Europeans claim wictory over Americans!!!

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
RM, a single year's economic figures say very little, cumulative growth is much more important. And as you can see, it simply isn't that bad, its just that the hateful howling of europhobes makes it look otherwise.

I think it's pretty alarming. No to negative growth is pretty shocking. I'm curious to see if this trend will continue and what these countries are going to attempt to do. Have their numbers been on a steady decline?

It seems that European countries are just not improving enough in overall GDP as well - perhaps they have almost reached their peak potential. I was assuming that these countries wanted to compete against the US in an economic sense, but how are they going to do this when they refuse to grow while at the same time facing miniscule to negative growth?

Your entire view is based a single year's figrues. A single year. Do you not find anything wrong with that?

Back in 2001, someone could have come and said "Hey look, the EU is growing, but America is shkinking", would that have been a valid argument? No, and neither is yours.

There are a lot of long term problems facing the EU (as everyone else), but your particular argument makes no sense.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Hmmm..so how is Europe going to try to become some sort of leading world economic superpower if their population is shrinking and their competition is either significantly increasing in population or already has a huge population while much of Western Europe is mired in zero to tiny economic growth?
Start a new slave trade?

Unfortunately, that may not be as crazy as it sounds...
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
RM, a single year's economic figures say very little, cumulative growth is much more important. And as you can see, it simply isn't that bad, its just that the hateful howling of europhobes makes it look otherwise.

I think it's pretty alarming. No to negative growth is pretty shocking. I'm curious to see if this trend will continue and what these countries are going to attempt to do. Have their numbers been on a steady decline?

It seems that European countries are just not improving enough in overall GDP as well - perhaps they have almost reached their peak potential. I was assuming that these countries wanted to compete against the US in an economic sense, but how are they going to do this when they refuse to grow while at the same time facing miniscule to negative growth?

Your entire view is based a single year's figrues. A single year. Do you not find anything wrong with that?

Back in 2001, someone could have come and said "Hey look, the EU is growing, but America is shkinking", would that have been a valid argument? No, and neither is yours.

There are a lot of long term problems facing the EU (as everyone else), but your particular argument makes no sense.

Actually that is a separate argument. My other argument is that these European countries as a whole just are not growing as much at all, due to their aging people and their soon to be declining populations. If they are going to try to form some sort of economic superpower, then how are they expecting to do this when they are going to experience relative small to negative population growth that results in smaller overall GDP growth?

It seems like these countries are going to face some huge problems in the future.
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
That was the most inefficient way possible to build an airplane. Due to EU's countries' wanting a piece of the business, parts were built all over the place and specialized vehicles, boats, roads, and routes had to be built to bring it all together. Good thing the government subsidized everything; otherwise, this would have cost at least half what it did. Yay for EU's 'victory'.....
 

mrSHEiK124

Lifer
Mar 6, 2004
11,491
2
0
The planes are really in different divisions, during the summer, CNN (World, not the US broadcast) had a nice little show about both (7E7 vs A380) and the A380 is supposed to be this mammoth for extremely congested routes, and the 7E7 is supposed to be more "luxurious" for the passengers
Do any of you realize how deep the 747's have gone? I believe 60% of Air Canada's planes and upwards of 70% of El Al's are 747's.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
RM, a single year's economic figures say very little, cumulative growth is much more important. And as you can see, it simply isn't that bad, its just that the hateful howling of europhobes makes it look otherwise.

I think it's pretty alarming. No to negative growth is pretty shocking. I'm curious to see if this trend will continue and what these countries are going to attempt to do. Have their numbers been on a steady decline?

It seems that European countries are just not improving enough in overall GDP as well - perhaps they have almost reached their peak potential. I was assuming that these countries wanted to compete against the US in an economic sense, but how are they going to do this when they refuse to grow while at the same time facing miniscule to negative growth?

Your entire view is based a single year's figrues. A single year. Do you not find anything wrong with that?

Back in 2001, someone could have come and said "Hey look, the EU is growing, but America is shkinking", would that have been a valid argument? No, and neither is yours.

There are a lot of long term problems facing the EU (as everyone else), but your particular argument makes no sense.

Actually that is a separate argument. My other argument is that these European countries as a whole just are not growing as much at all, due to their aging people and their soon to be declining populations. If they are going to try to form some sort of economic superpower, then how are they expecting to do this when they are going to experience relative small to negative population growth that results in smaller overall GDP growth?

It seems like these countries are going to face some huge problems in the future.

*Some* of them. Britain, France and Germany are all growing (mainly due to immigration). Others are fine with not growing. It is actually Eastern Europe that's facing a crisis, as some of the countries could have half as many people left by 2050 (though I suspect that will be fixed as they get richer).

As for your "economic superpower" question, the answer is simple: First, the EU already IS an economic superpower. Its the same size as the US, but takes a second seat only because its less integrated (more national rights, cultural and linguistic differences etc). It merely has to keep on the path of interation. Second, unlike the US, the EU can grow, taking in poor countries (Turkey, perhaps Ukraine) and helping them get rich, as they are doing with Eastern Europe right now.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: Martin

*Some* of them. Britain, France and Germany are all growing (mainly due to immigration).

Where are you getting your numbers from? Britain and France are growing, but not enough (both below 10% by 2050). Germany is expected to decline by 9% by 2050.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: sheik124
The planes are really in different divisions, during the summer, CNN (World, not the US broadcast) had a nice little show about both (7E7 vs A380) and the A380 is supposed to be this mammoth for extremely congested routes, and the 7E7 is supposed to be more "luxurious" for the passengers
Do any of you realize how deep the 747's have gone? I believe 60% of Air Canada's planes and upwards of 70% of El Al's are 747's.

Shouldn't it be the other way around, as in the A380 is supposed to be more luxurious? How is the 7E7 going to be luxurious?
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Martin
*Some* of them. Britain, France and Germany are all growing (mainly due to immigration). Others are fine with not growing. It is actually Eastern Europe that's facing a crisis, as some of the countries could have half as many people left by 2050 (though I suspect that will be fixed as they get richer).

Actually as stated by CoW, the UK and France are not growing enough to offset their massively aging population. Germany is shrinking. Seems like there is going to be a massive problem all over Europe in regards to this.

As for your "economic superpower" question, the answer is simple: First, the EU already IS an economic superpower. Its the same size as the US, but takes a second seat only because its less integrated (more national rights, cultural and linguistic differences etc). It merely has to keep on the path of interation. Second, unlike the US, the EU can grow, taking in poor countries (Turkey, perhaps Ukraine) and helping them get rich, as they are doing with Eastern Europe right now.

You're right, the EU doesn't have and will probably never have the same integration as a single country. It looks like within the next 20 years the European countries will be taking a back seat to the US, India, China, and so on.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
You're right, the EU doesn't have and will probably never have the same integration as a single country. It looks like within the next 20 years the European countries will be taking a back seat to the US, India, China, and so on.

Backseat? Hardly. The EU as we know it today is just over 10 years old, they've barely begun to flex their muscles. Do you remember the ECC ever trying to come up with a foreign policy different than the US? Blocking the mergers of US companies? Fining US companies hundreds of millions? Believe me, they'll be more important than China for the next 20 years, and India for much longer.


Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: sheik124
The planes are really in different divisions, during the summer, CNN (World, not the US broadcast) had a nice little show about both (7E7 vs A380) and the A380 is supposed to be this mammoth for extremely congested routes, and the 7E7 is supposed to be more "luxurious" for the passengers
Do any of you realize how deep the 747's have gone? I believe 60% of Air Canada's planes and upwards of 70% of El Al's are 747's.

Shouldn't it be the other way around, as in the A380 is supposed to be more luxurious? How is the 7E7 going to be luxurious?

With the A380, it'll be "You get what you pay for". If you wanna fly with Emirates or BA, you will probably get showers and a bar(In its default config, the A380 has ~50% more floor space, but only 30% mroe seats). If you want to save up, you'll be crammed in with 799 others.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Backseat? Hardly. The EU as we know it today is just over 10 years old, they've barely begun to flex their muscles. Do you remember the ECC ever trying to come up with a foreign policy different than the US? Blocking the mergers of US companies? Fining US companies hundreds of millions? Believe me, they'll be more important than China for the next 20 years, and India for much longer.

I doubt it. As India and China become more developed, France, UK, Germany, etc. will lose their economic importance. It may take more than 20 years, but it seems inevitable. I doubt that the EU will ever be as cohesive as a single country. It will still be important, but it will lose a good deal of significance.

I wonder how they will feel when they are overtaken by their recent former colonies.
 

mrSHEiK124

Lifer
Mar 6, 2004
11,491
2
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: sheik124
The planes are really in different divisions, during the summer, CNN (World, not the US broadcast) had a nice little show about both (7E7 vs A380) and the A380 is supposed to be this mammoth for extremely congested routes, and the 7E7 is supposed to be more "luxurious" for the passengers
Do any of you realize how deep the 747's have gone? I believe 60% of Air Canada's planes and upwards of 70% of El Al's are 747's.

Shouldn't it be the other way around, as in the A380 is supposed to be more luxurious? How is the 7E7 going to be luxurious?

by now I guess you've realized all I know about the 7E7 Dreamliner is what CNN had on their show. they said that most of the airlines purchasing them were planning on making them "fancy".
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Backseat? Hardly. The EU as we know it today is just over 10 years old, they've barely begun to flex their muscles. Do you remember the ECC ever trying to come up with a foreign policy different than the US? Blocking the mergers of US companies? Fining US companies hundreds of millions? Believe me, they'll be more important than China for the next 20 years, and India for much longer.

I doubt it. As India and China become more developed, France, UK, Germany, etc. will lose their economic importance. It may take more than 20 years, but it seems inevitable. I doubt that the EU will ever be as cohesive as a single country. It will still be important, but it will lose a good deal of significance.

I wonder how they will feel when they are overtaken by their recent former colonies.

Its true they'll never be a proper country, but by their sheer size and economic strength (in real $ terms China is just starting to overtake Frace, Britain, etc. By they time they overtake the entire EU, they'll be a few years from overtaking the US - if it happens of course).

But really, the feeling will be no different from how the US will feel being overtaken by China. You can plainly see the baseless derision towards the A380 here, imagine what it'll be like when it comes to somethign that matters.
 

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
German unemployment highest since WWII

German unemployment jumped to the highest since World War II as new rules added welfare recipients to the jobless register, clouding the outlook for Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in elections this month.

The number of people out of work in January rose by 227,000 to 4.71 million in seasonally adjusted terms, including 230,000 new jobless claimants, the Nuremberg-based Federal Labor Agency said today. The adjusted unemployment rate rose to 11.4 percent, a seven-year high, while the unadjusted jobless total passed 5 million for the first time since the war.

11.4, ouch
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
German unemployment highest since WWII

German unemployment jumped to the highest since World War II as new rules added welfare recipients to the jobless register, clouding the outlook for Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in elections this month.

The number of people out of work in January rose by 227,000 to 4.71 million in seasonally adjusted terms, including 230,000 new jobless claimants, the Nuremberg-based Federal Labor Agency said today. The adjusted unemployment rate rose to 11.4 percent, a seven-year high, while the unadjusted jobless total passed 5 million for the first time since the war.

11.4, ouch
Thanks for bringing this out of the woodwork for a totally unrelated story :thumbsdown:
 

Apocalypse23

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2003
1,467
1
0
Heh...victory? ROFL This aint no goddamn war or a contest imo...THe new airbus is coo tho, tight sh!t..:p However the plane simply looks like an overweight monstor..Id prefer the 747- 400 or the concorde since they look gangsta and classy! :p
 

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
[/quote]11.4, ouch[/quote]
Thanks for bringing this out of the woodwork for a totally unrelated story :thumbsdown:[/quote]

Capitalism versus socialism has everything to do with this so-called victory.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
unfortunately, unawares of americas previous blunder, the plane was dubbed the titanic and went down like a lead zeppelin.

j/k