or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Decline of Europe - makenews/opinion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Decline of Europe - makenews/opinion - Page 4

post #121 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Splinemodel - It is patently obvious that you know little about either Europe or economics?but do you know anything at all about socialism that you didn?t learn from half-baked right-wing ideologues? And why couch your argument in such biblical terms?

I was merely putting in argument in biblical terms in order to pressure fellowship's argument, which will have a religious motive to it since fellowship values religion, precisely Christianity. It's not really my nature or intent to wholeheartedly introduce spirtual beliefs into arguments about human-to-human involvements.

I know quite a bit about both topics. There are obviously people who know more than I do, but I'm not an economist or a politician. If you don't think I have any idea about economics or Europe, a non-backed-up one-liner isn't going to serve you well.

Another little observations. Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance. I have yet to see a liberal or European on this board, aside from perhaps BRussell, ever put substance into an argument on such grounds.

Personally, I think that "social-democratic" (read:socialist) idealouges about things not being black and white are half-baked. . . and given the economic status of Europe vs. America, I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)


Apologies to Fellowship, since by being so rhetorical I was undeniably being a jerk, but I just don't like one line responses. If you're going to respond, back yourself up. . . That goes especially to a number of posters in this thread. you know who you are
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #122 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance.

...

I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)

I don't remember an argument being presented. Care to recap?

...

I'll argue this one.

Without even getting into the economics, how can you tell how much better (or worse) America would be if it adopted some sensible 'socialist' policies, or how Europe would fare if it adopted the American model?

Second, why isn't America topping the quality of life polls? You make it sound like it would win by a mile.

Third, is it *really* black and white?
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #123 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel


Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance. I have yet to see a liberal or European on this board, aside from perhaps BRussell, ever put substance into an argument on such grounds.


first contrary to what you said EU economic policy is efficient. It has allowed a countrie like Spain to increase dramitacally their economic level. More, if EU economic policy was innefective, why ten members and others wish to enter in it ?

And for the substance into an argument, you are not the one, from whom i will get a lesson.
post #124 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel

Another little observations. Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance. I have yet to see a liberal or European on this board, aside from perhaps BRussell, ever put substance into an argument on such grounds.

Personally, I think that "social-democratic" (read:socialist) idealouges about things not being black and white are half-baked. . . and given the economic status of Europe vs. America, I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)

Are you referring to me? Looks like it when you insist on the wrong social-democratic equals socialist idea.
post #125 of 159
And no thing aren´t as black and white as you put it. To insist on that would erase all politics (preferences between different goods).

What about the gini coefficient? High and ever rising in US and low and declining in Denmark even through a very positive economy we experienced from the 90s until this day (a very uncommon thing). Among the lowest in the world.

WHat about the working hours? Much shorter here.

What about the men/women work force ratio? Much more equal here etc. etc. etc.

Its all about priorities. You may see economy as the pile of money you can stack. But no its not as black and white as that. Its about priorities. What you want to use your wealth for.
post #126 of 159
And another point: I often hear people using Ireland as an example of how a country through tax cuts and friendly enviroment for the international firms can generate jobs and better economy.

But if Ireland hadn´t been part of EU it wouldn´t have been able to offer those benefits. Irealnd was HEAVILY subsidised from EU to get its economy up to european standard.
post #127 of 159
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
And so there's no relation between the two?

Cheers
Scott

Sure except we didn't happen to sell Iraq weapons of mass destruction. If we were complaining about conventional weapons we would be hypocrits. However they found the sources and created those weapons themselves.

I just get tired of people using an action from 20+ years ago asa throw away excuse not to think. Saddam took power in 1979. He went to war with Iran in 1980. To say we knew in 1980 what we know now is silly. Likewise to use the fact that we sold him conventional weapons to say we have no grounds to deal with him regarding weapons of mass destruction is just pointless as well.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #128 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure except we didn't happen to sell Iraq weapons of mass destruction. If we were complaining about conventional weapons we would be hypocrits. However they found the sources and created those weapons themselves.

No, you sold him weapons of mass destruction (including anthrax and the bubonic plague) with the blessing of the government and a man named Rumsfeld.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...528574,00.html

I'm glad you agree that it is hypocritical.

edit: I'll also point out, for those too lazy to read the article, that you were aware Saddam was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against the Iranians, before you started selling him anthrax and the bubonic plague, and even after he gassed the civilian Kurds the official policy was still that even economic sanctions were not needed.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #129 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I was merely putting in argument in biblical terms in order to pressure fellowship's argument, which will have a religious motive to it since fellowship values religion, precisely Christianity. It's not really my nature or intent to wholeheartedly introduce spirtual beliefs into arguments about human-to-human involvements.

I know quite a bit about both topics. There are obviously people who know more than I do, but I'm not an economist or a politician. If you don't think I have any idea about economics or Europe, a non-backed-up one-liner isn't going to serve you well.

Another little observations. Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance. I have yet to see a liberal or European on this board, aside from perhaps BRussell, ever put substance into an argument on such grounds.

Personally, I think that "social-democratic" (read:socialist) idealouges about things not being black and white are half-baked. . . and given the economic status of Europe vs. America, I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)


Apologies to Fellowship, since by being so rhetorical I was undeniably being a jerk, but I just don't like one line responses. If you're going to respond, back yourself up. . . That goes especially to a number of posters in this thread. you know who you are

No apology needed, In days past I used to argue robustly as you do over the exact same subject you discuss and on the same side you take on the matter. I did this in another time/space realm. I think today I try to argue more along a philosophy of questions and soft suggestion that is backed with powerful evidence. I am perfectly fine if people take a different stance than I take. I think the best way to debate is to ask questions over vs/ the hit you over the head approach. In my college days I was hit over the head with socialist "there is no God" non-sense over and over and over and it led me to a period where I flat out rejected the crap the college num heads were trying to feed me. I would get on the internet in days past and trust me you would be suprised at how similar I argue as you do. Today I am not a big fan of "hit you over the head" style influence over another person as such a tactic caused me to flat out reject that which was attempted to be shoved to me. I have come to realize that any idea that is attempted to be advanced in such a way is likely to have a level of rejection. Today I argue in terms of it being ok to differ. I am quite "ok" if people disagree with me. I am comfortable with that. The reason it is important to allow people to disagree is because it is wrong to mandate people be like you are. It was wrong of most of my college professors to "expect" me to adopt with no dissent the CRAP they were trying to force feed me. So I personally have come to a mature realization that I will not use such tactics if I can help it while presenting a case of something I believe in. I am not saying you are working in the same frame as my former college professors but I also believe you have some room you could move towards the realization that not all will agree with you no matter how strongly you hold to your ideas. Again I agree with your political ideas with economics and we share the same disgust on socialism.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #130 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

If you support the status quo and it happens to be tyranny, then you support tyranny.

I was saying that only the Buchannonite-like complete isolationists were supporting the status quo.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #131 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam

THe same can be said for Gypsy's except that Gypsies never took to the taboo occupations and never succeeded monetarily . . . so they never became the 'behind the scenes' kind of scapegoat merely the 'pest' kind of scapegtoat explanation.

Just an aside:

The Gypsy culture believes that their race began before Adam & Eve and thus the fall of man from grace. Because they were 'born' prior to original sin, they have no original sin. Now, being 'sinless', they are freed from the need to labor and work to earn a living. They're still in the garden of eden so to speak.

So, that's why they never took to taboo occupations, because they avoid all occupations since they don't need to work.

Just a history I learned back in the day.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #132 of 159
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
No, you sold him weapons of mass destruction (including anthrax and the bubonic plague) with the blessing of the government and a man named Rumsfeld.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...528574,00.html

I'm glad you agree that it is hypocritical.

edit: I'll also point out, for those too lazy to read the article, that you were aware Saddam was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against the Iranians, before you started selling him anthrax and the bubonic plague, and even after he gassed the civilian Kurds the official policy was still that even economic sanctions were not needed.

I think this version is a little more accurate and a little less paranoid. Though I can't say I would have called what they did even then intelligent.

I would say that sending them a sample that they claim is for medical research is not in the same league as shipping them 50 gallon drums of various biological and chemical weapons as your article asserts.

U.S. sends samples to Iraq from CDC

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #133 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I would say that sending them a sample that they claim is for medical research is not in the same league as shipping them 50 gallon drums of various biological and chemical weapons as your article asserts.

Yeah, and what is the key ingredient for making bacteria, say the bacteria that produce the botulinum toxin or gangrene gas?

What do you need in order to make a 50 gallon drums of anthrax spores?

Now I'm not a microbiologist by trade but I would have thought common sense would have covered this one.

Here's a key phrase from *your* link: seed stocks

Here's another classic: "Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for a biological weapons programs".

You think fulfilling "a shopping list for a biological weapons program" is acceptable? Because your government was "naive" (that's another quote from your article) at a time when it was aware (according to its own documents) that he was gassing Iranian army soldiers.

If I were you I'd be hoping my government officials were in on it because the alternative is gross stupidity on a grand scale.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #134 of 159
Just trying to get back on topic here....if the moderators don't mind. This article on bloomberg.com is of interest.
Indonesia (and possibly the rest of Asia too) are considering dumping the US $ for the .
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...d=anZbHuX9q8gI
Is Jakarta the next target for invasion? (j/k)
The Euro is looking more like the international currency of the future.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #135 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Just trying to get back on topic here....if the moderators don't mind. This article on bloomberg.com is of interest.
Indonesia (and possibly the rest of Asia too) are considering dumping the US $ for the .
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...d=anZbHuX9q8gI
Is Jakarta the next target for invasion? (j/k)
The Euro is looking more like the international currency of the future.

I think that there will be two international currencies in the future : $ and . Considering that monopoles are bad, it will be a good thing that a viable alternative to the $ exist.
post #136 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I think that there will be two international currencies in the future : $ and . Considering that monopoles are bad, it will be a good thing that a viable alternative to the $ exist.

But from a completely U.S. centric point of view this is a bad thing.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #137 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
But from a completely U.S. centric point of view this is a bad thing.

I am sorry
post #138 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)

The best way to compare economic efficiency at the macro level is to look at labor productivity. According to one report, the EU 15 operated at 87% of US labor productivity levels in 2001 (source). 60% of this difference was attributed to shorter working hours in the EU and 40% to higher unemployment rates.

The four EU countries that outperformed the US in terms of labor productivity in 2001 (Luxembourg, Belgium, France and The Netherlands) and those that came within 7% of US levels (Ireland, Austria, Denmark and Germany) (source) all have well developed welfare states and strong representation by political groups in the social democrat tradition. Interestingly, all eight of these countries have shorter average work weeks (source) and half of them had significantly higher unemployment (source) then the US in 2001. Of course, for the purposes of comparing the EU and US, it is necessary to look at the full EU 15. Unemployment in 2001 hit an average of 7.7% in the EU and 4.8% in the US (source 1, source 2). The average work week in the EU is 40.3 hours (source). The average work week in the US is about 46 hours (source). For married American men with children under the age of 18, the average work week is almost 51 hours long (source).

So, when compared to the EU as a whole, the US economy is indisputably geared towards creating greater levels of wealth. This is achieved primarily through working longer hours and is furthered by a lower unemployment rate. But what about welfare? How do we quantify that? Bear in mind that welfare is defined as health, happiness, and good fortune. These are difficult things to measure. The easiest way to do it is to use the utility generated by wealth (after subtracting the negative utility generated by the work required to attain that wealth) as a proxy. We already know that the distribution of wealth in the US is seriously skewed. With between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth owned by one percent of the population, I think we can agree that a lot of people are not getting to see the vast majority the wealth that is created. The law of diminishing marginal utility indicates that this is inherently inefficient. The marginal utility generated by giving an extra couple of hundred dollars to someone on minimum wage is many times greater than the marginal utility generated by giving the same amount to a high powered exec pulling in $900,000 plus p.a. If the flow of wealth to the richest 1% is disproportionately high, the utility generated by that wealth is reduced to a point where it becomes almost worthless.

To recap: People in the EU work shorter hours and take more vacation time. They create a little less wealth, and their governments tax more of their wages and salaries so as to redistribute it (via free public health care and unemployment benefits) to those who would otherwise receive less of the wealth created. People in the US work longer hours and take less vacation time. They are taxed less so there is less in the way of free public health care and unemployment benefits.

Result? Less SUVs in the driveways of the European middle classes, fewer CEOs pulling in multi-million dollar salaries and fewer people digging in the garbage for cans to recycle.

Edit: fixed link
post #139 of 159
And as the EU lets in poorer nations... watch out.

Best of luck, you're going to need it.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #140 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
And as the EU lets in poorer nations... watch out.

Best of luck, you're going to need it.

Yeah, that huge influx of highly educated, hard working central and eastern Europeans from countries with huge natural resources is going to be a real drag on the rest of Europe
post #141 of 159
I know man. Thanks for feeling our pain.

And that huge new market to develop.

Nie wiem co robic.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #142 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
.

Nie wiem co robic.

post #143 of 159
Keep Chiraq on a leash and maybe it'll turn out positive. It'll be fun to watch how a unified EU security policy comes out.

That's entertainment.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #144 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Keep Chiraq on a leash and maybe it'll turn out positive. It'll be fun to watch how a unified EU security policy comes out.

That's entertainment.

Be carefull to your butt , dogs bites . Anyway unified EU security police are not for tomorrow. EU is more a economic club than an unified group of countrie. It's hard to play a symphonia with 15 (and next 25) solo players, and harder if you consider that some of these players are real diva.
post #145 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc

Moja dziewcenia jest Polka. Wiedzisz?
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #146 of 159
GDP per capita (purchasing power parity), 2001 [CIA]
US: $36,300
France: $25,700

That's a BIG difference, especially when you factor in the much higher proportion of income most EU countries pay in taxes. IIRC, it's somewhere around 50%, compared to the US's 30%. And it's not only due to longer hours and less unemployment, but the productivity gap is real and growing. It narrowed quite a bit in the 80s and early 90s, but since then the rapid US productivity growth has not been matched in Europe.

So the cliche that Europeans are less rich but happy while Americans are rich and overworked is true, but only to a point.
post #147 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
GDP per capita (purchasing power parity), 2001 [CIA]
US: $36,300
France: $25,700

That's a BIG difference, especially when you factor in the much higher proportion of income most EU countries pay in taxes. IIRC, it's somewhere around 50%, compared to the US's 30%. And it's not only due to longer hours and less unemployment, but the productivity gap is real and growing. It narrowed quite a bit in the 80s and early 90s, but since then the rapid US productivity growth has not been matched in Europe.

So the cliche that Europeans are less rich but happy while Americans are rich and overworked is true, but only to a point.

I'm in the top income tax bracket in the country

40% bubba. Most people waaaaaay less.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #148 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
GDP per capita (purchasing power parity), 2001 [CIA]



So the cliche that Europeans are less rich but happy while Americans are rich and overworked is true, but only to a point.

However i am still searching an Happymeter. YOu can count money, but can we mesure Happyness ?
post #149 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Moja dziewcenia jest Polka. Wiedzisz?

i don't know many foreign languages, i am not one of this crazy viking able to speak dozens of languages perfectly
post #150 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Be carefull to your butt , dogs bites . Anyway unified EU security police are not for tomorrow. EU is more a economic club than an unified group of countrie. It's hard to play a symphonia with 15 (and next 25) solo players, and harder if you consider that some of these players are real diva.

Or suck up to the diva next door.

kneelbeforezod: Well written and fair for both sides.

I only got a few things to add.

Regarding the unemplyment figures: When you compare them between europe and US you have to keep in mind that the work force is larger in relative terms in europe (more working women).

Regarding the economy: If you took the danish economy we used a semi-keynes (read social-democratic) economic politic to kick start our economy in the early 90s. It worked and today we have a surplus on both state and national budget and in light of the latest fall of the dollar we have as high GDP per capita as US. So social-democratic economic politics doesn´t nessesary mean that the pile of shared money will be lower.
post #151 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
GDP per capita (purchasing power parity), 2001 [CIA]
US: $36,300
France: $25,700

It looks quite better today with the weak dollar

Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
That's a BIG difference, especially when you factor in the much higher proportion of income most EU countries pay in taxes. IIRC, it's somewhere around 50%, compared to the US's 30%.

The money doesn´t dissapear in a black hole. It is used for things you have to pay for on the side: Health care, infrastructure, foreign aid, education etc.

Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
And it's not only due to longer hours and less unemployment, but the productivity gap is real and growing. It narrowed quite a bit in the 80s and early 90s, but since then the rapid US productivity growth has not been matched in Europe.



France: GDP - real growth rate: 1.1% (2002 est.)
Germany: GDP - real growth rate: 0.4% (2002 est.)
Denmark: GDP - real growth rate: 1.8% (2002 est.)


US: GDP - real growth rate: 0.3% (2001 est.)
post #152 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
i don't know many foreign languages, i am not one of this crazy viking able to speak dozens of languages perfectly

Je suis compris en France, Pologne, et aux pays Anglophone (c'est a dire le plupart du monde malhereusement). Mais SKANDI ... oh Scandinavie ...
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #153 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
GDP per capita (purchasing power parity), 2001 [CIA]
US: $36,300
France: $25,700

GDP per capita does not properly account for unemployment levels or lthe ength of work week. When making a comparison of economic efficiency, GDP per hour worked (aka labor productivity) is used.

French GDP per hour worked as a percentage of US GDP per hours worked for 2001 was 101.8%
post #154 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Je suis compris en France, Pologne, et aux pays Anglophone (c'est a dire le plupart du monde malhereusement). Mais SKANDI ... oh Scandinavie ...

Sorry for the confusion. I guess my confusion came from your name, who sound like Viking (just as silly to think that the Borg in Star trek where related to the swedish ) .Ainsi tu viens de Pologne ou un de tes parents est polonais. J'ai un ami qui est polonais d'origine. Je l'ai perdu de vue il ya quelques temps, je me demande ce qu'il devient.
post #155 of 159
Harald isn´t from Scandinavia? I´m surprised.
post #156 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
GDP per capita does not properly account for unemployment levels or lthe ength of work week. When making a comparison of economic efficiency, GDP per hour worked (aka labor productivity) is used.

French GDP per hour worked as a percentage of US GDP per hours worked for 2001 was 101.8%

Speaking of productivity, one reason to explain why productivity of the french worker is so high, is that it's a necessity when people work only 35 hours per weeK. Nor the industries are able to increase the productivity of their workers, nor they die.

Anyway, even if i work for my own, but probabily more than 35 hours (but i never count) i don't wish to work more time, but just more efficiently. All my plans in the future will have for goal to develop my productivity (the numbers of people i can cure) via a better organisation and better skills (but i have nearly reached my limit for many procedures already). I refuse to work a larger number of hours. Anyway, it's not interesting to work too much as a free-lance in France, because at a certain level, you work mostly for the state and not for your-self. It's better to work less, and to have more spare time.
post #157 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
Regarding the unemplyment figures: When you compare them between europe and US you have to keep in mind that the work force is larger in relative terms in europe (more working women).

Interesting...I hadn't thought about that. Is it a very significant difference?
post #158 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
Harald isn´t from Scandinavia? I´m surprised.

He he he he. Define "from."

meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #159 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Interesting...I hadn't thought about that. Is it a very significant difference?

It will be interesting to have rate per family. However i don't have any clue about it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Decline of Europe - makenews/opinion