British economy is best in the world, outstripping US, Japan and EU

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
It was also fighting along side the HMS Prince of Wales which upon seeing the Hood get spattered in one shot the Prince of Wales retreated. In fact it retreated so far and fast that it ended up in the South China Sea and was sunk quickly by the Japanese along with her hapless cousin HMS Repulse.

A question for you ES... In 'Navy-speak' is a Battle Cruiser just another name for canon-fodder or target practice?

Why would they even use the word 'battle' in it's description?

The Brit Navy was not heard from in the Pacific until the US was already finishing the Japanese off.

They came out again when it was safe and there was no risk of having anything shot at them.... Just like their ground troops hiding behind the US and Canadian soldiers

By happy Blackie... you have a better GDP than Mississippi!

Blackie doesn't like it when his nation is compared against a real economy
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,956
1,910
113
By comparing it to the poorest US State, it is providing the UK with the best possible comparison.

Yeah? How? The UK isn't a US state. It's a sovereign state. It's a country. It's also much bigger than any US state. If the UK was a US state it'd be by far the biggest and most dominant state demographically and economically, with a population twice that of California and a larger economy. It's easier for a small population like Alaska or Maine to have a larger GDP per capita than a large population of 65 million like the UK.

Why don't we compare the US GDP per capita to Western Australia, or Tokyo, or the North Island of New Zealand?

I've already shown that West London has the highest GDP per capita in the WORLD, so West Londoners are richer than Americans when you look at it that way. It'd be interesting to compare the US states to that. The English county of Berkshire has a larger GDP per capita than the USA.




Learn from it

I've learnt more about the sinking of the Hood than you have.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
A question for you ES... In 'Navy-speak' is a Battle Cruiser just another name for canon-fodder or target practice?

Why would they even use the word 'battle' in it's description?

Brit Battle Cruisers were commonly known as Target Ships for the German and Japanese forces during the Second World War.



They came out again when it was safe and there was no risk of having anything shot at them.... Just like their ground troops hiding behind the US and Canadian soldiers

It was very common for Brit soldiers retreat only to come back after the battle was won by Canadians and Americans.



Blackie doesn't like it when his nation is compared against a real economy

Which is quite apparent.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Brit Battle Cruisers were commonly known as Target Ships for the German and Japanese forces during the Second World War.


I appreciate your educating me on this topic.

Another question; based on the severity of this explosion, did the British Navy specifically construct the Hood to explode with such force and violence?



The reason that I ask is I could understand some form of twisted logic that the Brits might have believed that if they designed the ships to blow-up with this kind of force and magnitude, the Germans would be scared of the force and concerned of indirect damage from the debris that would, in effect, represent millions of small missiles.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,956
1,910
113
Blackie doesn't like it when his nation is compared against a real economy

If you compare the British economy to the Yank economy you will see that it is outperforming the Yank economy, just like it is to outperform EVERY major Western economy this year.
 
Last edited:

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
I appreciate your educating me on this topic.

Another question; based on the severity of this explosion, did the British Navy specifically construct the Hood to explode with such force and violence?



The reason that I ask is I could understand some form of twisted logic that the Brits might have believed that if they designed the ships to blow-up with this kind of force and magnitude, the Germans would be scared of the force and concerned of indirect damage from the debris that would, in effect, represent millions of small missiles.


The Brits were always known for their violently exploding ships so your hypothesis has validity. Historically the Brits were never known for their naval gunnery so it is quite likely that they hoped to close range quickly so they could blow up next to enemy ships and at least do some damage. ANY damage... like... even chip the paint and such.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,956
1,910
113
Historically the Brits were never known for their naval gunnery

Except in battles like Trafalgar, when our superior naval gunnery manned by professionals (unlike other navies) destroyed an entire combined Franco-Spanish fleet.

British naval gunnery has long been the finest in the world.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
Except in battles like Trafalgar, when our superior naval gunnery manned by professionals (unlike other navies) destroyed an entire combined Franco-Spanish fleet.

British naval gunnery has long been the finest in the world.

Britain is becoming a Muslim country. Perhaps it's not advisable for Britain to have a navy.

Btw, the British aircraft carrier under construction is going to use the naval version of the F-35 isn't it?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister


If you compare the British economy to the Yank economy you will see that it is outperforming the Yank economy, just like it is to outperform EVERY major Western economy this year.

Sure bud, whatever you say... The British economy always out preforms all others right until you actually compare them.

So, when are you going to change your name to Mississippi North?

The Brits were always known for their violently exploding ships so your hypothesis has validity. Historically the Brits were never known for their naval gunnery so it is quite likely that they hoped to close range quickly so they could blow up next to enemy ships and at least do some damage. ANY damage... like... even chip the paint and such.

Again, I very much appreciate your schooling me on this topic.

All these years and I thought that the goal was to prevent your ships from exploding utilizing smart strategy, strong defense and cunning opportunism.

... Just goes to show that the second you think you know something, the rules change and you know nothing
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Except in battles like Trafalgar, when our superior naval gunnery manned by professionals (unlike other navies) destroyed an entire combined Franco-Spanish fleet.

British naval gunnery has long been the finest in the world.

Against the Spanish and French...lol.

Brit gunnery has always been regarded as sub standard as the Bismark showed with dispatching the HOOD to the bottom with one shot.

"Deise jungs saugen."


NEXT!

Britain is becoming a Muslim country. Perhaps it's not advisable for Britain to have a navy.

Btw, the British aircraft carrier under construction is going to use the naval version of the F-35 isn't it?

If the imaginary aircraft carrier even floats it will be fully loaded with US Aircraft and Canadian technology.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,750
9,706
113
Washington DC
Speaking of the British economy:


If Britain were a U.S. state, it would be the second-poorest, behind Alabama and before Mississippi

By Hunter Schwarz August 26

If Britain were to join the United States, it would be the second-poorest state, behind Alabama and ahead of Mississippi.

The ranking, determined by Fraser Nelson, an editor of The Spectator magazine, was made by dividing the gross domestic product of each state by its population, and it took into account purchasing power parity for cost of living. Several other European countries were also included in the ranking.

Ranking by GDP per capita instead of just GDP means that states with mega-economies such as California, which has the top GDP in the United States (its GDP is also larger than most countries’), was knocked down to 14th place among the states when divided by its more than 38 million residents. Alaska comes in first, with a GDP of more than $59 billion divided by a population of 735,000.

Norway was the top European country on the list, between Massachusetts and New Jersey. Nelson wrote that the United Kingdom’s low ranking showed Britain had “no reason to feel smug” about recent events in Ferguson, Mo.:

“The United States may be a great place to be rich, we like to think, but they treat their deprived appallingly over there. We tend to watch reports from poorer American states with a shudder, thankful that our country is run along different, more compassionate lines.

But if Britain were to somehow leave the European union and become the 51st state of America, we would actually be one of the poor states. If you take our economic output, adjust for living costs and slot it into the US league table then the United Kingdom emerges as the second-poorest state in the union. We’re poorer than much-maligned Kansas and Alabama and well below Missouri, the scene of all the unrest in recent weeks. Only Mississippi has lower economic output per head than the UK; strip out the South East and Britain would rank bottom. We certainly have our problems; we’re just better at concealing them.”

Nelson argues that income inequality and racial tension in the United States are more visible because of factors such as “white flight,” which Britain doesn’t have space for, and Americans’ tendency to publicly discuss these issues.

“No one beats up America better than Americans,” he wrote. “They openly debate their inequality, conduct rigorous studies about it, argue about economics vs. culture as causes…. And the debate is so fierce that the rest of the world looks on, and joins in lamenting America’s problems. A shame: we’d do better to get a little angrier at our own.”

If Britain were a U.S. state, it would be the second-poorest, behind Alabama and before Mississippi - The Washington Post

Nice to see not all Brits are drooling Little England recta.
 
Last edited:

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Against the Spanish and French...lol.

"Deise jungs saugen."

Amazing how that sentiment still rings true today


If the imaginary aircraft carrier even floats it will be fully loaded with US Aircraft and Canadian technology.

I recall the pictures of the ancient electronics that were unused, US Navy surplus that are to be installed in the new fleet.... I'm still laughing about that.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,956
1,910
113
I appreciate your educating me on this topic.

Another question; based on the severity of this explosion, did the British Navy specifically construct the Hood to explode with such force and violence?



The reason that I ask is I could understand some form of twisted logic that the Brits might have believed that if they designed the ships to blow-up with this kind of force and magnitude, the Germans would be scared of the force and concerned of indirect damage from the debris that would, in effect, represent millions of small missiles.

What part of "several shells hit HMS Hood, with one penetrating the magazine aft packed full of ammunition and explosives" do you not understand?

Speaking of the British economy:


If Britain were a U.S. state, it would be the second-poorest, behind Alabama and before Mississippi

By Hunter Schwarz August 26

If Britain were to join the United States, it would be the second-poorest state, behind Alabama and ahead of Mississippi.

The ranking, determined by Fraser Nelson, an editor of The Spectator magazine, was made by dividing the gross domestic product of each state by its population, and it took into account purchasing power parity for cost of living. Several other European countries were also included in the ranking.

Ranking by GDP per capita instead of just GDP means that states with mega-economies such as California, which has the top GDP in the United States (its GDP is also larger than most countries’), was knocked down to 14th place among the states when divided by its more than 38 million residents. Alaska comes in first, with a GDP of more than $59 billion divided by a population of 735,000.

Norway was the top European country on the list, between Massachusetts and New Jersey. Nelson wrote that the United Kingdom’s low ranking showed Britain had “no reason to feel smug” about recent events in Ferguson, Mo.:

“The United States may be a great place to be rich, we like to think, but they treat their deprived appallingly over there. We tend to watch reports from poorer American states with a shudder, thankful that our country is run along different, more compassionate lines.

But if Britain were to somehow leave the European union and become the 51st state of America, we would actually be one of the poor states. If you take our economic output, adjust for living costs and slot it into the US league table then the United Kingdom emerges as the second-poorest state in the union. We’re poorer than much-maligned Kansas and Alabama and well below Missouri, the scene of all the unrest in recent weeks. Only Mississippi has lower economic output per head than the UK; strip out the South East and Britain would rank bottom. We certainly have our problems; we’re just better at concealing them.”

Nelson argues that income inequality and racial tension in the United States are more visible because of factors such as “white flight,” which Britain doesn’t have space for, and Americans’ tendency to publicly discuss these issues.

“No one beats up America better than Americans,” he wrote. “They openly debate their inequality, conduct rigorous studies about it, argue about economics vs. culture as causes…. And the debate is so fierce that the rest of the world looks on, and joins in lamenting America’s problems. A shame: we’d do better to get a little angrier at our own.”

If Britain were a U.S. state, it would be the second-poorest, behind Alabama and before Mississippi - The Washington Post

Nice to see not all Brits are drooling Little England recta.


Why is he even comparing a whole country to a mere US state? You could do such a thing with anything.

I mean, we could compare the US GDP per capita, or each of its states, with that of Gloucestershire or Hertfordshire or Norfolk or Kent and see how it fares. Berkshire's GDP per capita of $47,516 is higher than that of the vast majority of US states.

We could compare the GDP per capita of the US to each English region, or compare Alaska's GDP with London's. It's silly.

The article overlooks the fact that the place with the highest GDP per capita in the WORLD - yes, the entire WORLD - is west London (the boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames) which has a mind-boggling GDP per capita of $152,116 (PPP). So the people who live in that part of west London are far wealthier on average than the Yanks.

I also have an issue with the GDP (PPP) figures of US states in that Spectator article. They all seem a bit high. According to that article, Alaska is the richest state with a GDP (PPP) per capita of $80,741 yet, according to the OECD, the richest US state is actually Delaware, with a GDP (PPP) per capita of just $59,591.

I'm a fan of The Spectator, but the figures in that article are suspect.

West London is the richest place on earth: List of OECD regions by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(the US has five areas in the list of Top 20 GDPs per capita in the world; Britain has four; Canada only has one).
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,956
1,910
113
Britain is becoming a Muslim country.

Canada is becoming one even quicker. Although with the amount of Muslim lovers on this forum when ISIS arrive in Canada - and Canada is so lefty liberal it's only a matter of time - they'll be welcomed with open arms.

Btw, the British aircraft carrier under construction is going to use the naval version of the F-35 isn't it?
There are actually TWO aircraft carriers under construction.

As for the F-35 Lightning IIs (named after the English Electric Lightning), I regret that the RN have gone for them for the wonderful new carriers. When you look at the recent poor record of those planes, the things will probably just disintegrate in mid-air once they leave the flight deck.

Sing it with me now, Blackleaf!
Maybe one day your economy will come up to Alabama standards!


Maybe one day the US economy will come up to British standards.






UK economy racing ahead of the rest of the world

Posted by Emma Cullen in Finances, Business trends on Fri, 25/07/2014 - 10:42


Britain’s growing economy is outstripping every other country in the world, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has revealed.

The UK is expected to grow by 3.2% this year according to an updated projection by the IMF. If Britain’s achieves its predicted growth, it will mark the country’s strongest year since the recession.

Britain’s 3.2% predicted growth sits considerably higher than any other developed country. IMF’s World Economic Outlook predicted that Germany would grow by 1.9%, the US by 1.7% and Canada by 2.2%.

The forecast marks a second increase for Britain this year and the fourth increase in a row. In 2013 IMF predicted that the UK would grow by 1.5%. April this year saw another IMF update, predicting increased growth to 2.9% for Britain’s GDP, out-performing countries such as Canada, US, France and Germany.

Chancellor George Osborne was previously criticised by IMF for his 'austere' policies, warning that they could cause an economic slump. IMF has since admitted it was wrong and Osborne said the forecast was "further evidence that our long-term economic plan is working" The gaining economic growth has been attributed to increased customer spending and a tentative rebound in the manufacturing sector.

Today the Office for National Statistics released figures confirming a 0.8% increase in UK GDP across the second quarter of 2014, revealing the second consecutive quarter on quarter increase of 0.8%. The results are 3.1% more this quarter, than the same period in 2013 and the service industries were noted to be the largest and steadiest contributor to economic growth and the only component of GDP where output has exceeded its pre-downturn peak.





UK economy racing ahead of the rest of the world

I recall the pictures of the ancient electronics that were unused, US Navy surplus that are to be installed in the new fleet.... I'm still laughing about that.

Have you got any evidence of that?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
What part of "several shells hit HMS Hood, with one penetrating the magazine aft packed full of ammunition and explosives" do you not understand?

It was one single, solitary shell and it was confirmed by the BBC that had eye witness correspondents on the scene.

"Deise jungs saugen"

Have you got any evidence of that?

There are pictures that were posted on these forums... It's yesterday's news Blackie
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
There are actually TWO aircraft carriers under construction.

As for the F-35 Lightning IIs (named after the English Electric Lightning), I regret that the RN have gone for them for the wonderful new carriers. When you look at the recent poor record of those planes, the things will probably just disintegrate in mid-air once they leave the flight deck.

New Brit carriers... the majority of the aircraft are US and the majority of electronics was made in Canada as a BBC report showed.

I am wondering if the crews will have to be US and Canadian as well. Most likely it would appear.

I wonder if they will have the blast feature that the HMS Hood had?





Racing ahead of Mississippi... but lagging behind Alabama.

Roll Tide!

 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,956
1,910
113
It was one single, solitary shell and it was confirmed by the BBC that had eye witness correspondents on the scene.

Was it confirmed by the BBC? Because, if it was, they were wrong (although it wouldn't be the only time).

New Brit carriers... the majority of the aircraft are US

The F-35 isn't a wholly American plane. It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team which includes Britain's BAE Systems.

Saying the F-35 is American would be like someone saying the Eurofighter Typhoon is British.

Although I don't think the F-35 would have so many flaws and operational problems had it been a wholly British plane without any American involvement.

I
It's yesterday's news Blackie

Yeah, but is it true? Why on Earth would somebody put obsolete technology in new, modern ships?