Today on Blogcritics
Home » Outsourcing Europe

Outsourcing Europe

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Europe has been suffering from high unemployment for years. Not just official unemployment figures in the double digits, but real unemployment including those who have given up on finding a job as high as 40% in some countries. Now there’s more bad news coming for European workers – massive layoffs and business relocations.

With most countries like France and Germany having basically stagnant economies with no prospects for growth in sight, the way to increase or maintain profits is to reduce overhead. European GDP growth last year averaged under 2% compared with 4.4% in the US after adjusting for inflation and other factors. Growth in GDP was worst in the continental countries with the largest economies and marginally better in the smaller countries and in Eastern Europe. The really scary thing is that 2004 was the best year so far this decade, an improvement over 2003 which had two quarters at zero or negative growth and overall growth under 2%. Estimates suggest that next year will be like 2003, with zero growth or close to it. When your economy isn’t growing, new jobs aren’t being created and companies begin to look for ways to economize and one of the biggest budget items for most businesses is payroll – hence layoffs.

With stagnant economies European businesses are finding it hard to attract investors, consumers are spending less, and even modest inflation wipes out any increases in purchasing. Consumer inactivity is a particularly bad problem for Europe where manufacturers are finding they have to send products overseas to find markets for them, unlike the United States where companies can count on robust domestic consumption as a baseline for reliable profits.

Americans complain about outsourcing, but our situation is nothing compared to Europe. European companies face the same pressures to economize, and they find it’s just easier to do business in countries with governments which are more business-friendly than the EU, which includes most of the rest of the world. Some European businesses are even finding it profitable to outsource or relocate operations to the US, not because wages are lower, but because there’s so much less overhead from taxes, utilities, inflated union wages, short work weeks, transportation and other basic expenses. The cost of doing business is just lower if you’re not in a major western European nation.

There are two basic types of job loss going on in Europe, layoffs to increase general company efficiency and relocation or outsourcing to other places where it’s easier to do business.

One way to do this is to lay people off if you can find a way to make the business work without them. This is what companies like BASF and Bayer are doing in Germany and IBM is doing at all it’s European locations, laying off as many as 13,000 people throughout the EU.

Outsourcing or relocation is another big issue. Companies like Dell and software giant SAP are moving operations out of Europe to India and some are moving factories from the high cost countries like Germany to more business friendly societies to the east, as Siemens is doing with a move of one of its plants from Germany to the Czech Republic.

Another factor is the desirability of having your production facilities located in places where they can have substantial local sales – especially desirable with the current high gas prices. This makes it attractive to build new facilities outside the EU if you are planning on expanding your business. Building in the US which has more consumers than any other nation makes a lot of sense and more and more European businesses are starting plants here. Poland is also a very attractive destination for relocation or new operations, with a very business friendly government and the most robust consumer economy in the EU.

European governments are making an effort to respond. The most pronounced trend is to cut business tax rates. For some countries – Ireland being a great example – this has worked very well, but most European countries have not beein willing to cut tax rates as low as Ireland’s 12.5%. Even though by early this year most European countries had lowered corporate taxes to below the US, the weak dollar and high price of other basic expenses in Europe still put them at a disadvantage, despite the fact that the 40% average rate of tax on business in the US is much too high.

All of this may be bad for Europe, but it’s good for the US. Despite criticism of President Bush’s deflated dollar, lowering the value of the dollar relative to the Euro makes investment and business relocation to the US very attractive to European and multinational businesses, so to some extent the booming US economy with high GDP growth, vanishing unemployment and even slightly increasing wages, all comes at the expense of Europe. If the process of federal tax reform were to get some legs and result in some lowering of tax rates for businesses this would do even more to strengthen the US position in the world economy and compensate for Europe’s efforts to use lower taxes to slow their rate of economic decline.

—-

For information on this trend check out this article from EUBusiness and this one from Chemical and Enginerring News.

For more information on trends in the European economy there’s a very useful report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers with lots of statistical information.

For information on European tax rates see this article from the Progressforamerica.com

NB: The title of this piece was recently changed to suit the content better, and in the second paragraph several changes were made. A reference to 2003 having negative GDP growth in Europe was changed to specify that the negative growth only applied to two quarters of that year, and an erroneous figure for US GDP growth in 2004 was corrected.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    GDP?

    USA GDP growth rate in 2002 was 2.4
    In 2003 it was 3.1
    In 2004 it was 10.6?

    Why would anyone even think it could be, would be that high? It would be really nice but it would be pretty remarkable and break most 20th Century records.

    None of the links have this figure, though I see where you misrepresented “investment” for GDP in the EUbusiness link – and “investment” would include investment from other countries or other business and individuals overseas.

    It’s really hard to “confuse” these two basic tenets of macro-economics.

    Also, pretty much forgotten here is the whole zeitgeist of the European Union; its collective power. It is working together, though its unity is not yet a compellingly strong one. Neither was the US’s unity in its formative years.

    This is what “only looking at the bright side” means? The EU is still growing, after all. An awful lot is being left out of the European picture to make a point. That’s the accusation foisted on others who say, sometimes calmly, sometimes not, America has issues to worry about or Iraq isn’t doing so hot or environmental progress could be much better.

    I say US GDP was 4.4 percent Now, admittedly that doesn’t present quite the same exaggerated-for-effect contrast.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Sorry, Temp. I read the wrong figure while I was putting everything together. Yes, the adjusted GDP growth was lower. I’ll correct the article. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Dave

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com Eric Berlin

    What should also be factored into U.S. growth is wealth distribution — in other words, where are the profits going? In my opinion and experience, profits are heading disproportionately to the already wealthy while the middle class and poor continue to get squeezed.

    I realize this point is a tad off-topic, but it would be interesting to examine wealth distribution in the U.S. versus Europe. Which population, as a whole, is happier, healthier, and wealthier?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    There are malefactors of great wealth in Europe too – in fact the wealthiest of them are the same people as in the US. International billionaires who profit off of multinational corporations skim off the top from all the nations of the world, not just the US.

    What the wealthiest earn from their work and investments is relatively meaningless. If you took their yearly profits and divided them among all the lower paid workers the net for a given worker would be only a few dollars a month. What’s more important and meaningful to consider is whether the average worker is getting paid an appropriate wage for the work he is doing. A factory worker isn’t qualified to do the work a CEO does, and the relative amount more that CEO gets paid really means nothing – it’s like comparing apples and oranges – but does that factory worker get paid a fair wage in comparison to his peers around the world, and in the context of the economy in which he lives? That’s the real question.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Also, pretty much forgotten here is the whole zeitgeist of the European Union; its collective power. It is working together, though its unity is not yet a compellingly strong one. Neither was the US’s unity in its formative years.<<

    Ah, the working together – like France being given a special tax break to convince them to vote for the EU Constitution, rather than just burning 20,000 copies as they did last week.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    That mistake excuse doesn’t fly.

    Here’s some more.

    From original post: The really scary thing is that 2004 was the best year so far this decade, an improvement over the negative growth of 2003.

    First a question. Does the use of European in this post = EU? Or a narrower or greater zone?

    Just to use the linked articles: That same EUbusiness piece says “investment” (again, not GDP) had “a slight decrease” in 2003. GDP increased by, not under 2 percent, but just over 2 percent, about half that of the United States.

    The PriceWaterhouseCoopers report from Feb. 2005 has a handy large table on page 5 that was equally hard to overlook. It shows there has not been “negative growth” since 1993.

    That same report estimates an EU GDP growth by 2006. (pg. 5)

    The same report estimates a slowing of US GDP in 2005. (pg. 10)

    The same report shows higher than US employment rates in the EU (A 9 percent average), with the highest rates in Spain (10.5 percent) and that attractive-to-business Poland (18.4 percent).

    From the Progress for America link: Europe’s longstanding reputation as antibusiness is no longer “justified,” says Mr. Durand. “It is a very difficult business to compare aggregate levels of taxation, but by all measures, as a general trend it is very clear that capital is much more taxed in the U.S. than in Europe, and labor and consumption are much less taxed.”

    It’s seems like, relating to business, that might be a positive thing for the future.

    The Chemical and Engineering news link is from 2001. It says so at the top, by the byline. It was then that Bayer and BASF had significant lay-offs.

    Again, I glanced and did searches for key words in the PDF to get to the actual facts. I didn’t have to read the entire report. I encourage anyone to at least read the same way to get the much broader, more accurate picture.

    Most of the damage seems to be done by high oil prices and the high indexing of the Euro. Again this is according to that PriceWaterhouseCoopers report.

    All these errors in just one post. This is why I can’t and don’t take the time to point them all out in all the posts by this author.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>That mistake excuse doesn’t fly.< <

    Yes, I realize the truth has little meaning to you, Temple. I corrected the error. Why not consider the substance of the article rather than trying to make more errors by misrepresenting what I said?

    >>The PriceWaterhouseCoopers report from Feb. 2005 has a handy large table on page 5 that was equally hard to overlook. It shows there has not been “negative growth” since 1993.< <

    I said 'this decade' not this decade plus 7 years of last decade. This decade is the period from 2001 to 2005, so far. Do you not know what a decade is?

    The table you cite on page 5 does not have any information on past GDP. It refers only to 2004 and it is the only table on page 5. The figure you want to look at is fig. 2.7 on page 9 which shows 7 quarters out of 16 between 2001 and 2004 with zero or negative GDP growth, a period in which GDP growth never rose over .6% per quarter. That's bad.

    >>From the Progress for America link: Europe’s longstanding reputation as antibusiness is no longer “justified,” says Mr. Durand. “It is a very difficult business to compare aggregate levels of taxation, but by all measures, as a general trend it is very clear that capital is much more taxed in the U.S. than in Europe, and labor and consumption are much less taxed.”

    It’s seems like, relating to business, that might be a positive thing for the future.< <

    Right. I addressed this towards the end of my article. The thrust of the PfA article is that Europe has attempted to address this problem by lowering corporate taxes and that the US should do the same. PfA is primarily a tax reform organization.

    >>Again, I glanced and did searches for key words in the PDF to get to the actual facts. I didn’t have to read the entire report. I encourage anyone to at least read the same way to get the much broader, more accurate picture.< <

    And you got them wrong, but that's ok. The reason I put the links in my aritcle was so that people could go and read them for themselves.

    >>Most of the damage seems to be done by high oil prices and the high indexing of the Euro.< <

    Both of which I mention prominently in my article.

    >>All these errors in just one post. This is why I can’t and don’t take the time to point them all out in all the posts by this author.<<

    What errors? The one typo I fixed. The other error you found you were wrong about. The rest of the things you point out were all addressed in the article.

    I realize you’re on a vendetta against me, but you’ve got to do better than this if you want people to take you seriously.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    You said there was negative European growth in 2003. There wasn’t. How much simpler can I put it?

    It doesn’t matter whether you were talking about the last 100 years or the last decade. You’re wrong in this decade and that one. My only reason for mentioning 1993 was to say that was the last time there was negative growth, period

    Can you truly not see this? I bet others can, even those who agree that Europe is doomed unless they change their ways.

    Any thoguhts on my points that the EU GDP is projected to go up and the USA GDP projected to go down this year? Both of these facts also go directly toward your overall point, and make that point much much weaker.

    The page numbers I used are the ones at the bottom of the pages, not the PDF pages.

    Don’t start attacking: I realize the truth has little meaning to you or Do you know what a decade is?

    I was addressing the factual errors of the post, not the writer. I’m pointing out your factual errors, which seem very deliberate or at the least an example of selective reading.

    Which is it?

    I rarely comment on your pieces because of the reasons stated. And because of snide comments like, “Do you know what a decade is?”, while simultaneously missing the very obvious error that cannot be denied by any objective observer.

    There’s no vendetta as I have made clear numerous times: only that against disinformation. I’m merely pointing out blatant errors and letting others decide. Quit playing victim – again.

    Typo on the GDP? As I explained, you’d have to have a severe lack of understanding of economics to read that over and stay with the conclusion you kept. It’s one that goes to the heart of what you are writing about. And if you have that severe lack of understanding you have no business writing about economics.

    My conclusion, based on all the errors, was that rather than you not being able to understand, it was, instead, a very selective reading; a jettisoning of facts that run contrary to your point.

    You mentioned a lot of things and minimized most of it in favor of your overall conclusion that Europe is going down the crapper. It may be, but not for the reasons stated in the first few paragraphs here, which are error-filled.

    Please keep responding because you are not helping yourself seem credible. Sincerely, Temple

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>You said there was negative European growth in 2003. There wasn’t. How much simpler can I put it? < <

    I guess you can put it any way you want since you're making it up. There was negative GDP growth in the first two quarters of 2003 according to the PWC report. Overall growth in the EU was almost 0 in 2003 according to this report, and the figures look worst if you concentrate on the original 6 EU countries. They get better if you add in the new members.

    >>It doesn’t matter whether you were talking about the last 100 years or the last decade. You’re wrong in this decade and that one. My only reason for mentioning 1993 was to say that was the last time there was negative growth, period< <

    Most reports measure growth on a quarterly basis and that's what I was referring to. And several European countries, including Germany had overall negative years in 2003 - Germany was down 1.7% overall for the year.

    >>Can you truly not see this? I bet others can, even those who agree that Europe is doomed unless they change their ways.< <

    I see what you're saying, but it's not any more correct than what I'm saying. Step back a second. Was 2003 a good year for Europe or was it one of the worst years they've had recently? Was 2004 a good year compared to the US?

    If your answers to those two questions are different from mine then you've got a real argument with my article and I'd love to hear it.

    >>Any thoguhts on my points that the EU GDP is projected to go up and the USA GDP projected to go down this year? Both of these facts also go directly toward your overall point, and make that point much much weaker.< <

    The famous page five of the PWC report shows European GDP projected to go down farther in 2005 and then recover slightly in 2006, still to a level substantially lower than the US. High gas prices and increasing interest rates are projected to slow US growth (see this article ), but it’s still projected to be a minimum of 3.1%, substantially higher than Europe. For lots of projection information check out this article from the Economic Research Group.

    I should point out that the overall economic outlook worldwide seems to be fairly good. My article wasn’t about GDP growth, it was about outsourcing, layoffs and relocation in Europe. GDP growth is just part of the picture.

    >>I was addressing the factual errors of the post, not the writer. I’m pointing out your factual errors, which seem very deliberate or at the least an example of selective reading.< <

    Yes, but you have a little crusade going to find my articles, attempt to attack them and portray my facts as innacurate - incorrectly in most cases - while ignoring the substance of the actual articles.

    All I really wanted to point out in this article was that Europe is having much more serious problems with outsourcing and layoffs than the US is. If I have an agenda it's that I think Europe needs to move away from government control of business and move to a freer market. Lots of Europeans, including people in power in many of the governments seem to agree. I think it's a good trend and I'm just pointing out why it's needed.

    >>You mentioned a lot of things and minimized most of it in favor of your overall conclusion that Europe is going down the crapper. It may be, but not for the reasons stated in the first few paragraphs here, which are error-filled.<<

    My conclusion is actually that Europe has already been in the crapper, but might be able to pull itself out. Try to think positive.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    I’m making it up? By going to the figures in your links, the same sources you used to make your points, I’m making it up?

    Please offer the return courtesy of a page number i the PWC report for your repeated claim that in Europe (or the EU, you didn’t answer which but you’re wrong for either) that There was negative GDP growth in the first two quarters of 2003 according to the PWC report

    Your as-presented lack of understanding and accuracy about GDP growth, does speak to the rest of the post and your inaccuracy. It’s what you started your article with and therefore it was obviously important to making your point.

    GDP growth is most commonly and most meaningfully measured by comparison over the same time period a year previously. I think you’re selectively misreading the data again. Perhaps thinking no one would look very deeply or have the energy to do so.

    You keep writing that I am inaccurately saying you are making errors. You have not shown anyone where. Your inflammatory claims that I “am making it up” are bogus and only meant to be distracting.

    I find your articles? To the extent that it was at the top of the column when I first commented, yep sure, I looked hard for it.

    I am, of course, as you already can tell, positive about the future of Europe (and the US and China and India) so no need for the polite request.

    You keep on acknowledging your errors by attempting to explain what you were “trying to say” that would make your statements accurate. But you still aren’t achieving it. And they are still inaccurate.

    Nothing about what I am saying is a perception or a difference of opinion – it is about the facts. Sorry to “bully you” with facts and to try and get you to present them.

    I am prepared to keep on showing that you either have a lack of understanding or are selectively reading to make your point. Usually I just thow up my hands but I think it’s important to pursue at least one of these so readers can see what’s what. In a discussion bsed on facts. And we will stick with the links presented in your original post.

    It’s about facts, not anything else.

    I would have said we’d do it without personal attacks, but you already poisoned that well-being. Still, I’m positive you can keep a civil tongue from this point on. Please keep responding, because you are not helping yourself seem credible. Sincerely, Temple

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Please offer the return courtesy of a page number i the PWC report for your repeated claim that in Europe (or the EU, you didn’t answer which but you’re wrong for either) that There was negative GDP growth in the first two quarters of 2003 according to the PWC reportM< <

    It's the same report and the same set of charts we've been referencing all along - fig. 2.7 on page 9. And I already addressed the issue of EU vs. Europe in my last response.

    (three paragraphs of insults and condescension deleted)

    >>I find your articles? To the extent that it was at the top of the column when I first commented, yep sure, I looked hard for it.< <

    Just today you commented on another thread that you were looking for my articles so you could go over them and dispute my facts.

    >>I am, of course, as you already can tell, positive about the future of Europe (and the US and China and India) so no need for the polite request.< <

    I'd like to hear more about this. I don't see how we can be unqualifiedly positive about the future of every player in the world economy unless you see an enormous boom coming. Without a huge growth in the world economy everyone can't come out ahead.

    >>You keep on acknowledging your errors by attempting to explain what you were “trying to say” that would make your statements accurate. But you still aren’t achieving it. And they are still inaccurate.< <

    Actually, that's your spin on what I've said. I've never tried to recharacterize what I've said, I've just tried to point you to what I actually said when you repeatedly mischaracterize it.

    >>Nothing about what I am saying is a perception or a difference of opinion – it is about the facts. Sorry to “bully you” with facts and to try and get you to present them.< <

    The facts are the facts. On that we can agree.

    >>I am prepared to keep on showing that you either have a lack of understanding or are selectively reading to make your point. < <

    I'm ready for you to start whenever you like. But how about addressing the central point of my article or perhaps just answering the two questions I asked you earlier. So far all you have is arguments over which chart we're looking at and a typo I made and then corrected.

    >>I would have said we’d do it without personal attacks,<<

    Then you would have had to start out a bit less insulting and a bit less condescending.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    It occured to me that we might both be finding that chart with the negative GDP growth figures on it hard to read. It’s not exactly detailed, and on going back over it I found it hard to tell exactly where the up and down lines were supposed to fall. So here’s a link to a OECD Report which shows 0 or negative GDP growth for the first two quarters of 2003 in the Euro area, which is the sub-section of the OECD which uses the Euro currency.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    These below are the comments I made in the last 24 hours. What are you talking about? (Go here for comments going back to May 6 as well as all my 1,132 comments)

    I repeat, you say Just today you commented on another thread that you were looking for my articles so you could go over them and dispute my facts.

    Seriously, what are you talking about? Did you not check before making that statement and making yourself appear to be a liar or delusional or paranoid? Or is it another case of, really, you don’t think anyone is going to check?

    Another error? Another casual disparaging lie about another commentator based on zero evidence (HW Saxton last week)? What are you talking about? I never said any such thing in the last 24 hours in the last week or through April, which is as far as I looked back.

    Eric has a copy of every comment made by everyone in case you really start to go over the edge and follow up with a secondary accusation that I deleted a comment.

    This kind of wild accusation, again after one against HW Saxton earlier this week, is damaging to the site and I wonder what drives you to such inanity (cf)?

    Also how dare you say I was condescending or insulting. To point out factual errors is not condescending. Someone else please point out where they can see condescension in my first post or second post or any post and who it was who began with the personal insults or the condescension (To quote you again: “Do you know what a decade is?” ” Yes, I realize the truth has little meaning to you”)

    Do you really think you can shape reality to your own?

    1 Posted by Temple Stark to European Economic Woes Continue on 2005.05.08, 20:02:45
    I’m making it up? By going to the figures in your links, the same sources you used to make your…
    2 Posted by Temple Stark to European Economic Woes Continue on 2005.05.08, 18:06:03
    You said there was negative European growth in 2003. There wasn’t. How much simpler can I put it? It doesn’t…
    3 Posted by Temple Stark to European Economic Woes Continue on 2005.05.08, 15:55:02
    That mistake excuse doesn’t fly. Here’s some more. From original post: The really scary thing is that 2004 was the best year…
    4 Posted by Temple Stark to European Economic Woes Continue on 2005.05.08, 15:03:12
    GDP? USA GDP growth rate in 2002 was 2.4 In 2003 it was 3.1 In 2004 it was 10.6? Why would anyone even think…
    5 Posted by Temple Stark to Making a Pass: Hail Mary! on 2005.05.08, 18:53:46
    >>ivan-cro, nothing pleases me more than seeing Christ’s message spread so beautifully. His words resonate in yours. Amen. LOL. It would have…
    6 Posted by Temple Stark to Hostages: Time for America to Act on 2005.05.08, 19:19:19
    Four people commented and it’s a consensus? Let me add my lame comments to the mix then. It is worth making…
    7 Posted by Temple Stark to Hostages: Time for America to Act on 2005.05.08, 04:56:34
    No they just get killed a lot. Much better. Israeli is a happy place to live? With all due respect, walking…
    8 Posted by Temple Stark to Thoughts On Jim Carruthers on 2005.05.08, 13:18:34
    Thank you Mose…
    9 Posted by Temple Stark to Bauhaus Totally Undead At Coachella on 2005.05.08, 01:36:01
    You should tell people your good news here for people who find the site searchig for Bauhaus….
    10 Posted by Temple Stark to Paris Hilton Screwed? on 2005.05.08, 01:36:39
    oh yeah – she sucks. :-)…
    11 Posted by Temple Stark to This doesn’t add up on 2005.05.08, 17:30:57
    I’m not. I’ve voted for judges – so tell me again? It differs from state to state, from county to…
    12 Posted by Temple Stark to This doesn’t add up on 2005.05.08, 16:59:13
    A lot of these judges, specifically this level of judge, are elected. Steve S is talking, primarily, about the violent words…
    13 Posted by Temple Stark to Rob Thomas in Deep ‘Dudu’? on 2005.05.08, 18:59:16
    Pete, catching up a bit, to say the least, I posted this news to Advance.net which collectively is read by…
    14 Posted by Temple Stark to Porcupine Tree – Deadwing on 2005.05.08, 18:29:24
    Um, though you won’t likely get this Tim, I posted your review to Advance.net which collectively is read by hundreds…

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    First off, I’m going to apologize to you on principle, Temple. I don’t like arguing like this – it totally defeats the purpose of why I write my articles – and I’m sure you’re a fine fellow in many ways. Perhaps my perception of a vendetta is all in my head.

    >>These below are the comments I made in the last 24 hours. What are you talking about? (Go here for comments going back to May 6 as well as all my 1,132 comments)< <

    I read through every comment on a thread I had participated in.

    >>I repeat, you say Just today you commented on another thread that you were looking for my articles so you could go over them and dispute my facts.

    Seriously, what are you talking about? Did you not check before making that statement and making yourself appear to be a liar or delusional or paranoid? Or is it another case of, really, you don’t think anyone is going to check?<<

    Why would I say something that could be checked on so easily if I didn’t believe it to be true?

    That said, I couldn’t find the comment, and I’ve spent hours tonight looking for it.

    When I made the comment on this thread I had literally just read something which I believed you had posted to a third party on another active discussion which said “this is why I keep an eye out for his posts and challenge the accuracy of his facts” or words very close to that.

    But as I said, I can’t find it. And it’s very troubling, because I believe you when you say you didn’t delete it. I’m not going to be able to sleep now wondering what the hell I did read and why I misread it or mistook something someone else said for something you said, or whatever caused me to suffer this bizarre delusion.

    It’s very troubling, and I’m sorry to have taken you to task without justification. Maybe I should just stick to reviewing my favorite articles of clothing from now on.

    Dave

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com alienboy

    I dunno, you 2 should either get a bottle of Jack Daniels and work this out or get a room!

    As to the subject of the post, Dave, this may well all be true and Temple’s data too.

    However, the reality on the ground is very different. It may be true from an Economist’s point of view but I’m here on the ground and the reality of we the people’s economic lives is completely different.

    Being an immigrant, I meet a wide section of people, from regular working class types through to business owner operators. I have to say, the state of the economy is a thing that NEVER comes up, people have money in their pockets and there is a general sense of optimism in almost everyone I meet.

    Just as Accountants know the price of everything and the value of nothing, Economists know the size of markets but not the details. It’s a bit like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

    I can’t speak for the whole of Europe, but here in Andalucia, the poorest part of Spain, life goes on quite sweetly. There are no hordes of agressive, disenfranchised, ruined businessmen or newly sacked people clogging the streets. New jobs and businesses are opening up all the time, both inland and along the coast. New developments, both industrial and residential, are going up all the time. The people here are happy and feeling positive about the future. In short, life, lifestyles and living standards are good and getting better. There’s also a very strong confidence about the future.

    I’m not saying that there aren’t any structural problems with the European financial and political infrastructure, obviously there are many things we need to do better, and they are gradually being put right. But Europe is a great, safe and friendly place to live, with a strong sense that things are getting better and the quality of life is high. And as far as I can tell, broadly speaking the people and businesses are getting richer and healthier.

    I know the terms of reference I’m using are very different to your drier, more statistical tools David, but I’m just trying to show you that life on the ground here is a very different thing to the story that all those facts and figures tell.

    Europe’s a wonderful place to live in, to do business in, to build a life in, and for all these reasons I love it. The people are friendly, well-educated, unarmed and peaceful, living in a proto-country that is starting to seem like a positive, strong and useful member of the global society. And that’s a good thing.

    Dave, the thing that undermines all your posts along these lines, which I think could fairly be summarised as “the USA is way better than Europe, so ha ha ha”
    is that it’s silly. Just as there is no perfect person, there is no perfect country. There are many great things about the Americas, even though many Americans are 100% wrong about what those great things are. This continuous “ooh, we’re so much better than them” thing just becomes, well, unhelpful and yes, irritating after a while.

    So, damn the economist’s torpedoes, Europe is a strong economy and getting stronger all the time. And as we are a market of 450 million, some 50% more than the USA market, what’s good for the European economy can only be a good thing for the smaller, comparatively distant and isolated USA! LOL

    I’ve live through several so-called recessions now and, as usual, have found that life on the streets is taking place in a parallel dimension to the abstract world of Politics and Economics. I don’t really have a precise explanation for that phenomenon, it’s an opinion based on observation rather than number-crunching. Maybe Pols and Wonks et al live in an altered state of reality or something. Could be a useful area for research by somebody perhaps…

    Hope I’ve managed to maintain a proper tone of positivity and respect in this response, to facilitate communication not aggravation.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Maybe I should be writing about why life on the street for the individuall European doesn’t match the larger economic indicators. That might be the most significant thing that’s going on. I know that relatives I have in Germany report a much darker situation than you seem to be encountering in Spain, but Germany’s economy has made one of the most dramatic shifts from boom to bust.

    I think that even here in America there’s a huge divide between the statistical analysis of the economy and what’s really going on. Europe has always had the large underground economy that comes with high taxes, but now the US is developing a pretty substantial one too. Our taxes are high, but not as high as most European countries, but the presence of so many illegal aliens here sort of encourages the underground economy, because not only do the illegals work off the books, but so do the people who provide them with services or who act as brokers and agents for them. The internet is a big factor too, as it provides sources of income which are relatively difficult to trace. There also seems to be a lot more offshoring of money by people who you wouldn’t have seen doing it a few years ago. More and more small businesses and even individuals are directing their income in one way or another straight to banks in some of the island tax havens. Anyway, it’s an interesting trend.

    Dave

  • Shark

    TempleStark: “That mistake excuse doesn’t fly.”

    DaveNalle: “Yes, I realize the truth has little meaning to you, Temple.”

    Once again, “Mr. I Never Insult Anybody” shows he’s a dick.

    And thanks to Temple’s excellent research, he’s a lying, manipulative dick.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    There are two basic types of job loss going on in Europe, layoffs to increase general company efficiency and relocation or outsourcing to other places where it’s easier to do business.

    One way to do this is to lay people off if you can find a way to make the business work without them. This is what companies like BASF and Bayer are doing in Germany and IBM is doing at all it’s European locations, laying off as many as 13,000 people throughout the EU.

    Wow, Dave, I have to read through your blog here in more detail when I have time. It sounds like you, who constantly blames the woes of Europe on their ‘socialistic tendencies’, now put the blame of their woes on capitalism, specifically American corporations who negatively affect a countries economic status in order to increase their own bottom line. Interesting.

  • http://mistwereld.blogspot.com Floris Vermeir

    there is one thing I like to point out. The Us also went from up to down, in the amount debt you have, and although you have a growth that debt, if it would rise can cause you growth to become not sufficient enough.

    Lowering the dollars value, also had as a consequence that that debt, became a bit less heavy. There are ways to possibly keep european economy steady for the years to come, lets say an economic advantage that the US does not have, or will have for some years to come.

    It is true that the high oil prices are causing some concern, but one should be realistics, and acknowledge that economies won’t always grow. Innovation can rejuvenite the european economy. It could even give us an edge over the US.

    Thanks for the research TempleStark. Its intresting to read, from both of you.

  • http://mistwereld.blogspot.com Floris Vermeir

    The relocation is an issue, in Europe, I live in Belgium, and it is one of the things that does seem to worry people. Another might have to do with the so called Bolkenstein law, and its influences. One of the reasons so many french people might vote against the EU constitution.

    If Europe had 0% growth in 2003, that is not the worst thing that could happen, but it is not exactley the best thing either. But I would say that it might happen again in the future. The high Euro has as a consequence that those countries that export much, like belgium, find it harder to sell there goods, as if a product cost 60 $ or 60 €, that makes quite some difference.

    The high oil price, is not something we have really under control, and personnaly I think it might only lower a little bit, when the situation in Iraq stabelizes. No more terrorist attacks, but that is easier said then done.

    Perhaps the way we look at business, and the way we expect the economy to work, might have to change. When euro’s are expensive then people buy less, or think twice before spending them.

    Innovation can help the economy, but then it has to be supported, and that also means accepting new ideas, and that is not always the case, or not sufficiently so. Coming up with an idea, and finding someone receptive to your ideas, migth still take to long to be good. Diplomits, looking at people, on the basis of the diplome they have, rather then on what they can, also creates problems. It means that jobs remain open, that could be filled.

    If we europeans want to do something about this, then we will have to find a solution for that.

    Perhaps you might be intrested to post from time to time in the mistwereld academy’s global politics group ?

    mistwereldacademy.blogspot.com

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    To answer questions as requested,

    To comment 12 – no, the graph is clear to me. Again the most overwhelming, commonly used and accepted standard for referencing GDP growth is comparing a time period year by year, not a month or a quarter compared to the last month or quarter. “Most reports measure growth on a quarterly basis” (comment 9) based on a comparison of the year before, not the quarter before it.

    I already made this completely salient point. You are ignoring points that are inconvenient.

    >> The facts are the facts. On that we can agree.

    That is a response without meaning.

    >> But how about addressing the central point of my article or perhaps just answering the two questions I asked you earlier

    You have ignored so many of my points. How about my original point, not a question: If your understanding of GDP growth is so lackluster and poor – the rest of your reasoning or any talk about economics is more than suspect.

    And as I also mentioned, since that GPD growth is how you started your piece – with as it turns out misleading and false information (2003 negative growth) that remained even after the one correction – it was indeed central to your point. And you cannot therefore minimize it now by saying it was just a chart and just a typo. As much as you might want to.

    Your “clarification” in subsequent comments also does not work. You did not even talk about the first two quarters then, in your original post; you talked about the entire year. That is misleading and incorrect. By the definition you present, the USA has had “negative growth” many quarters during the same time. The years though, like the EU, have been up, not “negative.”

    In fact in comment 9, second para, you say as much: Overall growth in the EU was almost 0 in 2003 according to this report, “Almost 0″ is not negative growth.

    But to your questions … well, I was ready to address them. Except I can’t find any that would further your argument. There are no question marks, no hesitation, in your original post.

    The only other questions, I saw are:

    “Do you know what a decade is?”

    “What errors?”

    “Why not address the substance of my article?”
    (Again when you start a piece talking about GDP growth it seems you gave its importance in your presentation some weight. Substance even. So I am very much addressng the substance. The facts don’t say what you present them as and you cannot suddenly say, well that part isn’t important. Except you do:

    My article wasn’t about GDP growth, it was about outsourcing, layoffs and relocation in Europe. GDP growth is just part of the picture. – From comment 9

    Relating to GDP (apparently, you state, not critical to your overall point) “Was 2003 a good year for Europe or was it one of the worst years they’ve had recently?” The latter. But you only brought that up to say Europe was in a deep bind. Except, since 2003 – which you must have picked to try and make a stronger point – they’ve been on a slow upswing, which negates one of the basic structural points of your argument. USA GDP growth in 2003 was 3.1 percent, less than double the still formative EU’s rate of growth.

    Relating to GDP (apparently, you state, not critical to your overall point) Was 2004 a good year compared to the US? Why do you ask? But, if we’re still taking GDP, no. According to your post that’s because European companies are coming here. Or to put it another way, the GDP is US’s, but a lot of that new GDP money is heading overseas. But, again, you stated this isn’t central to your overall point.

    Are those last two the questions to which you were referring?

    I haven’t got anything wrong, so far, though you have explicitly stated I have. (Comment 7)

    Just to repeat, “The Chemical and Engineering news link is from 2001. It says so at the top, by the byline. It was then that Bayer and BASF had significant lay-offs.” You are saying in your post that the situation is critical now; except these lay-offs are from early 2001. Stretching it a little, don’t you think?

    Another misleading area of your piece, which you haven’t addressed. I’ll list some more ignored questions and points if you can’t be bothered to read back and find them.

    Poland, the “business-friendly country,” has 18.4 unemployment. I pointed that out and you ingored that, as well. Yes, I imagine they would be a little more desperate than most other European countries to get anything at all going, including slashing business taxes, and perhaps, in so doing, mortgaging their future. This fact also goes against one of the basic structures of your argument as begun in sentence 1 of the original post. This fact also weakens it..

    Is Europe thriving as it used to? Of course not – no one is right now. But the picture is not that painted in your post or your headline “European Economic Woes Continue”

    Questions addressed? Please continue because you are not helping yourself seem credible. The facts are not on your side. Not yet. Sincerely, Temple

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Last call – This post explains why politics is different from reviews. If you get a release date of a CD wrong or year the band formed, it doesn’t negate or speak to the rest of your article (though if it happens too often you look terrible).

    If you get a fact – or facts – wrong in a politics article your whole argument can come tumbling down. It’s not merely opinion; it’s opinion based on facts that the writer is also presenting.

    I didn’t start commenting on this post to call people names or “win.” I came here to illustrate another poor, misleading argument; and a narrow-minded, misleading way of presenting “facts” which is not exclusive to this post but does seem to be a speciality of this author.

    I did get POed when the person appeared to be losing his mind, by saying, for example, that in so many words, “You’re after me” and that I have a vendetta, or that I would care enough to do so.

    I really hate having words put in my mouth and thoughts put in my mind, especially when the situation is clearly the opposite.

    Sincerely, Temple

  • gonzo marx

    Temple…

    will you have my cyber-babies?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>I already made this completely salient point. You are ignoring points that are inconvenient.< <

    If I ignore something it is because I either grant you the point or there's nothing there to discuss. Most of this argument is over relative trivialities which aren't even central to the theme of the article. It's hard to respond to you meaningfully when your arguments generally revolve around a minor interpretation of some fairly trivial secondary comment while you ignore any of the major themes or points of the article. The things you raise as major arguments could be edited completely out of the article and the meaning would not be changed one tiny bit. It's like Clinton arguing over the meaning of the word 'is'.

    >>You have ignored so many of my points. How about my original point, not a question: If your understanding of GDP growth is so lackluster and poor – the rest of your reasoning or any talk about economics is more than suspect. < <

    I'm not clear on how I misunderstand GDP growth, or how it is relevant. The point in the article is that Europe has lower GDP growth than the US does and lower GDP growth than it has had in the past. Is this point incorrect?

    >>And as I also mentioned, since that GPD growth is how you started your piece – with as it turns out misleading and false information (2003 negative growth) that remained even after the one correction – it was indeed central to your point. < <

    I'll ask again. Are you saying that I am incorrect to charactertize European GDP growth as lower than GDP growth in the US?

    >>And you cannot therefore minimize it now by saying it was just a chart and just a typo. As much as you might want to.< <

    So basically, in a paragraph on GDP growth which is essentially correct you're objecting to my four word characterization of 2003 as a the worst year since the start of the decade. Not that I'm wrong about it being the worst year since the start of the decade, but that you don't like the way I phrased my description of the badness of that particular year. No problem. Since it has no material impact whatsoever on the paragraph on GDP growth which remains correct either way, I'll fix it for you.

    You see, this is a perfect example of why I get into these arguements with you. Here's an entire paragraph which makes a completely valid point which you don't even attempt to dispute, and you target a minor comment, which if left out alltogether wouldn't even be missed for a trivial criticism. You make a huge deal out of this nothing point, and in the process completely blow off the actual issue being discussed. Can you not see how insulting and vindictive this looks?

    >>Your “clarification” in subsequent comments also does not work. You did not even talk about the first two quarters then, in your original post; you talked about the entire year. That is misleading and incorrect. By the definition you present, the USA has had “negative growth” many quarters during the same time. The years though, like the EU, have been up, not “negative.”< <

    The US has not had any quarters of negative GDP growth during this decade. This just isn't true. We also have not had a single year with anything like the fraction of 1% of GDP growth which Europe had in 2003.

    BTW, do you see how you go on for paragraph after paragraph arguing what is nothing but a choice in how to describe an event which is secondary to the main point and does not change the overall correctness of the paragraph it's in or the entire essay?

    >>In fact in comment 9, second para, you say as much: Overall growth in the EU was almost 0 in 2003 according to this report, “Almost 0″ is not negative growth.< <

    Is almost no GDP growth bad? THIS is the point.

    But to your questions ... well, I was ready to address them. Except I can't find any that would further your argument. There are no question marks, no hesitation, in your original post.

    >>The only other questions, I saw are:>>

    You seem to have missed this paragraph:

    “I see what you’re saying, but it’s not any more correct than what I’m saying. Step back a second. Was 2003 a good year for Europe or was it one of the worst years they’ve had recently? Was 2004 a good year compared to the US?”

    and

    “I’d like to hear more about this. I don’t see how we can be unqualifiedly positive about the future of every player in the world economy unless you see an enormous boom coming. Without a huge growth in the world economy everyone can’t come out ahead.”

    Referring to your positive outlook for European economic prospects.

    Perfectly reasonable questions which you seem not to be able to find – though I admit the missing question mark and obvious interrogatory format makes the second one more challenging.

    Oh and this question still stands:

    “Why not address the substance of my article?”

    Why do you choose to focus on 4 words in one paragraph and ignore the substance of the article which those four words do not alter one way or another?

    >>Relating to GDP (apparently, you state, not critical to your overall point) “Was 2003 a good year for Europe or was it one of the worst years they’ve had recently?” The latter. But you only brought that up to say Europe was in a deep bind. Except, since 2003 – which you must have picked to try and make a stronger point – they’ve been on a slow upswing, which negates one of the basic structural points of your argument. USA GDP growth in 2003 was 3.1 percent, less than double the still formative EU’s rate of growth.< <

    Do you realize what an enormous difference close to double the GDP growth rate is? And the ratio goes even more in the US's favor in 2004.

    >>Relating to GDP (apparently, you state, not critical to your overall point) Was 2004 a good year compared to the US? Why do you ask? < <

    I asm because THIS is the point of the paragraph, not the triviality you focus on. I'm trying to direct you to discussing the actual point of that paragraph rather than haring off after a triviality to try to basically score meaningless points off me.

    >>But, if we’re still taking GDP, no. According to your post that’s because European companies are coming here. Or to put it another way, the GDP is US’s, but a lot of that new GDP money is heading overseas. But, again, you stated this isn’t central to your overall point.< <

    Actually, the GDP issue is part of the whole picture, but the triviality of whether 2003 was awful or super super awful isn't essential to the overall GDP picture.

    >>Are those last two the questions to which you were referring?< <

    Yes, those are the questions, and it seems like in answering them you basically admit that you don't dispute my point about Europe having low GDP numbers. So why couldn't you just leave it at that in the first place?

    >>I haven’t got anything wrong, so far, though you have explicitly stated I have. (Comment 7)< <

    Yes you have. What you've gotten wrong is focusing on 4 words in a paragraph which you now more or less admit is correct over all and use the

    >>Just to repeat, “The Chemical and Engineering news link is from 2001. It says so at the top, by the byline. It was then that Bayer and BASF had significant lay-offs.” You are saying in your post that the situation is critical now; except these lay-offs are from early 2001. Stretching it a little, don’t you think?< <

    I never said this was something which was happening starting this week and into the future. It's an ongoing trend. That's why I felt the CEN article which is all of 4 years old was relevant.

    >>Poland, the “business-friendly country,” has 18.4 unemployment. I pointed that out and you ingored that, as well. < <

    Sorry, I missed that one. And what could make Poland more business friendly than a huge unemployed workforce? Also, Poland hasn't had time yet to develop a body of 20% of the population which is permanently unemployed liek France and Germany, so their 18.4% unemployment may actually be less than the real total non-working population of other European countries.

    >>Yes, I imagine they would be a little more desperate than most other European countries to get anything at all going, including slashing business taxes, and perhaps, in so doing, mortgaging their future. This fact also goes against one of the basic structures of your argument as begun in sentence 1 of the original post. This fact also weakens it.< <

    Well, going back to GDP, they do have a GDP growth rate even higher than the US and second only to Hungary in Europe, so that's an indication that attracting investment and businesses might actually work to their benefit.

    >>Is Europe thriving as it used to? Of course not – no one is right now. But the picture is not that painted in your post or your headline “European Economic Woes Continue”< <

    On reflection I do think I went overboard on the title. That's what I get for writing the title before I finish the article.

    >>Questions addressed? Please continue because you are not helping yourself seem credible. The facts are not on your side.<<

    The facts are the facts, and I’m not choosing sides here. I’m just discussing what’s going on. I leave it to you to pick sides and launch attacks.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Last call< <

    Sorry, I thought it would be nice to get some sleep before arguing pointlessly with you.

    >>If you get a fact – or facts – wrong in a politics article your whole argument can come tumbling down. It’s not merely opinion; it’s opinion based on facts that the writer is also presenting.< <

    Except that the one fact you say I got wrong isn't wrong, it's just poorly presented, and it isn't even necessary to the central argument.

    Let's talk about getting facts wrong. You said:
    "By the definition you present, the USA has had "negative growth" many quarters during the same time. "

    Which isn, in fact, entirely untrue. The US has had no quarters with negative growth in this decade. The lowest quarter we've had was the fourth quarter of '02 which had a .2% GDP growth rate.

    There, you got a fact wrong - everything you've ever typed here is invalidated.

    Do you see how stupid that sounds?

    >>I didn’t start commenting on this post to call people names or “win.” I came here to illustrate another poor, misleading argument; and a narrow-minded, misleading way of presenting “facts” which is not exclusive to this post but does seem to be a speciality of this author.< <

    And bingo, there's the bias.

    >>I really hate having words put in my mouth and thoughts put in my mind, especially when the situation is clearly the opposite.<<

    Damn, so do I. We have more in common than I thought. Perhaps next time you’ll think what it would be like if I launched an attack full of triviality and misdirection on something you write.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Steve S:”Wow, Dave, I have to read through your blog here in more detail when I have time. It sounds like you, who constantly blames the woes of Europe on their ‘socialistic tendencies’, now put the blame of their woes on capitalism, specifically American corporations who negatively affect a countries economic status in order to increase their own bottom line. Interesting.”

    The companies – most of them not actually American – are just doing what corporations do. The blame doesn’t fall on them for looking for greener pastures, the blame falls on Europe for not being more hospitable to them in the first place. And as I point out that seems to be changing.

    Ultimately this article should be looked on as presenting a positive picture, because it does seem as if European governments are ‘getting it’ to at least some extent, though that might all change if the EU Constitution ever get adopted.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Floris:

    I’ll keep an eye on your blog. It looks like there’s some interesting stuff there. I’m working on an article on the Margot Wallstrom controversy. I’d be interested to see your insider take on it once I get it posted.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Notations in the post should be made where the article was changed. The changes aren’t being made for me, but for readers and for accuracy.

    EG Update: “These sentences were changed because …” “The headline was changed.”

    Not to do so is more dishonesty – something that could not and would not happen in newspaper print (though does sadly happen on newspaper Web sites.)

    I’ll be adding that explanation of changes if you don’t, so you might want to do it. Thank you. Sincerely, Temple

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The ability to make changes like that is one of the advantages this format has over the old print media. I’ll make changes. I’m not going to make a notation IN the title about changing the title. That’s ridiculous.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    It’s only an advantage because you can make the changes and note them in the same place – unlike newspapers where the correction must come the next day or longer and gets lost, often, on pg 23.

    Please continue because you are not helping yourself seem credible. Sincerely, Temple

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The print media practice of printing something outrageous and then burying the correction or retraction in a tiny note on an obscure page is well known. It’s one of the techniques of the modern yellow journalism. Not surprised you’re a fan of the practice.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Please continue because you are not helping yourself seem credible. Sincerely, Temple

    I agreed that the Web had the advantage. Read again.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I never disagreed that you said that. Read again.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Do you really just want to lead this down the path of the absurd? You really do want me to blow up, to stoop to your level, so you can say, “See, he’s just as low as I am?”

    Don’t you? I’m not going to travel down that path with you, as tempted as I am to let you keep stumbling in your blindness. You are wrong again. You cannot even understand what you said. Again. Others can see this. I’m really really sorry you cannot. And I feel for anyone who has ever known you personally if this is how you act with them.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Your playground tactics can only carry you so far, Temple. I’ve played your game, now I’m done. People can read the thread and judge for themselves. Based on the emails I’ve received their judgement is pretty clear.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    I bet you typed that with a straight face, too. See your requested “correction” above, full of ratonalization aobut your own mistakes and calling me yet another name:

    NB: The title of this piece was recently changed to suit the content better, and in the second paragraph several non-material changes were made to satisfy the demands of a tin god editor. A reference to 2003 having negative GDP growth in Europe was changed to specify that the negative growth only applied to two quarters of that year, and an erroneous figure for US GDP growth in 2004 was corrected. None of these changes in any way alters or even vaguely impacts the main points of the article and this notice was added under threat of involuntary butchery of the article.

    Is that not the peak of childish petulance? But I’m the one with playground tactics? See this post thread where you say: my “grip on the truth is teunous.”

    Comment 61 posted by Temple Stark on May 8, 2005 05:30 PM:

    I’m not. I’ve voted for judges – so tell me again? It differs from state to state, from county to county.I’m not. I’ve voted for judges – so tell me again? It differs from state to state, from county to county.

    Comment 62 posted by Dave Nalle on May 8, 2005 05:32 PM:

    Here in Texas we vote for judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. But keep an eye on Temple, his grip on the truth is teunous.

    Dave

    I have a tenuous grasp on the truth – yet you completely agreed with me and, your name had not even come up and you had not even posted until that point.

    But I’m the one with playground tactics?

    I’m not taunting. I’m trying to allow you to help yourself, to change your behaviors and your way of social contact with others. I believe I can teach an old dog new tricks.

    You just wrote I was sympathetic to yellow journalism, knowing I am a journalist. How low can you go? You didn’t say that to offend me or go directly toward my profession?

    And yet you try and defend yourself by saying, “I never disagreed that you said that.”

    Of course you want to stop. As I’ve been saying all along, please continue because you are not helping yourself seem credible – amongst other things. I’m surprised you have taken me up on the offer for so long. An example of professorial overconfidence in one’s abilities, I think.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Temp. There’s nothing to stop. There’s no discussion here. I come to BC to discuss interesting topics. You don’t listen and that means that we’re not having a discussion. You throw out some condescending comments, a few bizarre accusations, and some insults. I guess all this somehow makes you feel validated, but I just don’t get it. Why don’t you find a way to contribute to a discussion instead of making it personal and being disruptive?

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    That’s the way I started out – with the facts that you’ve partially acknowledged having wrong and have three times changed your post to acknowledge. And you then started in with the condescending comments “Do you know what a decade is?”, one very bizarre accusation (which you apologized for, so thank you for that, at least) and some insults.

    I’ve said I was determined to see this through for this reason, (my comment 10)

    I am prepared to keep on showing that you either have a lack of understanding or are selectively reading to make your point. Usually I just thow up my hands but I think it’s important to pursue at least one of these so readers can see what’s what. In a discussion bsed on facts.

    You said you were done? If your need for the last word is so strong, go for it. Just don’t insult me again or the readers’ intelligence.

    Sincerely, Temple

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Good night. The stage is yours, since you’re still here.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I really don’t understand what you think you’re ‘pursuing’ here. You haven’t even attempted to discuss anything significant in my original article, all you’ve done is destroy the meaningful discussion which others have tried to engage in with your relentless attacks over a couple of trivial errors which I acknowledged and fixed and which when corrected did not in any way change the substance of the article.

    You seem to think that I have some secret agenda to spread disinformation in my articles and that you’re uncovering my underhanded technique of misrepresenting sources and facts to deceive readers. If you really believe this to be the case, then you’re just nuts and wasting everyone’s time. I posted links to the sources. Anyone can go read them and form their own opinions.

    Most of the time you seem to be an intelligent person, but when it comes to my articles you’ve got some sort of weird, paranoid problem that I just don’t understand. I don’t really expect you to look inward and change, but perhaps you could do everyone a favor and if you find an error point it out, let me fix it and then let people discuss the actual article. Is that a lot to ask?

    Dave