Study Highlights Plight of Europeans

[BigBallinStalin]

Actually, there has been plenty of US aid in Europe, directed towards former eastern block countries like Poland, the CR or Bulgaria, who do need this help. Those are the countries that depress EU averages.

1. "If we just stopped calculating Alabama and Arkansas in the US averages, they'd be even higher! If we just stopped calculating the African-American community higher still! Those are depressing US averages!" Come on. Enough with the excuses, back-peddling, exceptions and "but, but, what ifs ..." Europe is dirt poor.

2. U.S. aid was in the form of NED and IRI buy-offs to politicians in those countries that have assured they vote as Washington dictates in the European Commission.

Also, having countries like Poland are great for the EU because that country produces goods cheaper than more developed EU members, whose people in turn have an increase in real income by purchasing comparatively cheaper foreign products. Without the "cheaper" currencies of non-Euro (yet EU) countries, the supply of labor in the private sector of "Developed" European countries is increased, which eventually frees up labor for other jobs, and the decrease in wages of the lesser paying jobs, again, decreases the costs of production (thus creating a decrease in the goods of domestic products, which in turn creates another positive boost in real income).

Regardless of saxitoxin's #1, blaming the developing economies of the EU is completely mistaken. Those little EU brothers provide net positive gains to the more developed countries.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let me make things simple for you saxi:

-Original western Europe block (EC 1980s): not poor at all. Much lower income disparities than in the US, bottom third better off than American counterparts
-Southern Europe and Ireland (first round of expansion): originally pretty poor, got much wealthier, currently experiencing growing pains, with large unemployment
-Eastern bloc EU: quite poor, getting richer, high growth rates


You can't sustain an economy by having a country of consumers, this results in trade/balance deficits that are unsustainable in the long term. As well factory jobs in Germany, northern Italy and elsewhere in W Europe are high-paying, you have many centuries of tradition of craftsmanship with a highly skilled labor force. If you're making $40/hr without a college degree, you are hardly a slave.

And how many people make $40/hr without a college degree? Seems like the supply of labor is being restricted (by the state, most likely). Price controls and their unseen costs shouldn't be ignored.

[thegreekdog]

In this thread we're trying to figure out how the world can advance social justice and give Europe a helping hand up.

There's a fair bit of resistance from within the EU to that kind of US interference. The EU-nuchs kind of argue that they tend to get shafted when it comes to these transactions.

The Eunuchs, essentially, don't have the balls to ask for yank assistance. I think the US is doing a fair bit to massage the world economy, but I don't see this having a happy ending unless Europe is willing to pay a bit more. You'd think things would be hard enough in the EU for them to stop acting like asses and ask for the US to reach around the obstacles and offer a bit of a helping hand.

I'm sure that some of the discomfort, part of which is surely a kind of phobia about the discomfort felt in dealing with the US, would be helped if the US was a bit more slick in how it approached the EU.

Differentiate the EU - which has been a US puppet since the European Commission was flooded with votes of US client states (in what Mitterand described as the "American Trojan Horse operation") like Poland, Ceska, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, etc. (recall the US was the biggest backer of their ascension, just like it is pressuring Turkey be allowed to join now) - from Europeans and I have no part with which to disagree with you.

US attempts to massage the world economy include the creation and expansion of the EU and are having a horrific impact on everyone while the US maintains relative wealth and stability. The only way Europe will escape their cycle of poverty - a poverty that is imposed from North America - is to make some attempt at unifying in a legitimate manner, not the hilarious front group called the EU. They had many chances from the 1940s to 1980s to do so and rejected all of them, bought-off by buying-into the romantic vision of their own poverty and the fiction of their independence. In that sense they've sealed their own fate and I have little sympathy for them now.

I think the EU would like to see a bit more romance when it all comes down to the actual business. Instead, we end up with Santorum and all that shit. He basically argues that Europe is dying, and has no sympathy, yet he is the direct product of this whole thing.

People look at things like that and feel disgusted, perhaps a little irrationally.

Point of order!

Two questions:

(1) Why do you give a shit what a United States politician, one that has not held elected office for at least 5 years, says about Europe?
(2) Why does any country in Europe need any assistance from the United States? We don't want your goddamned, limp-wristed, tea drinking assistance so why do you want our goddamned cowboy-hat wearing, six-shooter, yeehaw! assistance?

Question 1 is serious, question 2 not so serious, but illustrates what I think is my point - you appear to be making a presumption that the European Union needs (or wants) assistance from the United States (financially) and that the United States should provide some assistance. The question is why (to both elements).

[thegreekdog]

Actually, there has been plenty of US aid in Europe, directed towards former eastern block countries like Poland, the CR or Bulgaria, who do need this help. Those are the countries that depress EU averages.

1. "If we just stopped calculating Alabama and Arkansas in the US averages, they'd be even higher! If we just stopped calculating the African-American community higher still! Those are depressing US averages!" Come on. Enough with the excuses, back-peddling, exceptions and "but, but, what ifs ..." Europe is dirt poor.

2. U.S. aid was in the form of NED and IRI buy-offs to politicians in those countries that have assured they vote as Washington dictates in the European Commission.

Also, having countries like Poland are great for the EU because that country produces goods cheaper than more developed EU members, whose people in turn have an increase in real income by purchasing comparatively cheaper foreign products. Without the "cheaper" currencies of non-Euro (yet EU) countries, the supply of labor in the private sector of "Developed" European countries is increased, which eventually frees up labor for other jobs, and the decrease in wages of the lesser paying jobs, again, decreases the costs of production (thus creating a decrease in the goods of domestic products, which in turn creates another positive boost in real income).

Regardless of saxitoxin's #1, blaming the developing economies of the EU is completely mistaken. Those little EU brothers provide net positive gains to the more developed countries.

Which is probably why those little brothers are in the EU in the first place... right?

[BigBallinStalin]

Actually, there has been plenty of US aid in Europe, directed towards former eastern block countries like Poland, the CR or Bulgaria, who do need this help. Those are the countries that depress EU averages.

1. "If we just stopped calculating Alabama and Arkansas in the US averages, they'd be even higher! If we just stopped calculating the African-American community higher still! Those are depressing US averages!" Come on. Enough with the excuses, back-peddling, exceptions and "but, but, what ifs ..." Europe is dirt poor.

2. U.S. aid was in the form of NED and IRI buy-offs to politicians in those countries that have assured they vote as Washington dictates in the European Commission.

Also, having countries like Poland are great for the EU because that country produces goods cheaper than more developed EU members, whose people in turn have an increase in real income by purchasing comparatively cheaper foreign products. Without the "cheaper" currencies of non-Euro (yet EU) countries, the supply of labor in the private sector of "Developed" European countries is increased, which eventually frees up labor for other jobs, and the decrease in wages of the lesser paying jobs, again, decreases the costs of production (thus creating a decrease in the goods of domestic products, which in turn creates another positive boost in real income).

Regardless of saxitoxin's #1, blaming the developing economies of the EU is completely mistaken. Those little EU brothers provide net positive gains to the more developed countries.

Which is probably why those little brothers are in the EU in the first place... right?

I want to say, "yes" because it appears to be mutually beneficial, but I'm not 100% certain.

The free movement of labor would put downward pressure on Poland's unemployment rate, so Poland does benefit significantly.

Still, my main point has been counter to Gen. Tao's, which ignored that EU countries like Poland actually provide a net benefit--even if some averages are decreased. Without countries like Poland in the EU, the rest of the EU would suffer more so.

[General_Tao]

BBS, I didn't say that the integration of E. Europe into the EU was a bad thing, it's actually a strong positive, helping W europe stay more competitive globally by putting pressure on local labor, providing new markets and a more competitive industrial base and a demographic boost (mich needed in germany and other european countries with stagnant population growth). I was just saying that countries like Poland and Hungary depress the average income figure in the Eu and make it look like W europe is much poorer than the US.

For the same reasons I think turkey should be admitted too somewhere down the line. If you look at the population pyramids of countries like Italy or germany you will see that they won't have any choice but to take Turkey in, they are going to be in deep trouble there and the window to reverse their demographic trend is shrinking.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, I didn't say that the integration of E. Europe into the EU was a bad thing, it's actually a strong positive, helping W europe stay more competitive globally by putting pressure on local labor, providing new markets and a more competitive industrial base and a demographic boost (mich needed in germany and other european countries with stagnant population growth). I was just saying that countries like Poland and Hungary depress the average income figure in the Eu and make it look like W europe is much poorer than the US.

For the same reasons I think turkey should be admitted too somewhere down the line. If you look at the population pyramids of countries like Italy or germany you will see that they won't have any choice but to take Turkey in, they are going to be in deep trouble there and the window to reverse their demographic trend is shrinking.

Getting back to your point: "those "averages", whichever you care to choose, are brought down by lesser developed countries," but your point ignores the net positive gain which is provided to the developed EU countries by having those lesser developed countries in the EU. With that in mind, those averages would be worse without those lesser developed countries in the EU (recall free movement of cheaper labor, and the freer movement of goods from cheaper countries, etc.), so your minor quibble overlooks a few major points, thus it shouldn't be considered.

Besides, saxi makes a great point in #1. You can't cherry pick, and you have to admit to the economic greatness of the US States. It appears that you're just jealous.

[General_Tao]

Agree with the first paragraph. As to your second, I'm more interested in a discussion of global economic issues than about a pissing contest between europe and the US. As a canadian who has lived on both sides of the pond I have no dog there, if anything our interests actually are more tied with the US.

I'll just say that today few countries are jealous of the US, because it is growingly perceived as a fading hegemon. Its share of the world economy is declining (from close to to 50% after WW2 down to the teens). Most of the world is envious, and maybe fearful of China, which will overtake the US in a decade or two as the world's leading economic power. The impression you get from visiting Shanghai or Shenzhen today must have been similar to what someone who has landed in 1920s Manhattan felt.

[saxitoxin]

Agree with the first paragraph. As to your second, I'm more interested in a discussion of global economic issues than about a pissing contest between europe and the US.

Your own statements belie your words. Like here, made in the same post -

Most of the world is envious, and maybe fearful of China, which will overtake the US in a decade

This is a thread about the poverty of Europe. Not why the US "ain't all dat, yo."

You seem only to be qualified to address a thread critical of Europe with a knee-jerk nationalist reaction and assumption that Americans are trying to denigrate Europe and you need to pull this off-kilter act, racing headlong into battle, wildly firing chaffe into the air about "income equality", "global economic issues", how quaint the poverty in Italy is and why it shouldn't count because it's idyllic, why the PRC is great, etc.

This is simply a reasonable and polite discussion about what a shithole the EU is and why it's lagging behind the rest of the developed world - Canada, the U.S., Japan, Korea, Norway, Taiwan, Singapore, etc., included - nothing more, nothing less.

Take a valium!

[General_Tao]

Sorry but that's totally delusional, you rant about "thirld world shitholes" and "horrible poverty" in relation to a place you haven't visited in over 20 years. I'm beginning to suspect you're just bitter because you have been barred from visiting Europe. In fact most of Europe today is much better off than when you were last there in 1990, but you wouldn't (or don't want to) know.

You want to seriously discuss poverty, look up poverty rates. You'll find that those rates in Europe are no worse than the US' or Japan's. 6.2% in France below the poverty line, as opposed to 12% in the US...

[saxitoxin]

Sorry but that's totally delusional, you rant about "thirld world shitholes" and "horrible poverty" in relation to a place you haven't visited in over 20 years. I'm beginning to suspect you're just bitter because you have been barred from visiting Europe. In fact most of Europe today is much better off than when you were last there in 1990, but you wouldn't (or don't want to) know.

You want to seriously discuss poverty, look up poverty rates. You'll find that those rates in Europe are no worse than the US' or Japan's. 6.2% in France below the poverty line, as opposed to 12% in the US...

Britain has a 17% poverty rate. Ireland the same. I could go on, however, you previously said the best measure was the OECD median income figures. You seem to know what you're talking about so I'm going to stick to those.

- United States $31,111
- Australia - $26,915
- Japan - $19,432
- ROK - $19,179
- European Union - $16,790
- Israel - $14,055
- Chile - $7,851

[General_Tao]

You keep putting that aggregate EU figure to support your loony thesis about Europe being a 3rd world cesspool. So I ask you, which countries in Europe are really poor?

You mentioned Ireland. Ireland's poverty rate in 2009 was 5.5%, lol.

http://www.indexmundi.com/ireland/popul ... _line.html

Ireland today, even in recession, is a far, far richer country than when you were last there. It has AVERAGED a 6% growth rate between 1995 and 2007. This is absolutely phenomenal for a developed nation.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/gdp-growth


The UK has similar poverty rates to the US. From a BBC study:





Thanks for playing saxi.

[saxitoxin]

I'm having a really hard time keeping up with the revolving door of figures you're machine-gunning out as fast as possible to see what sticks. As soon as one statistic gets debunked, you move onto the next without blinking (I like how you continue to rant that the OECD figures are now no longer valid, after just extolling they were the only ones that were valid 2 pages ago when you misread your source and thought it supported your weird assertions. ).

Poverty Rates by Country
Romania - 25.0%
Bulgaria - 21.8%
Slovakia - 21.0%
Greece - 20.0%
Uruguay - 20.0%
Spain - 19.8%
Estonia - 19.7%
Portugal - 18.0%
Poland - 17.0%
Japan - 15.7%
Belgium - 15.2%
United Kingdom - 14.0%
Hungary - 13.9%
Finland - 13.1%
-----
Denmark - 12.1%
United States - 12.0%
Germany - 11.0%
Canada - 9.4%
-----
France - 6.2%
Lithuania - 4.0%
Taiwan - 1.8%

EU State
Non EU State

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... /2046.html
(this is a source you previously cited so I'll take it on good grounds to use as a standardization point)
I had to use this - http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/tjt/200 ... 01_en.html - for Finland instead; their "Low Income Rate" corresponds to the definition of poverty in UNSTAT nomenclature. Data on other EU states - such as Italy - was not available.

[General_Tao]

Your list above actually further undermines your argument of Europe being much poorer than the US. You have some much lower poverty rates, like Ireland's and France's, other slightly higher like the UKs. Sorry but you just can't make a case of W Europe having a severe poverty problem based on those numbers.

The figures do show that eastern and southern Europe have higher poverty rates. Those countries however have been experiencing some of the highest income growth rates in the OECD over the past two decades. As bad as things are in Poland or Estonia today, they are far better off than they were 10-15 years ago.

[saxitoxin]

Your list above actually further undermines your argument of Europe being much poorer than the US. You have some much lower poverty rates, like Ireland's and France's, other slightly higher like the UKs. Sorry but you just can't make a case of W Europe having a severe poverty problem based on those numbers.

Does this help?

EU - 16.0%
Japan 15.7%
United States - 12.1%
Canada - 9.4%
Taiwan - 1.8%

The latest iteration of your "but, but ..." argument now seems to be "if you subtract the poorest places like Spain, Bulgaria and the UK from the EU, then the poverty rate isn't that high." Similarly, if I subtract Alabama and Mississippi from the U.S., their rate would also decrease. If I subtract Newfoundland, northern B.C. and the Yukon from Canada, their rate would decrease. If I subtract Hokkaido from Japan, their rate would decrease.

If my goal is to prove poverty doesn't exist, a good tactic - as you suggest - is to just exclude poor places (like Portugal, UK, Romania, etc.) from poverty calculations. However, that's not my goal. We were attempting to have a frank discussion about social justice/poverty in places like Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa before you showed up with your marching band and cheerleading squad screaming that everything is just fine and we're not allowed to talk about the inbred cousins you have locked in the basement.

Now sit quietly and make me a mojito. I'll be back tomorrow to pick it up.

[General_Tao]

We were attempting to have a frank discussion about social justice/poverty in places like Europe...

Lols.

[GreecePwns]

Tao, around here not answering the points and just shouting I WIN doesn't mean you win*.

*Unless it is done in large, bold, green text and is followed by an ALL HAIL TGD!

[thegreekdog]

Tao, around here not answering the points and just shouting I WIN doesn't mean you win*.

*Unless it is done in large, bold, green text and is followed by an ALL HAIL TGD!

GREECEPWNS WINS! TGD IS THE GREATEST MAN ALIVE!

[General_Tao]

Actually TGD, I was making a point there, the point that saxi is being dishonest. He for instance tried to lump Europe with Sub-saharan Africa, to somehow try to paint Europe as a place with abject poverty:

"We were attempting to have a frank discussion about social justice/poverty in places like Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa"

This is not serious. the avg income in sub-saharan Africa is just above $1,000 per person. It's either dishonest or totally clueless to imply that Europe is anywhere near sub-saharan Africa. It's just a cheap rhetoric sleigh of hand.


I've actually answered his point, in my post above:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Study Highlights Plight of Europeans
Postby General_Tao on Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:44 am
Your list above actually further undermines your argument of Europe being much poorer than the US. You have some much lower poverty rates, like Ireland's and France's, other slightly higher like the UKs. Sorry but you just can't make a case of W Europe having a severe poverty problem based on those numbers.

The figures do show that eastern and southern Europe have higher poverty rates. Those countries however have been experiencing some of the highest income growth rates in the OECD over the past two decades. As bad as things are in Poland or Estonia today, they are far better off than they were 10-15 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want an honest discussion about poverty issues in Europe, you would be more specific and talk about the edges of Europe and places like Romania and Bulgaria, as opposed to implying that people in France or Germany live in abject poverty, because that's bull$hit. Notice that this is not what saxi does.

[General_Tao]

article highlights the plight of americans:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14296682

[BigBallinStalin]

article highlights the plight of americans:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14296682

Life sure was tough for those two fictional characters in the Grapes of Wrath.

[General_Tao]

The Great Depression wasn't a novel...

[thegreekdog]

Actually TGD, I was making a point there, the point that saxi is being dishonest. He for instance tried to lump Europe with Sub-saharan Africa, to somehow try to paint Europe as a place with abject poverty:

"We were attempting to have a frank discussion about social justice/poverty in places like Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa"

This is not serious. the avg income in sub-saharan Africa is just above $1,000 per person. It's either dishonest or totally clueless to imply that Europe is anywhere near sub-saharan Africa. It's just a cheap rhetoric sleigh of hand.


I've actually answered his point, in my post above:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Study Highlights Plight of Europeans
Postby General_Tao on Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:44 am
Your list above actually further undermines your argument of Europe being much poorer than the US. You have some much lower poverty rates, like Ireland's and France's, other slightly higher like the UKs. Sorry but you just can't make a case of W Europe having a severe poverty problem based on those numbers.

The figures do show that eastern and southern Europe have higher poverty rates. Those countries however have been experiencing some of the highest income growth rates in the OECD over the past two decades. As bad as things are in Poland or Estonia today, they are far better off than they were 10-15 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want an honest discussion about poverty issues in Europe, you would be more specific and talk about the edges of Europe and places like Romania and Bulgaria, as opposed to implying that people in France or Germany live in abject poverty, because that's bull$hit. Notice that this is not what saxi does.

Like a typical American, I care not for Europe or Africa or any countries on any continents apart from the United States in North America. I'm of course, kidding.

My point is merely that people in the United States complain constantly about the growing divide between the richest and the poorest in the United States. I contend that the poor in the United States have it fairly well off compared to the poor in other countries. While the divide may be troubling, it is hardly worth the rhetoric we get here. Most assuredly, certain entities and individuals benefit from the acts of Congress and the president (in consideration for their donations to political candidates... bribes if you will), but I think that is where the concentration should lie; not on whether the poor are poorer than the rich. In the United States, that smacks of jealously, not equality. In Europe and elsewhere? I don't know. Unlike many people, I don't like to speak on subjects which I know nothing about. I leave that to you and Saxitoxin to educate me.

[Lootifer]

Erm... @ Saxi.

GDP/capita (PPP adjusted) is hardly a good indicator of poverty.

Now if you asked how to get Europes GDP up then I can see a fair discussion... but really?

[BigBallinStalin]

The Great Depression wasn't a novel...

Since you're not getting it:

omg, the plight of Americans! Behold!! THE TRUTH: [insert link to website discussing the novel Grapes of Wrath, a fictional account of the US from the eyes of two people roughly 80 years ago.