Donnervogel
-
Content Count
1036 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by Donnervogel
-
-
Same answer.Because they are British owned and twice a year they send a slice of the profits back here in the form of a check. The profits enter the British economy.
Further more anu increase in the value of the company may be sold off and the money would be sent to the U.K.
1. the GDP is the gross domestic product and not the GNP (gross national product). It indicates how the British economy is going. The GNP indicates the value created by British nationals. But it is useless for comparing national economies because it includes many values that benefits foreign economies and exclude all the values that benefit the British economy but are "owned" by foreigners.
2. Also if the company value increases and your stocks are sold again you will gain money from it but that money is not a value generated by the UK economy. It is again only a transfer of ownership anyway. But where has the additional value been produced? It was generated by the firm for example because it invested it's earnings into new machinery (there are tons of other reasons why the value of a firm can go up and to explain them all I'd have to fill another 2 pages so I just use this one example because it's not as complicated). And there we are again. those investments are part of the GDP formula --> foreign GDP profits from the increased value of the firm because it is part of the foreign economy. There is more money however in the UK because of the transfer of ownership but that alone has no impact on the UK economy. It will have impact on the UK Economy though if the money is spent in the UK. And that is because that money in the UK will create a higher demand for UK products which will increase production of companies located in the UK. Don't confuse this with ROI from foreign investments which is added to UK GDP directly because it's coming from exporting UK services.
BUT the GDP counts the the ROI individuals/companies get from investing in foreign companies (which is what the "income" of the UK in this sector consists of.)Incorrect.
Quote[/b] ]Gross Domestic ProductValue of all final goods and services produced within a country within a given time period, usually one year. GDP thus includes the production of foreign-owned firms within the country, but excludes the income from domestically-owned firms located abroad
You can emphasize it as much as you want. I pretty much explained it in every posting why this cannot be counted and why financial services are on a different level. You either start an argumentation of your own or I take it you are just being ignorant for the sake of it.
-
I use banking services to invest my money abroad. I am not a bank. I do not provide a banking service.Banks make money from my transaction. They take a cut or charge a fee. This is called a "banking service".
This is counted towards the GDP of the involved banks host nations.
That 1/3 of the U.K.'s national GDP is created from these transactions alone, might give you an insight into exactly how many transactions are being made.
GDP is short for Gross Domestic Product. Foreign investments and their returns are by their very nature, not domesticly produced.
You should be very wary of Wikipedia. I could have wrote it. Or as is more likely a student as part of their school project.
Seriously. How much effort do you put into ignoring reality? You are welcome to read again what I wrote already because frankly - I covered all those areas already more than once. You also also welcome to pick up an economy book and read it there if you don't trust Wikipedia... but I am again repeating myself.
(on a sidenote, it is ok to me if you don't trust Wikipedia, but many Wikipedia articles - unlike you - provide their sources so they are checkable. And If you don't trust the Wikipedia article you are welcome to check the sources.)
Quote[/b] ]Gross Domestic ProductValue of all final goods and services produced within a country within a given time period, usually one year. GDP thus includes the production of foreign-owned firms within the country, but excludes the income from domestically-owned firms located abroad.
Lesson one: you need to provide your sources. (luckily it wasn't too hard to track down this one)
Lesson two: you need to read carefully.
Quote[/b] ]Gross Domestic ProductValue of all final goods and services produced within a country within a given time period, usually one year. GDP thus includes the production of foreign-owned firms within the country, but excludes the income from domestically-owned firms located abroad.
Gross Domestic Product as tiscali encyclopaedia
So I ask this again. Why on earth would the production of foreign firms be counted to the British economy? It's simply wrong. I explained this many times already. Is it so hard to understand what GDP means? If you count foreign production to your GDP you are counting a foreign economy to yours which would defeat the purpose of the GDP to show the state of the domestic economy.
BUT the GDP counts the the ROI individuals/companies get from investing in foreign companies (which is what the "income" of the UK in this sector consists of.)
Therefore I am not ignoring a large part of the UK economy by doing this. Actually I am not ignoring that part at all. You just need to distinguish between what belongs to what economy. And you investing money into a foreign economy primarily benefits the foreign economy. Because if they build machines/factories/whatever that is a direct contribution to the foreign economy. If they "produce" goods/services this also directly benefits the foreign economy. What benefits the UK economy is the service you are exporting by lending (right word? dunno the English terminology in that area well) money to foreigners. And the profits (values added) you have from it (ROI) is what counts to GDP, because as it says it measures the production (creation of values). Transferring ownership (of money of goods or rights etc.) alone is never creating any values so measuring that would not give you any valuable data on the productivity of an economy. There are such measures though and they have their uses in other areas.
-
The returns of foreign investment are measured as part of the national income, and I am taxed on them both in their host countries and in my own. They are not however measured as part of GDP.Welcome back to Donner's new edition of Economy for beginners:
Quote[/b] ]Measures of national income and output are used in economics to estimate the value of goods and services produced in an economy. They use a system of national accounts or national accounting first developed during the 1940s. Some of the more common measures are Gross National Product (GNP), Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Gross National Income (GNI), Net National Product (NNP), and Net National Income (NNI).Quote[/b] ]The money I have removed from the British economy to invest abroad provides greater return than if invested domestically. That's why I (we) do it. This is better for the economy.Yes this is why the income you get as part of your ROI is measured in the GDP. The initial (money) investment itself is not measured as it is only a transfer of ownership. Transfer of ownership alone does not create of destroy any value. Hence nothing gets "produced". And therefore it has nothing to do with GDP. The GDP will only measure what additional value (ROI) you create by investing, not the (money) investment itself.
Quote[/b] ]Banking services are measured as GDP. However we own foreign banks too. So their services are measured under their host nations GDP not ours.Why on earth should their services be measured in British GDP? They are creating (or destroying) values for their domestic economy not the British one. Counting those values in the British GDP would just be plain wrong. However if British nationals are creditors (also Shareholders) of those banks then those banks have to pay for the "service" that they can use the money of those British people - hence they have to pay for importing "services" which has a negative effect on their GDP but a positive effect on the British GDP.
Quote[/b] ]GDP is GDP whatever country you are in.While GDP is the same everywhere the measurement can vary greatly. The GDP is a formula with a set of values that add up. But it doesn't say anything about how those values are measured. For example. You can measure GDP completely indirectly if you like. You can measure what the population is spending to determine the national income for example (as everything they spent had to be earned at one point in time). You can also measure national income by measuring income directly. In theory those methods are equivalent in the long term but in reality they can lead to slightly different results and sometimes even big differences if compared in short term. Therefore it is important to consider how the GDP gets measured if you want to backtrack how certain actions affect the GDP in detail.
EDIT:
I'm getting pretty tired of going over this GDP thing over and over simply because you ignore facts.
If you want to criticise the GDP then do it for the real reasons. What I am explaining can simply be read on Wikipedia or in any economy book including the criticism of the GDP.
EDIT2:
Quote[/b] ]The countries and areas with all the infrastructure aren't the ones with all the famines.Tell that to the people starving in the slums of Calcutta.
-
Well at one point you took the money away from the British economy by investing it in foreign economy. So this is only swapping ownership and not an economic actions. Hence this does not necessarily produce new values. Therefore this investment is ignored and also if you sell your shares/whatever again. Now you get returns on your investment but those should be measured as part of national income and the data should come from the tax declaration. However I am not sure how the GDP is exactly measured in England. I know in Germany/Switzerland your profits in that case is like a banking service so the ROI is the value of an exported service which gets measured.
-
Made abroad, sold abroad is not benefiting the British economy, so what is your point? If you own them (assuming you live in Britan) then those are Imports as they somehow had to reach your hands and mostly I assume it wasn't for free so it had an effect on British GDP when you imported them..
-
Quote[/b] ]The GDP of a country is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of timeRe-read please.
why? I know money is not calculated. It's the GDP. It measures the the value of the things that generated the money - not the cashflows itself. Hence I am highlighting "services" for you. All the services that generate money "abroad" that benefits the UK economy are exported services measured with the GDP. If the money is made with foreign firms in foreign countries with foreign money then - obviously it's not the British economy that benefits from it and thus it's not measured in the British GDP - even if the CEO is a British citizen. But that should be obvious.
Quote[/b] ]95% of the goods I own are produced (and sold) abroad.That my friend are imports. They are measured with the GDP as well. But Imports are buying foreign services/goods so they have a negative effect on the GDP - obviously.
-
Thanks for all the input! If there is no considerable performance difference, are there situations in scripting when sqf is more practical even if one is lots better at sqs?like the others explained SQF Syntax is always superior to SQS
Besides with SQS you can't write any functions (used with the call command) so it is better if you learn SQF, then you just need one Syntax and you can do functions and scripts alike. Besides it's not hard to learn. It's just another way of writing the things you already know combined with a lot more flexibility in controlling your script execution.If you have the time and interest you could just do a C tutorial instead of waiting for someone to write a comprehensive SQF one (maybe there is already one but I dunno). If you learn C you'll get the hang of SQF in no time, plus you then even know a real programming language
-
The Biki has a very good description on the Format command.
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Syntax:
format [string, var1, var2 ...]
Parameters:
string: String - a string containing references to the variables listed below in the array. The references appear in form of %1, %2 etc.
var1: Any Value - variable referenced by %1
var2: Any Value - variable referenced by %2 a.s.o.
Return Value:
String - The full string is returned.
So as you see the format command takes a String parameter (this is the part often enclosed in quotes " ") and an indefinite number of other values. to reference to those values in order to include it at the place in the String parameter where you want them you need to reference them by the %-sign followed by a number. The number stands for the argument that you reference too. So %1 references to the first parameter behind the String parameter, %2 to the second, etc.
A little example:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">
variable1 = 99;
hint Format["My grandma is %1 years old. Her name is %2", variable1, "Betty"];
The output would be:
My grandma is 99 years old. Her name is Betty
EDIT:
the % in mathematical operations stands for the modulus operator. As already explained it returns the remainder of a division. This is most useful in many cases. One use would be for example to divide numbers by 2 and then check if the remainder is 1 or 0. If it is 1 the number is an uneven number. If it is 0 the number is an even number.
There are many more uses for this but most of these are more advanced topics.
-
Looks about average for that 7 year period. Certainly not noticeably higher. And certainly lower than it's peak. If GDP was driven by migration we should see a steady and marked rise from 2004-2007. (1/2 a million new immigrants)But we do not. We see an overall drop and at one point the lowest growth in GDP for the last 13 years.
This one dimensional thinking is so wrong. That is not how the economy works my friend and linking immigration directly to GDP growth is plain silly. Your conclusions are wrong. Also I never said that Immigration would directly lead to GDP growth too. What I said is that without Immigration your GDP growth had been overall lower. That is a difference.
What the figures merely show is that the UK had a very healthy economical growth in the past years. That growth is reflecting the global economic situation for developed countries in those periods very nicely and it generally is between 1.5 and 4% which is very healthy for a western country. 4% is even getting almost too much if it would stay for a longer period. The conclusion is that the UK economy is doing well.
Let's have a look at your beloved German economy for the same period of time for comparison:
Quote[/b] ]2000 +3,2%
2001 +1,2%
2002 0,0%
2003 – 0,2%
2004 +1,2%
2005 +0,9%
D-STATIS: Wichtige Zusammenhänge im Überblick
Quote[/b] ]Once again you are judging the U.K. economy by it's GDP.Production is not our primary source of income.
Most of our money is made abroad. It is not calculated in GDP. It is not contibuted to by low income domestic employees.
this is getting boring
Quote[/b] ]While I agree the GDP is a poor measure but the "poor" effects of the measure applies to most western nations in a similar way. Your argumentation is silly. [...] That aside, the GDP does consider exports and not only industrial ones. Also services which include banking services etc...Quote[/b] ]The GDP of a country is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of timeGDP is not based on industrial or agricultural production only. By your argumentation Switzerland would have be competing with Third World countries in the GDP ranking because our Economy is even more depending on the service sector than yours.
It's one part and it's basically what I said concerning industrialised agriculture. Only it's not the topic so I didn't go into all the details but that would be no problem. There's a reason why I went to the "Human History and Economy" course.Quote[/b] ]We got above the population levels of the middle ages by improved farming, sanitation and medical techniques.Quote[/b] ]As much as you may wish to believe that there are only starving people in the world because fat people are evil or whatever, that isn't the case.You're making up stuff again about what I believe.
Quote[/b] ]Freight costs are not low.It is very cheap to send Goods around half the world when using international transportation companies. Why else do so many firms send their goods around half the world during production before they end up in the domestic stores? Because it costs them next to nothing compared to the costs of producing it at home.
Quote[/b] ]During those disasters when we send food to mountain villiages etc, all that food is shipped in by helicopter.My argumentation concerning global transport capacities and freight cost is something fundamentally different than a government sponsored Media stunt to react to emergency situations when our precious holiday resorts get swept away by natural disasters. - I am not talking about emergency relief. I am talking about theoretical capacities for long term trade and assistance with underdeveloped regions.
Quote[/b] ]There are not roads, not ports and not railways everywhere people live. No infrastructure to move hundreds of millions of tons of food every day.You don't need to deliver hundred millions tons of food every day to some desert village with 20 people. A few mules and an adequate load of food would do just fine.
It is simply a fact that also non Europeans have discovered the use of roads and are maintaining and building them where there are large concentrations of people that need such infrastructure for various reasons - like trade.
And believe it or not. They actually got on their feet and rebuilt the roads and railways and ports after the Tsunami/Earthquake struck their regions. So those helicopter stunts are only needed for short term emergency responses.
Quote[/b] ]This sounds like a student fantasy. Idealism over practical experience.Of course. I am an Idealist. But that is a good thing. But I am not naive. As you have seen I have listed a nice list of reasons why my ideals don't come true. Besides your "practical experience" in macroeconomics doesn't seem to be that huge either.
-
Which doesn't change that 5 years ago before the big influx of immigrants, our low paid jobs were still all being done and our economy was stronger than it is today.2006 looks stronger to me than 2002-2003...
Quote[/b] ]Needless to say both your figures and mine are arguable. Only I'm not going to argue mine with you. They were taken from The Telegraph daily newspaper and can be found at it's online sight.
Wrong. Mine are arguable. Yours aren't. Because you have none. Sorry, either you prove me you're the statistics yearbook of the UK in person or you have to provide your sources. Preferably so that I can check them. Read: linky link.
Quote[/b] ]N.B. your 2000 data of 4% immigrant populous of the U.K. only goes to show the scale of immigration we have had in the last 7 years. It is now 8%.So what, in Germany it's about 12% for 2005. You're not the only country with immigration, you know? And remember, 4% in Germany is a much bigger absolute number than 4% in the UK.
Quote[/b] ]GDP gives a poor reflection on U.K. wealth generation. We are not a big industrialised producer in the same way as Germany and Japan. It does not make up the bulk of our national income.While I agree the GDP is a poor measure but the "poor" effects of the measure applies to most western nations in a similar way. Your argumentation is silly. Firstly by your argumentation you are basically defeating your point of calling the German industry strong compared to the UK. As we have seen both GDP/capita are almost equal so either by your argumentation the UK economy must be either extremely strong to catch up with he German one or the German one must be extremely weak. That aside, the GDP does consider exports and not only industrial ones. Also services which include banking services etc...
Quote[/b] ]No sources for that 90% Donne, loosely speaking only the top 5% pay more into the system than they take out.This is pretty much common knowledge.
no sources no relevance. Where would NASA have gotten if they explored space based on "common knowledge"
Quote[/b] ]If food is abundant, the population expands until it uses up all available resources, in fact it over expands.If food is abundant, the population expands until it uses up all available resources, in fact it over expands. A famine ensues and then the population rebalances.
Nice citation of the Volterra laws but unfortunately it has been proven wrong for the human population otherwise we'd never gotten above the population levels of the middle ages. All hail industrialisation! Which leads me to my point. Industrialisation enabled us to produce magnitudes more supply in basically anything that we actually need. And since also agriculture is industrialised we are able to produce a lot more food for example than we can ever consume (of course we don't produce as much food as we can because there is no market, except if you are in Switzerland or France where the agriculture is heavily subsidised and therefore a lot of the production simply isn't used for anything but gets thrown away to keep the market prices steady.
Quote[/b] ]There cannot ever be enough food to feed the world.Well there is already enough food to feed the world.
World Hunger Facts 2006Quote[/b] ]The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (Food and Agriculture Organization 2002, FAO 1998. The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.Quote[/b] ]Neither can food mountains here be shipped elsewhere.If you look at how many goods get shipped around the world (including food) you see that the capacity would be there theoretically. But I agree that shipping food is not the solution. Which only re-inforces my argument that the UK doesn't suffer from basic resource shortage as it gets to consume magnitudes more of it than it actually needs.
Quote[/b] ]Further to this it is not economicaly viable to ship food to everywhere.Oh it is more than economically viable to ship food everywhere. Freight costs are low and work costs are even lower abroad. Actually it would be much more economically viable to send food to china to get it packed and send it back than to pack it in the UK if you need to pay extra employees for the packing, only problem is that the food might not be as fresh anymore.
Quote[/b] ]As rich as we are here in the west, we are not gods. Our wealth has limits.Yeah the biggest limit being our egoism.
As I already explained the foreigners actually help to sustain and increase the UK's wealth so this argument is pretty silly anyway.
I didn't suggest it was easy. I just said it is possible. We didn't do it because it becauseQuote[/b] ]Do you honestly believe that if we could end world famine as easily as you suggest, no one would have done it?1. it means we'd have to share our wealth with others which we obviously don't want, you being a prime example.
2. the main reason for famines is not the lack of food but poverty (people can't afford the food)
3. the countries affected by famines are very reluctant to ask for/accept international help for prestige reasons (doesn't look good in the dictators biography)
4. conflicts and corruption prevent the aid from reaching those that need it.
5. the solution should not be that we feed the world but that the world can feed itself (maybe with our assistance)
Quote[/b] ]It doesn't matter how many papers you link me too Don, a random Google link isn't going to impress me.I actually found some of those articles with the university research network :O I found more but most aren't publicly accessible and I do not know if you have Uni research network access. Anyway the goal is not to impress you, the goal is to make an argument as opposed to pulling something out of my bottom.
Quote[/b] ]But if it was as you say in Germany, and the immigrants are taking all the low paid jobs (8%?), why haven't their educated people stopped leaving?re-quote
Quote[/b] ]They will fight hard for the higher skill jobs instead and the "losers" would probably seek their luck in other European countries instead of going to wash dishes all their life. -
give the unit you want to move a Waypoint where you want it to wait and the next Waypoint where you want it to move to (or multiple waypoints) and in the "condition" field of the waypoint where you want it to wait write something like: MyVariable (MyVariable can be any valid name for a global variable). Then in your script that is executed with the action write
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">MyVariable = true;when you want the unit to continue with its waypoints.
-
I edited my first posting.
-
Nonsense.oh noes the "I don't read properly what he wrote and answer anyway" has started again... this is going to be tiresome.
ok where to start:
Quote[/b] ]The economy would not collapse.I said if the work wouldn't get done the economy would collapse as in putting in perspective that low skill work is vital too. I didn't say without immigrants the economy would collapse. I merely said the Immigrants are doing work that is vital for the economy. Of course British people can do that work too instead but there's plenty of arguments why they can't substitute the work for the same price. Thus that solution is inferior and leads to decreased economic growth. Careful reading could have told you this.
Quote[/b] ]Immigrants make up just under 2% of the population and contribute 0.04% of GDP.Big whoop.Big whoop.
If you directly contradict my source that I mentioned then please have the decency to present your source...
Quote[/b] ]You might notice that Germany and Japan have very expensive labour forces and massive economies.Funny that you mention Germany. Almost 9 % of the German population are foreigners. Compared to that England has only about 4% (2000 data: http://doku.iab.de/ibv/2003/ibv0903.pdf)
Their "massive" economy has to do with their "massive" population (for Europe) that is only not shrinking thanks to immigration. Their GDP per capita is nearly the same as that of the UK and Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._capita). So all three economies are almost equal relative to the population based on GDP. So all those foreigners don't seem to harm them as they are about as Productive as the UK with a more than twice as big percentage of foreign population.
Quote[/b] ]Infrastructure is more important than labour costs.eh... okay, care to elaborate. That statement without any context is pretty useless.
Quote[/b] ]Cheap labour economies are not the most successful.Who was talking about cheap labour economies... I was talking about the UK economy which is not a cheap labour economy.
Quote[/b] ]Here in the U.K. most of the money is made in the city by bankers, not in fields picking subsidised crops or in the service industries.90% of the population is already subsidised. Adding 1/2 million people below the profit line every year doesn't improve anything. It makes it worse.
source for your numbers please. I'd like to check them myself before commenting. Especially what those subsidies would be that 90% of the population need. I mean I get subsidies too because I use public transportation and not a private car but boohoo I'm not stealing money from the nation that way, in fact I'm saving it a lot money that way.
Quote[/b] ]There can never be enough to feed the entire world. Best to play a game you can win.You make it sound like the UK was on the verge of collapsing because of resource shortage which is to use your words "nonsense". Besides it has been proven numerous times there is enough to feed the entire world. Only the distribution sucks. While the "rich" countries consume magnitudes more than they need the poorest get almost nothing.
Quote[/b] ]All it contributes to is the current pension payments. It's an immediate respite for the short term only, not a solution or a cure. Pure plop.The pensions crisis remains unsolved.
now if you actually read the paper you could see that they found that it does help in the long term while it doesn't have any significant effect in the short term. But since it is there for you to read I won't bother to explain it.
Quote[/b] ]Not that we particularly want to lose all our skilled workforce. It costs a fortune to train them.We would like them to stick around and do their bit here.
You do realise that more skilled people would leave if there were only low skill jobs left for them in the UK? As I said before. immigrants in low skill jobs mostly do jobs that most British people simply don't want to do. At least not as a permanent source of income. So if you chase out the immigrants you'd maybe create jobs for a few Dereks but the majority of unemployed British people would not want to do those jobs. They will fight hard for the higher skill jobs instead and the "losers" would probably seek their luck in other European countries instead of going to wash dishes all their life. We have this "problem" or "blessing" in Switzerland. We get a lot of German immigrants. For our Economy they are really cheap workers but they are highly skilled. So what happens... you go to a hospital and you have only Germans there. Why? They can't find a job in Germany that suits their educations. They get offered to work in low skill jobs. They say "FU" and go to Austria or Switzerland where they are thankfully employed. They cost like 1/4 less than a Swiss person in the same position, they are often better educated and they speak the language. Perfect. For us. We get population growth of well educated people that are culturally almost assimilated. Shame for Germany. They get some kind of "medium-Brain drain".
-
No they don't.From the moment they set foot in the country they are fre to use the roads the health care the courts, the public buildings, send their kids to school, visit the museums and parks, drink the water.
And since the most of them work in low paid work, those that contribute don't pull their weight. 90% of the country don't pay their way, only the rich do.
They are getting a free ride they haven't earnt. Most of us are.
If our country, like you, was willing to charge a reasonable price, that would be acceptable to me. As I said wealthy immigrants are very welcome. They contribute their worth and pay a fair rate for the facilities open to them.
The state does help Derek. He gets incapacity pay. £40 a week.
He used to have a job that paid £250.
Your arguments are faulty. You assume the low skill jobs along with the people not earning enough to live without social support would not exist if there were no immigrants. But that is fundamentally wrong. Those jobs need to be done. Without them the economy would collapse. And if there were no immigrants to do it then English people would do it and they would need social support aswell because the job is not suddenly going to generate money out of thin air that can be given to those people.
[EDIT]: Forgot to add an important aspect here: don't forget that immigrants often work cheaper and harder for the same job meaning that you can't replace the jobs 1:1 meaning the number of jobs would decrese and thus the number of work done would decrease overproportionally and thus the added value decreases meaning your economical growth decreases meaning even less jobs will be offered. [/END EDIT]
Also there would not be enough people that are willing to do such labour without immigrants. Because you won't get a native with a decent education to wash dishes for a living. If he doesn't find a job - thanks to the EU migration and labour laws - he will go to some other place that offers him a decent job in his area of work and decent wages.
anyway it goes to far to explain all the mechanics. but there are sevral studies/articles on this issue. You might find those interesting:
The Impact of Immigration on the Structure of Male Wages: Theory and Evidence from Britain
Quote[/b] ]Our conclusions suggest that the main impact of increasedimmigration in the UK is on the outcomes for immigrants who are already here.
How immigrants sustain Britain's economic growth
Quote[/b] ]"It seems likely that immigration has contributed 0.5 per cent to 1per cent to UK economic growth in each of the years 2005 and 2006. In terms of Brown's 2005 economic growth forecast, this was definitely needed in order for it to be achieved, and for the 2006 growth forecast it played a significant (perhaps crucial) part in its achievement."and this Presentation: Pensions and Migration
Quote[/b] ]Conclusions• The (long-term) impact of international migration on
national pension systems is largely positive.
• Immigration may thus alleviate the problems of ageing
– but, with plausible aggregate n°s, it will never remove them.
[...]
-
I also feel that it is fundamentaly and morally wrong, that in a society where these resources are limited, that a complete stranger from the other side of the world should have equal rights to use them as a person who has lived here all their lives and contributed in paying for and building them for many years.ehm... I find it fundamentally and morally wrong to have that sort of thinking. That is discrimination. We have seen this in the past many times already. And bad things have happened because of that.
And I'll be damned if I spit on the achievements that my ancestors died for...
And concerning your buddy Derek. I'm sorry to have to say it this harsh, but. Why didn't he do something more with his life? If people choose to do such low skill work then they must not wonder when some foreigner comes and takes their job away. The foreigner can cook or wash the dishes just as good as a native. Often he is even more motivated and does the job better. But a native guy has many advantages over the foreigner. For example he speaks the language presumably much better. You gotta use those skills. Your skills are your capital and the more skills you have the better are your chances to find a job that can't be replaced by some illegal immigrant that knows exactly 3 English words.
Derek is a halfwit.
Not everyone is capable of doing or achieving more.
Another friend of mine also does kitchen work. He has a doctorate, but he likes the lifestyle.
And if you think every person should have a right to use the property earned and worked for by others, would you mind lending me the keys to your car?
There is nothing wrong with discrimination. I buy drinks for my friends not every stranger in the bar. I discriminate. So do you.
If I had a car I'd lease it to you for a suitable price. No problem. I make deals with anyone that pays. No money no service though. Just like with jobs. So don't make wrong comparisons. You are not giving anything away for free. Immigrants that do work have to give their services to gain money and they are one reason that keeps your economy going.
Besides... talking of England and Europe in general. A lot of Europe's wealth was worked for by others. The privileged status of Europe is only possible because it exploited the rest of the world for centuries. So don't be so greedy.
And don't make assumptions how I am. I have a drink and pay drinks for anyone that wants to spend a good time with me. Obviously I don't spend time with people that don't want to spend time with me but that is not discrimination. Discrimination is when I exclude people from spending time with me based on their properties.
EDIT: and concerning Derek if he had a "medical" problem (dunno the English term) then I'm sure there are organisations that can help him as much that he doesn't have to do shoplifting to survive. If he doesn't have such a problem then it is likely that he would be able to earn his living legally although it might take more effort than stealing for food.
-
Generally it's a bit hard to do word by word translation out of context. Because there aren't always 1 to 1 translations with the exact same meaning(s). It would really help to know the exact contexts of the words (like see a picture or video how it is used).
English - German
Conditions - "Bedingungen" (more precisely "Wetterbedingungen" if but if it's too long the first word is just fine.)
Noon - Mittag
Dusk - Abenddämmerung (if it's too long just use "Abend" meaning evening. I think people would figure what is meant.)
Night - Nacht
Dawn - Morgendämmerung (if it's too long just use "Morgen" meaning morning. I think people would figure what is meant.)
Clear - klar
Overcast - bewölkt
Storm - Gewitter (didn't think of this before but I think this is the best word - meaning tempest - like with thunder, lightning and heavy rain. As Storm, at least in German refers more to heavy Winds. And since ArmA doesn't simulate such weather I think you're looking for "Gewitter".)
Light Fog - leichter Nebel
Heavy Fog - dichter Nebel
Debug Mode - Debug-Modus
"Debug mode is on" - "Debug-Modus eingeschaltet"
AI Skill - "KI-Fähigkeit"
West - Westen
Resistance - Widerstand
East - Osten
Civilian - Zivilisten
Unauthorised Crew - "unautorisierte Besatzung"
"You are not authorised to crew this vehicle" - "Sie sind nicht zur benutzung dieses Fahrzuegs autorisiert"
-
I also feel that it is fundamentaly and morally wrong, that in a society where these resources are limited, that a complete stranger from the other side of the world should have equal rights to use them as a person who has lived here all their lives and contributed in paying for and building them for many years.ehm... I find it fundamentally and morally wrong to have that sort of thinking. That is discrimination. We have seen this in the past many times already. And bad things have happened because of that.
And I'll be damned if I spit on the achievements that my ancestors died for...
And concerning your buddy Derek. I'm sorry to have to say it this harsh, but. Why didn't he do something more with his life? If people choose to do such low skill work then they must not wonder when some foreigner comes and takes their job away. The foreigner can cook or wash the dishes just as good as a native. Often he is even more motivated and does the job better. But a native guy has many advantages over the foreigner. For example he speaks the language presumably much better. You gotta use those skills. Your skills are your capital and the more skills you have the better are your chances to find a job that can't be replaced by some illegal immigrant that knows exactly 3 English words.
-
I'm talking about industries that are actually making profit. shut down the mill, build five new mills in China.you do realise that you just contradicted yourself?
of course. but like I said I don't understand why they have to shut down the mills that are already making profit. they can build new mills around the world but why in earth should they shut down the old one's that still make profit
too bad I don't get it. otherwise I might be a ripoff capitalist.because those paper mills are not going to make profits once the cheaper ones come into the market. It's partly greedy capitalism by the responsible ones but unwillingly it's also preventing the worse situation that arises when you do not close them down in time as described in an earlier post.
-
I'm talking about industries that are actually making profit. shut down the mill, build five new mills in China.you do realise that you just contradicted yourself?
Why do they move it to china? Because it's cheaper there. Now think one step ahead. Let's say paper mill A stays in Finland, pays 2500 € for it's employees (I have no idea about the real wages). It pays let's say a fictional amount of 5000€ to distribute a truckload of paper in Europe trough it's local freight company.
Now paper mill B goes to china. It has huge investments to build a new plant there. OK so they are in debt. But they can build almost the same quality of paper there. They have to pay 10 € of wages for an employee. Knowing that they build a bigger plant that they ever would have in Finland. They hire a lot more Employees. Let's say twice the number. Since they also got more modern machinery they can produce paper more efficently. Their producing costs per unit of paper are hence lower. Now they hire an international freight company to get the stuff to to any place in Europe. This costs them maybe a fictional 3000€ per truckload.
So what have we got. Cheaper wages, cheaper production, (cheaper resources), cheaper transportation, higher supply.
Which paper mill do you think will sell it's paper better to customers in Europe? And what do you think paper mill A would look like in 5 years assuming that it gets no government subsidies.
-
@PainDealer
What you are describing is not an indication of a failing economy. Actually it is a very positive sign. What your economy is undergoing from your description is what it need to stay healthy. It's called structural change. And guess what, you are not the only country that faces this "problem" and some countries had it already in the past. In some cases it was a terrible thing for the people affected because the government foolishly tried to keep those industries alive for too long even though there was no hope of it ever doing profits and it just swallowed a lot of money. See the German and English coal industry as an example for this. Especially in England it was a terrible time when Tatcher "closed down" the national coal industries. That is an example of what comes if you don't react in time.
On the positive side, by investing in structural change those regions now have very solid economies, sometimes even the leading economies in the country.
Of course it's hard for the workers to not be able to do the job that they were trained for. And after working 20 years in a coal mine not everyone can manage to do the necessary change and education to find a new job that is totally unrelated. But the majority can do it and although it not as good for them as it once was it is good enough to lead a decent life. And the next generation won't face this problem anymore. Because they won't get trained as coal miners anymore but rather find some job in the the new industries or service jobs. Besides. The era for most industries in Europe is coming to an end. We simply can't compete with worldwide competition in low-skill industries that rely on many people. Because the social security payments alone are more than the wages for those workers in other countries. There's no way we can compete with them and they are catching up in technology so what is high tech today may become low-tech in 5 years...
-
uhm I was under the impression that a HOLD waypoint never ends. If you want a unit to temporarily wait, then synchronise normal waypoints/triggers or change the condition of the waypoint so it only evaluates to true if you want the unit to continue.
-
Well thats gonna take me forever to say so I imagine your not joining anytime soon
Indeed
Well I don't care. I am Czech citizen too so I can leech from all the EU benefits anyway -
Such as Swiss is the other gap in the map of the EU. We should invade them.
[iraqi information minister mode]bah you will commit suicide at the gates of Bern![/iraqi information minister mode]
nah seriously, why invade, just put an economic blockade on us and we're faster in the EU than you can say "chuchichäschtli".
-
Quote[/b] ]Quote (feersum.endjinn @ Dec. 30 2006,04:13)BBC World is saying he's dead. Good riddance.
*Begins cheering*
Good. One less asshole tinpot dictator in the world....many more left to go.
Ok, I hope next punished-to-death dictator will be George Bush. 60,000 Iraqi civilians dead is a serious guilty for him to be judged by satrapy Hague tribunal.
Luckily the Hague tribunal doesn't have capital punishments. I think this execution just shows how silly executions are. It would have been best to keep him locked away forever - death is always the easy way out (I don't believe in an after life). But meh, I'm not unhappy about what happened to him I just find it very macabre how many people now react to it. I can't see how killing someone can be connected with joy, even when the person was hated. The fact alone that he "had" to be killed is a reason to think about what he did and that doesn't make me happy at all.
European Politics Thread.
in OFFTOPIC
Posted
dear god.
Money in = nothing of importance happened to the productivity of the UK Economy at that point in time. There is a dimension called time, you know? You need to consider that. As I explained all your explenations will only happen once this money is used for one or another thing. But at the moment it comes it it's simply a transfer of ownership. It has no direct effect on productivity of the UK economy. So simple. This is how GDP works.
(Now as I explained in reality this can be a bit more difficult because you can measure GDP in different ways and in some of the methods things get measured not where they affect GDP but where the opposite happens and the difference to the entire thing makes up the change of the GDP. But let's not go there since you don't even understand what GDP is.)
Of course it doesn't have to but you were talking how it gets lost to your GDP and this is simply not true because the money never belonged to your GDP at this point in time. It will effect the GDP when it gets used in the UK (even if just stored in a bank for some time).
Obviously. But it's all covered in the GDP. You argument is that the GDP is not reflecting the state of the UK economy correctly. But this is not true. Well you can argue the GDP has it's weaknesses of course because it has a good number of them but none of them is to important that it would ignore a major sector of the UK economy. Plus the weaknesses apply to most western countries in a similar way which means comparison is possible as all GDP values are deterred similarly. This is also why GDP is still used for comparisons even when there are better indexes to measure things like the development or the life conditions or the "wealth" (not in a financial sense only) of a nation. But for productivity comparisons the GDP is perfectly fine.
Most western nations operate on a trade deficit but since the tertiary sector is usually dominating the economy this is no big issue and only reflect the wealth of those countries. But obviously this has a bit a negative effect on the GDP and this is how it must be because a trade deficit means you are consuming more values that come from foreign economies than you are exporting your own values. But people that have an idea about economy know that this is not a bad sign usually (there are obviously extreme situations here as well as with everything in the world).
Then you obviously got some things to catch up.
As a matter of fact you cannot "experience" GDP in real life because it's an imaginary number. The only way to understanding it is to study the subject. If you think your "experience" shows you how GDP is you run the big risk of confusing things that present a value to yourself (like money you know you own somewhere) with the things that present a value to your domestic economy.
Indeed. But return on domestic financial services exported are in GDP. Not to confuse with the return the foreign investment creates (for example when buying new machinery with it which increases the efficiency and thus productivity of the company - this is not counted to UK GDP).
Again you didn't get what I was explaining all the time.
Obviously all my argumentation says it's not. I think your mistake is not understanding what others say.
I used the term "banking service" not so literally. If you look how I used it first I said something along the lines "it is like a banking service". Because I couldn't be arsed to study English private law to explain you everything in detail. Since I still don't want to do that I'm going to assume it is similar as in Switzerland. Obviously banks have many special legal conditions as a "firm". But when they do contracts with people for their services those contracts are on the very same legal basis as when two private people make a contract. So basically if you are offering your money for others to use you are doing the same thing a bank would do in that case.
And I am aware that you are probably using services of a bank for your investments but this is only a complicating detail. It does not change that when you are offering money to foreigners (be it trough a banking service of another bank) you are offering a service.