Top Ten Armies of the World

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NEXT

nathan RE:Rule Britannia 5/13/2004 7:49:57 AM

I agree that Britain has some leading financial services companies but I?ll take issue with some others on your list; Shell is not British but bi-national; Rolls Royce is a subsidiary of BMW and although RR PLC is a top engineering company in it?s field, it?s size isn?t that significant; Vauxhall is a de-facto subsidiary of Opel, a German car manufacturer, which in turn is a subsidiary of General Motors; Airbus UK is a minor partner in the relationship dominated by the Germans and French; Tesco is hardly well known outside of the UK and is dwarfed by Aldi and Lidl; Sainsburys is even less known that Tesco; Jaguar/Land Rover are subsidiaries of Ford Motor Co. of the United States and are hardly in the same calibre of DaimlerChrysler/BMW/Volkswagen (either the companies or their products); You?ve mentioned Glaxo SmithKline Beecham twice and it is half American; MG Rover, I have to admit I was surprised that you included it. This company is the only remaining British volume producer if you consider producing less that 200,000 cars ?volume.? It also only has around 4% of the UK market ? I think it?s best left off of your list. HSBC, Vodafone, and Glaxo SmithKline Beecham are truly global companies and Britain can be proud of them. In defense Britain, it?s not worth lining up German companies against British ones because it?s not a good reflection of economic strength. Having said that, the number of medium sized German companys is vastly greater than those in Britain. One of the reports you cited stated that on current trends, Britain?s GDP could surpass Germany?s without saying when (GDP is also a poorer measure than GNP). I haven?t seen the Ifo report but other reports give a date of around 2050. These studies, in my opinion, should not be taken too seriously. Similar estimates made in 1930 would today place Argentina in the top five economies today. In the 1960s many economists predicted the Philippines to become the next Japan. In the mid 19th century, Haiti had the highest GDP per capita and wonderful growth rates. In the 1970s, some economists predicted that on current trends, the UK would begin to imitate Iceland in economic importance. The truth is that trends change and there is no such thing as a fifty year trend in development economics. Economists know their own failings well enough not to trust their peers? long term estimates.

Quote Reply

Marcus RE:Rule Britannia / nathan 5/13/2004 9:37:02 AM

so there is only one question left between uk and germany wembley 1966 goal or not ? ;-) and now back to topic btw i know that the game was england vs germany and not uk vs germany

Quote Reply

Rule Britannia RE:Top Ten Armies of the World 5/13/2004 10:39:41 AM

"Shell is not British but bi-national;"-I'm aware it is half owned by the Dutch but the UK has a majority interest in the group. I wouldn't say that Airbus UK is a minority although in total it is outnumbered by the EADS group which is a joint corporation with no one nation being in complete control. And with BAE aiming to buy over Boeing, you could say that it will gain a great influence over civil aircraft production contrary to dismissing it as a defence contractor, one that does more business in the US than UK suggests lucrative economic benefits and the fact that the UK is the US?s largest foreign investor and vice versa is another indicator. Tesco is the largest supermarket retailer in Europe. Sainsbury and Kingfisher also are in respectable positions in the top ten with the Safeway group not far behind. I pointed out the difference in regards to Rolls Royce but otherwise is the second-largest aircraft engine maker in the world after General Electric, not insignificant. MG Rover is the 8th biggest company in the UK. And another similar manufacturer is JCB, a global brand name. The Guardian report was suggesting it was imminent and not far off enough to be worth dating I imagine. Also it is the official policy of the Government if you look at the Department of Trade and Industry and the official line is around 2013. If you want to look at chronic recession problems of developed manufacturing based economies, look at Japan and Germany is limited in it?s fiscal freedoms by the EMU.

Quote Reply

Rule Britannia RE:Rule Britannia 5/13/2004 10:45:50 AM

I'm aware GNI is a better indicator of total economic wealth but the growth patterns are the same and so are the solutions.

Quote Reply

Couac_Attack RE:Rule Britannia 5/13/2004 12:01:37 PM

Maybe you should also try to study what wountry has the more reliable economy, for example an economy based on a strong, modern industry which can be seen as the most productive in the world ( as it is the case for germany ) has more chance to survive to the economical crisis than an economy based on it's oil exportations and Market places and hasnt any strong base to keep its rank. Today Germany is in a situation that can be compared to a "bad moment" but nothing definitiv, their main problem has nothing to see with their industry which for the country size is the most powerfull, but the social weight, an impossibility to continu to increase industry because of the limit of this sector; for myself i would say that they just need to reorganize their economy to keep its competitivity with the other modern countries. About england, as Nathan has exposed before, England dont have anymore a very strong industry, the most part of the traditionaly national manufacturers belongs to foreign company and the big government supplyers like BAE are continualy loosing their knownledge by turining their main activity in subcontracting for other countries as US. As if it wasnt enough, the pound's value kill all chance of any exportations for industrial. Thats why we more and more see that England depend on oil and the market trade, which cant replace industry for a country. Now im just taling about England directions, and she still have an industry base and is to have a dead economy; its just that in 50 years, i wouldnt give many chance to england. US are also discovering a bit the same problem, but certainly not as much as England. I think this situation is the result of Taylor's reform and rich english families decisions.

Quote Reply

Rule Britannia RE:Top Ten Armies of the World 5/13/2004 12:52:01 PM

-Well at least we are no longer proping up "lame ducks e.g Alstom and DCN" like France and the only major industrial decline in the UK that you claim of is in the car manufacturing sector. Large scale manufacturing just can't compete with developing counries like China, the UK is moving into more more concentrated value markets and our manufacturing sector has been transformed into a highly skilled sector like Rolls Royce. Britain has been one of the best-performing economies in the advanced capitalist world since the early 1990s. More good news is in store for 2004. It will be a better year than 2003?certainly in absolute terms and probably in relation to the rest of the world. The British have worried about the global recession, but they were in fact largely insulated from its nasty effects. This stability was all the more impressive given the country's exposure to some of the worst-affected sectors, such as financial services and telecoms. The reasons why Britain, once derided as the boom-bust capital of the world, managed to avoid both the long-term stagnation of its European neighbours and the cyclical giddiness of America offer some reliable pointers for 2004. Britain's main advantages relative to continental Europe are obvious. Unlike the euro zone, it has benefited from consciously anti-cyclical monetary management. The Bank of England will continue to set interest rates very flexibly, aiming not just to achieve the government's inflation target but also to keep economic growth as close as possible to its long-term trend. The inflation target, incidentally, will switch in 2004 from a 2.5% increase in Britain's traditional retail-prices index to a 2% increase in the index measured by pan-European definitions. Paradoxically, this will actually allow somewhat higher inflation in Britain (because of differences in definition between the two figures), giving the Bank the scope to keep interest rates a little lower than it otherwise would. Since the economy starts 2004 with an output gap of 1-1.5%, the Bank should be quite tolerant of above-trend growth for most of the year. Thus British interest rates will rise only slightly in 2004?say, by one percentage point or so. Given that European interest rates are unlikely to rise at all and could well be cut even further, the interest-rate differential in Britain favour of sterling will widen. Business will once again be surprised by the "unexpected" strength of the pound. The Bank's proactive monetary policy would not be nearly so effective if it were not for the other great contrast with the euro zone: the flexibility of the British economy created by 18 years of deregulation under the Tories. Britain would not be able to maintain anything like its present low rate of unemployment without the labour-market flexibility, the cuts in welfare payments and the competitive disciplines introduced into previously nationalised utilities and cartelised service industries. To understand why Britain grew right through the global recession while much of the rest of Europe stagnated, contrast the rapid collapse of Marconi and Rover with the endless agonies of Vivendi, Fiat or Alstom. In 2004 (as in 2003) the government will also be making a big contribution to Britain's growth and employment?and this is where an important contrast with America can be drawn. Britain has shifted from a tight to a fairly expansionary fiscal policy since 2001. This fiscal stimulus, equivalent to roughly 2.5% of GDP, has been much more effective in boosting both growth and employment than the even bigger fiscal stimulus (over 4% of GDP) applied to the United States by President Bush. America's stimulus consisted largely of cutting taxes on top income brackets, while the cash-strapped states sacked hundreds of thousands of low-paid public-sector workers. In Britain the fiscal stimulus worked exactly the other way round: the government hired thousands of new nurses and teachers and greatly increased their wages. The bills went mainly to the higher-paid through an increase in stealth taxes. Whatever one may think about the long-term effects of higher government spending and taxes, the immediate impact on demand was very much as predicted by Keynesian economics. The workers in the public sector rapidly spent their income gains, giving the economy a significant boost and helping to ensure that the much-dreaded recession never happened. But what about the longer term? Surely, despite the good cyclical performance, Britain is facing fiscal, pensions and productivity nightmares in the next decade? Problems, yes; nightmares, no. Now, about that productivity blot Britain's public finances have moved into deficit and will remain in the red as far as the eye can see. But the sort of deficits in prospect?between 1% and 4% of GDP--will still leave Britain with by far the lowest ratio of debt to GDP among the G7 countries. This prediction is subject to just two provisos. First, the economy must continue to grow at around its trend rate of 2.5%, which seems almost certain. Second, the government must stick to its promise to slow down the growth of public spending from 5% a year in real terms to roughly 3% after 2005. This moderate tightening of the purse-strings will almost certainly be confirmed in the triennial spending review for 2005-08, which the chancellor will finalise in July. Pensions? Many pension funds will remain under water, but reforms (such as higher retirement ages) will be healthy developments in their own right. And Britain's situation is again much better than that of others in Europe, thanks to its less worrying demography. Britain's population will not start to shrink until 2030. Productivity growth, the poorest among the G7 countries, has remained the perennial blot on Britain's economic record. But even this cloud has several silver linings. First, the very fact that productivity is low means Britain has more scope to catch up. Second, because employment in Britain is high, future growth will be less labour-intensive and more productivity-enhancing. Third, electronic technology should narrow the productivity gap between manufacturing and services, in which Britain has a comparative advantage. Indeed, Britain's true productivity is higher than it appears, because conventional statistics give great weight to quality improvements in manufactured goods such as computers, but fail to make similar adjustments for high-value services such as finance, law and advertising. The rapid rise in the prices of these services suggests their quality has increased in relation to commodities and manufactures. Put another way, Britain has enjoyed a huge terms-of-trade gain relative to countries such as Germany and Japan, which specialise in manufactured goods, not to mention Latin America and Africa, which produce commodities. The benefit for Britain of specialising in high-end services may even increase in the years ahead, as China and other developing countries force down the prices of manufactures. Britain is one of the few countries which can face with relative equanimity a future where all manufactured goods are stamped "Made in China".

Quote Reply

Rule Britannia RE:Rule Britannia 5/13/2004 1:01:23 PM

"BAE are continualy loosing their knownledge by turining their main activity in subcontracting for other countries as US" -Explain this please as it would logically be the oposite. "which cant replace industry for a country." -Look at the figures, i.e. the Marketing sector alone today is more productive and valuable than the Mining sector ever was and the UK is the EU's biggest IT Technology and Telecoms spender. link

Quote Reply

Rule Britannia RE: Arditi 5/13/2004 1:09:12 PM

-Nothing but Wishful Thinking Couac, Wishful Thinking.

Quote Reply

fullamongo Rule 5/13/2004 2:39:53 PM

Last time i checked it was BAe that was begging Beoing (a way bigger company than BAe) to take it over or merge. The reason? BAe has no scope for growth. It also has had a recent bad track record on big projects it does on its own (Nimrod upgrade, Astute submarines etc.) Germany definately has more big companies for sure. Its easier to set up a new company in the UK though. Rule, why didn't you mention Vodafone or BP??

Quote Reply

fullamongo Nathan 5/13/2004 2:44:44 PM

Nathan, you inquired if i was American?? NOOOOOO!!! I'm from the peoples republic of cork. Check out our country's website as we vie for independence from our Dublin oppressors. www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com

Quote Reply

Rule Britannia RE:Rule 5/13/2004 2:55:03 PM

Your actually wrong, in part it is due to the fact that boeing wishes to expand it's business in the UK and the fact that BAE Systems wish to expand in the USA coupled with domestic procurement delivery problems that have sparked talks of a mutual merger between the two companies. BAE Boeing Aerospace?

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:Rule 5/13/2004 3:16:19 PM

BAE Boeing Aerospace? Thats a terrible name. They should rename themselves 'Vickers Supermarine.' It's available again.

Quote Reply

Rule Britannia RE:Rule 5/13/2004 4:36:32 PM

It was just a suggestion, they are difficult names to compound perhaps other have some good suggestions, BBAE Systems?

Quote Reply

Arditi RE: Arditi 5/14/2004 12:22:35 PM

My point was that maintaining the Monarchy maintains the illusion that Britain is still a Great Power. The fact that most Brits, according to you, approve of the Monarchy only proves my point.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE: Arditi 5/14/2004 12:26:09 PM

"My point was that maintaining the Monarchy maintains the illusion that Britain is still a Great Power. The fact that most Brits, according to you, approve of the Monarchy only proves my point " That makes no sense. The monarchy is a huge part of the country's history and brings in money and helps with charities. They have nothing to do with power. What about other countries that have monarchies?

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NEXT

	News As History - November 21, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us