U.S. vs. China

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
According to who? If that were the case, I don't think their economies would be shrinking.

Acording to a study a while ago, was on BBC news actually...I'll look back and give you a link.
Also our economy isnt "shrinking" some are some arnt.

You can compare rates. It has nothing to do with total size.

Size matters, europe is made up of lots of countries and therefore will have diffrent amounts of unemployment.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What is all this nonsense about comparing the UK to a state you guys are worst off then I though if you cant be compared to one country.

I was trying to be fair since USA is much larger than the UK but... if you want...our unemployment is less anyhow....

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Size matters, europe is made up of lots of countries and therefore will have diffrent amounts of unemployment.

I'm manly talking about the big three in Europe France, Germany and the British, the rest are not that important. Also Devilwasp our unemployment is 5.6% what's the British one?

Acording to a study a while ago, was on BBC news actually...I'll look back and give you a link.
Also our economy isnt "shrinking" some are some arnt.

Besides the UK's, the major ones are all in trouble. Germany, France and Italy have terrible economies.

Size matters, europe is made up of lots of countries and therefore will have diffrent amounts of unemployment.

Who cares? We're talking about prodoctivity.

I was trying to be fair since USA is much larger than the UK but... if you want...our unemployment is less anyhow....

It's a percent or so difference. That's compared to the other big European countries who have over two times the unemployment we do here in America.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I'm manly talking about the big three in Europe France, Germany and the British, the rest are not that important. Also Devilwasp our unemployment is 5.6% what's the British one?

The rest are, since I count spain, italy, sweeden, etc as big countries...unless you think italy has just one ferrari factory in it....
The british one is 4.7%

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Besides the UK's, the major ones are all in trouble. Germany, France and Italy have terrible economies.

Yet again the "major ones" come in here....I am not talking about major ones here...

Who cares? We're talking about prodoctivity.

Actualy I was talking to westy about unemployment but hey tangent away.

Your last qoute was rather garbled, please repeat it...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What is all this nonsense about comparing the UK to a state you guys are worst off then I though if you cant be compared to one country.

I can't think of many U.S states with an economy worth over $1.8 trillion

UK GDP grew 4% in the first quarter this year

I can't think of many U.S states with an economy worth over $1.8 trillion

That's because a state is not a country, and do you want me to post how much the U.S. economy is worth?

Also the U.S. economy is growing at 4% and the UK GDP is no where near the US GDP.

[edit on 28-3-2005 by wfliu]

The EU currently has a GNP of approximately the same as the US.. between 11-12 trillion dollars..... however, for those of you thinking the US has a strong economy... think again. Your annual defecit is between 400-500 billion dollars... your currency is being devalued extremely quickly, and the Euro is doing very well... worth far more than the American dollar. How long can this go on before your economy starts taking some major hits? A year, maybe two? Your national debt is over 7 trillion dollars already and climbing at record pace. And your trade defecit is massive, not sure on the exact stats, but I get my info from the CIA world factbook, feel free to look it up. I think that the EU will soon take over as the benchmark economy and currency as the American financial situation worsens. And the more pressure the Americans put on China, the more trade will be sent to the EU rather than the US... making the situation for the US even worse. Better get Dubya to quit racking up the credit cards before you get collection agencies banging at the white house door... hehe. Dubya.... what a goof.

How can you compare the EU with the US your comparing several counties with one country. They have to have a whole continent just to keep up with one country and were still a superpower The dollar is making steady gains against the Euro and our economy is growing 4% annually as I said before. and your Euro beating the dollar the world currency and your trade ranting, is all an big “what if“ as of now the US economy is doing good. And I’m glad that the U.S. wont suck China’s... just to get some trade contracts.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
How can you compare the EU with the US your comparing several counties with one country. They have to have a whole continent just to keep up with one country and were still a superpower

Lets take land mass and reasources into account before we go "oh you have lots of countries so you all must be weak"
So your a super power, what does that do for you?

The dollar is making steady gains against the Euro and our economy is growing 4% annually as I said before. and your Euro beating the dollar the world currency and your trade ranting, is all an big “what if“ as of now the US economy is doing good. And I’m glad that the U.S. wont suck China’s... just to get some trade contracts.

Ha so now your calling your "greatest bestest pal in the whole widest world" a how shall we call it? Homosexual?
Wow nice to know that the US thinks highly of honour and "alliances"

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Its interdependency not homosexuality

Lets take land mass and reasources into account before we go "oh you have lots of countries so you all must be weak"
So your a super power, what does that do for you?

Land mass doesn't mean that much, and I tend to think that if you have one Continent trying to keep up with one country then they separately are weak.

And Devil the Brits aren't the only one in the EU, who is trying to d anything to get trade deals.

Question to all (except WestPoint23). What do you all believe will be the general reaction in the American public and mass media should the U.S. commence a defensive campaign to save Taiwan from China? Supportive? Divided? Take into consideration the current state of world affairs.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Question to all (except WestPoint23). What do you all believe will be the general reaction in the American public and mass media should the U.S. commence a defensive campaign to save Taiwan from China? Supportive? Divided? Take into consideration the current state of world affairs.

I think that depends if US just leaves 2 or 3 carrier battle groups over there and we dont loose any of them and just defend taiwan, there will always be someone against a war, But US did promise to protect Taiwan from any Chinese Agression, so American Public may expect the US to defend Taiwan.

Overall i think most would be for Defending Taiwan Airspace and waters, but there would be Serious Objections to putting any boots on the ground

Originally posted by zakattack
I think that depends if US just leaves 2 or 3 carrier battle groups over there and we dont loose any of them and just defend taiwan, there will always be someone against a war, But US did promise to protect Taiwan from any Chinese Agression, so American Public may expect the US to defend Taiwan.

Overall i think most would be for Defending Taiwan Airspace and waters, but there would be Serious Objections to putting any boots on the ground

Boots on the ground? Even if those boots are on Taiwanese ground, not Chinese?

How much of a differential of opinion do you think there would be in the public and the media regarding a defensive campaign that not only involves four carrier strike groups, but a liberation (if necessary) and defensive campaign of Taiwan?

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Question to all (except WestPoint23). What do you all believe will be the general reaction in the American public and mass media should the U.S. commence a defensive campaign to save Taiwan from China? Supportive? Divided? Take into consideration the current state of world affairs.

I think it will be divided. The people of course would support the troops. However, a war defensive or offensive against China would potentially mean loss of troops in some theatres. And from observing the US public over issues in Iraq, the US public don't seem to take nicely to any casualties even though it is a reality of war the casualties will always be sustained. The US seem to have a mentality of "Zero Casualty" rate. I'm not having a go at the American people for it, but as I said earlier casualties in war are inevitable and it is unrealistic to expect every single serviceman/woman to come home safe.



[edit on 31/3/05 by D]

What you say D is true. However supposing the Chinese attack led to heavy civilian loss on Taiwan ( eg. Missile strikes ). This IMO would tip the scales in the US in favor of military action.

The US and China are not going to have any war anytime soon. They are ENORMOUS trading partners.

When or if.... oil and other natural resousces get low, then it is a whole new ball game, but outside of that, both countries have a lot more to gain by being friends.

Anyone check the trading numbers. The US and China are best buddies. They might argue about stupid things..... most big kids do.

Personally, as an American, I feel a kinship with China because of all of the Chinese immigrants I grew up with in NY. Good folks, who want nothing more than to prosper......

Let's just hope to heaven that those two countries do not go to war, because if that were to happen, it would mean hell for all of the world, regardless of where you stand.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Land mass doesn't mean that much, and I tend to think that if you have one Continent trying to keep up with one country then they separately are weak.

Land mass has everything to do with it, why do you think the US has more reasources than say the UK?
Because its bigger and so will have more reasources...during the industrial revolution we were the "workhouse" of the world (actual qoute BTW) because we could build things better and faster than everyone else.
When drilling machines got into america and free trade was introduced we got seriosly screwed, why?
Because america has coal seams the size of double decker busses in straight lines...ours are awkward and go up, down, left and right.

And Devil the Brits aren't the only one in the EU, who is trying to d anything to get trade deals.

No but we are one of the major powers.
Also they arent "tradeing anything to get deals" the arms restrictions will probably restrict it to purchaseing HK weapons and out of date weapons from us....is it not better to control what is being sold than to let them buy anything they want from everywhere else?

Originally posted by rogue1
What you say D is true. However supposing the Chinese attack led to heavy civilian loss on Taiwan ( eg. Missile strikes ). This IMO would tip the scales in the US in favor of military action.

While i agree with your point, i have to disagree on a technicality.

Missile strikes (the 800 or so missiles) are extremely accurate to the 10 meters and will target military installations, it will not cause civilian casualties.