The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 197

WHY IS POLAND STILL GIVEN THE COLD SHOULDER?


Seanus 15 | 19,670
25 Oct 2010 #121
All true but it still doesn't change the fact that Poland was stymied and not allowed to develop naturally. Would you call that fair? Now, with the level of stifling being significantly lower, we have witnessed a real increase in growth in GDP and inward investment. Poland rode the wave of the economic crisis very well and may avoid being thwarted by an IMF incursion. Put simply, it is unfair to understate Poland's key future role by pointing to present shortcomings. It's a bit like somehow slowing down the birth of a child (stunting it) and then blaming it for being behind. If I could draw an analogy, it's like Poland took longer to come through the whole zygote-embryo-foetus process due to external intervention and was thus at an instant disadvantage. When an emerging entity arises, it takes nurturing and not neglect for being lesser developed.
SeanBM 35 | 5,792
25 Oct 2010 #122
may avoid being thwarted by an IMF incursion.

What changed your mind?

it is unfair to understate Poland's key future role by pointing to present shortcomings.

True, I think you can at present only compare Poland to other ex-communist countries to get a real idea of really how far they've come.
convex 20 | 3,928
25 Oct 2010 #123
All true but it still doesn't change the fact that Poland was stymied and not allowed to develop naturally. Would you call that fair?

Fair? This is global politics, it's not kindergarten.

By joining the EU, Poland has already demonstrated that it doesn't want to carve out a destiny completely on its own. Trade short term gain for long term restraints on growth.
Torq
25 Oct 2010 #124
The economic baby of the "Big4" has an economy 5 times larger than that of Poland.

:)

Italy's GDP: $1.739 trillion
Poland's GDP: $0.69 trillion

Italian GDP looks like 2.5 times larger than Polish, not 5 times larger :)

If Italy's economy were to shrink at the same level for the next 50 years (5%) and Poland
were to grow at the same rate (1.6%), Italy would still have a larger economy.

:)

Erm...

1. Take a calculator and start multiplying 1.739 by 0.95.

2. After 18 repetitions you will arrive at the figure of 0.69

3. It means that after 18 years Italy's economy at the 5% level of shrinking would
be equal to Polish economy.

4. That, however, if we assume that Polish economy would be at a complete standstill for 18 years.

but you said...

and Poland were to grow at the same rate (1.6%)

:)

1. Now, take a calculator in hand again and start multiplying 0.69 by 1.016.

2. After 14 repetitions - you will arrive at the figure of 0.86

3. That's more than you would get by multiplying 1.739 by 0.95, 14 times (0.84)

4. That, my mathematically inept friend, means that at the same rates of shrinking
(5% for Italy) and growth (1.6% for Poland), in 14 years Poland would have larger
economy than Italy.


Militarily, Poland would need

I won't go into comparisons of both countries' armies, because the argument would
be bound to end up with people stereotyping soldiers, bravery and battle value of
both armies' units :)
Seanus 15 | 19,670
25 Oct 2010 #125
Changed my mind? Mariusz Belka has already got the ball rolling on the IMF front but I'm not aware of the key details and what they entail for Poland to the extent that I can rely on them for argument. I'd have to read a bit more but I know there are many bad eggs there that would scupper some Polish aspirations for their own material gain.

Seanny, spot on. If you have ever read books on Polish character (stubborness) and Change Management, you will know that overcoming obstacles to create a free market, as attempted by Balcerowicz, was always going to be like climbing a mountain. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Hungary failed abysmally in their transition and other states too as you mentioned. I've seen it first hand, though, Poland has many budding capitalists and many are not lacking in ingenuity. Many things take a long time to reach fruition. I see the word fruit there and I think of grapes, thus wine. The best things come to those who wait, especially wine enthusiasts. Sth similar should apply to Poland.
Torq
25 Oct 2010 #126
14 years to catch up with Italy (at the current growth rates). *see post no. 125*
Hey, not too bad for a country that lost over 30% of its population 65-70 years ago,
was completely ruined after the war, lost its elite and was put under communist yoke
for 45 years (from which we were freed only 21 years ago) :)

Try the same trick with Italy and let's see how long they will need to catch up with us :)
SeanBM 35 | 5,792
25 Oct 2010 #127
This is exactly why Polish people shouldn't be given calculators :)
Torq
25 Oct 2010 #128
My calculations are perfectly valid. Mathematics 101, really.
SeanBM 35 | 5,792
25 Oct 2010 #129
Exactly :)

It was a good post.
convex 20 | 3,928
25 Oct 2010 #130
Italy's GDP: $1.739 trillion
Poland's GDP: $0.69 trillion

You're using PPP which is great for comparing how much disposable income poland has per capita, but doesn't do a very good job to compare the size of the economies.

cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2195.html

Italy's GDP is $2.11t
Poland's GDP is $0.43

4. That, my mathematically inept friend, means that at the same rates of shrinking
(5% for Italy) and growth (1.6% for Poland), in 14 years Poland would have larger
economy than Italy.

Ah, partial Oklahoma education has failed me once again.

Anyway, done correctly, you end up with equilibrium at 25 years in real GDP at about 620b (feel free to check my work).

Regarding the military, it's just a comparison of technology and the numbers. Keeping things like patriotism and bravery out of the equation.

Back to the point at hand, do you think that Italy's GDP will shrink 5% a year for the next 25? Me either, it was just an illustration of something that's not plausible. Now, what is plausible is that Italy will be fairly stagnant, and Poland will experience steady growth. Lets say 5% growth (congratulations wirtschaftswunder Polen!), in 50 years, you're at 970b.

PS, using that same 1.6% -5% calculation, Angola will have a larger economy than Italy in 50 years :)
Torq
25 Oct 2010 #131
Poland's GDP is $0.43

Lets say 5% growth (congratulations wirtschaftswunder Polen!), in 50 years, you're at 970b.

:)

I don't want to sound like an arsehole, but with the numbers given by you (430b, 5%, 50 years)
we arrive at 973b after 16 years, and after 50 years we would be at about 5 trillion (5000b.)

Sorry, but that's what my calculator says :)

PS, using that same 1.6% -5% calculation

Hey - that was your idea to use those growth rates for 50 years, not mine :)
convex 20 | 3,928
25 Oct 2010 #132
Torq
You're right, I'm an idiot. I haven't drank anything tonight yet. It would only take 35 years for Polands GDP to arrive at Italys current GDP. My mistake, I should be lined up against the wall.

Give me a minute to get back on my game :)
Torq
25 Oct 2010 #133
You're right, I'm an idiot.

No, you're not. You're just having a bad maths day (we all have them sometimes.)

It would only take 35 years for Polands GDP to arrive at Italys current GDP.

I'm not going to check ;)

However - just for the fun of it...

Italy's GDP is $2.11t
Poland's GDP is $0.43

If their economy shrinks at 5% and our grows at the same rate of 5%, then after
17 years our economy will be larger than theirs (973b to 882b)

...and with the GDP (PPP) figures:

Italy's GDP: $1.739 trillion
Poland's GDP: $0.69 trillion

...we overtake them confidently in 10 years :)
Ironside 50 | 12,470
25 Oct 2010 #134
GDP

what is GDP, can you tell ? do you know ?
convex 20 | 3,928
25 Oct 2010 #135
If their economy shrinks at 5% and our grows at the same rate of 5%, then after
17 years our economy will be larger than theirs (973b to 882b)

Comeon now, my second example was if Italy stays constant and Poland grows at 5%...

I have some drink in me now, put on my bow tie, and I'm back in the game.
Torq
25 Oct 2010 #136
what is GDP, can you tell ? do you know ?

Oh, I don't want to go into a serious economic discussion, Iron. I am merely a simple engineer.
Most people on this board know my basic views on economy (liberal or libertarian even) and that
I think Poland is not developing as fast as it should (and, in fact, could), but I couldn't be
arsed discussing such things at 11 pm on Monday, when I have to get up to work early tomorrow ;)

All in all, if Poles keep voting socialist (PiS, PO) into power, then I'm afraid it is quite possible
that we will never catch up with Italy.

Comeon now, my second example was if Italy stays constant and Poland grows at 5%..

I know. I said that this particular calculation was made just for the fun of it. I'm not THAT big an optimist ;)

Anyways - gotta catch some z's. Goodnight, lads.
convex 20 | 3,928
25 Oct 2010 #137
I know, I said that particular calculation was made just for the fun of it. I'm not THAT big an optimist ;)

So taking that all into account...it all stemmed from a comment of being as influential as Italy in the near future. Do you see that being possible in our lifetimes?

I don't want to turn it into a pissing match, and honestly, if this EU experiment keeps up, in 50 years it won't much matter.

Your thoughts oh mighty Torq of the North?

Anyways - gotta catch some z's. Goodnight, lads.

pfft..
Torq
25 Oct 2010 #138
of being as influential as Italy in the near future. Do you see that being possible in our lifetimes?

In our region? Certainly.

I mean, what influence has Italy on Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia or the Vysegrad Group
(Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary)? Some, of course, but Poland is bound to have much
stronger influence in the region, if all goes well.

Now, I really gotta beat it.
Seanus 15 | 19,670
26 Oct 2010 #139
Whose stats are we going by? That matters! Cross check sources and then we'll see.
Chicago Pollock 7 | 503
26 Oct 2010 #140
Now I am 100% sure, your screwing with me ...

Read the historical record.

At that time people had seen Red army fighting Germans which was a big + in the book.

Yes, exactly. Your reply confirms my whole point. Polish people supported the Red Army. In 1922 they kicked them out, in 1945 they embraced them. There was opposition to the Reds, there was a civil war in Poland and the Polish communists won. Communism in Poland was Polish communism.

Later of course they knew what had happened...

Yes, after losing fifty years of economic growth. Poles need to admit that they saddled the wrong horse (but of course they won't admit it).
MediaWatch 10 | 943
26 Oct 2010 #141
Yes, exactly. Your reply confirms my whole point. Polish people supported the Red Army. In 1922 they kicked them out, in 1945 they embraced them. There was opposition to the Reds, there was a civil war in Poland and the Polish communists won. Communism in Poland was Polish communism.

The Polish people supported the Red Army initially only because they helped get rid of the Nazis and promised to leave Poland.

"Polish Communism" would have never existed if the Soviet Union did not exist.

Mr Grunwald:
Later of course they knew what had happened...

Yes, after losing fifty years of economic growth. Poles need to admit that they saddled the wrong horse (but of course they won't admit it).

LOL

Any horse that was saddled was because they had a Soviet gun to their head. Don't tell me you didn't know that?

Did the Poles really have a choice in the matter in having Soviet imposed communism in Poland or not after 1945?

You mean to tell me the Poles could have told the Soviet soldiers, enforcing communism in Poland, to go home without any problems??? LOL

Why do we have so many Bolshevik sympathizers in this forum??
convex 20 | 3,928
26 Oct 2010 #142
Any horse that was saddled was because they had a Soviet gun to their head. Don't tell me you didn't know that?

Just some interesting bits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_people%27s_referendum,_1946

Based on the real outcome, the actual support for Communism under pressure was about the same as the support for Nazism under pressure (40ish percent). That's pretty interesting actually.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

To further assure the outcome of the vote would be a Nazi majority, Nazi organizations "monitored" the vote process. In Prussia, 50,000 members of SS, SA and Stahlhelm were ordered to monitor the votes as deputy sheriffs.

Reads a lot like:

ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=pl&dzial=203&id=4427&poz=2&update=1

Communism in Poland was Polish communism.

Maybe they thought it would be at the referendum, but it most certainly turned into Soviet Communism really quick. My question is why didn't Stalin incorporate Poland into the Soviet Union as he did other states? If the allies sold Poland out, it shouldn't have been too much of an issue. Question for another thread I suppose.

Anyway, doesn't have much to do with getting the cold shoulder now. I think Poland is respected for it's position as a regional player in the EU. Don't understand the need for larger ambitions at the moment considering the realities. Maybe it's just a bit of hurt pride?
delphiandomine 87 | 18,086
26 Oct 2010 #143
Any horse that was saddled was because they had a Soviet gun to their head. Don't tell me you didn't know that?

I'm amazed you didn't know about the wide cooperation between the AK and the Red Army - support that was offered freely to the Soviets!

Did the Poles really have a choice in the matter in having Soviet imposed communism in Poland or not after 1945?

Yes. If they hadn't wasted a lot of good people in the pointless Warsaw Uprising (even Poles are starting to admit to the sheer stupidity of it), and simply held on - they could have chopped the Red Army supply line in half and sent a very clear message to the Allies. They certainly could have fought a long guerilla war against the Red Army - and while they may not have won, there may have been significant pressure on the Soviet Union to accept a similar deal as Finland/Austria got.
MediaWatch 10 | 943
26 Oct 2010 #144
I'm amazed you didn't know about the wide cooperation between the AK and the Red Army - support that was offered freely to the Soviets!

Yes you would know about the Red army LOL

I'm amazed that you ignored by comment before that basically agreed with your point that there was cooperation between Poles and the Red army at one point. But then again you are a troll.

MediaWatch:
Did the Poles really have a choice in the matter in having Soviet imposed communism in Poland or not after 1945?

Yes. If they hadn't wasted a lot of good people in the pointless Warsaw Uprising.

Yes yes woulda coulda shoulda. Yes this coulda happened here and then this shoulda happened there which then may have done this or that LOL

Hindsight is always 20/20 for armchair generals like yourself.

In my opinion the US should have nuked Moscow while we had the bomb and they didn't. That way milions of innocent people would not have suffered and died at the orders of those Moscow savages after 1945.

Just look at the suffering they created during the Holdomor where 9 million Ukrainians were killed by Moscow's orders. I wonder if Moscow ever apologized for that??
delphiandomine 87 | 18,086
27 Oct 2010 #145
Yes you would know about the Red army LOL

I expect anyone serious about their WW2 history would know a bit about the Red Army.

Hindsight is always 20/20 for armchair generals like yourself.

Hindsight is one thing, but reckless stupidity is another thing. There was absolutely nothing that suggested that the Warsaw Uprising would succeed at that time, apart from trust in Stalin of all people.

In my opinion the US should have nuked Moscow while we had the bomb and they didn't. That way milions of innocent people would not have suffered and died at the orders of those Moscow savages after 1945.

It's an interesting opinion. But equally so, the post-war carving up of Europe between the USA and the USSR stabilised the continent - a continent that was racked with brutal wars for the last 150 years or so - and as a direct result, led to European integration and the European Union today. Would that have happened without the USA and USSR not being determined to halve the continent between them?

Bear in mind that there was plenty of suffering on the "Western" side as well - Falange Spain, anyone?
MediaWatch 10 | 943
27 Oct 2010 #146
Hindsight is one thing, but reckless stupidity is another thing. There was absolutely nothing that suggested that the Warsaw Uprising would succeed at that time, apart from trust in Stalin of all people.

According to today's hindsight information that may be true when we all have had years and years to look over the strengths and weaknesses of each country. Its also not like you had CNN or satellite information sizing up what's going on in a country back then.

Nobody in the West let alone Poland, had accurate information on the strength of the Nazi German army. The Warsaw uprising initially was successful. So you're lying when you say there was "absolutely nothing" to suggest that the uprising might be successful. They held out for 63 days against the Nazi War machine which was no small task.

I believe the Poles would have held out much longer if not freed part of their country if the stupid Russians didn't ARM TO THE TEETH AND FEED the Nazi war machine for the first two years of the war. That was disgraceful and STUPID. Today we know that Hitler was desperate to strike a deal with Soviet Russia because he knew Russia would be stupid enough to give his Nazis 2 years of WAR MATERIAL AND FOOD which the Nazis desperately needed if they were going to fight a prolonged war. Hitler knew his Nazi army had no more then a month or so of supplies.

Much of the bombs dropped on Poland and England were Nazi bombs made with Russian war material. Way to go Russia!!! How stupid of Russia.

Russians stupidly collaborate with Nazi Germany and pump over a million tons of war material and Food into the Nazi war machine. Russians stupidly take food from Ukraine, starve most of the Ukainians and then give the food to the Nazis. Most of the Nazi war material was later used on Russia by Nazi Germany

Why would Russia's hero Stalin TRUST Hitler of all people??????? Its because of that stupid Russian foreign minister Mr. Molotov that the Nazi Germany - Russia Friendship pact was signed. It was called the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed.
rychlik 41 | 372
27 Oct 2010 #147
4. That, my mathematically inept friend, means that at the same rates of shrinking
(5% for Italy) and growth (1.6% for Poland), in 14 years Poland would have larger
economy than Italy.

Brilliant!

Olive oil, pasta and designer suits can only get you so far I guess.
Ironside 50 | 12,470
27 Oct 2010 #148
Oh, I don't want to go into a serious economic discussion, Iron.

well, a very simplistic aerate then .....just for me ....because I have that notion if you produce a walking sticks or a space proms, for your measurement it wouldn't make no difference...
Chicago Pollock 7 | 503
27 Oct 2010 #149
Poland had the same choice in 1945 that they had in 1920. What would Russia have done if Poland accepted the Marshall Plan? What could they do If the Polish people were united? But the problem is that the Poles weren't united.

I am not suggesting that every Pole was a communist. What the historical record is saying is that there was enough support in Poland for a communist government that the republicans could not sustain a defense of Poland. Poland was a divided nation after the war part republican part communist.
Torq
27 Oct 2010 #150
because I have that notion if you produce a walking sticks or a space proms, for your measurement it wouldn't make no difference...

Well, as long as people around the world are willing to pay their money for walking sticks,
then I don't see why they shouldn't be produced and sold with profit (actually, with the
average age of Earth's population constantly increasing, producing walking sticks may
be a great business in the future.)

space proms

I don't know about those "space proms" that you mentioned. I am not sure if organizing
student dances in space is such a good idea (not with the current technologu anyway.)
Besdies, students can be troublesome during proms here, on Earth, so it's better not to
send them into space.


Home / News / WHY IS POLAND STILL GIVEN THE COLD SHOULDER?