Yeah, it's about time someone got rid of that old hag in Buckingham Palace and installed a republican form of government. Apple Store at Buckingham Palace, anyone?
More evidence that "stimulus" is and has always been a Keynesian fraud.
No, just the opposite. It's what kept the U.S. from being in the same situation that the EU is in now. Even conservative economists here have admitted that.
Then what’s the point of her being there? This I don’t understand about modern monarchies. So the leader of your country can do absolutely nothing whatsoever? How is it the leader?
No, just the opposite. It's what kept the U.S. from being in the same situation that the EU is in now. Even conservative economists here have admitted that.
No credible economist agrees that stimulus is a legitimate response to economic collapse. Stimulus (in the form of loose lending and "printing money") is what led up to the problems in the first place.
No credible economist agrees that stimulus is a legitimate response to economic collapse. Stimulus (in the form of loose lending and "printing money") is what led up to the problems in the first place.
That is so wide off the mark, that it's perhaps better not to get started....
No credible economist agrees that stimulus is a legitimate response to economic collapse. Stimulus (in the form of loose lending and "printing money") is what led up to the problems in the first place.
Then what’s the point of her being there? This I don’t understand about modern monarchies. So the leader of your country can do absolutely nothing whatsoever? How is it the leader?
The monarchy in GB has no power. She calls the government into session, but that's it. If she tried to intervene, then that would be the end of the monarchy. They are kept around because the British like them, for the most part, and they're great for tourism.
As 'anant' suggests (above), economics are inseperable from politics because people who seek power know exactly where to find it. Controlling economies? There's nothing bigger, except the power to wage war, which is also an economic event.
If we favored the economic policies that made the most sense we'd all be Austrian economists and have no use for political meddlers, but the real world in which people exhibit self-interest and achieve power via theft and political influence, intrudes.
No credible economist agrees that stimulus is a legitimate response to economic collapse. Stimulus (in the form of loose lending and "printing money") is what led up to the problems in the first place.
You are incorrect.
He's right, actually.
The economic situation of Europe would be much better if stimulus had never happened. But because there is too much politics involved, there is no integrity to the Euro economy. The only way it could work is if Europe became a federal state. It won't happen; therefore, Europe is doomed to stagnation or worse without the breakup of the Euro.
The monarchy in GB has no power. She calls the government into session, but that's it. If she tried to intervene, then that would be the end of the monarchy. They are kept around because the British like them, for the most part, and they're great for tourism.
Yeah, but what’s the point of calling them your leader if they’re not? She’s on the money of a dozen or so countries, for heaven’s sake; you’d think she’d’ve earned* her way there. This all seems very fragile. “It is because it is” scenarios never do well for very long. Take Microsoft. People buy Microsoft products because Microsoft is the product to buy. Now that Apple has shot an arrow through the glass facade, everything’s slowly going to come crashing down.
As 'anant' suggests (above), economics are inseperable from politics because people who seek power know exactly where to find it. Controlling economies? There's nothing bigger, except the power to wage war, which is also an economic event.
If we favored the economic policies that made the most sense we'd all be Austrian economists and have no use for political meddlers, but the real world in which people exhibit self-interest and achieve power via theft and political influence, intrudes.
I brought up political parties earlier, because the parties are the arm of the economic theoreticians. The parties are how economic policy gets carried out. But we certainly can talk economics without bringing parties into it.
The monarchy in GB has no power. She calls the government into session, but that's it. If she tried to intervene, then that would be the end of the monarchy. They are kept around because the British like them, for the most part, and they're great for tourism.
Yeah, but what’s the point of calling them your leader if they’re not? She’s on the money of a dozen or so countries, for heaven’s sake; you’d think she’d’ve earned* her way there. This all seems very fragile. “It is because it is” scenarios never do well for very long. Take Microsoft. People buy Microsoft products because Microsoft is the product to buy. Now that Apple has shot an arrow through the glass facade, everything’s slowly going to come crashing down.
*Yeah, I groaned, too. Wasn’t intentional.
I bet a large proportion of Americans would prefer to call the Queen their leader over your current President.
The economic situation of Europe would be much better if stimulus had never happened. But because there is too much politics involved, there is no integrity to the Euro economy. The only way it could work is if Europe became a federal state. It won't happen; therefore, Europe is doomed to stagnation or worse without the breakup of the Euro.
No, he's wrong, and so are you, if you believe that. The problem in the EU is that taxes are already so high, because people there demand services from their governments that people here would shun, that they can't be lowered, and as a result, when economic times are rough, there is nowhere for governments to go. Stimulus in the EU was very small when compared to what was done here, and the results show that. Germany has been preventing stimulus from occurring.
In addition to poor connection between EU economics and national interest has kept the EU from moving. As always, EU governments are paralyzed. There is too much push and pull there because of the Parlimentary system which insures that parties that get almost no votes still are mandated seats. In other words, the tail wags the dog over there. We get that here too, but just between two parties, which is simpler.
The one country there that isn't part of the Eurozone, GB, has done better economically, and they did have much bigger stimulus packages.
Yeah, but what’s the point of calling them your leader if they’re not? She’s on the money of a dozen or so countries, for heaven’s sake; you’d think she’d’ve earned* her way there. This all seems very fragile. “It is because it is” scenarios never do well for very long. Take Microsoft. People buy Microsoft products because Microsoft is the product to buy. Now that Apple has shot an arrow through the glass facade, everything’s slowly going to come crashing down.
*Yeah, I groaned, too. Wasn’t intentional.
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. They don't call their Queen, or their King, the "leader" in the political sense. A moral leader, which gets the monarchy in trouble sometimes, yes. But not political. I don't know why you're having a problem with this. The British have more sense of a longer history than we do. Remember that Washington was offered the crown here, after the war, and he declined it.
But they like the monarchy. It gives them ties to the past. When Victoria was Queen, GB was the undisputed leader of the world, both militarily, and economically. It's never been the same since. It was their golden age. This helps them to remember that.
Comments
That "hag" has no say in governmental matters.
No, just the opposite. It's what kept the U.S. from being in the same situation that the EU is in now. Even conservative economists here have admitted that.
Then what’s the point of her being there? This I don’t understand about modern monarchies. So the leader of your country can do absolutely nothing whatsoever? How is it the leader?
No credible economist agrees that stimulus is a legitimate response to economic collapse. Stimulus (in the form of loose lending and "printing money") is what led up to the problems in the first place.
More evidence that "stimulus" is and has always been a Keynesian fraud.
Huh? Europe had a 'stimulus'?
Who knew....
No credible economist agrees that stimulus is a legitimate response to economic collapse. Stimulus (in the form of loose lending and "printing money") is what led up to the problems in the first place.
That is so wide off the mark, that it's perhaps better not to get started....
You are incorrect.
The monarchy in GB has no power. She calls the government into session, but that's it. If she tried to intervene, then that would be the end of the monarchy. They are kept around because the British like them, for the most part, and they're great for tourism.
LOL... I doubt we'll agree on anything remotely political so I'm OK with dropping the matter.
...with the exception of providing this iBookstore link: The Great Deformation by David Stockman—
https://itun.es/us/ylSEJ.l
LOL... I doubt we'll agree on anything remotely political so I'm OK with dropping the matter.
At least you're honest enough to admit that your economics cannot be separated from politics.
I tend to go with facts, and try to keep the two separate (knowing that it's not always possible).
It's only politics peripherally, it's economics.
As 'anant' suggests (above), economics are inseperable from politics because people who seek power know exactly where to find it. Controlling economies? There's nothing bigger, except the power to wage war, which is also an economic event.
If we favored the economic policies that made the most sense we'd all be Austrian economists and have no use for political meddlers, but the real world in which people exhibit self-interest and achieve power via theft and political influence, intrudes.
He's right, actually.
The economic situation of Europe would be much better if stimulus had never happened. But because there is too much politics involved, there is no integrity to the Euro economy. The only way it could work is if Europe became a federal state. It won't happen; therefore, Europe is doomed to stagnation or worse without the breakup of the Euro.
Yeah, but what’s the point of calling them your leader if they’re not? She’s on the money of a dozen or so countries, for heaven’s sake; you’d think she’d’ve earned* her way there. This all seems very fragile. “It is because it is” scenarios never do well for very long. Take Microsoft. People buy Microsoft products because Microsoft is the product to buy. Now that Apple has shot an arrow through the glass facade, everything’s slowly going to come crashing down.
*Yeah, I groaned, too. Wasn’t intentional.
I brought up political parties earlier, because the parties are the arm of the economic theoreticians. The parties are how economic policy gets carried out. But we certainly can talk economics without bringing parties into it.
I bet a large proportion of Americans would prefer to call the Queen their leader over your current President.
I’m not sure there are enough people far enough left in the US to prefer monarchy to republicanism.
No, he's wrong, and so are you, if you believe that. The problem in the EU is that taxes are already so high, because people there demand services from their governments that people here would shun, that they can't be lowered, and as a result, when economic times are rough, there is nowhere for governments to go. Stimulus in the EU was very small when compared to what was done here, and the results show that. Germany has been preventing stimulus from occurring.
In addition to poor connection between EU economics and national interest has kept the EU from moving. As always, EU governments are paralyzed. There is too much push and pull there because of the Parlimentary system which insures that parties that get almost no votes still are mandated seats. In other words, the tail wags the dog over there. We get that here too, but just between two parties, which is simpler.
The one country there that isn't part of the Eurozone, GB, has done better economically, and they did have much bigger stimulus packages.
Quite possibly accurate.
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. They don't call their Queen, or their King, the "leader" in the political sense. A moral leader, which gets the monarchy in trouble sometimes, yes. But not political. I don't know why you're having a problem with this. The British have more sense of a longer history than we do. Remember that Washington was offered the crown here, after the war, and he declined it.
But they like the monarchy. It gives them ties to the past. When Victoria was Queen, GB was the undisputed leader of the world, both militarily, and economically. It's never been the same since. It was their golden age. This helps them to remember that.