Right now it is estimated that each EU member spends an average of 1.78 percent of their GDP on defense, the U.S. spends about 4.7 percent of its GDP on defense. (Anonymous, 2008). This clearly shows that the U.S. has a significant advantage when it comes to military strength. However, the European Defense Agency announced in April 2008 that it was aiming at increasing its members' defense spending to two percent of their GDP. (Anonymous, 2008). While this is still less than half of the U.S. defense spending ratio, it does raise a red flag for the possibility of continued increases in EU defense spending. Year U.S. Defense Spending Total EU Defense Spending 2005 $624 billion $296 billion 2006 $755 billion $309 billion (Anonymous, 2008) However, while the European Union is increasing the amount of money they are investing in defense, there is only a marginal chance that they will ever be able to work together as single military unit as the German foreign minister hopes. (Castle, 1998). This is because each member of the EU is responsible for their own defense and counterterrorism systems. The amount of money that each member spends on defense is based, not on a static percentage of their GDP proposed by the EU, but on their self-perceived threat of attack and on their country's financial position. (Armitrage, 2007). This coupled with the political and philosophical differences that exist between EU members, especially in regards to military spending, make it highly unlikely that the EU defense system will ever be more than just a defense patch for deficits in domestic defense systems already in place in its members' homelands. In regards to the threat that the development of an EU military could have on the United States' economy, a slightly more realistic threat does exist. In this case the EU could use its marginal military power to block U.S. commercial vessels from ports, or it could call on the United States to supplement its military to protect its assets. Both of these actions could cost the United States billions of dollars. These types of economic problems are more likely then problems caused by offensive military actions aimed at the U.S. Summary of the Economic Threats Posed by the EU Evolution Currently the European Union is not posing more than a moderate threat to the stability of the United States. However, time will only tell if the seemingly benign EU will lead to a raised threat level. Summarized below are the perceived EU threats and their threat analyses. 1. The European Union has control of the largest mass of wealth in the world. Their collective GDP is $13.08 trillion compared to the United States' $12.4558 trillion GDP. The threat level for this issue is high. The more money that the EU has to work with, the more power they will have over international economies, international politics and international relationships. The United States needs to watch how the EU uses their wealth over the next several years to determine how the money is used and how well it is managed. 2. The Euro is replacing the US dollar as the primary valuation currency in international markets. This is another issue that needs to be rated with a high threat level. Already the United States' economy has been negatively affected by the Euro's superior performance. For example, it has raised the price for financing U.S. debts and it has forced U.S. businesses to carry exchange rate costs on their international deals. 3. The European Union is considered to be the world's largest trading entity. This too needs to be rated with a high threat risk. Its presence in most of the world's top trade organizations often times overrules U.S. votes within these organizations. This gives the EU a significant advantage in international business deals and policy making sessions. If left unchecked, this could force U.S. businesses and the U.S. government to accept deals and policies that it doesn't agree with or feel are fair. 4. The European Union is interested in controlling international business. Right now this issue has a moderate threat risk. While there have been instances where the EU has interfered in U.S. business deals, or impacted U.S. businesses in a negative way, their actions have traditionally been positive. For example, there are only a few examples of the EU stopping a merger or fining a large U.S. corporation, while there are over 900 examples of allowed mergers and multiple examples of positive steps the EU has taken to make international trade more efficient, more eco-friendly and more moral. 5. The European Union has a deep and complicated relationship with the United States. This issue is also rated as a moderate threat risk. While it has the potential to impact the U.S. economy is a very negative way, right now that seems unlikely, as the EU economy is just as dependent on the health of the U.S. economy as the U.S. is dependent on the continued investments and business relationships that they have with the EU. Because of this reason, it is unlikely that the EU would risk their own financial security to "make a point" or to "make an example" of the U.S. 6. The EU is beefing up their military. This issue is classified as a low threat risk. Right now the EU is spending only a small fraction of what the U.S. spends on defense. With the social and political systems set up with the EU it is unlikely that the EU would be able to get approval for the amount of defense spending that would be required to even come close to the military capabilities of the United States. However, this does not mean the United States can turn their backs to the EU. Their military development needs to be monitored and kept in check to avoid problems and potential threats in the future. 7. The EU's military poses economic threats that the U.S. can't ignore. Another low risk threat that exists is the potential for the EU military to engage in activities that will require the U.S. to back them up. In this case the U.S. would need to spend millions or even billions of dollars to supplement the inferior military, or militaries, of the EU. Conclusion The economic threat that the European Union poses is serious, but right now it is not terminal. The primary threats come from the traditional need of European countries to control and groom other countries to conform to morals and philosophies that they feel are appropriate. As was seen during the 17th and 18th centuries when European colonialism created deep seated devastation around the world, it is possible the same type of negative outcome could develop if the EU power over international business is not kept in check. While the EU isn't trying to physically re-colonize the world, they seem to be applying many of the same underlying principals of colonization via economic policies. In order to protect its interests, and to avoid being subjected to economic neo-colonialism fostered by the European Union, the United States needs to not only recognize the threats that the evolving European Union poses, such as their ability to control and manipulate international business deals, but they also have to take counter active measures to ensure their own position of economic power in the global economy, such as participating more animatedly in international trade organizations and taking a more active role in international business law debates and policy making sessions. This is not the time to turn a blind eye to the EU. This strategy has already cost the U.S. billions of dollars in interest and business deals. Now is the time to be a world leader, something the United States once prided itself in doing. References Ahmmad, Mohammed Faisal and Glaister, Keith W. (2008). Recent trends in U.K. cross-border mergers and acquisitions." Management Research News, 31(2): 86-98. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://www.proquest Anonymous. (1995, June 26). "Fact sheet: European Union." US Department of State Dispatch. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n26_v6/ai_17210407 Anonymous. (1999, November 22). "Fluctuating currencies a concern for traders." Business Asia. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BJT/is_22_7/ ai_58079842?tag=content;col1 Anonymous. (1999, December 16). "Foreign investments in U.K. grows." The London Independent. Online version accessed 08.31.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19991216/ai_n14265245?tag=content;col 1 Anonymous. (2000). "Rafhan Best foods Limited." PakSearch.com Retrieved 08.30.08 from the World Wide Web from http://www.paksearch.com/annual/annual00/RAFHAN.htm Anonymous. (2001, J uly 12). "Record foreign investment in U.K." The London Independent. Online version accessed 08.31.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010712/ai_n14415466?tag=content;col 1 Anonymous. (2003, May 9). "Danish EU Commissioner creates turmoil with remark." Nordic Business Report. Online version accessed 08.31.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HXI/is_2003_May_9/ai_n25067644?tag=content; col1 Anonymous. (2004, August). "European Union defense." Signal. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5439/is_200408/ai_n21353813 Anonymous. (2005). "Economic activity and trade." Europa. Retrieved from the World Wide Web 08.30.08 from http://europa.eu/abc/keyfigures/index_en.htm Anonymous. (2006). "The UK attracted $219 billion in foreign investments - beating the United States." Business Wire. Online version accessed 08.31.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_March_3/ai_n26781211?tag=conte nt;col1 Anonymous. (2006). "The U.S. unemployment rate - 1948 to 2007." Misery Index. Retrieved 08.31.08 from the World Wide Web from http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp Anonymous. (2007). "Cadbury Schweppes." Investis Retrieved 08.30.08 from the World Wide Web from http://www.invvestis.com/cadburyschweppes/reports/anr2006/fs/csrie.html Anonymous. (2007, November 19). "The European Union." Food & Drink Weekly. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_45_13/ai_n21121583 Anonymous. (2008). "US gross domestic product GDP forecast." Forecasts Retrieved 08.31.08 from the World Wide Web from http://www.forecasts.org/gdp.htm Anonymous. (2008, May). "European Union." Paper 360 Degrees. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1AHU/is_5_3/ai_n26673540 Anonymous. (2008, April). "The State of the (European) Union: Making US defense spending look efficient." World Security Institute, Brussels. Retrieved 08.31.08 from the World Wide Web from http://www.wsibrussels.org/showarticle.cfm?id=272 Anonymous. (2008, August 11). "Projection sees $30.6 billion military satellites market over decade." Space & Missile Defense Report, 9(31). Online version accessed 08.29.08 from http://www.proquest.com Armitrage, David T (Jr.) (2007, November). "The European Union: measuring counterterrorism cooperation." Strategic Forum. Online version accessed 08.31.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QZY/is_229/ai_n27453894?tag=content;col1 BBC. (2003). "Europe's changing borders." BBC. Retrieved from the World Wide Web 08.30.08 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/europe/02/euro_borders/html/8.stm Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. (2007, November 2). "European Union profile." US Department of State. Retrieved 08.31.08 from the World Wide Web from http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/54126.htm Castle, Stephen. (1998, November 26). "Common EU army is Fisher's goal." The London Independent. Online version accessed 08.31.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19981126/ai_n14198936?tag=content;col 1 Castle, Stephen. (2003, July 3). "Berlusconi puts EU presidency in turmoil with Nazi insult." The London Independent. Online version accessed 08.31.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030703/ai_n12704730?tag=content;col 1 CNBC.com. (2008, February). "Unilever profit rises, upbeat on outlook." CNBC.com Retrieved 08.30.08 from the World Wide Web from http://www.cnbc.com/id/23044678 CNNMoney.com. (2008). "Nestle." CNNMoney.com Retrieved 08.30.08 from the World Wide Web from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2006/snapshots/930.html Dempsey, Judy. (2008, March 22). "EU defense spending may clash with military goals." Herald Tribune. Online version accessed 08.31.08 from http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/22/europe/defense.php Drucker, Peter F. (2005, Spring). "Trading places." The National Interest. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_79/ai_n13502257 Edwards, John. (2008, August 4). "Forecast international projects $30-plus billion military satellite market." Forecast International. Retrieved from the World Wide Web 08.30.08 from http://www.forecastinternational.com/press/release.cfm?articles=150 European Union. (2008, March 12). "Antitrust (Competition)." European Union. Retrieved from the World Wide Web 08.30.08 from http://www.eurunion.org/eu/Index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=48 Geitner, Paul. (2004, March 24). "Microsoft: European Union is overreacting." Oakland Tribune. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040324/ai_n14570855 Gil-Pareja, Salvador. (2004, November). "Export market integration in the European Union." Journal of Applied Economics. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5474/is_200411/ai_n21362660 Moravcsik, Andrew. (2007, March). "The golden moment; As the EU celebrates its 50th birthday, critics say it has one foot in the grave. But many countries now look there, not to America, as a model.; [International Edition]" Newsweek. Online version accessed 08.29.08 from http://www.proquest.com Peters, Lawrence. (1999). "European union." Encyclopedia of Business. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5209/is_1999/ai_n19125708 Posner, Martin. (2005, august). "Export." Credit Management. Online version accessed 08.31.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5308/is_200508/ai_n21376320?tag=content;col1 Larobina, Michael D. (2001, Fall). "A report on Poland and European Union accession." Multinational Business Review. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3674/is_200110/ai_n8975667?tag=content;col1 Lerner, Adrienne Wilmoth. (2004). "European Union." Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5211/is_2004/ai_n191126268 Naim, Moises. (2008, May/June). "The coming Euroinvasion." Foreign Policy, 166:96+. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://www.proquest.com Pomeroy, Ann. (2004, August). "Currency fluctuations shift cost-of-living rankings." HR Magazine. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_8_49/ai_n6181408?tag=content;col1 Reid, T.R. (2004). The United States of Europe. New York, NY: Penguin Books. SEC Info. (2008). "Specialty Foods acquisitions Corp. 8-K for 10/14/98 EX99." SECinfo.com Retrieved from the World Wide Web 08.30.08 from http://www.secinfo.com/dRQqj.7u.d.htm Sharp, Travis. (2008, February 20). "U.S. defense spending 2001-2009." Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Retrieved 08.31.08 from the World Wide Web from http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/defense_spending_since_2001/index.html Thornton, Philip. (2003, September 5). "Foreign investments in U.K. collapses." The London Independent. Online version accessed 08.31.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030905/ai_n12714082?tag=content;col 1 Thornton, Philip. (2005, June 29). "Foreign investments in UK hits record levels." The London Independent. Online version accessed 08.31.08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050629/ai_n14692419?tag=content;col 1 Von Wogau, Karl and Rapp-Jung, Barbara. (2008). "The case for a European system monitoring foreign investment in defense and security." Common Market Law, 45: 47-68. Online version accessed 08.30.08 from http://www.proquest.com World Bank, World Development Indicators Online Database. (2006, December). "IMF, World Economic Outlook Online Database (April and September 2006 editions)." PDF downloaded 08.31.08 from the World Wide Web from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/tourism/states.pdf Yahoo! Finance. (2008). "Brooks Brothers." Yahoo! Finance. Retrieved 08.30.08 from the World Wide Web from http://finance.yahoo.com/ic/43/43893.html Yahoo! Finance. (2008). "DKNY." Yahoo! Finance. Retrieved 08.30.08 from the World Wide Web from http://finance.yahoo.com/ic/42/42555.html Yahoo! Finance. (2008). "Pearle Vision." Yahoo! Finance. Retrieved 08.30.08 from the World Wide Web from http://finance.yahoo.com/ic/113/113341.html |
Image of debt collection agencies ireland
debt collection agencies ireland Image 1
debt collection agencies ireland Image 2
debt collection agencies ireland Image 3
debt collection agencies ireland Image 4
debt collection agencies ireland Image 5
Related blog with debt collection agencies ireland
- malaysiandemocracy.wordpress.com/... and/or creative briefs (cause there’s no way the advertising agencies that put out shit like THIS ever used either) Horse feces Minced ...
- lotfifrigi.wordpress.com/...Latvia, Lithuania, Spain, Portugal and Ireland have reached critical... also in danger of debt and deficit crises. Indeed...also add to government’s tax collection and reduce its debt and deficit...
- globalglassonion.blogspot.com/...s peripheral countries’ GDP is still either contracting (Spain, Ireland and Greece) or barely growing (Italy and Portugal).
- namawinelake.wordpress.com/... with Northern Ireland leading to different debt collection policies? NAMA has...for comment on whether or not the Agency operates a policy with...
- globalglassonion.blogspot.com/...absorption capacity. The rating agency's decision to maintain a negative... from the European sovereign debt crisis. EU seeks new... later Wednesday. Ireland demands debt relief...
- globalglassonion.blogspot.com/... ... Ratings agencies are too slow to react...Ba1). Iceland Is No Ireland as State Kept Free of Bank Debt - Iceland’s President Olafur...
- globalglassonion.blogspot.com/...downgrade 15 euro zone countries’ sovereign debt, it said. RSA Insurance Ireland was also named by the ratings agency. Irish Public Bodies insures...
- theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/...the world's biggest commodity markets. Debt Collection Done From India Appeals to U.S. Agencies In a glass tower on the outskirts of New...
- owenpardue.wordpress.com/... out that right now here in Ireland, certain training companies are teaching debt collection agencies the SPI is of great concern...
- colmbrazel.wordpress.com/...regard to their views on senior bondholder debt? In the USA postings to both Harvard...of interest in certain instances. In Ireland, names such as Sutherland, John Bruton...
Related Video with debt collection agencies ireland
debt collection agencies ireland Video 1
debt collection agencies ireland Video 2
debt collection agencies ireland Video 3
0 개의 댓글:
댓글 쓰기