Ze Germans are coming.

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 11:55

element1loop wrote:
Incorrect, it's a record of surpluses and deficits in the German budget, if you don't think so read the first line of text above, where it clearly states:

"German budget surplus for 2015 came in at EUR19.4 billion or equivalent to 0.6 percent of GDP ..."


Now look at the graph plot value for 2015.

Ummm no, your 2nd and third link says spending vs GDP etc. which is irrelevant. That is not an indication of surplus or deficit, which depends on spending and debt service vs revenue. The maximum deficit briefly went to 4% following '08, when most other western countries went into double figures. Either side of that it's been between -1% and +1%.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 14:03

uclass wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Incorrect, it's a record of surpluses and deficits in the German budget, if you don't think so read the first line of text above, where it clearly states:

"German budget surplus for 2015 came in at EUR19.4 billion or equivalent to 0.6 percent of GDP ..."

Now look at the graph plot value for 2015.

Ummm no, your 2nd and third link says spending vs GDP etc. which is irrelevant. That is not an indication of surplus or deficit, which depends on spending and debt service vs revenue. The maximum deficit briefly went to 4% following '08, when most other western countries went into double figures. Either side of that it's been between -1% and +1%.


Ummm, yes.

I know what they are, I posted them, remember? And their labels.

And the first graph linked is a graph of German deficits and surpluses over a 20 year period].

Germany Government Budget 1996-2016
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ent-budget

And did you follow the directions I originally gave? namely to, "... Click on 'MAX' button to get data since post cold war phase....". That would be a no, for if you had, you would have seen the rest to the period's plot, and then you would not have written what you wrote above, because it's wrong.

Pretending to 'object' to facts that were correctly stated the first time, and the second time for the sake of objecting, or rather to nit-pick and provide nothing else, and to do it incorrectly, twice, is not how to convince anyone or make valid counterpoint (not that you tried), but it is a method of misrepresentation of what another has said.

The other two graphs posted with the first graph were included to illustrate the broad pattern of spending and debt associated with those deficits and surpluses, shown within the first graph, and their relationship to the budget.

And despite your misrepresentation and false assertion that the extra graphs are "... irrelevant ...", they are in fact fully relevant the the reason why they were posted in the first place, namely to show that the German budget has been in deficit for most of the time since end of cold war era, rather than spending neutral, and that the German budget and its debt to GDP nonetheless remains in reasonably OK shape, for Germany to adequately fund its military.

Germany Government Spending to GDP 1991-2016
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ing-to-gdp

Germany Government Debt to GDP 1995-2016
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ebt-to-gdp

Most people would have realized what they were and why they were included, within seconds.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3741
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 16:31

If they're smart they'll opt for a mix of F-35's and unmanned aircraft...

I don't see them re-inventing the 5th gen wheel, especially when by that time the cost of an F-35 will presumably be much lower than today...
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 16:43

Unfortunately it's the spending since Frau Merkel took over that is relevant. And please look at your own 2006-2016 data. They're pretty much at zero deficit all the way. Compare it to other EU nations like France and the UK and you'll see that the German deficit has remained permanently very close to zero, while something like 75% of the Luftwaffe has been unavailable.

Image
Image
Spot when the Labour government took over.
Image

Now I'm ignoring the rest of word salad that you added, but here is my original statement:

That's exactly why I, as a UK person, would be reluctant to pair up with them on any military venture after the way they neglected Typhoon development. Since the Cold War ended, they've neglected pretty much everything military in order to keep their deficit at zero. Add to that the cost of the immigration/refugee crisis, bailouts and weak Euro and it's going to be extremely difficult for them to commit to pushing out anything half decent.


And I stand by that 100%. The Luftwaffe availability figures have been commented on several times over the last 10 years. As for the German economy, it depends how you measure growth. When you measure it against the dollar, it's actually taken a pounding because of the weak Euro caused by the problem childs of the EU and the ongoing sanctions crap with Russia.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo ... C&grp=0&a=

Country Subject Descriptor Units Scale Country/Series-specific Notes 2014--------------2015
Germany
Gross domestic product, current prices (National currency). 3,874.437---------------------3,371.003


I think you've also missed the point, nobody doubts Germany's ability to fund its military, people just question the present resolve to do so. Being able to fund their military sure as heck hasn't helped over the last 15 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Air_Force#2010s
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 18:35

This is what you said above:

uclass wrote:Ummm no, your 2nd and third link says spending vs GDP etc. which is irrelevant. That is not an indication of surplus or deficit, which depends on spending and debt service vs revenue. The maximum deficit briefly went to 4% following '08, when most other western countries went into double figures. Either side of that it's been between -1% and +1%.


And right after you said this:

uclass wrote:You're looking at spending not budget/surplus/deficit.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ent-budget


Both of which are entirely wrong.

And now you try to distract from this demonstrated fact by bringing in more rubbish? Which btw, was already discussed more than adequately on the preceding page, if you'd read it with any care, but don't let that interfere with your smoke-screen making.

But more to the point, this graph shows clearly what I said is correct, and which amazingly, you're actually still trying to contrive amounts to Germany keeping deficits at +/- 1% !?

Image

Can you see where the zero level line in there? And where -4% range line is? And the trend line between them for most of the past 20 years? i.e. Mostly in deficits, just as I said. :roll:

Vision impaired? If not, look at what you actually said and what the facts are.

Data interpretation and basic honesty in discussions seems not to be a high priority for you 'uclass', so I note that and will move on from this trolling rubbish.
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 19:04

element1loop wrote:This is what you said above:

uclass wrote:Ummm no, your 2nd and third link says spending vs GDP etc. which is irrelevant. That is not an indication of surplus or deficit, which depends on spending and debt service vs revenue. The maximum deficit briefly went to 4% following '08, when most other western countries went into double figures. Either side of that it's been between -1% and +1%.


Well your second link does say spending to GDP, which is irrelevant, because it's the actual spending to revenue that determines surplus/deficit. You can have large spending and still low deficit or surplus if tax revenue is high.

element1loop wrote:And right after you said this:

uclass wrote:You're looking at spending not budget/surplus/deficit.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ent-budget


Both of which are entirely wrong.


Well not really, I was trying to work out why you thought debt and spending vs debt was relevant to my previous point, which was that Germany tends to stick very rigidly to balancing the budget, at the expense of military spending, and I still feel I've adequately proven that point to be 100% correct.

element1loop wrote:And now you try to distract from this demonstrated fact by bringing in more rubbish? Which btw, was already discussed more than adequately on the preceding page, if you'd read it with any care, but don't let that interfere with your smoke-screen making.

But more to the point, this graph shows clearly what I said is correct, and which amazingly, you're actually still trying to contrive amounts to Germany keeping deficits at +/- 1% !?

Image

Can you see where the zero level line in there? And where -4% range line is? And the trend line between them for most of the past 20 years? i.e. Mostly in deficits, just as I said. :roll:


And can you not see the deficits of other countries during those periods, and see that they are much larger, as demonstrated above. Hell between 2008-2012, most western countries dipped into double digit deficit, yet Germany bottomed at -4%. In between economic crises (early '90s recession, dot com bust and housing crisis) they've very much aimed for 0% and have been at or above -1% for roughly half the time. 'Mostly in deficits,' where the deficits are extremely small, does not detract from my original point.

Image
Image

Take away the dot com bust and the housing crisis glitch and you see that 7 of the last 10 years are between -1% and 1% just as I declared, and 1 year is marginally outside that range, in the exact same period Luftwaffe aircraft availability has struggled, so how am I wrong?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ent-budget

Image

Vision impaired? If not, look at what you actually said and what the facts are.


You're nit-picking to divert from the original points I made, which I've proven to be 100% absolutely correct. They were:

1) Germany manages budget very strictly...
2) At the expense of military preparedness and development as of late.


Data interpretation and basic honesty in discussions seems not to be a high priority for you 'uclass', so I note that and will move on from this trolling rubbish.

Nope, it's just that you've used a perverse combination of nit-picking and side-tracking to diverge from the original point as underlined above. Either you agree with these two points or you do not. Please say which and desist diverging from the point, whilst also accusing me of bringing in rubbish.
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post02 Mar 2016, 11:51

http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-von-der-l ... a-17959798
https://web.archive.org/web/20140928151 ... t-1.305064

Breakdowns highlight Germany's struggles to project military might

According to the media reports, only 24 out of 43 C-160 transport planes are currently available. The planes, developed 50 years ago, remain the workhorse of the Luftwaffe because their replacement, the Airbus A400M, has been delayed for several years.

The reports also say that just 42 of the Luftwaffe's 109 Eurofighter jets and 38 of its 89 Tornadoes are ready to fly. The navy acknowledged this week that it couldn't send any of its Sea Lynx helicopters to an international anti-piracy operation because of cracks in the tails.


Image

This is why I made my original statement. The above graph shows the time in office of the current incumbent Angela Merkel, and the quotes above show the lack of commitment to even basic military spending. Hence I expressed doubt that Germany has the will to commit to a stealth project and follow it through, because the military will always be in the front line of spending cuts, and there are other political issues in the EU right now that will only exacerbate spending problems.
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 10:30

element1loop wrote:
uclass wrote:What? :D

Look dude it's simple. I'm sorry you consider facts trolling.

http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-von-der-l ... a-17959798
https://web.archive.org/web/20140928151 ... t-1.305064



So once you were called out for your false remarks and trolling responses you've simply completely changed the topic, and are now pretending you were talking about something else entirely?

As I said, basic honesty in discussion is definitely not a priority for you, but I can see misrepresentation, equivocation and distortion of facts discussed is.

No, please go back to the original post. I think the above clearly proves that the spirit of the remark, as applicable to this Tornado Replacement Stealth Fighter holds true. Extrapolating budget balancing back to the end of the Cold War is perhaps questionable, but as of Merkel (last 11 years), and the here and now, it's bang on the money. Merkel has aimed to balance budget exactly at the expense of the German military and Typhoon development. Let's face it, if their present air force is in disrepair and the Mediterranean debt problem is still weighing on the Euro, it seems a bit optimistic to assume they'll follow through on their commitment to a new stealth fighter.

I'm sorry you consider data from the IMF and Bundeswehr to be a 'misrepresentation'. Perhaps instead of the snide remarks you could spell out your issue with the data 2 posts above.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 12:45

uclass wrote:I'm sorry you consider data from the IMF and Bundeswehr to be a 'misrepresentation'. Perhaps instead of the snide remarks you could spell out your issue with the data 2 posts above.


Are you addicted to petty dishonesty and creating misrepresentations or something uclass?

This is verbatim what the issue is, and it is only about this, and the ensuing misrepresentations that you tried to concoct from there.

It is not about the distractions you have tried to introduce into this, as a smoke screen for how wrong you are, and how dishonest you are being, and your trolling behavior:

uclass wrote:
You're looking at spending not budget/surplus/deficit.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ent-budget

And I wrote in reply:

Incorrect, it's a record of surpluses and deficits in the German budget, if you don't think so read the first line of text above, where it clearly states:

"German budget surplus for 2015 came in at EUR19.4 billion or equivalent to 0.6 percent of GDP ..."

Now look at the graph plot value for 2015.


viewtopic.php?p=316721#p316721

Which is fully correct.

And you were and are completely wrong. Nevertheless, you still came back with another clearly false and now obviously snide comment, which can only be taken as verging on trolling, but I presumed you perhaps just confused and not really trolling and being dishonest, so I took the time to tell you exactly what you were looking at.

Your comment:
viewtopic.php?p=316775#p316775

My reply:
viewtopic.php?p=316781#p316781

But you still continued trolling from there and pretended you were not completely incorrect in what you had claimed, and now you're further trying to contrive that it's all about something else, when my response to you has been about nothing else but your continued misrepresentations and attempts to assert that you're not entirely wrong in your initial two reply comments [b]to me, which then quickly degenerates into your concerted trolling and dishonesty and attempts to pretend this rancor is about something else.[/b]

No it's not. You are a liar. That's the whole thing.

You are simply misrepresenting everything I said.

And don't just keep insinuating it's got something to do with your first comment to this thread, it has nothing to do with that comment, it is entirely about your claims about the graph links that I posted, and your repeated false assertions that they're not what I said they are.

And then you kept trying to deny they are what I said they are! You're clearly being deliberately dishonest, and then acting all innocent when called out doing it.

You've systematically misrepresented all I said, both initially, and in reply to you specifically, in pretty much every way you could concoct.

And then you have the cheek to assert I must have an "issue" with data? The nerve of you. I was the one who posted all of those graphs linked, not you, and what I said about them was 100% correct.

And all you've done since then is attempt to pretend you were not wrong, and instead contrive strawmen that this is all about something else, that I must be in disagreement with your first post, or something!

No I'm not! If I were in basic disagreement with you first comment to the thread I would have forthrightly said so within my first reply in the thread!

So that's just you, making your distractions and strawmen, to try and invent that I have an "issue" with something else, and entirely other, to what I've been talking about, in every reply above, so far.

No I don't.

Which is just more of your trenchant dishonesty on display. And then you disingenuously asserted I must have a problem with the very data that I'd posted! And which you've now turned around and said this:

"Perhaps instead of the snide remarks you could spell out your issue with the data 2 posts above."


i.e. the very graph that I posted! And you're asking me what "issue" I have with my own graph?!
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 14:00

Here is my first post, which you disagreed with. It's the 6th post in the thread and can be found here:

viewtopic.php?p=316533#p316533

That's exactly why I, as a UK person, would be reluctant to pair up with them on any military venture after the way they neglected Typhoon development. Since the Cold War ended, they've neglected pretty much everything military in order to keep their deficit at zero. Add to that the cost of the immigration/refugee crisis, bailouts and weak Euro and it's going to be extremely difficult for them to commit to pushing out anything half decent.


Yours is the 8th post:

viewtopic.php?p=316565#p316565

In fact Germany has spent (no pun intended) most of its time since the cold war in budget deficits. Click on 'MAX' button to get data since post cold war phase.

Germany Government Budget 1996-2016
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ent-budget

Germany Government Spending to GDP 1991-2016
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ing-to-gdp

Germany Government Debt to GDP 1995-2016
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ebt-to-gdp

Despite the deficits and debt, they have grown, and remain in a viable range of financial capacity to fund their military properly. Keep in mind also, that this same budget payed for the absorption and integration of another complete half a Germany (East Germany) but still ended up with reasonably good numbers. So I doubt a bunch of scabby opportunist refos will impact its numbers as much as people think. More likely recession and banking crisis in another global die-back will be its consequential problem for years (like everyone else). Germany, as with so many countries, let things slide because it perceived low threat levels for decades to come, and was relying on the ability to see a real threat emerge, many years in advance.

It just turned out to not be so clear cut.


Rather than tackle the overall point, you chose to focus only on a small subset of the data (followed up by accusations of 'nit-picking' no less viewtopic.php?p=316781#p316781 :roll: ), namely the pre-Merkel budget data and introduce a ton of other BS that had me struggling to understand where the hell you were going with it.

Here is the relevant part of your post:

In fact Germany has spent (no pun intended) most of its time since the cold war in budget deficits. Click on 'MAX' button to get data since post cold war phase.

Germany Government Budget 1996-2016
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ent-budget


If you'd just said that we wouldn't be here now because I agree with it, although it certainly doesn't disprove the essence of my point, which is aimed at the current climate and dereliction of military spending and how it might impact a new project throughout its life.

Here is the strawman part of your post:

Germany Government Spending to GDP 1991-2016
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ing-to-gdp

And spending to GDP could mean absolutely anything depending on tax revenue.

Germany Government Debt to GDP 1995-2016
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ebt-to-gdp

Despite the deficits and debt, they have grown, and remain in a viable range of financial capacity to fund their military properly.

No one questioned their capacity to fund it, it's about the will, we all know Germany is an industrial powerhouse but that didn't stop the problems linked.

Keep in mind also, that this same budget payed for the absorption and integration of another complete half a Germany (East Germany) but still ended up with reasonably good numbers.

This has nothing to do with anything mentioned.

So I doubt a bunch of scabby opportunist refos will impact its numbers as much as people think.
More likely recession and banking crisis in another global die-back will be its consequential problem for years (like everyone else). Germany, as with so many countries, let things slide because it perceived low threat levels for decades to come, and was relying on the ability to see a real threat emerge, many years in advance.

It just turned out to not be so clear cut.

Wow, this is quite some divergence, you're now talking about the next global meltdown and incorrect because whilst many forces were cut down in size, cutting the force in size and then leaving more than half the air force unavailable is something else all together.

http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-von-der-l ... a-17959798
https://web.archive.org/web/20140928151 ... t-1.305064


Next time stick to the point being made and we can avoid a lot of typing. Post 14 is just me trying to understand why over 75% of what you'd just posted was irrelevant.

In post 11, you say this:

element1loop wrote:Last I looked their spending was ~1.2% of GDP so that would be a big deal.


The big deal being the increase to the NATO minimum military spending commitment. Original point verified, I rest my case.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 16:18

If that were the case at all you wouldn't have said this:

March 1st, 2016, 10:30 am

uclass wrote:
You're looking at spending not budget/surplus/deficit.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ent-budget

Incorrect, it's a record of surpluses and deficits in the German budget, if you don't think so read the first line of text above, where it clearly states:

"German budget surplus for 2015 came in at EUR19.4 billion or equivalent to 0.6 percent of GDP ..."

Now look at the graph plot value for 2015.

viewtopic.php?p=316721#p316721


The very link you cited above (a link which I gave to you, and you quoted back) is the actual record of budgets and surpluses in Germany's budget, since just after the cold war, to present.

And I'm supposed to take you 'seriously' when you then insist that flat-out wrong is actually right? :doh: :mrgreen:

And nor would you have then said this next, if reality matched your subsequent en-echelon denial and smoke-screen laying:


March 1st, 2016, 8:55 pm

element1loop wrote:

Incorrect, it's a record of surpluses and deficits in the German budget, if you don't think so read the first line of text above, where it clearly states:

"German budget surplus for 2015 came in at EUR19.4 billion or equivalent to 0.6 percent of GDP ..."

Now look at the graph plot value for 2015.

Ummm no, your 2nd and third link says spending vs GDP etc. which is irrelevant. That is not an indication of surplus or deficit, which depends on spending and debt service vs revenue. The maximum deficit briefly went to 4% following '08, when most other western countries went into double figures. Either side of that it's been between -1% and +1%.

viewtopic.php?p=316775#p316775



If you can't see why anyone would have a problem with your doing that, and claiming that, which is completely incorrect, and being thoroughly wrong twice, and dishonest, and deceptive about it multiple times since, and repeatedly insisting you were not wrong, and that I just have an "issue" with data, then there's no hope for you.

You are unfortunately dishonest.

If you think I'm going to respect that, think again - stupid is as stupid does.

You can not admit that what you did so compound it with trying to weasel out of it by changing the subject multiple times and pretending it was all about something else, and contriving yet another load of complete junk and false claims about what I wrote and its self evident meaning.

The problem here was entirely your inability to understand what was written and to just read and take in the facts and circumstances and have a civil discussion. Even in the immediately above reply, you admit that was the case, you say it in a couple of places that you didn't follow, didn't understand.

OK, unwitting indirect fake-honesty from you will have to do, but you also couched it in accusatory and abusive tones as though I was at fault for your inability to grasp some pretty damned basic points and graph links. Like I said, most people could figure it out in seconds.

And not only now are you erecting and extending a farcical smoke screen of drivel, you're even now trying to say my initial comment was incorrect. No part of it was incorrect. You just couldn't understand and nor did you like what it said. That's all. But then went into paroxysms of denial and misrepresentation which descended into mere trolling and distraction-making when you were pinned-down and shown yourself in action.

You kept insinuating I have some "issue" with the very data that I posted up (not you), or that there is anything I've said up to that point that in any way can be considered incorrect, inaccurate, untruthful, or unfair.

Au-contraire! What do you have against someone posting relevant data in graphs? Were we supposed to just take your dictums on faith and believe? Sorry, a data record is better, and always will be.

That's why I went and retrieved the actual data, which you tried to deny and to distract from with misrepresentation, then to disparage and minimize, and then to shoot the messenger. :doh:
Last edited by element1loop on 03 Mar 2016, 20:27, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 17:10

My response is because you included things other than budget, which are not relevant.

Nope, I quoted the whole thing, not the one part that was actually relevant.

viewtopic.php?p=316698#p316698

Yes, I pointed out that your second and third links are irrelevant, along with the other 80% of your post and the subsequent dozen off-topic posts that in no way address the original point I made.

So in total your contribution on the original remark has been a nit-pick followed by a baffling array of strawmanning without actually addressing the point, which has persisted despite several attempts to get back to the original point, which I will plainly state again.

"Germany has neglected military spending and NATO commitments in favour of balancing the budget."

This is still 100% true regardless of how much you sidetrack because:

Exhibit A:
http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-von-der-l ... a-17959798

Exhibit B:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140928151 ... t-1.305064

Exhibit C:
Image

Exhibit D:
element1loop wrote:Last I looked their spending was ~1.2% of GDP so that would be a big deal (rising to the NATO minimum commitment).
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 19:29

This is the original quote in its civil conversational context:

element1loop
Posts: 137
Joined: December 31st, 2015, 2:35 pm
Location: Australia
Warnings: 1

PostFebruary 28th, 2016, 5:19 pm

snypa777 wrote:
Right now Germany is actually pumping life back into the military, I think they are hosing down quite a few of their LEO 2s out of the warehouses and putting them back into the field for example.
They are pretty much about to bankroll an increase in defence spending to make the 2% GDP NATO commitment which is a huge increase for Germany.

Last I looked their spending was ~1.2% of GDP so that would be a big deal. From your other reply above:

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=29010


And note there I'm just acknowledging to 'snypa777' that a change from the current/recent ~1.2% to ~2% would be a major rethink of the strategic situation by Germany. That's it, that's all I'm indicating there.

But before going further, why was their budget at ~1.2% anyway? Because of professional strategic assessments and guidance, not because Merkel or Wolfgang Schaubble made a random policy choice. If you think that's a 'problem' then that''s your problem. It occurred in an environment where excessive deficits and spending, even in the good times, was destroying sovereign finances all over the EU and Eurozone economies.

Which matters to a great deal to national defense response capability and potential. Hence the concerted attempt to reduce spending and shrink deficits, especially post Lehman failure, as Germany had been consistently in the red for most of the past 25 years, so that if and when a requirement did emerge, like right now for instance, prudent countries would not be left with a bare cupboard and unable to respond to rising threats. From say, something expensive, like, oh I don't know, paying for German reunification for instance, hence why I mentioned it.

Like I said, most people could figure out the relevance of what I said in seconds, but not you. You didn't want to know, you had a bee-in-your-bonnet to swat and the practical facts be damned, you were going to swat it anyway.

i.e basic prudent financial management of the German state, so boo-freakin-hoo if you don't like that and have your panties all twisted about German funding levels. Their budget was based on strategic guidance, get over it, like everyone else. What were they supposed to base decisions on instead? Your alarmism? Your irrational paranoia? A random lucky-dip value pulled out of a hat?

But here's another smoking gun of your deceptiveness and desperation to change the subject away from your exposed errors above, and false and completely stupid remarks and obfuscations:

This is what you said that I said, in your comment immediately above:

Exhibit D:

element1loop wrote:
Last I looked their spending was ~1.2% of GDP so that would be a big deal (rising to the NATO minimum commitment).


No, I didn't say that! You're again deliberately misrepresenting my words and trying to change what I said, but you literally changed my words this time! You are trying to pass off a different meaning and significance to my words, so you can misrepresent my words as you please. Basic dishonesty in commenting. Here's what I originally actually said, on page 1, see if you can spot the difference:

Last I looked their spending was ~1.2% of GDP so that would be a big deal. From your other reply above:



There's nothing at fault with my "logic" or the facts as I provided them, or the context of my remarks, which you keep trying to twist into something else. But there isn't something else. You just keep trying to insinuate there is to find some sort of cover from your being exposed as a dishonest commenter, who ignores basic facts and trolls and smears instead.
Last edited by element1loop on 03 Mar 2016, 20:24, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 20:19

I added the bit in brackets to reference the remark you were responding to. I think people can check this link and see it's an accurate representation:

viewtopic.php?p=316575#p316575

element1loop wrote:And note there I'm just acknowledging to 'snypa777' that a change from the current/recent ~1.2% to ~2% would be a major rethink of the strategic situation by Germany. That's it, that's all I'm indicating there.

Yes and 2% is the NATO minimum that every NATO country has an obligation to meet anyway. The fact they weren't meeting that is technically non-compliance with the NATO terms and could help explain the issues mentioned here:

http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-von-der-l ... a-17959798
https://web.archive.org/web/20140928151 ... t-1.305064

Now increasing from 1.2% to 2% might help fix the above issues and facilitate a decent commitment to Typhoon development, but what it won't do is fund the development of an entirely new stealth fighter from scratch along with fixing the shortfalls alluded to above.

element1loop wrote:But before going further, why was their budget at ~1.2% anyway? Because of professional strategic assessments and guidance, not because Merkel or Wolfgang Schaubble made a random policy choice. If you think that's a 'problem' then that''s your problem.


So this was a professional strategic choice that only I have a problem with?

https://web.archive.org/web/20140928151 ... t-1.305064

Published: September 26, 2014

According to the media reports, only 24 out of 43 C-160 transport planes are currently available. The planes, developed 50 years ago, remain the workhorse of the Luftwaffe because their replacement, the Airbus A400M, has been delayed for several years.

The reports also say that just 42 of the Luftwaffe's 109 Eurofighter jets and 38 of its 89 Tornadoes are ready to fly. The navy acknowledged this week that it couldn't send any of its Sea Lynx helicopters to an international anti-piracy operation because of cracks in the tails.

Munich's daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported that 110 of the army's 180 Boxer armored transport vehicles are currently being repaired.

Former chief of staff Harald Kujat has said the German military's problems are partly due to chronic under-financing. In a bid to balance Germany's budget, the government reduced defense spending by about 800 million euros to 32.44 billion euros ($41.30 billion) this year — far below NATO's recommended level of 2 percent of GDP.


Which is pretty poor going given that the German budget has been either close to zero deficit or in surplus for 7 or 8 of the last 10 years.

Image

element1loop wrote:so that if and when a requirement did emerge, like right now for instance, prudent countries would not be left with a bare cupboard and unable to respond to rising threats.


But be completely screwed in the case of an immediate threat or requirement.

http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-von-der-l ... a-17959798

Germany could not currently fulfill its NATO commitments in the event of an attack on a member of the alliance, owing in part to severe backlogs in replacement parts for its aircraft.

"With our airborne systems we are currently below the target figures announced one year ago, defining what we would want to make available to NATO within 180 days in the case of an emergency," Defense Minister von der Leyen told the "Bild am Sonntag" newspaper. "Delays for replacement parts for our planes and the missing helicopters are the reason for this."

On Saturday, news magazine "Der Spiegel" reported that the promised fleet of 60 Eurofighters could not currently be provided, while the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" daily paper had reported that von der Leyen had called an emergency meeting on the matter on Friday.


element1loop wrote:i.e basic prudent financial management of the German state, so boo-freakin-hoo if you don't like that and have your panties all twisted about German funding levels. Their budget was based on strategic guidance, get over it, like everyone else. What were they supposed to base decisions on instead? Your alarmism? Your irrational paranoia? A random lucky-dip value pulled out of a hat?


Prudent financial management described as 'chronic under-financing' by a former German chief of staff, which failed to meet NATO obligations. I dunno, maybe you could base decisions on this obligation and the availability problems mentioned. :doh:

element1loop wrote:Here's what I originally actually said, on page 1, see if you can spot the difference:


The original:
element1loop wrote:
snypa777 wrote:They are pretty much about to bankroll an increase in defence spending to make the 2% GDP NATO commitment which is a huge increase for Germany.

Last I looked their spending was ~1.2% of GDP so that would be a big deal.


My quote:
element1loop wrote:Last I looked their spending was ~1.2% of GDP so that would be a big deal (rising to the NATO minimum commitment).


Like I said, I added the bit in brackets to reflect the comment you were responding to. There's nothing fundamentally misleading about the quote in any way, it's merely an abbreviation of two quotes. This is just nit-picking, provocation and yet more strawmanning on your part.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post04 Mar 2016, 04:17

Given you don't seem to be able to read that graph or grasp its significance, nor the three graphs I originally posted, here are the tallied up running totals from just that 10Y graph period alone, that you posted again immediately above, the one which you want to keep using as fake 'evidence' no real problem existed in the German budget. That it's just an unnecessary obsession with neutral spending.

Total of Surpluses 2006-2016 = 1.1% of GDP

Total of Deficits 2006-2016 = 10.1% of GDP

i.e. budget spending bias out of balance by a factor of 10 to 1. :mrgreen:

And I note how you keep trying to down-play, discount and ignore the fact that there was a significant debt growth problem, and that Schauble's job was to remove the risk of foreseeable financial ruin to come if German public spending was not stringently disciplined. It's one of the major reasons they're in comparatively better shape and have more options than most of the rest of Europe.

And it's really cute and nice and such, that you want to ignore and discard the 80.3% of debt to GDP in 2010, in the middle of that graph's period.

Peak of Debt to GDP was in 2010 @ 80.3 % of GDP

But current Debt to GDP is 71.6 of GDP, and with national debt falling at about -3% per year, to a more sustainable range. And that occurred even after Germany has just had consecutive recessions since 2008. A flabbergasting result! That's good budget management in a period of EU wide crisis. Not a result that deserves a blaggard's condemnation in any way, shape or form.

The fact they managed debt and deficits better than most is one of the reasons Germany is now in comparatively much better public finance and budget shape, and thus has far more options than most of Europe to respond adequately to an emerging military threat.

I guess the relevance of that is lost on you given your own UK Central Bank had to print 400 billion pounds over the same period.

I can see why given your contrived arguments, that you'd want to keep pretending the other two graphs I supplied, namely German spending and debt, were in your words, "irrelevant" to the issue. And contrived this on-going farce of obsessive objectionism to relevant budget facts, and your misrepresentations and tirades against the budget data, and its reality, as it does inconveniently impose on your narrative. And it does explain the deceptive BS you've come out with for it erodes the extremes of your position. It must be galling for you to have contrary data presented, and a reasoning offered to elucidate the reasons why that data came to be as it is. It could cause you to knee-jerk a hyperbole based response. :mrgreen:

Most people would have no trouble realizing why the three graphs included are relevant, rather than just the one, over recent 10 year period, which you prefer to highlight and which still fails to match your claims btw. :mrgreen:

But the numbers I posted here show you're claims are clearly wrong, even about that one graph you want to keep posting! :doh:

Winning!

Sorry 'uclass', data is not your plaything, it's there to inform. Not you obviously, as you don't want to be informed, and I get that. But the data supplied is relevant because it is of course, actual German budget data. When discussing the German budget spending on defense, German budget data actually does matter, which is why I presented it, so the fuller picture is better appreciated by the ignorant.

And chronic defense under-spending is not (or was not) exactly unique to Germany, in 2013-2014. As I see it, the UK's own serial deep military spending cuts were setting it up to do the very same thing. [and btw, thanks to UK for spiffy HMAS Choules Bay Class Amphib, great ship for RAN to snag in 2011 due those military sending cuts to rein in UK spending and persistent deficits - nice!]

It's OK, it don't matter even, we can pretend it away. :mrgreen:
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests