Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has been found that especially Erdogan sees reufugees as part of his strategy to conquer the world for Islam by mass migration. He cited Arafat with his famous citation ""The womb of the Arab woman is my strongest weapon." These days he goes one step further and comes to Germany to do more agressive advertising for gaining more power at home.
This would never be possible in the US I guess...imagine Castro holding a speech in front of exile-cubans in Miami, while beeing loved and cheered for using agressive rhetorics against the US. Only in puss*-Europe/Germany.
This would never be possible in the US I guess...imagine Castro holding a speech in front of exile-cubans in Miami, while beeing loved and cheered for using agressive rhetorics against the US. Only in puss*-Europe/Germany.
It happened in Canada too, but at least the PM at the time sent de Gaulle packing.
Charles de Gaulle hid the Finnish swastika pendant with his collars and jacket when he was presented with the Order of the White Rose, the highest non-military award in Finland. After that the swastika was replaced with a spruce branch. Two leaders except for CDG requested a new collar; Hirohito of Japan and Baudoin I of Belgium. For Elizabeth II and Ceausescu the swastika seemed to be OK.
The contribution of the U.S. to the defence of Europe is negligible. Raising defence spending from 1% of GDP to 2% of GDP is not a big task. Buying foreign made equipment can even help to reduce the current account surplus.
NATO is Europe's (and Germany's) National Defense. NATO has no standing army. Yet, NATO's strength is based on Readiness for War of member states. US provides about 70% of this Alliance's military readiness.
The issue is that while NATO provides very little or nothing for US's own national defense, US spends great amounts. That's why both, Trump and Bernie Sanders talked about reducing US role, and letting Europeans, like Germany, spend more on military.
These voices will get louder, and like all alliances, NATO will end one day. Germany will need to fend off for itself, and you just can't build your capabilities in a year or two. These things take decades to build up.
Germany is doing nothing, because it can't, and thus it is woefully prepared for geopolitical changes which will come for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukas1973
LOL, Germany don't has fiscal problems. Last year the budget surplus was 0.8% of GDP. Using this money plus a very moderate budget deficit of just 1% of GDP could increase military spending from about 1.2% to 3.0% of GDP.
We discussed this very issue 9 months ago at another thread. Another poster (Zach) and myself posted several charts showing that Germany is in a very bad fiscal shape.
Zach and I posted numbers from McKinley and OECD, yet you rely on Eurostat numbers, which IMO is left-wing propaganda. They also under-reported the Greek debt fiasco, and are currently under-reporting migrants.
Here was my reply to you 9 months ago:
"Germany's real PUBLIC Debt-to-GDP is about 200% as I posted several pages ago. Not 70%. Some analysts believe is 400%. This includes UNFUNDED liabilities.
I made another argument -- Even these numbers do not take into account an additional unfunded liability guaranteed to come Germany's way -- national defense."
It seems you have not changed your position, as neither have I, so there is nothing to discuss.
Zach and I posted numbers from McKinley and OECD, yet you rely on Eurostat numbers, which IMO is left-wing propaganda. They also under-reported the Greek debt fiasco, and are currently under-reporting migrants.
Here was my reply to you 9 months ago:
"Germany's real PUBLIC Debt-to-GDP is about 200% as I posted several pages ago. Not 70%. Some analysts believe is 400%. This includes UNFUNDED liabilities.
I made another argument -- Even these numbers do not take into account an additional unfunded liability guaranteed to come Germany's way -- national defense."
It seems you have not changed your position, as neither have I, so there is nothing to discuss.
I am with you regarding Eurostat and biased numbers regarding everything that has to do with the migrant crisis or with other stuff that politicians do not want people to know.
However regarding the fiscal situation, Germany is indeed very robust. It is OECD that is constantly criticising Germany for not spending enough money in infrastructure, economy and other stuffs while wasting to much money on useless stuffs. So, the priorities are wrong, but the overall budget situation remains stable. You cannot only look at the debt, but you also have to look at the assets of an economy. If they invest in infrastructure etc. of course the debt may go up, but those investment give a yield in return, while other investments don't. Statistical Insights: Government assets matter too, not just debt | OECD Insights Blog
Government earns more and more money every year, the problem is that it is not using that money the right way. For example they provide free inefficient education while infrastructure is lacking investments. https://www.timeshighereducation.com...-unsustainable
NATO is Europe's (and Germany's) National Defense. NATO has no standing army. Yet, NATO's strength is based on Readiness for War of member states. US provides about 70% of this Alliance's military readiness.
The issue is that while NATO provides very little or nothing for US's own national defense, US spends great amounts. That's why both, Trump and Bernie Sanders talked about reducing US role, and letting Europeans, like Germany, spend more on military.
These voices will get louder, and like all alliances, NATO will end one day. Germany will need to fend off for itself, and you just can't build your capabilities in a year or two. These things take decades to build up.
Germany is doing nothing, because it can't, and thus it is woefully prepared for geopolitical changes which will come for sure.
The US spends 70% of NATO's readiness, but only a fraction of that is targeted towards NATO or Europe. Much of the defence budget is targeted on the defence of the US itself. A large chunk is also targeted towards Asia and the Pacific, which has nothing to do with NATO.
That NATO contributes nothing to the US is total rubbish. The NATO countries provide a lot of military intelligence, technology and arms research, and have done so since the alliance was formed. And remember, the US is still the only country which has asked for the Article 5 to be triggered.
Of course there is a massive difference if such a large nation as Germany spends 1 or 2% of the GDP. But as you said, a difference will not happen over night. The money must be carefully invested. Suddenly just pushing double the money will probably lead to a lot of money being wasted and going into bureaucracy.
For example France and Turkey have failed the 2% mark only for a few years, but as they have strong militaries, the capacity has not been weakened. I also doubt that the French Gendarmerie is in that number, and if it's not, then France already spends 2%.
That's why it's not that good to only get hooked up on a number.
And I think most European NATO members will reach the 2% mark by 2024 as promised.
NATO is Europe's (and Germany's) National Defense. NATO has no standing army. Yet, NATO's strength is based on Readiness for War of member states. US provides about 70% of this Alliance's military readiness.
The issue is that while NATO provides very little or nothing for US's own national defense, US spends great amounts. That's why both, Trump and Bernie Sanders talked about reducing US role, and letting Europeans, like Germany, spend more on military.
These voices will get louder, and like all alliances, NATO will end one day. Germany will need to fend off for itself, and you just can't build your capabilities in a year or two. These things take decades to build up.
Germany is doing nothing, because it can't, and thus it is woefully prepared for geopolitical changes which will come for sure.
Most of the U.S. military isn't designated for the defence of Europe. Most of it is absolutely needless for Europe's defence.
To think that there will be a comprehensive war between Russia and Europe in the future is completely absurd. No one needs large ground forces with thousands of battle tanks anymore. It's surely necessary that Germany spends more for better military equipment. But it's completely absurd that we have to prepare for a war.
Defence spending is already increasing strongly.
Quote:
We discussed this very issue 9 months ago at another thread. Another poster (Zach) and myself posted several charts showing that Germany is in a very bad fiscal shape.
Zach and I posted numbers from McKinley and OECD, yet you rely on Eurostat numbers, which IMO is left-wing propaganda. They also under-reported the Greek debt fiasco, and are currently under-reporting migrants.
Here was my reply to you 9 months ago:
"Germany's real PUBLIC Debt-to-GDP is about 200% as I posted several pages ago. Not 70%. Some analysts believe is 400%. This includes UNFUNDED liabilities.
I made another argument -- Even these numbers do not take into account an additional unfunded liability guaranteed to come Germany's way -- national defense."
It seems you have not changed your position, as neither have I, so there is nothing to discuss.
The figures from Eurostat are just adopted from the German federal ministry of finance. Claiming that they are wrong would mean that the entire German figures and budget management is wrong. That's completely absurd. The public debt is about 2.15tn Euros, that's about 69% of GDP. If it were 200% of GDP, then they had to hide debt of more than 4tn Euros. Could you explain where they have hide this amount of debt? And where are the creditors of this huge amount of additional debt?
Where McKinsey (never heard of McKinley) or the OECD get their numbers from? Of course from the German federal ministry of finance.
The problem is, that your are unable to distinguish between public debt, private household debt and debt from corporations. All these three different kinds of debt combined amount to about 170-200% of GDP. That's still relatively low compared to almost all other countries.
Indeed it doesn't make sense to discuss serious topics with you. You are even unable to differentiate between public and private. You live in a bubble constructed by fictional or alternative facts.
Most of the U.S. military isn't designated for the defence of Europe. Most of it is absolutely needless for Europe's defence.
To think that there will be a comprehensive war between Russia and Europe in the future is completely absurd. No one needs large ground forces with thousands of battle tanks anymore. It's surely necessary that Germany spends more for better military equipment. But it's completely absurd that we have to prepare for a war.
Defence spending is already increasing strongly.
The figures from Eurostat are just adopted from the German federal ministry of finance. Claiming that they are wrong would mean that the entire German figures and budget management is wrong. That's completely absurd. The public debt is about 2.15tn Euros, that's about 69% of GDP. If it were 200% of GDP, then they had to hide debt of more than 4tn Euros. Could you explain where they have hide this amount of debt? And where are the creditors of this huge amount of additional debt?
Where McKinsey (never heard of McKinley) or the OECD get their numbers from? Of course from the German federal ministry of finance.
The problem is, that your are unable to distinguish between public debt, private household debt and debt from corporations. All these three different kinds of debt combined amount to about 170-200% of GDP. That's still relatively low compared to almost all other countries.
Indeed it doesn't make sense to discuss serious topics with you. You are even unable to differentiate between public and private. You live in a bubble constructed by fictional or alternative facts.
We discussed this very issue 9 months ago at another thread. Another poster (Zach) and myself posted several charts showing that Germany is in a very bad fiscal shape.
Zach and I posted numbers from McKinley and OECD, yet you rely on Eurostat numbers, which IMO is left-wing propaganda. They also under-reported the Greek debt fiasco, and are currently under-reporting migrants.
Here was my reply to you 9 months ago:
"Germany's real PUBLIC Debt-to-GDP is about 200% as I posted several pages ago. Not 70%. Some analysts believe is 400%. This includes UNFUNDED liabilities.
Gross debt-to-GDP ratios are hardly ever useful (just think of what happens when someone buys a house) and this is no exception. You cannot carry out a meaningful conversation unless you know how those numbers were constructed and assess whether it represents any real risk or debt. Long story short, this shows that the 200%+ number that's thrown around is due to the fact that German governments control many banks; customer deposits are obviously considered as liabilities for those banks and they end up in the total debt numbers for Germany. Of course by law all these liabilities and then some have to be covered by assets.
We could argue whether the government should be involved in the banking sector and that would be an interesting debate, but my point is that your "very bad fiscal shape" argument looks rather poor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
