The European Parliamentary Elections and the EU in general

[AdamAK]

This is my entire point. How much money are the more economically developed countries going to have to pump into these smaller ones, just so they can sleep better at night? The actual chance of getting the money back that'll be put in them is slim to nill.

Again, I present to you this link. Read it, for god's sake! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage]

 

[AdamAK]

Actually that's the first time you've presented that link.
Plus, you forget that Europe isn't the world. Asia and India can do things cheaper than the Eastern block countries. As those countries aren't specialised in anything, what could they make for cheaper than Asia, or even South Wales (which has cheaper labour than South Korea e.g. LG Plant)? They have to produce something worth selling before any return of investment occurs, & at the rate they are developing compared to the rest of the world, they will never have a large place in the global market, making investment in them worthless & only on a charitable level.

No, I presented a link to the Ricardian Model earlier as well. This is an explanation of said model.

You fail to realise that it's not about doing things cheaper, but also about the quality and the way in which limited resources are used. Why else would Germany be the biggest exporter when it comes to goods, even though it is highly developped and certainly isn't cheap? Do you think everything can be outsourced to Asia or perhaps Africa?

Using Poland as an example, you say that the rate at which they develop is slow? Here's a quote from Wikipedia to prove otherwise:

Poland is considered to have one of the healthiest economies of the post-communist countries, with GDP growing by 6.1% in 2006.

While it is indeed lower than China's GDP growth, it is still very high.

Most of Poland's imports are capital goods needed for industrial retooling and for manufacturing inputs, rather than imports for consumption.

Here's another quote to show you why it is profitable to invest into an Eastern European country. It's a cheap country to produce intermediate goods.

 

[Triple G]

I live in the EU, and I can vote, even got a fancy post-card-thing to go to vote. But really, it won't change anything because countries aren't ruled by governments these days, but by corporations, so I will go there, vote for the anarchist party or something, and when this does'nt work I will write down my name and vote for myself or just write "against all" on this *****...

 

[AdamAK]

Here's a quote from Wikipedia to prove otherwise

I could carry on showing how that idea is wrong, but I think that above comment ends this 'debate'.

Why are you acting like a 12-year old internet troll?

Here you go. The same data retrieved from Stats.OECD.org. Have fun with it. Just because it's Wikipedia doesn't instantly make it 100% unreliable.

[http://img7.imageshack.us/my.php?image=polandgdpgrowth.jpg]

Now stop trolling and come up with some proper arguments.

 

[AdamAK]

Actually all proffesors say that Wikipedia is 100% unreliable.
Sorry, clearly you've never written an essay for anyone else but Santa...
Again, what is Poland going to make? What industry are they going to uptake? How much money will it cost to get something going?
Chances are more than what will be made back. Germany isn't a sh*thole of a country. Poland and the old block countries are rife with human trafficking etc. That'll need to be sorted before industry & so the cost of shining these turds of countries increases.
Fact is, they aren't needed in the worlds economy, & it'd just be charitable to help them out.

Really? 100% Unreliable? While it is not permitted to use them as a main source in papers at my university, it is still considered to be a valuable source of information. Again, your troll post fails.

Here's a list of goods exported to the US alone:

Polish Exports to U.S.

Of the $2.3 billion in American imports from Poland in 2006, the following product categories had the highest values.



Civilian aircraft (engines) ... US$236.3 million (10.5% of Poland to U.S. exports, up 501.4% from 2005)
Other industrial machinery ... $143.7 million (6.4%, down 5.4%)
Electric apparatus & parts ... $105.8 million (4.7%, up 33.5%)
Household items (e.g. furniture, baskets) ... $94.9 million (4.2%, down 29%)
Glassware, porcelain & chinaware ... $87.4 million (3.9%, down 10.2%)
Other petroleum products ... $85.4 million (3.8%, up 1,270%)
Measuring, testing & control instruments ... $82.4 million (3.7%, down 35.3%)
Alcoholic beverages (excluding wine) ... $71.2 million (3.2%, up 1%)
Other automotive parts & accessories ... $70.8 million (3.1%, up 19.9%)
Advanced metal manufacturing excluding steel ... $58.5 million (2.6%, up 13.5%).

From this website. [http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/top_polish_exports_imports]

Sure looks like Poland isn't producing and exporting anything at all, doesn't it! Oh, and what's that? You still haven't read about the model I posted twice about? Or do you simply not understand it? If you don't get it it's better to ask, rather than to troll.

Please explain the part about "Germany isn't a sh*thole". I already mentioned that it's a highly developped country, with high wages, but they still export extremely much. In the preceding post you mentioned how countries with low wages have a huge advantage.

Oh, and where did you get the information that Poland still has to uptake an industry?

 

[AdamAK]

You fail to realise that specialisation does not mean that it has to be high-tech products. By means of FDI the production of various goods in emerging countries can be increased. It is increasing right now, thanks to the investments made through the EU. They don't already have a fully developped industry, but it is going towards that direction, thanks to the investments made through the EU. If there were no investments in those countries many other countries would not enjoy the benefits of the trade created by the growth in production right now.

My main point, which you constantly ignore, is that the 'net loss' you speak off will be recovered thanks to trade. It's funny how you make a big deal of 150 Billion, when the trade within the EU amounts to more than 2 Trillion (Feenstra & Taylor, 2008).

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, Mazty. You simply don't understand the concept of trade benefits, and it seems you never will get it. It is also noteworthy that you have provided no back-up to your 'arguments' at all. You have made this discussion pointless, by showing your stubbornness and lack of arguments.