Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)
    Everything you have said simply is not true. The fact that you think slaves were shipped to Liverpool tells me you have absolutely to understanding of this issue at all.
    I just posted you the linked article explaining how most of europes slaves where shipped to Liverpool, en route transatlantic, and how Liverpool grew immensurabley due to the slave trade. you are clearly deluded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cosimakarateman)
    I just posted you the linked article explaining how most of europes slaves where shipped to Liverpool, en route transatlantic, and how Liverpool grew immensurabley due to the slave trade. you are clearly deluded.

    if you think that slaves were shipped to liverpool then you are deluded.

    slaves were simply NOT shipped to liverpool. its just such a ridiculous thing to say -- it tells me you have no understanding of this issue at all.

    the slave trade contributed hardly anything to british GDP and liverpools real wealth was created by the technological innovations of the industrial revolution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)
    if you think that slaves were shipped to liverpool then you are deluded.

    slaves were simply NOT shipped to liverpool. its just such a ridiculous thing to say -- it tells me you have no understanding of this issue at all.

    the slave trade contributed hardly anything to british GDP and liverpools real wealth was created by the technological innovations of the industrial revolution.
    your lack of knowledge on this subject despite your willingness to discuss it is embarrassing - --- "Between 1700 and 1800, Liverpool in north-west England was transformed from not much more than a fishing village into one of the busiest slave trading ports in the world and thence into a general trading port and city without peer in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Ships from Liverpool accounted for more than 40% of the European slave trade" ------------"In Liverpool, there were ten large merchant houses engaged in the slave trade and 349 smaller firms. Shop windows displayed shining chains and manacles, devices to force open the mouths of slaves who refused to eat, neck rings, thumb screws and other implements of torment and oppression.
    Not all of Liverpool's wealth was thanks to the slave trade, but it was undoubtedly the backbone of the town's prosperity, Slaving and related trades may have occupied a third and possibly a half of Liverpool's shipping activity in the period 1750 to 1807"
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lanc...plain/A2408889
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SuperHanss)
    The Americans never had an empire, they laid claim to a few islands here and there like everyone did and annexed much of the land which now makes up the United States; Texas and Louisiana. They have a cultural empire over English speaking countries now, based on pop culture effectively being modern American culture in the eyes of most.
    What the **** are you on about pop culture?
    Go look up the definition of an empire and the americans had a litteral one and now they have one by threat and proxy. Theres no culture even vagualy involved in this... when was the last time you saw kiddie winks acting like theyre out of 90210 or jersey shore etc?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SuperHanss)
    If by its definition you really think America once had a geographical 'empire' then I have every right to say that the British Empire didn't end in 1997 and in fact lives strong to this day because we still own territories around the World with a combined population of about 250,000. The Americans controlling a few islands is not an 'empire'.
    The USA does not have an empire by threat and proxy (by which I assume you're alluding to places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Korean peninsular DMZ), they have an obligation to maintain a presence in those places to ensure that everything is under control during politically erratic times. It's also incredibly ignorant of you to think that the occupation of places like Afghanistan and Iraq is down entirely to the Americans when in fact they've been assisted continuously by NATO and the British Armed forces because they're too naive and gun-ho to actually do anything like that themselves. And I quote: annihilated in Vietnam by some fishermen. Haha you must be an American?
    Im going to ignore your first point because its irrelevent.
    you can say what you want about britain and its OST's i dont care to be honest as britain is not a factor.
    No by threat or proxy i mean they make country x do as theyre told by either making sure they have a regime they in power or simply doing some very nasty things to ensure that said countries comply... some fine definitions would be panama, iraq, europe [who rebuilt and effectively bought europe after the war?] america as i said has an empire by proxy it doesnt need to have millions of troops stationed in said countries, although ironically they do in some of those examples, they simply know that they have the military and financial might to squash or atleast seriously harm any country that dares threaten its interest... you know sort of like the British empire used to, you dont maintain battle fleets and enough warheads to turn the world to dust just for the ****ing fun of it, afghanstan and DPRK sure as hell arent goinjg to start shelling the US or launching nukes are they. they are there to show a message and i have told you that message loud and clear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SuperHanss)
    By very nasty things I'm sure you mean economic sanctions against places, like North Korea; where the only thing preventing the entire populace dying of famine and malnourishment is the trade links and aid received from China. Those economic sanctions though aren't the responsibility of the USA, the UN (in particular the security council) makes the decision and are the ones who will enforce it however grim. The US does have some influence over other countries when voting on these sort of things simply because they're the ones with enough military and economic mite to carry such things out on behalf of the others, as well as their opinions being seen as superior for numerous factors like intelligence and whatever else. The fact of the matter is though that one veto at the UN and the 'nasty things' you speak about will never happen and in one case when they did; Iraq, the backlash was enormous and the American diplomats and leaders responsible for the infamous move to invade Iraq are now considered war criminals in the eyes of the public and in many of the political corridors.
    Actually i was talking about when the Americans depose regimes they dont like, like in iraq etc. plus their meddling south of the boarder is a beautiful case in point they have created a virtual civil war for this drug crap then we have cuba, panama etc. etc. etc. my point is the US can and does do what it wants for its own sake, if for instance saudi stopped giving them oil im fairly certain the king [or whatever title he uses] plane would somehow fall out of the sky and a morefriendly regime would come to power... take Iraq vs Iran, India vs Pakistan, Afghanstan vs Russia they armed and trained on the side they wanted to win to protect their interests.. the UN doesnt even factor into this, its a talking shop little more, all it can do is give a country a spanking.

    I don't understand what you mean by 'who rebuilt Europe after WW2?'. The Americans? You're having a laugh. The Americans were incredibly savvy and strategic in that war because they realised they could sit back and wait for all of the 'powers' on the other side of the world to kill each other whilst simultaneously needing to purchase resources on lend-lease and take huge financial from the Americans who would rapidly become the most wealthy nation in the World because the others bankrupted themselves in debt. The Americans then 'picked a winner' (although I do agree with people who say they were coming to the defence of the allies anyway) late on in order to galvanise an image for themselves in the International community as rational thing 'good guys'. I'm lost in what you mean by the Americans rebuilding Europe though, the Americans sat back and let the Europeans juggle their own problems whilst always claiming the money that was owed to them. The original juggernaut the British effectively paid for the Americans to become the next superpower; in 1939 the British Empires economy amounted to $918.7billion (without even considering inflation to what that would be valued at now; much larger than even the current US economy) but by the 50s/60s this was non recognisable because of how much we owed the yanks
    Whats your point? They still rebuilt europe and yes because it was in their economic interests... all youve done is spout a load of clap trap every body already knows and for the record the US economy had already surpassed the UKSs by this point.... Everything is about money do you really think theyd let the developed world lie in ruins? no of course not youd be an idiot to think that theyd econoically decimate themselvesif they allowed that to happen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    Actually i was talking about when the Americans depose regimes they dont like, like in iraq etc. plus their meddling south of the boarder is a beautiful case in point they have created a virtual civil war for this drug crap then we have cuba, panama etc. etc. etc. my point is the US can and does do what it wants for its own sake, if for instance saudi stopped giving them oil im fairly certain the king [or whatever title he uses] plane would somehow fall out of the sky and a morefriendly regime would come to power... take Iraq vs Iran, India vs Pakistan, Afghanstan vs Russia they armed and trained on the side they wanted to win to protect their interests.. the UN doesnt even factor into this, its a talking shop little more, all it can do is give a country a spanking.


    Whats your point? They still rebuilt europe and yes because it was in their economic interests... all youve done is spout a load of clap trap every body already knows and for the record the US economy had already surpassed the UKSs by this point.... Everything is about money do you really think theyd let the developed world lie in ruins? no of course not youd be an idiot to think that theyd econoically decimate themselvesif they allowed that to happen.
    If a nation is able to influence events to its own interest, then it is a superpower, but in the same way that not every empire is a superpower, not every superpower is an empire. I do agree with what you say about the UN: the USA does have the military and economic strength to ignore the UN.

    After the conclusion of WWII, the USA was the only nation to have actually got richer. The formerly profitable trading partners of western Europe were bankrupt and the region needed financial support if it was to become a viable market for the growing American economy once more. In addition, the experience of the 1930s had shown how people reacted to times of economic hardship: by turning towards political extremism. For the USA, the best way to stop the spread of Communism was by revitalising the economies of western Europe. And yes, the US economy had overtaken the British economy by this point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fezzick123)
    If a nation is able to influence events to its own interest, then it is a superpower, but in the same way that not every empire is a superpower, not every superpower is an empire. I do agree with what you say about the UN: the USA does have the military and economic strength to ignore the UN.

    After the conclusion of WWII, the USA was the only nation to have actually got richer. The formerly profitable trading partners of western Europe were bankrupt and the region needed financial support if it was to become a viable market for the growing American economy once more. In addition, the experience of the 1930s had shown how people reacted to times of economic hardship: by turning towards political extremism. For the USA, the best way to stop the spread of Communism was by revitalising the economies of western Europe. And yes, the US economy had overtaken the British economy by this point.
    technically it could still only be a great power but your point stands none the less.
    second point i disagree with though the french, spanish, portugese, dutch and german [before theirs got squashed twice] empires never achieved more than at best great power status the only empire which is generally accepted as being a super power albeit for a short period was ours, or theUSSR if we feel like counting what they had as an empire. Im interested to see what the next turn is though as technically we now have super powers of different calibres; china and germany are trading super powers, china a monetary super power, america the super power and russia, india and the EU and forcast to become superpowers... to be honest though its a redundant term these days anyway for instance america might have projection power and be able to influence events around the world but i have yet to see it do so on its own in the past years [disregarding the occassional rendition etc ]

    ha yes war profiteering, we only paid them back in the 2000's if i remember rightly? they may well have restored peace and rebuilt a broken continent or two but they didnt do it out of generosity as you said, europe was and is the power house of the world [especially now with the eu trading bloc] and japan has a vast economy the yanks were very savvy in what they did, they not only turned a profit on the loans but gained in every possible regard from that war and for that i do grant them props.
    When we say British do we mean our economy or our empires by the way just to make sure we're on the same page?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    technically it could still only be a great power but your point stands none the less.
    second point i disagree with though the french, spanish, portugese, dutch and german [before theirs got squashed twice] empires never achieved more than at best great power status the only empire which is generally accepted as being a super power albeit for a short period was ours, or theUSSR if we feel like counting what they had as an empire. Im interested to see what the next turn is though as technically we now have super powers of different calibres; china and germany are trading super powers, china a monetary super power, america the super power and russia, india and the EU and forcast to become superpowers... to be honest though its a redundant term these days anyway for instance america might have projection power and be able to influence events around the world but i have yet to see it do so on its own in the past years [disregarding the occassional rendition etc ]

    ha yes war profiteering, we only paid them back in the 2000's if i remember rightly? they may well have restored peace and rebuilt a broken continent or two but they didnt do it out of generosity as you said, europe was and is the power house of the world [especially now with the eu trading bloc] and japan has a vast economy the yanks were very savvy in what they did, they not only turned a profit on the loans but gained in every possible regard from that war and for that i do grant them props.
    When we say British do we mean our economy or our empires by the way just to make sure we're on the same page?
    1) Agreed.
    2) Please read what I wrote.
    3) Again, please read what I actually wrote.
    4) Europe is the power house of the world? C'mon, you can't be serious...
    5) British means Britain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SuperHanss)
    Well I suppose on that point we can agree that the Americans can be quite manipulative, obtrusive and ultimately evil (trying to keep on the OP's topic). But Iraq wasn't invaded just because they 'didn't like' Saddam Hussain (that sounds a bit like a conspiracy to me). Of course that came into it, but who did like Saddam Hussein? No one. He was a tyrant wh had to be deposed of because, regardless of whether he had nuclear weapons, he was committing human rights violations and the USA combined with the British were best placed to get rid of him (they would've never been able to invade Iraq without the UK's support so don't attempt to undermine that). You're saying that the USA is singularly responsible for instigating political and social uprisings and revolutions just because it suits them, and to a point they are 'guilty' of that (in the case of training the Taliban against the Russians it obviously came back to bite them. You can't honestly think that they're the only ones who engage in that though? All of the World's leading countries do so if it fits their 'interests'; because more often than not those of the entire Western Hemisphere are exactly the same (back to the cultural thing).
    Throughout the Arab Spring the Americans were seen as 'leading from the back'; simply being one of many and arguably the least vocal of the members when NATO became involved in Libya, and now with the debate rumbling about whether we should train and arm rebels in Syria the US is being oddly prudent and claiming they'll only begin doing so full-steam if the British and French join them in doing so (which needs the approval of Russia, so it goes far deeper than what you think of the Americans doing 'what they want').
    I think some of the assertions you're making are a bit biased and irrational and are testifying that you must be just another person who is in awe at the role of the USA in this century as the leading power...



    Literally don't know what you're talking about by 'rebuilt Europe'? I can think of hardly any cases of the USA hands-on rebuilding anywhere out of charity; apart from the piece of Germany which was seceded to their control (just like bits were to Russia and the UK). The lend-lease system wasn't them offering to rebuild our houses and infrastructure if we 'paid them back later', it was used during the war for things like tanks and guns; with a huge interest rate should probably add.
    And no the economy of the USA wasn't even nearly as big as that of the UK in 1939 haha. $918.7billion at that time puts it out in the lead as by far the biggest economy of all time.
    in awe of what? i couldnt give a flying **** who is top dog :s
    Errr you do realise america lent a vast vast amount of money to europe post war, and to japan, to rebuild after the devastation inflicted on it right? lend lease has nothing to do with this. errr once again wrong sunshine we had been over taken a long time ago, our economy war smaller, our empires may well have been bigger but ours was not, hell even germany was matching and over taking around the turn of the century. go read a history book.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fezzick123)
    1) Agreed.
    2) Please read what I wrote.
    3) Again, please read what I actually wrote.
    4) Europe is the power house of the world? C'mon, you can't be serious...
    5) British means Britain.
    It would help if you linked those to bits i said....
    Europe is an upcoming i said i also said predicted, learn to read. It is the largest trading bloc in the world... notice how when europe had money trouble the world economy took a tumble to?
    No britain is geographical, it is the island we live on, british are the people who live on it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cosimakarateman)
    your lack of knowledge on this subject despite your willingness to discuss it is embarrassing - --- "Between 1700 and 1800, Liverpool in north-west England was transformed from not much more than a fishing village into one of the busiest slave trading ports in the world and thence into a general trading port and city without peer in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Ships from Liverpool accounted for more than 40% of the European slave trade" ------------"In Liverpool, there were ten large merchant houses engaged in the slave trade and 349 smaller firms. Shop windows displayed shining chains and manacles, devices to force open the mouths of slaves who refused to eat, neck rings, thumb screws and other implements of torment and oppression.
    Not all of Liverpool's wealth was thanks to the slave trade, but it was undoubtedly the backbone of the town's prosperity, Slaving and related trades may have occupied a third and possibly a half of Liverpool's shipping activity in the period 1750 to 1807"
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lanc...plain/A2408889

    dude, slaves who were purchased from africa were not brought to liverpool. thats just a fact.

    i already gave you a link from the liverpool museum:

    While Liverpool vessels were responsible for shipping thousands of Africans across the Atlantic to plantations in the Americas during the years of the slave trade, relatively few Africans made it as far as Liverpool.
    get it now? and btw, those africans that did make it to england were not slaves. they were either sailors or hired servants for the upper classes.

    http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/m...chive/faq.aspx


    as for the economy of liverpool. slavery was just one part of it for a short while. its real and sustained wealth was the product of the technological advancements brought about the industrial and scientific revolutions that happened after slavery was abolished.

    slavery contributed hardly anything to british GDP. less than 5% is the high estimate. it may have contributed more to liverpools but still its actual wealth was the result of the industrial revolution.

    Name:  chart.gif
Views: 89
Size:  10.9 KB


    http://www.theobjectivestandard.com
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    It would help if you linked those to bits i said....
    Europe is an upcoming i said i also said predicted, learn to read. It is the largest trading bloc in the world... notice how when europe had money trouble the world economy took a tumble to?
    No britain is geographical, it is the island we live on, british are the people who live on it.
    How hypocritical, I believe you said 'Europe was and is the power house of the world'. I'm sorry but your expression of your thoughts is absolutely awful so pardon me if I miss something.
    Please tell me which financial crisis you are referring to here. As far as I'm aware, the 2008 recession was caused by financial problems in the USA.
    You seriously need to take a leaf out of your own book and learn to read. You asked whether my statement of 'British' referred to the economy of Britain or that of Britain's empire (at least that's what I thought you were asking, hard to tell) and I told you that when I said 'British' I referred to Britain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)
    dude, slaves who were purchased from africa were not brought to liverpool. thats just a fact.

    i already gave you a link from the liverpool museum:



    get it now? and btw, those africans that did make it to england were not slaves. they were either sailors or hired servants for the upper classes.

    http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/m...chive/faq.aspx
    are you having problems reading? sailors and upper class servants? you are totally deluded now. 90% of slaves carried on british ships ended up in the americas and west indies to work till their deaths on behalf of british industries. slaves weren't 'purchased' from Africa, they were collected by ships out of Liverpool, some were brought back to the uk to be coalated like commodities by the Liverpool slave trading organisations and others were shipped straight from Africa across the atlantic, but the whole process was organised out of the UK with Liverpool as the main staging post for the whole of Europe. And thats how Liverpool became a major british city- from the vast money shipping of slaves brought to Britain :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't no if evil is the correct word but in terms of most damaging I would argue American colonialism. Because their nation is built on two ideals that conflict with each other a) their founding fathers abhorrence of bare faced colonialism and b) their staunch defence of the free market and their millitant anti-communism their form of colonialism involves making sure there are conditions favourable to the interests of private US multinationals in key regions but providing no investment or form of government, any sort of state framework in their "colonies". When the French and the Brits etc colonised a place leaving destruction in their wake and stripping assets they generally had to go back and invest in the place.

    Basically colonialism is always evil and destructive but the worst sort of colonialism is when the colonisers are actually less involved in running the colony and haven't the resources (eg Belgians in Africa) or the inclination (the US in the Phillipines, Latin America and so on) to invest in and govern the region properly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SuperHanss)
    So why do you seem to think the USA just globe trots doing whatever it wants, when it wants? The few examples you've given I've turned over. The US doesn't aspire to have an empire, it can't help if its own culture and ideal is attractive to most of the World. It's perfectly understandable that the Americans would challenge the political landscape in theocratic countries (sometimes forcibly) because it's typically in response to threats or the potential of threat towards their ideal emanating from the countries they tend to intervene in (most of which have been radicalist and corrupt, agree?).
    Ive never said that please stop making up complete tosh.
    although it does as has been observed countless times, want a list of the countries its invaded for its own gains?
    no they couldnt give a **** how corrupt or evil the dictator is how ludicrous, why would they waste their men and resources on some backwards country if they didnt get anything out of it? they dont. name me a war where they havent benefited big time from it.

    I'm ending the other point here because it's got nothing to do with the original purpose of this thread (other than it being evil of the British to exploit its lands resources to grow the economy). But for you to think the USA's economy at the turn of the second World War was close to that of either the UK and its Empire (you can't differentiate them; the money was going through London) or that of even Nazi Germany in 1939 is absurd. I can't give you a history book quote but I at least found this table of the biggest ever GDP's, you're welcome


    1. British Empire - $918.7 billion (in 1938)
    2. Nazi German Empire - $375.6 billion (in 1938)
    3. Japanese Empire - $260.7 billion (in 1938)
    4. Russian Empire - $257.7 billion (in 1913)
    5. Qing Empire - $241.3 billion (GDP decline to 1912, immediately before its downfall)
    6. French Empire - $234.1 billion (in 1938)
    7. Italian Empire - $143.4 billion (in 1938)
    8. Indian Empire (British Raj) - $134.9 billion (in 1870)
    9. Afsharid Persian Empire - $119.85 billion (in 1740)
    10. Austro-Hungarian Empire - $100.5 billion (in 1913)
    11. Mughal Empire - $90.8 billion (GDP decline in 1700)
    12. Dutch Empire - $60 billion (in 1900)
    13. Ottoman Empire - $26.4 billion (in 1913)
    14. Empire of Brazil - $13.6 billion (in 1889)
    15. Portuguese Empire - $12.6 billion (in 1913)
    :facepalm: i said the UK not the empire, in fact i said it several times... can you not read or are you just trying to force through a point that is completely wrong? also have you not noticed the wild date variations from 1700-1940? this is horse **** get some real figures that are accurate. and the fact the US isnt on there just makes it even more laughable seeing as they were bank rolling europe during the 20s/30s :L so as i said ludicrous, infact i might just log in to wiki and change them just to really drive home my point that these are wrong, idiotic and off topic...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fezzick123)
    How hypocritical, I believe you said 'Europe was and is the power house of the world'. I'm sorry but your expression of your thoughts is absolutely awful so pardon me if I miss something.
    Please tell me which financial crisis you are referring to here. As far as I'm aware, the 2008 recession was caused by financial problems in the USA.
    You seriously need to take a leaf out of your own book and learn to read. You asked whether my statement of 'British' referred to the economy of Britain or that of Britain's empire (at least that's what I thought you were asking, hard to tell) and I told you that when I said 'British' I referred to Britain.
    No i said it was believed to be an up and coming super power and the worlds largest trading bloc, which would indeedmake it a power house... see how that works?
    no i wont pardon you you justappear to be blind to facts.
    are you ****ing kidding me ? the european debt crisis, seriously theres some very colourful words to describe you and your knowledge of this unfortunately i just came off a ban and dont really want another one so ill let you figure out what id like to compare you to.
    yes and you didnt bother reffering it back to which point id made as i made clear in my reply to your thoroughly irritating one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SuperHanss)
    The Americans would care about a dictator committing human rights violations because they should feel compelled to do so as a World leader and insignia of freedom, as well as being on the UN Security Council which has one of its main remits to prevent tyrants from oppressing people. Of course they care, you saying they don't is the ludicrous point. But please do entertain with your list of countries the USA has evilly (keeping on topic) for its own gains?
    Humour me why have they not invaded and toppled half of africa then? lets rwanda and congo as prime examples. oh please the russians are on the SC that doesnt mean they give a hoot for human rights.
    The usa has what for its own gains? im assuming you mean ****ed with okay then lets start with greece, afghanistan, western europe, poland, several south american countries, afghanistan twice, iraq, iran, libya [sort of] israel shall i go on? oh and dont forget diego garcia!!!

    The Empire was the UK's economy. It may have been dirty money from exploitation but at that time it was Britain's money because only they had final say on how any of that money would be invested. Once again proving my first point on this thread that the British Empire was hands down the most evil. Why does it matter about the time variations? You don't seem to be taking into account inflation and equal worth. For example: £10,000,000 in 1938 would be valued at £180,000,000 today. Now, extrapolate that first figure of 10million to 918.7billion and you'll be getting close to the worth of the British Empires GDP by comparison to that of the USA today (14.99 trillion in case you were wondering).
    oh my god youve solved the meaning of life how did you do it?!
    It was not dirty money but let me guess youre one of these pathetic apologists who would bow down before any african state we conquored to kiss their shoes and say sorry, its pathetic. some bits of the empire may have been bad but it did indeed civilise the world and modernise it and remove some heinous practices, i forget the name, but for instance the one in india where women jumped on funeral pyers.
    Evil my hairy left arse, the belgiums were worse, the french were positively evil and the japs well wordsdont describe the horrors they committed of all the empires ours was probBLY the nicest one.
    WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE gdp OF THE EMPIRE HERE are you being intentionally blind or cant you read? The UK had been over taken by both germany and America especially after the world war by the states we were bank rupt.. you know what its pointless explaining any of this to you, you obviously have no idea how the basic economics of a country work, yes a country not several, so i think ill leave you on that.
    and no i was not wondering?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    No i said it was believed to be an up and coming super power and the worlds largest trading bloc, which would indeedmake it a power house... see how that works?
    no i wont pardon you you justappear to be blind to facts.
    are you ****ing kidding me ? the european debt crisis, seriously theres some very colourful words to describe you and your knowledge of this unfortunately i just came off a ban and dont really want another one so ill let you figure out what id like to compare you to.
    yes and you didnt bother reffering it back to which point id made as i made clear in my reply to your thoroughly irritating one.
    Interesting that you say that, because I quoted directly from your earlier post (but spelt 'Europe' correctly) but now you deny saying it. Interesting.
    If I'm blind to facts then I'd like to see where that leaves you.
    Wikipedia says that the European debt crisis was a result of the US housing bubble. Explain that. Yes it is indeed unfortunate that you just came off a ban.
    Throurougly irritating? Cute.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fezzick123)
    Interesting that you say that, because I quoted directly from your earlier post (but spelt 'Europe' correctly) but now you deny saying it. Interesting.
    If I'm blind to facts then I'd like to see where that leaves you.
    Wikipedia says that the European debt crisis was a result of the US housing bubble. Explain that. Yes it is indeed unfortunate that you just came off a ban.
    Throurougly irritating? Cute.
    oh heaven forbid i make a typo, sue me.
    wikipedia? why dont you go ask the big issue seller on the corner of regents probably get a better answer.
    The european debt crisis was there way before the us subprime explosion, it simply exposed it and amplified it... lets take greece, germany, spain and italy [but to name the big culprits] fudging their numbers.... need i go on?
    yes adorable?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 18, 2013
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.