Being critical of the US

[Admiral Piett]

And rifles work just fine aginst terrorists down the street.

If you find the terrorists first.But probably you have never heard the word "intelligence".
If you really think that in a war against terrorism the availability of transport aircrafts is more important than the collaboration of the intelligence services of the other nations,then you have already lost.

[Sea Skimmer]

All nations care only for them selves.They have interests and act to protect them. Currently Europe cant act to protect its own intrests around the world, but still attempts to dictate how America should act in an attempt to make up for that huge military shortfall.

And rifles work just fine aginst terrorists down the street.

I disagree. Europe is a very powerful region indeed when it plays to it's strengths. Consider trade and economics, Sea Skimmer. The EU contains a collection of the greatest manufacturers and exporters in the world. The US depends on vital imports from the EU for critical industries. Indeed amongst the top ten exports from Europe to the US you will find essential hardware for the nuclear industry, heavy industrial engines and so forth.

To see world politics as being entirely based on how many sharp sticks you have is to blind yourself to just how much damage EU nations could do if they wished, and vice-versa. The EU has colossal power, Sea Skimmer. Though in wartime and chasing suspected terrorists through deserts it may not be so red hot, it holds the US by the economic scrotum every bit as much as the reverse is true.

Check out complaints and issues filed to the World Trade Organisation since 2000 and their originators to see a glimpse of how Europe conducts it's affairs with the US. Whilst you are at it, check out such minor skirmishes as the 'wheat wars' of the 80s and the current tariffs and counter-tariffs running over the Atlantic.

And wonder to yourself just how much damage would be done to the US's fragile economy if a true trade war was ever initiated.

You point?.

My point is that Europe lacks the military strength to protect its interests which as you oint out are quite extensive from an economic stadnpoint. Europe is dependent on gulf oil to a far greater extent then America ever has been, yet it has been American warships, which have kept the sea-lanes, open for the past two decades. Every European navy combined could not match the current USN presence.

Without America, Europes oil supply is dependent on the wims of Iran and Iraq.

[Azeron]

USA
GDP $10 trillion
Exports: $776 billion (f.o.b., 2000 est.)
Exports - partners: Canada 23%, Mexico 14%, Japan 8%, UK 5%, Germany 4%, France, Netherlands (2000)
US to EU: $76 Billion

Imports:$1.223 trillion (f.o.b., 2000 est.)
Imports - partners: Canada 19%, Japan 11%, Mexico 11%, China 8%, Germany 5%, UK (about 4%), Taiwan (2000)
EU to US: about $120 Billion

I also might add that countries such as the UK, France and Germany, the imports to the US make up stubstantial part of their export market.

Figure in a economic quantifer of 2 to express the productivity superiority over Europe, and whoola, we end up with a trade multiplier of something like 4 to 1 in favour of the US. In other words for every once of pain europe tries to inflict on us, we can hit them 4 times harder. (sincxe exports are more like a 5th of thier economy, as opposed to 7% in the US, the multiplier is more like 8 but I don;t want to hammer eruope to badly) This is why Europe will never let a serious trade dispute emerge between the the US and EU Thats why we have the WTO, simply a euro idea to balkanize the world to manipulate the US.

this is cold hard fact. You euros might not like it, but too bad. Reality is a hard place to live in.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

I wonder why people asume that europe has a strong economy. 50 years of extremely poor fiscal policy has made europe impodent in trading terms. It simply doesn;t. I would sooner invest in Cuba than the EU.

[victorhadin]

USA
GDP $10 trillion
Exports: $776 billion (f.o.b., 2000 est.)
Exports - partners: Canada 23%, Mexico 14%, Japan 8%, UK 5%, Germany 4%, France, Netherlands (2000)
US to EU: $76 Billion

Imports:$1.223 trillion (f.o.b., 2000 est.)
Imports - partners: Canada 19%, Japan 11%, Mexico 11%, China 8%, Germany 5%, UK (about 4%), Taiwan (2000)
EU to US: about $120 Billion

I also might add that countries such as the UK, France and Germany, the imports to the US make up stubstantial part of their export market.

Figure in a economic quantifer of 2 to express the productivity superiority over Europe, and whoola, we end up with a trade multiplier of something like 4 to 1 in favour of the US. In other words for every once of pain europe tries to inflict on us, we can hit them 4 times harder. (sincxe exports are more like a 5th of thier economy, as opposed to 7% in the US, the multiplier is more like 8 but I don;t want to hammer eruope to badly) This is why Europe will never let a serious trade dispute emerge between the the US and EU Thats why we have the WTO, simply a euro idea to balkanize the world to manipulate the US.

this is cold hard fact. You euros might not like it, but too bad. Reality is a hard place to live in.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

I wonder why people asume that europe has a strong economy. 50 years of extremely poor fiscal policy has made europe impodent in trading terms. It simply doesn;t. I would sooner invest in Cuba than the EU.

Which hardly counteracts my point. I have been over this argument before, and though the US has a marginal advantage in terms of dependance over Eu nations, it is hardly massive, especially when you consider dependance on direct investment which goes in quite the opposite direction and in a far greater magnitude. Consider the 2001 slump; the US slumped far further than the EU nations on average largely because it was more dependant on European investment, which had just been pulled from beneath it.

Furthermore consider the vital nature of many EU exports to the US, such as industrial engines that could not be done without, and you begin to see my point that not only is the import-export dependancy gap far smaller than you would think; factor in invesment dependancy and the US finds itself on far more of a knife-edge.

But why simply speak? Here are some links:

http://www.eurunion.org/profile/facts.htm

If you look at the above, you will find your posted 'facts' erroneous in the extreme. The EU's dependance on exports as a percentage of GDP is a mere 10.9% in 2000, not the 1/5th you claim.

Furthermore your source, the CIA 'world factbook' is hardly the best. Considering it finds it difficult to get accurate GDP statistics right, I am disinclined to trust it.
Here is the Eurostat statistical office, which gives data of a far more accurate and detailed degree:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Publ ... e=Eurostat

Much of the statistical information is to be paid for, but statistics from a couple of years back are available in PDF format. I have seen some startling contradictions with the world factbook, which I have duly lost faith in.

But back to the trade dependance issue. Consider that in 2000 the US showed a $50 billion advantage in trade dependancy of exports over the EU, it displayed (in the other direction) a dependance on EU direct investment which was over $200 billion in excess of the EU dependance on US direct investment. As a result, we see the way the US economy fell much more drastically than the EU average economy in the 2001 slump when this investment was pulled from under it.

And furthermore, your 'productivity superiority' is shite. This is something you have pulled out of your arse. Consider your 'productive' steel industry, which now requires protectionist economic policy to keep it alive aganst Asian and European competition, each boasting far greater efficiency.

Now look at the slump in economic growth in 2001 where the US fared decidedly worse than the EU.

And look at an actual example of cross-Atlantic trade war; the 'wheat wars' of the 80s. The advantage went to European businesses over that.



For a continent which is supposedly 'impotent' in trading terms, we seem to have beaten you in one trade war already and fared better in the most recent economic slump.

Pull your head out of your rear and look at those facts, matey.

[Azeron]

As for your point that the Eu is most slightly more dependent than the US, is quite true, if you count 2nd world Europe membership, and the many smaller states. If you look at the heavywieghts, the core EU you find my fifth holds true.

Yes the US has more direct investment, becasue its a safer place to get a good return. Its substantially easier to make doe in the US than in Europe. Look at france if you think this kind of dynamic isn;t true. All the new french companies are fleeing to the UK becasue of the increased regulatory and tax burden france has. If they were not able to do that, french investors would have less opportunity than they have today.

as for being twice as productive. If the per capita shows 38k, and the average percapita of europe ia about 21k, than you can assume that the average US qorker is about 2x as prodcutive as the average euro worker. The only way US workers can be paid more is if the productivity is greater.

you bitch about our steel industries, but you subsidize your steel industries up to the hilt. We can make steel more efficently, and of better quality than any where else on the planet, but you flood the markets with subsidizerd steel, much like you try and flood the markets with subsidized planes from airbus (which are really crapy planes to fly in compared to a boeing). If it weren;t for interest free loans, and government ownership, you would be able to build that new Super Jumbo jet (financial disaster in the making).

Hey I never said the US never had a down cycle, just that we are better at weathering them than Europe can. That also means are growth is stronger in up cycles as well.

Then there is the fact that the US subsidizes your health care industry by making drugs availiable at a price you can afford. All this while Americans pay for all the R&D, and plant construction, by carrying your fair share of the developement costs on our backs alone. Next time you see an american, you should thank them for paying your share of medical costs and buy them dinner, becasue if it weren't for europe leeching on the US for new and innovaative medical tech, there would be many more dead euros from treatable causes today.

[Admiral Piett]

as for being twice as productive. If the per capita shows 38k, and the average percapita of europe ia about 21k, than you can assume that the average US qorker is about 2x as prodcutive as the average euro worker. The only way US workers can be paid more is if the productivity is greater.

Which means that the average american worker is 38 times more productive than the average third world worker.
Sorry but there must be something wrong buried somewhere in this logic.

you bitch about our steel industries, but you subsidize your steel industries up to the hilt. We can make steel more efficently, and of better quality than any where else on the planet but you flood the markets with subsidizerd steel

Textbook nationalistic bullshit about "my steel is better than your".By the way what is your source of information for the european steel being highly subsidized?
We outsubsidize agriculture ,but subsidizing steel to an important degree is a new thing to me.


, much like you try and flood the markets with subsidized planes from airbus (which are really crapy planes to fly in compared to a boeing).

And in what way would they be "crappier" than boeing ones? Do they have lower performance/safety? Or is it simply one of the your strange fantasies?
(like the protests stamped out by the military in Europe,Roosvelt policies to harrass women etc)

[Azeron]

I just saw a reference to the "pertol revolts" in europe a little while ago... anyways, Blair asked the queen to send out the troops if I recall.

The Rosvevelt policies, actually caught me by surpriuse when I caught a History channel ahow on "liberty girls" and the government efforts to clamp down on immoral behavior. Quite fascinating. I never consdered a diner waitress particularily permiscuous.

anyhow, yes the only thing Europe knows how to do is subsidize failing industrys instead of making needed liberal market reforms.

After having riden on an airbus, I must say I dislike the lot of them. Boeings are vastly superior in everyway to me as a customer. Like ample leg room, egronomic designs, stabiity, and good looks to boot. Airbus planes on the other hand anre abusive incrouchive planes that wait for just the right moment for the tail of the plane to fall off.

So I take it, you aggree with the medical part too, and intend to take the first america you see out to a movie to thank them for all the generous amounts of medicine they give you.

[Luke Starkiller]

After having riden on an airbus, I must say I dislike the lot of them. Boeings are vastly superior in everyway to me as a customer. Like ample leg room, egronomic designs, stabiity, and good looks to boot. Airbus planes on the other hand anre abusive incrouchive planes that wait for just the right moment for the tail of the plane to fall off.

You really are full of shit aren't you? Seating arrangements in aircraft are purely at the whim of the airline flying them. The stability of an aircraft in flight is almost entire dependent upon the weather conditions. What the hell do you mean by "ergonomic designs"; if it has to do with pretty much anything inside the cabin of the aircraft, again that is at the whim of the airline.

One last thing, where the hell do you get off saying that Airbuses are just waiting to fall apart? Going into Aerospace Engineering myself I find that statement disgustingly offensive. The reason that engineering is rigourusly controlled is that while a doctor's mistake might kill one person, an engineer's mistake can kill hundred's. Such a statement by you just...

[Azeron]

oh just a flaw that caused an airbus to crash in a long island neighborhood about 2 blocks from my borther's fiance's house last year.

[Next of Kin]

oh just a flaw that caused an airbus to crash in a long island neighborhood about 2 blocks from my borther's fiance's house last year

Oh and a Boeing has never crashed before?

[Azeron]

there is a difference, entire sections of an airbus just flyoff for no reason compared to terrorists craching a boeing in the ground. BIG WHOPOPING DIFFERENCE!! What do you expect when the french get involved in a plane design?

[Next of Kin]

That wasn't the first time a Boeing crashed...

[Azeron]

you absolutely correct, just before that, 2 teams of terrorists also crashed them into sides of the trade towers. Notice the terrorists taste in planes as well. they didn;t pick crappy airbuses with thier spartan interioir and poor handling controls, they pick the best, becasue when you need a plane to get the job done, you chose a boeing.

[Next of Kin]

you absolutely correct, just before that, 2 teams of terrorists also crashed them into sides of the trade towers. Notice the terrorists taste in planes as well. they didn;t pick crappy airbuses with thier spartan interioir and poor handling controls, they pick the best, becasue when you need a plane to get the job done, you chose a boeing.

LOL! I love the logic! Boeing aircraft are superior becuase they were chosen to ram the trade towers over Airbuses.

[Azeron]

LOL! I love the logic! Boeing aircraft are superior becuase they were chosen to ram the trade towers over Airbuses.

If this keeps up, how will Airbus ever live down the shame?

[Mr. B]

you absolutely correct, just before that, 2 teams of terrorists also crashed them into sides of the trade towers. Notice the terrorists taste in planes as well. they didn;t pick crappy airbuses with thier spartan interioir and poor handling controls, they pick the best, becasue when you need a plane to get the job done, you chose a boeing.

Did it ever occur to you that they chose those planes becasue they were on the least traveled routes and would be easiest to control. And i think they have a beef with American and United Airlines.

[Admiral Piett]

[quote="Azeron"]I just saw a reference to the "pertol revolts" in europe a little while ago... anyways, Blair asked the queen to send out the troops if I recall.

I tend to doubt that something similar has happened,especially in the UK.Certainly it was never mentioned here in Europe.


The Rosvevelt policies, actually caught me by surpriuse when I caught a History channel ahow on "liberty girls" and the government efforts to clamp down on immoral behavior. Quite fascinating. I never consdered a diner waitress particularily permiscuous.

Point taken.But was it during the prohibition?

anyhow, yes the only thing Europe knows how to do is subsidize failing industrys instead of making needed liberal market reforms.

During the steel controversy governmental subsidies on european steel WERE NEVER MENTIONED.Which is a bit strange.Can you give me a proof of
that EU subsidizes heavily steel(or at least that the steel subsidies are more generous in EU than in the US)?

After having riden on an airbus, I must say I dislike the lot of them. Boeings are vastly superior in everyway to me as a customer. Like ample leg room, egronomic designs, stabiity, and good looks to boot. Airbus planes on the other hand anre abusive incrouchive planes that wait for just the right moment for the tail of the plane to fall off.

Seat arrangement,which is decided by companies, and of course no statistics or precise information to back your statements about their lower safety standards.This is just your personal opinion:they are made in Europe so they must fall apart

So I take it, you aggree with the medical part too, and intend to take the first america you see out to a movie to thank them for all the generous amounts of medicine they give you.

I am not saying that the US does not have a technological advantage(and quite substantial in some areas), especially in computers ,biotech and some other sectors.However in many others there is not the quantum leap you claim there is.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Wait, is this shit head seriously basing his "airbuses suck!" position entirely on THAT ONE SINGLE FUCKING RANDOM CRASH IN NEW YORK!!!!?

Shit, Azeron. Planes crash.

From now on, I don't think you should be allowed to form an opinion unless you have it approved by the authorities.

[Azeron]

Wait, is this shit head seriously basing his "airbuses suck!" position entirely on THAT ONE SINGLE FUCKING RANDOM CRASH IN NEW YORK!!!! ?

Shit, Azeron. Planes crash.

From now on, I don't think you should be allowed to form an opinion unless you have it approved by the authorities.

ROFLMAO!!

it amazes me, stuff like this really flies right over your doesn't it? LOL....

Yah I am that danergous.

BTW it wasn't the first time a tail fell off an airbus for no reason. Might I add the tail is made in fance.

[Admiral Piett]

BTW it wasn't the first time a tail fell off an airbus for no reason. Might I add the tail is made in fance.

Anedoctal evidence.To which I could reply with other anedoctal evidence saying that for example that I have readed a couple of years ago on a newspaper the report of a japanese engineer which has visited the Boeing assembly line and has found a lot of desorder and inefficiencies. Or pointing out cases of boeing aircrafts blowing up.
Simply we cannot settle the matter in this way.You need statistics or something more solid than your personal impressions to demonstrate that Boeing aircrafts are safer than Airbus.
While I am sure that the companies would be more than happy to buy relatively unsafe but cheap planes I tend to think that aviation security
agencies would have already said something about this.I might have missed them,but I tend to think that simply the problem does not exist.
As far as flight controls go,if I remeber correctly (I am unsure however) Airbus has introduced "fly by wire" in the civilian market before Boeing.

[Skelron]

there is a difference, entire sections of an airbus just flyoff for no reason compared to terrorists craching a boeing in the ground. BIG WHOPOPING DIFFERENCE!! What do you expect when the french get involved in a plane design?

Well first off, let me see what do we get when the french join in the design of a plane... erm let me see, hard to think here, oh wait where they are where they not one half of the worlds first, and still only, Supersonic, (Or whatever the term is) Passenger plane Concorde... hmm yes I think they where...

As for 1984 and your claims it was about America, LOL. The Novel mentions america only losely, is based in the UK, London to be exact. The main Characters name is an amalgamation of a mainly British Hero (Winston Churchill) and the name for an everyman (Smith) and is about Dictatorships, and their nature. It's not about America, it's not about any country to be exact it's about Humanity. (and it's definatly not about America, the writer was British, and on another note also a Socialist, why would he write a novel about the US and it's 'Problems' when he saw enough in his own, and in the country that professed to be about his cause(Russia))

[Tsyroc]

there is a difference, entire sections of an airbus just flyoff for no reason compared to terrorists craching a boeing in the ground. BIG WHOPOPING DIFFERENCE!! What do you expect when the french get involved in a plane design?

Well first off, let me see what do we get when the french join in the design of a plane... erm let me see, hard to think here, oh wait where they are where they not one half of the worlds first, and still only, Supersonic, (Or whatever the term is) Passenger plane Concorde... hmm yes I think they where...

As for 1984 and your claims it was about America, LOL. The Novel mentions america only losely, is based in the UK, London to be exact. The main Characters name is an amalgamation of a mainly British Hero (Winston Churchill) and the name for an everyman (Smith) and is about Dictatorships, and their nature. It's not about America, it's not about any country to be exact it's about Humanity. (and it's definatly not about America, the writer was British, and on another note also a Socialist, why would he write a novel about the US and it's 'Problems' when he saw enough in his own, and in the country that professed to be about his cause(Russia))

Yeah, if any of Orwell's books were about America it had to be Animal Farm