Damned if we do, and damned if we don't !

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bearclaw, Apr 3, 2003.

  1. TM, if the UK had a lower percentage of the world's GDP in 1978 than did the USSR, well, obviously, that would translate into a lower level of actual GDP also!

    Look, here's the simple math. Europe as a whole had 28% of the world's GDP in 78. Using the US GDP in 1978, based on 1996 dollars, which was 4.8 trillion, the entire world GDP would have been 24 billion. (Because 4.8 trillion is 20% -- America's share at the time -- of 24 trillion.) So, Europe's share would have been 28% of 24 trillion, or 6.7 trillion.

    If the top four Euro producers produced 80% of that, they would have produced 5.4 trillion. (That's not an unrealistic assumption, I don't think, considering countries like Spain, Holland, Sweden, Belgium are left out).

    I have a feeling Germany's share of that would have been larger than the other three, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and divide it equally by four. That's 1.3 trillion for UK. That's obviously a high estimate, since the UK GDP today is not much higher, and they did go through quite a boom in the last 20 years. Anyway, that is OBVIOUSLY a lot lower than 9% (USSR) of 24 trillion, or 2.2 trillion.

    So there you go.

    Now, I have no idea what they procuced either. I guess they just consumed it internally, or exported to other Eastern Bloc nations.

    That's not to say that the USSR was more productive than the UK (or Germany, or France etc), they obviously were not. The USSR had 270 million people, about the same as all of W Europe, yet only produced a third as much, per capita. They were way behind in this respect.

    (Interestingly, a 2.2 trillion GDP (1996 dollars), puts their per capita GDP at $8000/head of population in 1978. A lot better than the $1800 per head (for Russia) that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development reports in 1999. Talk about going backwards!)

    #61     Apr 4, 2003
  2. damn I wished I'd said that!

    Yep.. no more Consitution. Now the Bushs can start a "war" anytime! And the idiots in this country spent how much time and money getting all worked up over a blowjob! But violence and illegal acts of aggression.. NAW, that ain't gonna get the American brain-dead nitwits too riled up!

    We are the laughing stock of the world.

    #62     Apr 4, 2003
  3. skeptic123

    skeptic123 Guest

    Do not worry. You say enough of your own absurdities. No need to envi msfe.
    #63     Apr 4, 2003
  4. Why have you failed to answer a direct question so many times?

    Why is it that the current administration is deemed guilty until proven innocent?

    Where does all your hatred come from?

    No country's government that is a member of NATO whose leadership opposes the war has made a declaration via their constitutional mechanisms that applies sanctions against the USA.

    You have so much hatred and venom, you really sound like a victim of something, as you come off with such irrationality all the time, like some poor oppressed person, who can't evaluate anything without some parrot-like response. You seem to be suffering some type of post traumatic stress response, like some Pavlovian creature that when anyone says anything positive about America's involvement in the war, you go off like a dog salivating over a fresh piece of meat.

    Why do you avoid answering the question as to why you have so much hatred against America, and why you don't give the present administration the benefit of the doubt? Congressmen and Senators have approved the measures being taken, it is not unconstitutional, the UN has not passed, or even offered up an resolutions denouncing the actions?

    It is just so mysterious, why someone who claims to be an American, avoids such simple direct questions.
    #64     Apr 4, 2003
  5. Whaaaat... no Cheny/Bush-Halliburton connection brought up in this $$$ thread? Ooops! Forgot, ol' Halliburton is not going to bid on any post Iraq reconstruction. Sure makes all the previous "war for money" posts mentioning Halliburton look stupid.
    #65     Apr 4, 2003