Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by LafayetteBis, Feb 28, 2018.
why so afraid to tell us evidence that I don't understand?
The Economist is a weekly news magazine, and its reporting is excellent.
It covers subjects a professor at any educational institution would never ever touch in depth - often for fear of losing their job.
Far too much of economics has nothing to do with "market-economies" and is too related to economic research of little real usefullness. The real work is in understanding the numbers and relating them to the reality of our existence.
Which is why THIS FORUM is unique and relevant; for which I suggest only a debate format can probe a relevant and probing exchange of opinion. (And also a great deal of irrelevant emotion at times) ...
I used to read it as a child.
As an adult I found it to be over politicised. I couldn't trust the reportage.
The internet had allowed me to investigate their stories for myself and their standards of journalism had been too weak for me.
But hey, that was decades ago. Maybe it's got better.
You want evidence that basic economics operates? Wow, we have a heterodox hero in the making!
why not cut the libcommie gibberish and tell us why you are a socialist?
Economic rationality dictates it
if socialism is rational why did to starve 180 million?
It didn't. You refer to state capitalism and fascism. Indeed I've never seen you use economic comment with any resemblance of understanding.
I refer to big states or big govts like what you advocate even after our Founders determined they were the source of evil on earth. Does it kill you to learn that your creative Marxism is a just as deadly as any other form of it?
I'm not a Marxist. Are you ever right?
you're a creative Marxist or market socialist or standard libcommie. Our Founders were not interesting in your phony distinctions. Can you grasp this point??
Clearly you think your Founders were idiots.
no, geniuses to make libcommie monarchy statist govt illegal in America. They called it the shot heard around the world. Old world was pulling up the rear then and now. We were happy to save you from yourselves through two world wars.
Given you think your Founders were idiots incapable of understanding political economy, I'm not surprised that your post lacks any economic insight. Care to put that right? Perhaps say something about classical economics and pretend consistency with your.right wing attitude?
Don't doubt it. This just bolsters my broader point that 'ever closer union' is a conscious and consistent effort with an end game which will make Europe look like one federal state.
Why might some folks want that?
1) prospect of infighting diminished in Europe
2) Free flow of goods, services, labour and capital
3) consolidation of military power and the de facto allegiance of all member states, geopolitical advantage esp re sphere of influence in proximation to Russia.
4) consolidation of political power and the de facto allegiance of all member states, the concentration of power over more and more people in the hands of the few, making it easier and more expedient to direct world affairs.
5) corporatism. I want my corporation to strike deals with the EU which allow me to conduct European wide projects which would otherwise be virtually impossible. Put another way, I'd like one political centre to pay my bribes to rather than 30.
Why might some folks not want that?
Well I can't speak for all the people who are just upset about migrants. For me it's number 4 and number 5. I'd rather not make it easy for the very few to control the very many. And given the track record of the nation state in general, ie: literally the most violent entity in all of history bar none, I'd like to keep them small.
Why? Well if Norway gets upset we won't lose a lot of sleep over it. If a European superstate gets upset we're actually in trouble.
This is an interesting one. Globalisation is supposed to encourage political disintegration (e.g. why bother having the UK, when a large domestic market is no longer required). Economic change was supposed to empower democracy (and, from that, more successful provision of public good for localised populations). The EU, on that score, is bucking the trend to the detriment of those populations.
Hmm, I'm trying to go back and find other relevant threads to this topic.
the myth of the "skills gap"
Wasting money on Education!
Th Great College Loan Swindle
Why the Education Bubble Will Be Worse Than the Housing Bubble
If you have evidence of this I will pay you $10,000. Bet?? Or runaway once again with your liberal tail between your legs
John makes an excellent point that concentrated power in liberal nation states has been the source of evil throughout all of human history. That also was the fundamental conclusion of our founding fathers.
If a European superstate gets us upset, the trouble will be theirs.
Sheep roaring at sleeping lions is unwise.
Norway on the other hand, if we upset them, I'd be willing to change.
I don't like the EU. I don't like how they refer to me as their citisen. How they think I owe them something just for being born.
I don't like their politics and their ambitions revolt me.
I don't like how we were enrolled against our will.
I don't like how our politicians use it as an excuse to ignore our wishes in favour of their own.
Absolutely and 100% up for gunboat diplomacy.
National enemy and greatest threat to world peace at this time. A stitch in time saves nine.
To be quite honest I don't even like the trade agreement.
The so called "good bit" stinks of ****.
Nothing to offer that I want.
Miserable institution. Raise it to the ground any time it voices belligerence.
Sideline it and refuse to engage with it diplomatically.
In my rear view mirror... getting smaller. Or else.
Their mouths talk peace but their ambitions bring war.
And boy will it be a short and hysterically funny one. Over before I can finish my pint.
Liberalism and 'concentrated power' are mutually exclusive. You do love to be wrong.
Our liberals spied for Stalin and voted for Obama and Sanders to concentrate power while conservatives and libertarians are for the opposite. Who has time to educate an old world libcommie statist?
Liberalisma nd communism are, by definition, inconsistent. That you continue with your McCarthyite approach, when its based on complete cobblers, is beyond me.
Maybe upset isn't the right word.
Let me put it this way. States are violent, mainly the large ones. Why?
Well because states kind of act like corporations. They have a certain amount of income/revenue and they are constantly trying to increase it. In a world of finite resources, and with the larger states being the biggest consumers of said resources, they can and do use their financial and military leverage to secure as much treasure as possible.
On this basis we really can't expect large corporations to behave themselves. They will bend the rules wherever they can, they'll lobby the government to the detriment of everyone else, they'll conduct aggressive takeovers purely to diminish competition. You'll notice SME's don't really have this advantage.
Same goes for the nation state. Which states are the biggest threat to world peace in the sense of a world-wide conflagration.
Norway or the US?
Haiti or Russia?
Ethiopia or China?
Small states more or less stay in their lane. Yes even North Korea, notice how they don't invade anyone because they know it's lights out. America on the other hand will pretty much do what it wants regardless of what anyone thinks; and we all know how close we came to nuclear war as a result. There's no reason to think that in principle an EU superstate will act much differently.
And this is the funny thing. The biggest critics of American foreign policy are also the ones screaming out for a European Union a la the Soviet Union a la the United States.
When they get their wish, and this monster EU army beholden to no one stomps around the planet in concert with America, I wonder what they'll think.
(I should add that war is made possible by tax, all these people screaming tax the rich should probably think about that.)
Why? There's no positive relationship between progressive tax and conflict. Indeed, it more likely that there is a negative relationship (with countries with more progressive tax systems less likely to participate in warfare)
Separate names with a comma.