It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will the europeans ever be powerful?

page: 36
1
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
1 more proof that Poland is economically outperforming France and Germany:
www.nationmaster.com...

That site claims that the source it's relying on is the CIAWF, yet the CIAWF says that Poland's economic growth rate is 3.2%, while Nationmaster says that it's 5.6%. In any case, Poland is economically outperforming France and Germany.


Soo...let's see, GDP of Germany is: $2.446trillion
and France GDP is: $1.654 trillion
and Poland's is...$495.9bn

Yet Poland is outperforming Germany and France?
Sorry...but that seems...unlikely




posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   


No, as I said this is common sense which is known by everyone with just a slightest glimpse of how a military works.

You are not such a person.



It is now the the economic growth rate that relevant when we are speaking of MOMENTARY economic strength.

As I said, GDP is irrelevant. It's not a measure of economic power.



IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER POLAND HAS 2 OR 3 MORE DIGITS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, because we are speaking of NOW. The status of NOW is undisputable regardless of ANY GROWTH rate you might throw at us.

So that's your not-laconic way of saying "I know nothing about the topics I'm talking about, but I hate Poland, so I'll state nonsense".



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

GDP of Germany is: $2.446trillion
and France's GDP is: $1.654 trillion
and Poland's GDP is...$495.9bn
Yet Poland is outperforming Germany and France?
Sorry...but that seems...unlikely


Debt burden:
Germany: 67.3%
France: 66.2%
Poland: 47.7%
Link: www.cia.gov...

Economic growth:
Germany: 0.9%
France: 1.4%
Poland: 3.2%
Link: www.cia.gov...

[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
You are not such a person.

If he doesn't have a slightest glimpse about that, then you don't have the slightest glimpse of reality and that's me saying "you don't know anyting about anything, ignorant"



As I said, GDP is irrelevant. It's not a measure of economic power.

Things are only relevant when you decide to? nah, WRONG. this is me saying, "I can answer like I'm 15 too"



IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER POLAND HAS 2 OR 3 MORE DIGITS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, because we are speaking of NOW. The status of NOW is undisputable regardless of ANY GROWTH rate you might throw at us.

So right! growth maybe momentary, and with the rate of people leaving Poland, I doubt it'll last.


So that's your not-laconic way of saying "I know nothing about the topics I'm talking about, but I hate Poland, so I'll state nonsense".


No, This is me saying, "the above description fits you perfectly, acording to anyone who has read the utter nonsense you've written, you know nothing about the topics you're talking about, you think anyone cares about Poland, so you'll state nonsense"



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
Debt burden:
Germany: 67.3%
France: 66.2%
Poland: 47.7%
Link: www.cia.gov...


Someone used CIA again for proof...not working, try again, and next time use actual stuff, not 2003. Oh...one more tip, stop dreaming, won't work too much here either



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   


No, This is me saying, "the utter nonsense you've written"

The one who is stating nonsense is you, not me. You're the one who is stating ridiculous claims and not backing them up with any proof.

GDP, as I said, is irrelevant and I never said it is relevant. I did, however, say, that America's military expenditures are low as a percentage fo America's GDP, which is true. But it doesn't mean that GDP is a measure of economic power.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   


next time use actual data, not 2003.

This data is from 2005, not 2003.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter


The one who is stating nonsense is you, not me. You're the one who is stating ridiculous claims and not backing them up with any proof.

GDP, as I said, is irrelevant and I never said it is relevant. I did, however, say, that America's military expenditures are low as a percentage fo America's GDP, which is true. But it doesn't mean that GDP is a measure of economic power.


Then according to your numbers, Azerbaijan outperforms Poland by QUITE a margin...bollocks GDP growth alone cannot be used to measure economic power, that is UTTER NONSENSE



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
GDP growth alone cannot be used to measure economic power, that is UTTER NONSENSE

I didn't say that GDP growth alone can be used to measure economic power and I didn't use GDP growth as the only measure. By any economic measure except for unemployment (which, although higher in Poland than in Germany, is falling in Poland and rising in Germany) Poland is outperforming France and Germany. The yearly budget deficit is 7.5 billion in Poland and 100 billion in Germany. Poland's debt burden is 47% while Germany's debt burden is 64%. Poland's economic superiority over France and Germany is undebatable.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
GDP growth alone cannot be used to measure economic power, that is UTTER NONSENSE

I didn't say that GDP growth alone can be used to measure economic power and I didn't use GDP growth as the only measure....


Eeerm... you did. See last page:


Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter


The reason why France and Germany have higher wages for their Soldiers than Poland is that France and Germany are stronger economies than Poland, but also with higher living costs and higher living standards...

Wrong. The Polish economy is growing stronger than both the French and the German economies, and economic growth is what's relevant. ...


---

But OK, obviously all this back- and forward quoting doesnt lead anywhere. If you are really so sure about your ideas, I´d like you to answer the following questions/statements.

1. Germany and France DO have a higher domestic product - be it regular GDP, GDP(PPP) or GDP per capita - than Poland - right or wrong?

2. Growth rate is insubstantial as a number of its own (ie. country A has a higher growth than country B), it has to be seen in relevance to the ACTUAL economic strength (ie. country A has a higher growth rate, but country B.´s economy is four times as powerful RIGHT NOW) - right or wrong?

3. G.&F. are among the ten economically strongest nations of this earth and it is not thinkable that Poland could rise into this group anytime soon, given that P. is by far not the only country with a growth rate at the moment - right or wrong?

4. Given their economic and military strength, their population size, their political and cultural influence around the world (including their influence in the UN, the EU, the OECD or the WTO) both G.&F. have to be called respectable and generally powerful countries among the 212 nations on this Earth - right or wrong?

5. Economic figures are subject to changes - with the numbers of NOW one cannot accurately depict the numbers of 10 years in the future. (Germany for example had an economic low in the late 70s-early 80s. It had an economic high until the mid 90s. since then it has an economic low, but shows signs of recuperation). Based on this knowledge that the economy follows a wave pattern, one cannot predict the economic situation more than a few years into the future - right or wrong?


Given that one can only call these 4 statements "correct", I am quite intrigued why you are so completely negligient of G.&F. in particular and ALL continental powers as a whole, and at the same time are willing to describe Poland as the more influential and powerful country than the traditional economic powerhouses of Europe - is that what you are getting told by the twin brother kings of Warszaw?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   


you did.

No, I didn't. I used two measures: debt burden and economic growth. Proof:



Debt burden:
Germany: 67.3%
France: 66.2%
Poland: 47.7%
Link: www.cia.gov...

Economic growth:
Germany: 0.9%
France: 1.4%
Poland: 3.2%
Link: www.cia.gov...




Wrong. The Polish economy is growing stronger than both the French and the German economies, and economic growth is what's relevant...


Did I say that economic growth is the ONLY relevant measure? No, I didn't.

You are not proving anything except for your ignorance.




1. Germany and France DO have a higher domestic product - be it regular GDP, GDP(PPP) or GDP per capita - than Poland - right or wrong?

Right, but I already said that this is irrelevant. The relevant measure of a country's economic strength is not that country's GDP or GDP per capita. It is unemployment (which is falling in Poland and rising in Germany), economic growth rate, budget deficit height and debt burden height.



(country A has a higher growth rate, but country B.´s economy is four times as powerful RIGHT NOW) - right or wrong?

Right, but I already said that this is irrelevant. The relevant measure of a country's economic strength is not that country's GDP or GDP per capita. It is unemployment (which is falling in Poland and rising in Germany), economic growth rate, budget deficit height and debt burden height.


3. G.&F. are among the ten economically strongest nations of this earth and it is not thinkable that Poland could rise into this group anytime soon, given that P. is by far not the only country with a growth rate at the moment - right or wrong?

While Poland is not going to be one of the 10 economically strongest nations in the world, Germany and France are not "among the ten economically strongest nations of the earth". By any economic measure, they are weak.



Given their economic and military strength,

But Germany and France are not powerful neither economically nor militarily. The French and the German militaries are a joke. France and Germany spend the majority of their defence budgets on pays for soldiers and only a minority of them on equipment. France couldn't even independently project power for the peacekeeping operation on the Ivory Coast and had to rent helicopters from the US for that purpose.


their population size

France and Germany are experiencing low birth rates.



both G.&F. have to be called respectable and generally powerful countries among the 212 nations on this Earth - right or wrong?

Wrong, and I'm not the only one who thinks so, the leaders of all countries of the world except for Germany and France think so.



I am quite intrigued why you are so completely negligient of G.&F. in particular and ALL continental powers as a whole, and at the same time are willing to describe Poland as the more influential and powerful country than the traditional economic powerhouses of Europe

Because Germany and France are weak countries. No country that has a weak military is ever going to be a powerful country.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter is here only to provoke people, nothing else. When confronted with proof he keeps on repeating



Right, but I already said that this is irrelevant


and stuff like that, without giving almoast any serious proof for his fanatical claims. He's just enjoying to flare people up. Mods, you should take this into consideration, IMHO



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duby78
JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter is here only to provoke people, nothing else. When confronted with proof

The only problem is that I have not been confronted with any proof.


Originally posted by Duby78
without giving almoast any serious proof for his fanatical claims. He's just enjoying to flare people up.

So that's another tactic that ignorant people use: when they are disproven, they deny that the person who has disproven them has provided proof that proves them wrong.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Lol, you can say whatever you want Jimmy, you can lie to yourself all day long, you can say all proof your shown is worthless, and all arguments said are wrong.

Fact is the plague of migrants coming from EASTERN europe proves you wrong, your economy will not be near Germany's or France for at least...15 years? So who cares about your economic growth?

France and Germany have also been something that Poland will never be, regardless of your dumb "proof" and "arguments" both proven not by one or two but many people just saying your ignorance showing, and that's historically important countries.

They've made changes in history, Poland...there's a reason most people don't know anything about it...besides you and your cult of cave trolls


Believe what you want, we all know who is right here...and it ain't you...



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Oh by the way...6 of the poorest regions in the EU are polish...how curious...

Rank NUTS-2 region 2003 GDP (PPP) per capita
in Euros
1 Lubelskie, Poland 7,211
2 Podkarpackie, Poland 7,217
3 Podlaskie, Poland 7,752
4 Swietokrzyskie, Poland 7,978
5 Warminsko-Mazurskie, Poland 8,048
6 Opolskie, Poland 8,112
7 Northern Hungary, Hungary 8,287
8 Prešovský kraj & Košický kraj, Slovakia 8,430
9 Northern Great Plain, Hungary 8,476
10 Southern Great Plain, Hungary 8,786

(NUTS stands for: Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics, thought I rather explain before someone cracked a joke...:lol


Poland also has one of the highest unemployment rates...15% almost.

This is just a little something for someone who stated Poland was the most important country in continental europe...cheers


[edit on 2-8-2006 by Ioseb_Jugashvili]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
The French and the German militaries are a joke. France and Germany spend the majority of their defence budgets on pays for soldiers and only a minority of them on equipment. France couldn't even independently project power for the peacekeeping operation on the Ivory Coast and had to rent helicopters from the US for that purpose.

I couldnt?
I find that hard to believe...since they have thier own nuclear aircraft carrier...



Wrong, and I'm not the only one who thinks so, the leaders of all countries of the world except for Germany and France think so.

If so then why does britian continually do military prpjects and has a "special" relationship with france (entente)/


Because Germany and France are weak countries. No country that has a weak military is ever going to be a powerful country.
[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

Yet again what do you call weak?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Devilwasp, you have to see the humour in this. He states anybody in Europe, who's not Poland is weak, don't you see? I've proven him wrong in every single case, from WWII, to the present, yet he refuses to see the truth...as you might have read in his crazy posts...



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
The French and the German militaries are a joke. France and Germany spend the majority of their defence budgets on pays for soldiers and only a minority of them on equipment. France couldn't even independently project power for the peacekeeping operation on the Ivory Coast and had to rent helicopters from the US for that purpose.

I couldnt?
I find that hard to believe...since they have thier own nuclear aircraft carrier...


The french were the first country other than the US, to build a nuke carrier and it can be politely describe as a fiasco; so much so that next french carrier won't be nuclear powered.



The Charles De Gaulle entered sea trials in 1999 which identified the need to extend the flight deck to safely operate the E-2C Hawkeye. This operation induced a bad perception in the population, though the same operation had been performed on both the Foch and the Clemenceau when F-8 Crusader aircraft had been introduced, and that the 5 million francs for the extension were 0.025% of the total budget for the Charles De Gaulle project.

On 28 February 2000, a nuclear reactor trial triggered the combustion of additional isolation elements, producing a smoke incident.


The faulty propeller, a 6-metre wide, 19-tonne mono-bloc of copper-aluminium alloyDuring the night of the 9 November–10 November 2000, in the Western Atlantic, en route toward Norfolk, Virginia, the port propeller broke, and the ship had to return to Toulon to replace the faulty element. The investigations that followed showed similar structural faults in the other propeller and in the spare propellers: bubbles in the one-piece copper-aluminium alloy propellers near the center. The fault was blamed on the supplier, Atlantic Industries, which since had gone bankrupt. To make matters worse, all documents relating to the design and fabrication of the propellers had been lost in a fire. As a temporary solution, the less advanced spare propellers of the Foch and the Clemenceau were used, limiting the maximum speed to 24 knots (44 km/h), instead of the contractual 27 knots (50 km/h). This did not affect air operations.

On 5 March 2001, the Charles De Gaulle went back to the sea with two older propellers, and sailed 25.2 knots (47 km/h) on her trials.

Between July and October, the Charles De Gaulle had to be refitted once more due to abnormal noises, as loud as 100 dB, near the starboard propeller, which had rendered the aft part of the ship uninhabitable.

On the 18 May 2001, the Charles De Gaulle was officially commissioned, somewhat tainted with a reputation as a financial black hole.
en.wikipedia.org...


To be a super power you first need a super economy; America has one, Europe doesn't.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by Number23]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Number23

To be a super power you first need a super economy; America has one.



Correction: *had* one. Without Japan, Europe and China the US would be bankrupt immediately. Those countries/continent ensure you are able to purchase a bread and a car and that US has such a strong military by buying US debts.

Before yelling the US economy is ''super'', educate yourself:
US comptroller general David Walker: A 'fiscal hurricane' on the horizon
Federal Report by Professor Kotlikoff, ex advisor of Reagan: Is the US bankrupt? (PDF)
Bill Gates comments on the US economy and its future (ATS Thread)
US House of Representatives member Ron Paul: The End of Dollar Hegemony

According to Zibi those sources are not reliable of course, but decide yourself whom you'd rather believe, the comptroller general or Zibi
. Not a difficult choice, huh?



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Funny read this, brings back memories of Zibi...

Hang on...


It is Zibi!

I like the fact it took all of a couple of pages to suss him out again. His "debating" style is identical, the sources he uses are identical and his fanatical love of Poland and wet dreams of Polish Hegemony are identical.

Can the Mods not do something about this?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join