Poland - Europes new centre of power?

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 19, 2023
1,351
1,813
AFL Club
Fremantle
Many people are saying:




In the past people would have laughed - watch out for Germany and Russia! But Germany is finished and Russia has clowned themselves. Maybe it’s time for the Polish to shine?
 
Ninth largest economy in Europe.

Seventh largest military spend in Europe.

Not one of the three countries in Europe with nuclear weapons.

I get the want from some (such as the Telegraph and their two articles in the original post) to believe that Poland's hard right government are leading them to greatness against western Europe's decaying liberalism, but they're a long way behind the UK, France and even "finished" Germany and "clowned" Russia.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Ninth largest economy in Europe.

Seventh largest military spend in Europe.

Not one of the three countries in Europe with nuclear weapons.

I get the want from some (such as the Telegraph and their two articles in the original post) to believe that Poland's hard right government are leading them to greatness against western Europe's decaying liberalism, but they're a long way behind the UK, France and even "finished" Germany and "clowned" Russia.
It’s about trends. Western Europe is moribund, just a playground for rich Americans now to see castles and ruins, like Greece was for imperial Rome.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
How so?

What are your metrics for a nation's success?
Look at the age demographics of Western Europe. Anyone with half a clue leaves for better, much higher paying jobs elsewhere.

It’s an old, dying continent, with massive levels of debt and no political will for reform. They have welfared themselves into penury.
 
What are your metrics for a nation's success?

Look at the age demographics of Western Europe.

So you're saying an older population = an unsuccessful nation?

So a younger country is a successful one?

Doesn't that mean that pretty much the entire developing world (who are far younger than their developed counterparts) are 'successful' nations by your metric?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
So you're saying an older population = an unsuccessful nation?

So a younger country is a successful one?

Doesn't that mean that pretty much the entire developing world (who are far younger than their developed counterparts) are 'successful' nations by your metric?
No.
 
Are the age demographics of a nation a metric for that nations success?
It can be a key metric. When you have more retirees than workers, your economy will be burdened by high taxes to pay for the former. The most intelligent workers will leave for greener pastures where they can earn much more. EU makes things worse by placing a massive regulatory burden on everything.

It’s why America has a huge tech lead over Europe despite the fact they were much closer 20 years ago. The USA is a far more dynamic economy.

Remember when everyone’s mobile phone was from a European company, and they pioneered standards like GSM and SMS? They haven’t been near that in over a decade. Even Australia has a bigger tech company founded in the past 20 years than all of Europe (Atlassian).

US has the lead on EVs, followed by China. BASF (worlds largest chemical producer) closed down their chemical plants in Germany and investing in China and USA instead

There’s little else Europe offers aside from tourism.
 
Last edited:
It can be a key metric. When you have more retirees than workers, your economy will be burdened by high taxes to pay for the former.

Why are retirees necessarily a burden to taxpayers?

The most intelligent workers will leave for greener pastures where they can earn much more. EU makes things worse by placing a massive regulatory burden on everything.

What are you smoking dude?

1) People overwhelmingly move TO the EU for higher salaries. Not FROM the EU for higher salaries.

2) The EU removed regulatory barriers (among member States). You can literally move from one EU country to another one, by driving there, with zero borders, apply for a job, and start working, earing the exact same currency you were earning in your home country.

Before the EU existed, you'd literally have to immigrate to that country, switch currencies as you did so, and relearn the regulatory differences from (say) Germany (where you're from) as compared to Spain (where you moved to).


Remember when everyone’s mobile phone was from a European company.

Finnish Nokia's died when Smartphones became a thing. Apple (starting with the iPhone) and Samsungs.

That has nothing to do with EU regulation. It's got everything to do with Apple having a better idea, and executing it well.


There’s little else Europe offers aside from tourism.

You don't consider high Human Development Index and standard of living, political and economic freedoms, low crime and safety, low corruption, etc to be a metric of a Nations success?

Average income, 16 of the top 20 nations are European:

Average income around the world

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a statistic composite index of life expectancy, education (mean years of schooling completed and expected years of schooling upon entering the education system), and per capita income indicators, which is used to rank countries into four tiers of human development. A country scores a higher level of HDI when the lifespan is higher, the education level is higher, and the gross national income GNI (PPP) per capita is higher.

Looking at the attached Human Development Index, the entire top 10 are European, barring Australia coming in at 5, with 16 of the top 20 being located in either the EU or the EEA:

Human Development Index - Wikipedia

You don't consider Nations with world leading (literal best in the world) life expectancy, high income, great education, fantastic human rights, political stability, and quality of life (plus culture etc) for all to be a 'success'?

Your metrics for 'success' are way off mate.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It’s why America has a huge tech lead over Europe despite the fact they were much closer 20 years ago. The USA is a far more dynamic economy.

And a political system that is completely rooted. They have almost 40 million people living below the poverty line, one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, homeless people everywhere and cities where shit is literally lining the street. If I had a choice between living in the US and living in Europe, I know where I'd choose.
 
And a political system that is completely rooted. They have almost 40 million people living below the poverty line, one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, homeless people everywhere and cities where s**t is literally lining the street. If I had a choice between living in the US and living in Europe, I know where I'd choose.
You wouldn’t though, because you can earn three times the income for a professional job in USA. Twenty years ago my friends and I moved to Europe & UK for work. Now my circle works in US or China instead. Few with any skills move to Europe to make money anymore. It’s over for Europe.
 
Youd be happy to see an upswing in Nazism in the fatherland wouldnt you?
Are AfD Nazis? Nazis are illegal in Germany so if they are why aren’t they getting arrested?

“Far right” in the media means anything from people who want lower taxes to people who think coal fired power stations are fine. A meaningless term but it seems German political incompetence has made them viable again.
 
Amazing they’re surging in the polls then.

Last time the Nazis swept to power it was on the back of an economic crisis (the Great Depression) and being sick of the rest of Europe telling them what to do (the Treaty of Versailles).

In times of crisis and hardship, people tend to move to either reactionary causes (Fascism, Nazism) or to revolutionary ones (Socialism).

The Nazis won out on that ideological battle, and then promptly tried to create a German ethnostate by annexing the Sudetenland, Saarland, Bohemia, Austria, Danzig/ the Polish corridor etc while also severely persecuting non ethnic Germans (particularly Jews) within the Reich.

Thus catapulting the world into WW2.

So it's not surprising to see a surge in pro Fascism or pro Nazism at the moment. The USA is also democratically backsliding and increasingly embracing Fascism and fascist rhetoric as well.
 
Last time the Nazis swept to power it was on the back of an economic crisis (the Great Depression) and being sick of the rest of Europe telling them what to do (the Treaty of Versailles).

In times of crisis and hardship, people tend to move to either reactionary causes (Fascism, Nazism) or to revolutionary ones (Socialism).

The Nazis won out on that ideological battle, and then promptly tried to create a German ethnostate by annexing the Sudetenland, Saarland, Bohemia, Austria, Danzig/ the Polish corridor etc while also severely persecuting non ethnic Germans (particularly Jews) within the Reich.

Thus catapulting the world into WW2.

So it's not surprising to see a surge in pro Fascism or pro Nazism at the moment. The USA is also democratically backsliding and increasingly embracing Fascism and fascist rhetoric as well.
Sounds like if you want to avoid Nazism you shouldn’t do dumb things, like shutdown nuclear reactors, demonise fossil fuels, or print enormous sums of money through a pandemic. But opposing those things are far right too so we’re in a bit of a bind here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top