Is Europe DOOMED!?
http://euobserver.com/18/113625
QuotePoland warns of war 'in 10 years' as EU leaders scramble to contain panic
14.09.11 @ 17:58
By Leigh Phillips
Germany, France and the European Commission are scrambling to contain panic and "quash rumours" about a eurozone break-up amid repeated off-piste messages from other senior EU politicians.
But even amid their desperate efforts, the finance minister of Poland, the country that currently represents the EU to the world as holder of the bloc's rotating presidency, warned of war on the continent within 10 years if the eurozone collapses.
Speaking to MEPs in Strasbourg on Wednesday morning (14 September) he warned of the need to act rapidly to prevent grave danger for the EU. Making reference to a recent report entitled 'Euro Break Up - The Consequences' by Swiss financial giant UBS, he declared: "There is no doubt we are in danger. Europe is in danger".
The paper by UBS, normally known for its highly sober analysis, warned that historically, monetary unions do not break up without civil war or some other form of authoritarian reaction. "The risk of civil disorder questions the rule of law, and as such basic issues such as property rights. Even those countries that avoid internal strife and divisions will likely have to use administrative controls to avoid extreme positions in their markets", it said.
The Polish minister went on to warn of a doubling of unemployment within two years "even in the rich countries".
He concluded his comments by recollecting a recent conversation he had with an old friend who is now head of a major bank: "We were talking about the crisis in eurozone. He told me 'You know, after all these political shocks, economic shocks, it is very rare indeed that in the next 10 years we could avoid a war'. A war ladies and gentlemen. I am really thinking about obtaining a green card for my kids in the United States".
He went further in his comments to reporters after his speech to parliament, saying that he had chosen his words "in a very careful way". He said that the prospect of war is not likely "within a four-year legislative time frame ... Not in the months ahead, but maybe over a 10-year time frame, this could place us in a context that is almost unimaginable at the moment".
"It is up to all of us Europeans to take the lessons of an anecdote of that kind to ensure the errors of the past do not come back to haunt us."
For their part, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are to hold an evening conference call with Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou where they will discuss the crisis.
No new political or economic measures are expected to be unveiled, said one EU official. Instead the two European powerhouses will offer a robust backing to the efforts of Papandreou. "There will be a strong political message to quash rumours and speculation", the EU contact said.
The aim is to draw a line under comments from a variety of sources suggesting finance ministries are bracing themselves for a Greek default.
German vice chancellor and economy minister Philipp Roesler this week talked publicly about the scenario of an "orderly insolvency" for the Hellenic Republic. Merkel quickly hit back at Roesler, also the head of the free-market-liberal junior partner in the chancellor's coalition, demanding: "Everyone should weigh their words very carefully."
But even as she was trying to corral her ministers behind a more optimistic line, on Wednesday, transport minister Peter Ramsauer told Die Zeit it would "not be the end of the world" if Greece were kicked out of the single currency.
On Tuesday, Dutch finance minister Jan Kees de Jager said that his ministry is exploring "all scenarios" including a possible default within the single currency. He told broadcaster RTL Z he could not comment on whether eurozone officials were preparing for a Greek default. "I can't do that in public," he said. "I'm not denying it, but I can't confirm it either".
On Wednesday, the Dutch finance ministry stepped back from the comments, saying that default is only "a scenario".
European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso on Wednesday also demanded an end to the "cacaphony" of proposals and rumours coming from various European quarters.
"In the cacophony of criticisms, counter-criticisms, magic bullets and miracle panaceas that are proposed on a daily basis, the truth has been drowned out that they [anti-crisis measures] have been agreed upon. But they have taken too long and have not yet been fully delivered", he told the European Parliament.
He went on to say that both borrowers and lenders involved in the new measures must now deliver on their promises.
"All these states [making economic reforms] must now demonstrate in a convincing way that they are serious. It is not enough to make plans. It is action that counts", he said.
"And those euro area member states that are providing the assistance so crucial for the survival and the stability of the euro must show even more clearly that they are determined to deliver support to countries that implement their programmes, as they have agreed", he said, in a veiled reference to Germany, the Netherlands and Finland.
"Supporting the euro is not just an act of solidarity towards others. It is an act of self-interest".
I hope they all drop dead.
I can't fucking wait for the Euro Wars.
We should use the opportunity to annex the British Isles.
Agreed. Airstrip One will be useful.
Too many geordies and chavs.
I listen to everything UBS says, what given their outstanding risk management.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1223.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd505%2Ffaina4%2Ftumblr_lltcm7d92p1qaocoq.gif&hash=36cd6cdb6f1a269f00506f751d996492b2e38299)
:contract:
:bleeding:
Is all I have to say to this.
QuoteWe should use the opportunity to annex the British Isles.
Would suck for us but it would certainly be in the world`s best interest, would keep the republicans out of power for evahhhh.
Great. We'll get to lease some of our missiles and shells again.
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:43:39 PM
Would suck for us but it would certainly be in the world`s best interest, would keep the republicans out of power for evahhhh.
I doubt we've give Britain electoral votes. Like letting a fox into the hen house a couple centuries later.
It would be fucking glorious.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 10:27:21 PM
It would be fucking glorious.
It would ensure that the U.S. need worry about only China for the next 100 years.
Quote from: citizen k on September 15, 2011, 10:37:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 10:27:21 PM
It would be fucking glorious.
It would ensure that the U.S. need worry about only China for the next 100 years.
Because by then, the entire population of the US would have been converted to chavs and thus wouldn't care about anything.
This thread is disturbing.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
I just want an Anglo Union. Is that so wrong?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:07:53 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
I just want an Anglo Union. Is that so wrong?
It can't happen. You guys are too crazy, with your guns and your Jesus and all that.
With another 100 million Democrats, we could make that all go away.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:39:32 PM
With another 100 million Democrats, we could make that all go away.
Good luck encouraging your fellows to have that many kids.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 15, 2011, 11:49:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:39:32 PM
With another 100 million Democrats, we could make that all go away.
Good luck encouraging your fellows to have that many kids.
I meant the populations of Great Britain, Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. -_-
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2011, 12:10:54 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 15, 2011, 11:49:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:39:32 PM
With another 100 million Democrats, we could make that all go away.
Good luck encouraging your fellows to have that many kids.
I meant the populations of Great Britain, Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. -_-
125 million (though not all of them would be Democrats I suppose)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2011, 12:16:59 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2011, 12:10:54 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 15, 2011, 11:49:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:39:32 PM
With another 100 million Democrats, we could make that all go away.
Good luck encouraging your fellows to have that many kids.
I meant the populations of Great Britain, Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. -_-
125 million (though not all of them would be Democrats I suppose)
Some of 'em are kids, too. :P
Quote from: Neil on September 15, 2011, 11:30:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:07:53 PM
I just want an Anglo Union. Is that so wrong?
It can't happen. You guys are too crazy, with your guns and your Jesus and all that.
How about we meet halfway and just give up the Jesus?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:07:53 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
I just want an Anglo Union. Is that so wrong?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allamericanblogger.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F4a71f74b5ed32-150x134.gif&hash=7ff4feedc775e9c2b26a5f7a4ae909cc7862b2c2)
Poland is threatening war? I'm so scared.
Quote from: Habsburg on September 16, 2011, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:07:53 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
I just want an Anglo Union. Is that so wrong?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allamericanblogger.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F4a71f74b5ed32-150x134.gif&hash=7ff4feedc775e9c2b26a5f7a4ae909cc7862b2c2)
It would make us eligible for EU membership.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 15, 2011, 08:40:02 PM
I can't fucking wait for the Euro Wars.
Cool name for a Wargame.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2011, 12:16:59 AM
125 million (though not all of them would be Democrats I suppose)
Most of us would be forced to be, though they are much too right wing for the majority of the population.
Certainly republicans would be only 5% max as they currently stand.
This guy is (apparently) a good finance minister but has cooky views otherwise. He has already been torn a new arsehole back here in Poland for his comments.
And he is a Brit, having a British citizenship and having lived there for most of his life, so he a Pole only in name.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:07:53 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
I just want an Anglo Union. Is that so wrong?
There already is one and the intials are "AB"
Quote from: Martinus on September 16, 2011, 01:29:23 AM
This guy is (apparently) a good finance minister but has cooky views otherwise. He has already been torn a new arsehole back here in Poland for his comments.
And he is a Brit, having a British citizenship and having lived there for most of his life, so he a Pole only in name.
Our plans to destroy the evil European Union mature :menace:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2011, 12:45:12 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:07:53 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
I just want an Anglo Union. Is that so wrong?
Anglo-American :contract:
Our relationship is much better with Atlantic ocean between us. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to get the UK up to speed with the US? It'd be like West Germany annexing East Germany but on a much bigger scale.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 01:53:11 AM
Our relationship is much better with Atlantic ocean between us. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to get the UK up to speed with the US? It'd be like West Germany annexing East Germany but on a much bigger scale.
Well, Scotland anyway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 16, 2011, 01:58:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 01:53:11 AM
Our relationship is much better with Atlantic ocean between us. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to get the UK up to speed with the US? It'd be like West Germany annexing East Germany but on a much bigger scale.
Well, Scotland anyway.
And Wales. And Northern Ireland. Or large parts of rural England.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 02:02:37 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 16, 2011, 01:58:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 01:53:11 AM
Our relationship is much better with Atlantic ocean between us. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to get the UK up to speed with the US? It'd be like West Germany annexing East Germany but on a much bigger scale.
Well, Scotland anyway.
And Wales. And Northern Ireland. Or large parts of rural England.
Yes, I see what you mean...
Raz, you can't possibly be serious.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2011, 12:46:32 AM
Quote from: Habsburg on September 16, 2011, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:07:53 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
I just want an Anglo Union. Is that so wrong?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allamericanblogger.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F4a71f74b5ed32-150x134.gif&hash=7ff4feedc775e9c2b26a5f7a4ae909cc7862b2c2)
It would make us eligible for EU membership.
So we should form a union with the UK just so we can tell the EU to go screw itself?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2011, 02:08:50 AM
Raz, you can't possibly be serious.
An Anglo-American union is a silly idea. Free trade and military alliances between the nations of the anglophone world, sure, but we sure don't want to govern them. They've all done that for themselves for a long time. I'm not really interested in painting the map all one color, even if it's our color. Anyway, we already have Arkansas, we don't need Wales to add insult to injury.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2011, 12:46:32 AM
Quote from: Habsburg on September 16, 2011, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:07:53 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
I just want an Anglo Union. Is that so wrong?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allamericanblogger.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F4a71f74b5ed32-150x134.gif&hash=7ff4feedc775e9c2b26a5f7a4ae909cc7862b2c2)
It would make us eligible for EU membership.
Eurasia is at war with Oceania, remember?
When the Euro breaks up, we can't even afford a war anymore.
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2011, 05:37:58 AM
When the Euro breaks up, we can't even afford a war anymore.
If the EU ever breaks up Germany will have a ton of subsidy money to spend on its favorite hobby. :ph34r:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 04:29:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2011, 02:08:50 AM
Raz, you can't possibly be serious.
An Anglo-American union is a silly idea. Free trade and military alliances between the nations of the anglophone world, sure, but we sure don't want to govern them. They've all done that for themselves for a long time. I'm not really interested in painting the map all one color, even if it's our color. Anyway, we already have Arkansas, we don't need Wales to add insult to injury.
I think the poorest parts of the UK are probally significantly better off than the poorest parts of the US.
And yes, on the other side of things the richer parts of the US are richer than the rich parts of the UK, excluding the posh sections of London.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2011, 05:39:32 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2011, 05:37:58 AM
When the Euro breaks up, we can't even afford a war anymore.
If the EU ever breaks up Germany will have a ton of subsidy money to spend on its favorite hobby. :ph34r:
Not really. We spend less than 1% of our GDP on the EU. If you add that to our current military expenses, we'll maybe reach 2.2% or so of GDP, which is still less than say France or UK spend now.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 16, 2011, 01:38:33 AMOur plans to destroy the evil European Union mature :menace:
We would drag you guys down. With your oversized financial industry, the UK will suffer badly from a meltdown in the Eurozone.
Quote from: Tyr on September 16, 2011, 05:42:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 04:29:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2011, 02:08:50 AM
Raz, you can't possibly be serious.
An Anglo-American union is a silly idea. Free trade and military alliances between the nations of the anglophone world, sure, but we sure don't want to govern them. They've all done that for themselves for a long time. I'm not really interested in painting the map all one color, even if it's our color. Anyway, we already have Arkansas, we don't need Wales to add insult to injury.
I think the poorest parts of the UK are probally significantly better off than the poorest parts of the US.
And yes, on the other side of things the richer parts of the US are richer than the rich parts of the UK, excluding the posh sections of London.
The poorest parts of the UK were in a state of low grade civil war with in living memory. Per Capita for the UK is about 10 grand lower then the US.
The poorest NUTS2 region in the UK is Wales at 21,200€ GDP PPP/capita (~$29k with current exchange rate) in 2008, the poorest US state is Mississippi at $32,967 GDP nominal in 2010. Hard to compare, but I would guess that it means that Wales is poorer.
Who is the Germany-France alliance going to fight? Italy & Greece?
Quote from: Habbaku on September 15, 2011, 08:40:02 PM
I can't fucking wait for the Euro Wars.
Meh, it'll be worse than the World Cup histrionics. All that flopping around, but no contact.
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2011, 06:12:44 AM
The poorest NUTS2 region in the UK is Wales at 21,200€ GDP PPP/capita (~$29k with current exchange rate) in 2008, the poorest US state is Mississippi at $32,967 GDP nominal in 2010. Hard to compare, but I would guess that it means that Wales is poorer.
I'm surprised it's not Northern Ireland :mellow:
Northern Ireland is just the third poorest. The North East (Northumberland, County Durham, Tyne and Wear, and Teesside) of England is poorer too.
QuoteThe poorest parts of the UK were in a state of low grade civil war with in living memory.
Que?
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2011, 06:26:33 AM
Northern Ireland is just the third poorest. The North East (Northumberland, County Durham, Tyne and Wear, and Teesside) of England is poorer too.
I blame Cleveland.
QuoteThe poorest NUTS2 region in the UK is Wales at 21,200€ GDP PPP/capita (~$29k with current exchange rate) in 2008, the poorest US state is Mississippi at $32,967 GDP nominal in 2010. Hard to compare, but I would guess that it means that Wales is poorer.
Bare in mind the exchange rate is fucked at the moment.
But that is surprising.
I guess even in states theres a big divide between the poor and the rich.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 16, 2011, 06:13:19 AM
Who is the Germany-France alliance going to fight? Italy & Greece?
they'll invade Russia. It's their thing
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
You getting the queasies there boy?
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2011, 07:11:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
You getting the queasies there boy?
Wait till Timmay starts spamming it with his shitty alt-hist map bullshit.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2011, 12:10:54 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 15, 2011, 11:49:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 11:39:32 PM
With another 100 million Democrats, we could make that all go away.
Good luck encouraging your fellows to have that many kids.
I meant the populations of Great Britain, Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. -_-
There would be several parties. Remember, you'd be adopting our system rather than the reverse.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 07:27:38 AMThere would be several parties. Remember, you'd be adopting our system rather than the reverse.
Yeah. No way I'd want Congress :x :ph34r:
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 07:27:38 AM
There would be several parties. Remember, you'd be adopting our system rather than the reverse.
I don't see why the US would want to bed knee to Britain. Like I said I don't think we overthrew British rule only to impose it on ourselves centuries later. George Washington would be rolling in his grave. :(
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 08:28:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 07:27:38 AM
There would be several parties. Remember, you'd be adopting our system rather than the reverse.
I don't see why the US would want to bed knee to Britain. Like I said I don't think we overthrew British rule only to impose it on ourselves centuries later. George Washington would be rolling in his grave. :(
George Washington was traitorous scum, and so affronting his ghost is a good thing.
That said, without the US adopting a parliamentary system, Ide's Anglo Union can never be. We've seen how the US system functions, and the Anglo world would be better off without your presidents and congresses.
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2011, 05:55:57 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2011, 05:39:32 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2011, 05:37:58 AM
When the Euro breaks up, we can't even afford a war anymore.
If the EU ever breaks up Germany will have a ton of subsidy money to spend on its favorite hobby. :ph34r:
Not really. We spend less than 1% of our GDP on the EU. If you add that to our current military expenses, we'll maybe reach 2.2% or so of GDP, which is still less than say France or UK spend now.
Not to mention, with the EU gone, Germany will lose a massive tarriff-free export market for its goods so it will be probably worse off.
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2011, 06:12:44 AM
The poorest NUTS2 region in the UK is Wales at 21,200€ GDP PPP/capita (~$29k with current exchange rate) in 2008, the poorest US state is Mississippi at $32,967 GDP nominal in 2010. Hard to compare, but I would guess that it means that Wales is poorer.
Does it include stuff like NHS?
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 08:37:17 AM
That said, without the US adopting a parliamentary system, Ide's Anglo Union can never be. We've seen how the US system functions, and the Anglo world would be better off without your presidents and congresses.
Exactly it wouldn't be a wimpy Anglo Union, it'd be American domination.
Quote from: Martinus on September 16, 2011, 08:44:02 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2011, 06:12:44 AM
The poorest NUTS2 region in the UK is Wales at 21,200€ GDP PPP/capita (~$29k with current exchange rate) in 2008, the poorest US state is Mississippi at $32,967 GDP nominal in 2010. Hard to compare, but I would guess that it means that Wales is poorer.
Does it include stuff like NHS?
Depends on whether the NHS is considered value added or subsidy.
Anyway, GDP isn't a good measure for "poor", it's just the best I could find as a proxy. GDP is an output measure, not a consumption measure. So it could be that Wales does consume more than Mississippi despite creating less GDP. That could happen if considerable amounts of wealth were transferred from say London to Wales. However, as Mississippi gets considerable net federal funds in the US, I doubt that it is poorer than Wales.
Here is the definition of GDP according to Eurostat: "As an aggregate measure of production, GDP is equal to the sum of the gross value added of all resident institutional units (i.e. industries) engaged in production, plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs. Gross value added is the difference between output and intermediate consumption."
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2011, 08:54:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 16, 2011, 08:44:02 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2011, 06:12:44 AM
The poorest NUTS2 region in the UK is Wales at 21,200€ GDP PPP/capita (~$29k with current exchange rate) in 2008, the poorest US state is Mississippi at $32,967 GDP nominal in 2010. Hard to compare, but I would guess that it means that Wales is poorer.
Does it include stuff like NHS?
Depends on whether the NHS is considered value added or subsidy.
Anyway, GDP isn't a good measure for "poor", it's just the best I could find as a proxy. GDP is an output measure, not a consumption measure. So it could be that Wales does consume more than Mississippi despite creating less GDP. That could happen if considerable amounts of wealth were transferred from say London to Wales. However, as Mississippi gets considerable net federal funds in the US, I doubt that it is poorer than Wales.
Here is the definition of GDP according to Eurostat: "As an aggregate measure of production, GDP is equal to the sum of the gross value added of all resident institutional units (i.e. industries) engaged in production, plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs. Gross value added is the difference between output and intermediate consumption."
Yeah. By that definition, an industrial district of Liverpool probably is "richer" than Chelsea.
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2011, 08:54:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 16, 2011, 08:44:02 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2011, 06:12:44 AM
The poorest NUTS2 region in the UK is Wales at 21,200€ GDP PPP/capita (~$29k with current exchange rate) in 2008, the poorest US state is Mississippi at $32,967 GDP nominal in 2010. Hard to compare, but I would guess that it means that Wales is poorer.
Does it include stuff like NHS?
Depends on whether the NHS is considered value added or subsidy.
Anyway, GDP isn't a good measure for "poor", it's just the best I could find as a proxy. GDP is an output measure, not a consumption measure. So it could be that Wales does consume more than Mississippi despite creating less GDP. That could happen if considerable amounts of wealth were transferred from say London to Wales. However, as Mississippi gets considerable net federal funds in the US, I doubt that it is poorer than Wales.
Here is the definition of GDP according to Eurostat: "As an aggregate measure of production, GDP is equal to the sum of the gross value added of all resident institutional units (i.e. industries) engaged in production, plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs. Gross value added is the difference between output and intermediate consumption."
You also have to consider stuff like cost of living. By most standards, West Virginia is poorer than North Carolina, but when we moved down here we found that, for example, a gallon of milk cost about 1.5 times as much here.
Germany needs to inform the PIIGS that there are two ways they can repay their debts: in gold, or in blood.
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 08:52:46 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 08:37:17 AM
That said, without the US adopting a parliamentary system, Ide's Anglo Union can never be. We've seen how the US system functions, and the Anglo world would be better off without your presidents and congresses.
Exactly it wouldn't be a wimpy Anglo Union, it'd be American domination.
And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:22:49 AM
And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.
I think that's the domination bit. You wouldn't be free. :)
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:22:49 AM
And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.
I think that's the domination bit. You wouldn't be free. :)
Come now. America doesn't have the strength for that anymore, especially in regards to the UK.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:28:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:22:49 AM
And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.
I think that's the domination bit. You wouldn't be free. :)
Come now. America doesn't have the strength for that anymore, especially in regards to the UK.
It does in this ridiculous hypothetical.
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:28:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:22:49 AM
And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.
I think that's the domination bit. You wouldn't be free. :)
Come now. America doesn't have the strength for that anymore, especially in regards to the UK.
It does in this ridiculous hypothetical.
Well, your troops would probably be eaten by the giant, bulletproof spiders that the mad scientist Dr. Canuck has been developing in protest against imperialist aggression.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:28:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:22:49 AM
And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.
I think that's the domination bit. You wouldn't be free. :)
Come now. America doesn't have the strength for that anymore, especially in regards to the UK.
It does in this ridiculous hypothetical.
Well, your troops would probably be eaten by the giant, bulletproof spiders that the mad scientist Dr. Canuck has been developing in protest against imperialist aggression.
Eh, he won't mind as long as we put "Royal" somewhere in the name of our army.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:44:12 AM
Well, your troops would probably be eaten by the giant, bulletproof spiders that the mad scientist Dr. Canuck has been developing in protest against imperialist aggression.
I don't think they'd fare well against our nuclear assisted giant cans of RAID.
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 11:49:37 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:44:12 AM
Well, your troops would probably be eaten by the giant, bulletproof spiders that the mad scientist Dr. Canuck has been developing in protest against imperialist aggression.
I don't think they'd fare well against our nuclear assisted giant cans of RAID.
The environmental lobby would never allow Obama to deploy them.
Quote from: dps on September 16, 2011, 11:00:36 AM
You also have to consider stuff like cost of living. By most standards, West Virginia is poorer than North Carolina, but when we moved down here we found that, for example, a gallon of milk cost about 1.5 times as much here.
The lower cost of living in WV comes at its own cost: living in WV.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:53:40 AM
The environmental lobby would never allow Obama to deploy them.
They'd have already been wiped out.
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 12:58:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:53:40 AM
The environmental lobby would never allow Obama to deploy them.
They'd have already been wiped out.
Botswana invades the US and puts New York City to the torch.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 12:58:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:53:40 AM
The environmental lobby would never allow Obama to deploy them.
They'd have already been wiped out.
Botswana invades the US and puts New York City to the torch.
Do we ever even allow them out of their pen?
Quote from: dps on September 16, 2011, 11:49:36 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:28:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:22:49 AM
And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.
I think that's the domination bit. You wouldn't be free. :)
Come now. America doesn't have the strength for that anymore, especially in regards to the UK.
It does in this ridiculous hypothetical.
Well, your troops would probably be eaten by the giant, bulletproof spiders that the mad scientist Dr. Canuck has been developing in protest against imperialist aggression.
Eh, he won't mind as long as we put "Royal" somewhere in the name of our army.
What about "quarter-pounder"?
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 01:25:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 12:58:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:53:40 AM
The environmental lobby would never allow Obama to deploy them.
They'd have already been wiped out.
Botswana invades the US and puts New York City to the torch.
Do we ever even allow them out of their pen?
So your counterfactual has the US still engaged in slavery? How gauche.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 02:18:17 PM
So your counterfactual has the US still engaged in slavery? How gauche.
Botswana didn't exist back then.
Quote from: Tyr on September 16, 2011, 06:27:32 AM
Que?
Northern Ireland, the Troubles. Several thousand killed.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 03:10:32 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 16, 2011, 06:27:32 AM
Que?
Northern Ireland, the Troubles. Several thousand killed.
Compton, Baltimore, Detroit? More thousands killed.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2011, 07:11:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
You getting the queasies there boy?
I'm a bit surprised at the glee expressed by yanks at the possibility of a european war.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 16, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2011, 07:11:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
You getting the queasies there boy?
I'm a bit surprised at the glee expressed by yanks at the possibility of a european war.
Are you now?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmazurland.typepad.com%2Fmyweblog%2Fimages%2Fstunned.jpeg&hash=7f032100ee8c3a573ed905d5de7863a12e9e55b7)
Quote from: Zoupa on September 16, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2011, 07:11:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
You getting the queasies there boy?
I'm a bit surprised at the glee expressed by yanks at the possibility of a european war.
It's in bad taste, but it's just kidding around, Zoups.
Quote from: citizen k on September 16, 2011, 05:48:35 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 16, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2011, 07:11:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
You getting the queasies there boy?
I'm a bit surprised at the glee expressed by yanks at the possibility of a european war.
It's in bad taste, but it's just kidding around, Zoups.
Internet is serious business.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 16, 2011, 05:42:31 PM
Compton, Baltimore, Detroit? More thousands killed.
You are unable to tell the difference between street crime and sectarian violence where 700 British soldiers were killed? Seriously?
Quote from: citizen k on September 16, 2011, 05:48:35 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 16, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2011, 07:11:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
You getting the queasies there boy?
I'm a bit surprised at the glee expressed by yanks at the possibility of a european war.
It's in bad taste, but it's just kidding around, Zoups.
K.
Quote from: citizen k on September 16, 2011, 05:48:35 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 16, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2011, 07:11:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
You getting the queasies there boy?
I'm a bit surprised at the glee expressed by yanks at the possibility of a european war.
It's in bad taste, but it's just kidding around, Zoups.
am I?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:51:42 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 16, 2011, 05:42:31 PM
Compton, Baltimore, Detroit? More thousands killed.
You are unable to tell the difference between street crime and sectarian violence where 700 British soldiers were killed? Seriously?
You said "The poorest parts of the UK were in a state of low grade civil war with in living memory" to argue how much more awesome the US is compared to the UK. I'd rather live in Londonderry than Compton.
Too many darkies in Compton.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2011, 05:53:53 PM
Quote from: citizen k on September 16, 2011, 05:48:35 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 16, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2011, 07:11:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
This thread is disturbing.
You getting the queasies there boy?
I'm a bit surprised at the glee expressed by yanks at the possibility of a european war.
It's in bad taste, but it's just kidding around, Zoups.
am I?
Zombie Davout is so disappointed in you. :(
He'd understand my shenanigans.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 16, 2011, 05:54:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:51:42 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 16, 2011, 05:42:31 PM
Compton, Baltimore, Detroit? More thousands killed.
You are unable to tell the difference between street crime and sectarian violence where 700 British soldiers were killed? Seriously?
You said "The poorest parts of the UK were in a state of low grade civil war with in living memory" to argue how much more awesome the US is compared to the UK. I'd rather live in Londonderry than Compton.
Good for you. Barrister would rather live in the Yukon. Your desire to live in Londonderry has nothing to do with my statement that "The poorest parts of the UK were in a state of low grade civil war with in living memory", which is true. Pointing out that people die in crime in Detroit does not mean anything. More Americans die in car accidents per year then American soldier die in Afghanistan, yet I would not consider the US highway system in a state of civil war nor would I want to live in Afghanistan.
I use the highway system. I want veteran's preference.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 06:01:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 16, 2011, 05:54:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:51:42 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 16, 2011, 05:42:31 PM
Compton, Baltimore, Detroit? More thousands killed.
You are unable to tell the difference between street crime and sectarian violence where 700 British soldiers were killed? Seriously?
You said "The poorest parts of the UK were in a state of low grade civil war with in living memory" to argue how much more awesome the US is compared to the UK. I'd rather live in Londonderry than Compton.
Good for you. Barrister would rather live in the Yukon. Your desire to live in Londonderry has nothing to do with my statement that "The poorest parts of the UK were in a state of low grade civil war with in living memory", which is true. Pointing out that people die in crime in Detroit does not mean anything. More Americans die in car accidents per year then American soldier die in Afghanistan, yet I would not consider the US highway system in a state of civil war nor would I want to live in Afghanistan.
Well, if pointing out that people die in crime in Detroit does not mean a thing (does not mean anything isn't proper english btw), then pointing out that the poorest parts of the UK were in a state of low grade civil war in living memory is about as relevant then.
The biggest problem with the denizens of NI is that they are introverted bores...........the bombs are almost a form of light relief from the tedium of their conversation.