Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance.
...
I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)
I don't remember an argument being presented. Care to recap?
...
I'll argue this one.
Without even getting into the economics, how can you tell how much better (or worse) America would be if it adopted some sensible 'socialist' policies, or how Europe would fare if it adopted the American model?
Second, why isn't America topping the quality of life polls? You make it sound like it would win by a mile.
Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance. I have yet to see a liberal or European on this board, aside from perhaps BRussell, ever put substance into an argument on such grounds.
first contrary to what you said EU economic policy is efficient. It has allowed a countrie like Spain to increase dramitacally their economic level. More, if EU economic policy was innefective, why ten members and others wish to enter in it ?
And for the substance into an argument, you are not the one, from whom i will get a lesson.
Another little observations. Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance. I have yet to see a liberal or European on this board, aside from perhaps BRussell, ever put substance into an argument on such grounds.
Personally, I think that "social-democratic" (read:socialist) idealouges about things not being black and white are half-baked. . . and given the economic status of Europe vs. America, I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)
Are you referring to me? Looks like it when you insist on the wrong social-democratic equals socialist idea.
And no thing aren´t as black and white as you put it. To insist on that would erase all politics (preferences between different goods).
What about the gini coefficient? High and ever rising in US and low and declining in Denmark even through a very positive economy we experienced from the 90s until this day (a very uncommon thing). Among the lowest in the world.
WHat about the working hours? Much shorter here.
What about the men/women work force ratio? Much more equal here etc. etc. etc.
Its all about priorities. You may see economy as the pile of money you can stack. But no its not as black and white as that. Its about priorities. What you want to use your wealth for.
And another point: I often hear people using Ireland as an example of how a country through tax cuts and friendly enviroment for the international firms can generate jobs and better economy.
But if Ireland hadn´t been part of EU it wouldn´t have been able to offer those benefits. Irealnd was HEAVILY subsidised from EU to get its economy up to european standard.
Sure except we didn't happen to sell Iraq weapons of mass destruction. If we were complaining about conventional weapons we would be hypocrits. However they found the sources and created those weapons themselves.
I just get tired of people using an action from 20+ years ago asa throw away excuse not to think. Saddam took power in 1979. He went to war with Iran in 1980. To say we knew in 1980 what we know now is silly. Likewise to use the fact that we sold him conventional weapons to say we have no grounds to deal with him regarding weapons of mass destruction is just pointless as well.
Sure except we didn't happen to sell Iraq weapons of mass destruction. If we were complaining about conventional weapons we would be hypocrits. However they found the sources and created those weapons themselves.
No, you sold him weapons of mass destruction (including anthrax and the bubonic plague) with the blessing of the government and a man named Rumsfeld.
edit: I'll also point out, for those too lazy to read the article, that you were aware Saddam was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against the Iranians, before you started selling him anthrax and the bubonic plague, and even after he gassed the civilian Kurds the official policy was still that even economic sanctions were not needed.
I was merely putting in argument in biblical terms in order to pressure fellowship's argument, which will have a religious motive to it since fellowship values religion, precisely Christianity. It's not really my nature or intent to wholeheartedly introduce spirtual beliefs into arguments about human-to-human involvements.
I know quite a bit about both topics. There are obviously people who know more than I do, but I'm not an economist or a politician. If you don't think I have any idea about economics or Europe, a non-backed-up one-liner isn't going to serve you well.
Another little observations. Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance. I have yet to see a liberal or European on this board, aside from perhaps BRussell, ever put substance into an argument on such grounds.
Personally, I think that "social-democratic" (read:socialist) idealouges about things not being black and white are half-baked. . . and given the economic status of Europe vs. America, I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)
Apologies to Fellowship, since by being so rhetorical I was undeniably being a jerk, but I just don't like one line responses. If you're going to respond, back yourself up. . . That goes especially to a number of posters in this thread. you know who you are
No apology needed, In days past I used to argue robustly as you do over the exact same subject you discuss and on the same side you take on the matter. I did this in another time/space realm. I think today I try to argue more along a philosophy of questions and soft suggestion that is backed with powerful evidence. I am perfectly fine if people take a different stance than I take. I think the best way to debate is to ask questions over vs/ the hit you over the head approach. In my college days I was hit over the head with socialist "there is no God" non-sense over and over and over and it led me to a period where I flat out rejected the crap the college num heads were trying to feed me. I would get on the internet in days past and trust me you would be suprised at how similar I argue as you do. Today I am not a big fan of "hit you over the head" style influence over another person as such a tactic caused me to flat out reject that which was attempted to be shoved to me. I have come to realize that any idea that is attempted to be advanced in such a way is likely to have a level of rejection. Today I argue in terms of it being ok to differ. I am quite "ok" if people disagree with me. I am comfortable with that. The reason it is important to allow people to disagree is because it is wrong to mandate people be like you are. It was wrong of most of my college professors to "expect" me to adopt with no dissent the CRAP they were trying to force feed me. So I personally have come to a mature realization that I will not use such tactics if I can help it while presenting a case of something I believe in. I am not saying you are working in the same frame as my former college professors but I also believe you have some room you could move towards the realization that not all will agree with you no matter how strongly you hold to your ideas. Again I agree with your political ideas with economics and we share the same disgust on socialism.
THe same can be said for Gypsy's except that Gypsies never took to the taboo occupations and never succeeded monetarily . . . so they never became the 'behind the scenes' kind of scapegoat merely the 'pest' kind of scapegtoat explanation.
Just an aside:
The Gypsy culture believes that their race began before Adam & Eve and thus the fall of man from grace. Because they were 'born' prior to original sin, they have no original sin. Now, being 'sinless', they are freed from the need to labor and work to earn a living. They're still in the garden of eden so to speak.
So, that's why they never took to taboo occupations, because they avoid all occupations since they don't need to work.
edit: I'll also point out, for those too lazy to read the article, that you were aware Saddam was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against the Iranians, before you started selling him anthrax and the bubonic plague, and even after he gassed the civilian Kurds the official policy was still that even economic sanctions were not needed.
I think this version is a little more accurate and a little less paranoid. Though I can't say I would have called what they did even then intelligent.
I would say that sending them a sample that they claim is for medical research is not in the same league as shipping them 50 gallon drums of various biological and chemical weapons as your article asserts.
I would say that sending them a sample that they claim is for medical research is not in the same league as shipping them 50 gallon drums of various biological and chemical weapons as your article asserts.
Yeah, and what is the key ingredient for making bacteria, say the bacteria that produce the botulinum toxin or gangrene gas?
What do you need in order to make a 50 gallon drums of anthrax spores?
Now I'm not a microbiologist by trade but I would have thought common sense would have covered this one.
Here's a key phrase from *your* link: seed stocks
Here's another classic: "Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for a biological weapons programs".
You think fulfilling "a shopping list for a biological weapons program" is acceptable? Because your government was "naive" (that's another quote from your article) at a time when it was aware (according to its own documents) that he was gassing Iranian army soldiers.
If I were you I'd be hoping my government officials were in on it because the alternative is gross stupidity on a grand scale.
The Euro is looking more like the international currency of the future.
I think that there will be two international currencies in the future : $ and ?. Considering that monopoles are bad, it will be a good thing that a viable alternative to the $ exist.
I think that there will be two international currencies in the future : $ and ?. Considering that monopoles are bad, it will be a good thing that a viable alternative to the $ exist.
But from a completely U.S. centric point of view this is a bad thing.
I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)
The best way to compare economic efficiency at the macro level is to look at labor productivity. According to one report, the EU 15 operated at 87% of US labor productivity levels in 2001 (source). 60% of this difference was attributed to shorter working hours in the EU and 40% to higher unemployment rates.
The four EU countries that outperformed the US in terms of labor productivity in 2001 (Luxembourg, Belgium, France and The Netherlands) and those that came within 7% of US levels (Ireland, Austria, Denmark and Germany) (source) all have well developed welfare states and strong representation by political groups in the social democrat tradition. Interestingly, all eight of these countries have shorter average work weeks (source) and half of them had significantly higher unemployment (source) then the US in 2001. Of course, for the purposes of comparing the EU and US, it is necessary to look at the full EU 15. Unemployment in 2001 hit an average of 7.7% in the EU and 4.8% in the US (source 1, source 2). The average work week in the EU is 40.3 hours (source). The average work week in the US is about 46 hours (source). For married American men with children under the age of 18, the average work week is almost 51 hours long (source).
So, when compared to the EU as a whole, the US economy is indisputably geared towards creating greater levels of wealth. This is achieved primarily through working longer hours and is furthered by a lower unemployment rate. But what about welfare? How do we quantify that? Bear in mind that welfare is defined as ?health, happiness, and good fortune.? These are difficult things to measure. The easiest way to do it is to use the utility generated by wealth (after subtracting the negative utility generated by the work required to attain that wealth) as a proxy. We already know that the distribution of wealth in the US is seriously skewed. With between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth owned by one percent of the population, I think we can agree that a lot of people are not getting to see the vast majority the wealth that is created. The law of diminishing marginal utility indicates that this is inherently inefficient. The marginal utility generated by giving an extra couple of hundred dollars to someone on minimum wage is many times greater than the marginal utility generated by giving the same amount to a high powered exec pulling in $900,000 plus p.a. If the flow of wealth to the richest 1% is disproportionately high, the utility generated by that wealth is reduced to a point where it becomes almost worthless.
To recap: People in the EU work shorter hours and take more vacation time. They create a little less wealth, and their governments tax more of their wages and salaries so as to redistribute it (via free public health care and unemployment benefits) to those who would otherwise receive less of the wealth created. People in the US work longer hours and take less vacation time. They are taxed less so there is less in the way of free public health care and unemployment benefits.
Result? Less SUVs in the driveways of the European middle classes, fewer CEOs pulling in multi-million dollar salaries and fewer people digging in the garbage for cans to recycle.
And as the EU lets in poorer nations... watch out.
Best of luck, you're going to need it.
Yeah, that huge influx of highly educated, hard working central and eastern Europeans from countries with huge natural resources is going to be a real drag on the rest of Europe
Comments
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance.
...
I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)
I don't remember an argument being presented. Care to recap?
...
I'll argue this one.
Without even getting into the economics, how can you tell how much better (or worse) America would be if it adopted some sensible 'socialist' policies, or how Europe would fare if it adopted the American model?
Second, why isn't America topping the quality of life polls? You make it sound like it would win by a mile.
Third, is it *really* black and white?
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance. I have yet to see a liberal or European on this board, aside from perhaps BRussell, ever put substance into an argument on such grounds.
first contrary to what you said EU economic policy is efficient. It has allowed a countrie like Spain to increase dramitacally their economic level. More, if EU economic policy was innefective, why ten members and others wish to enter in it ?
And for the substance into an argument, you are not the one, from whom i will get a lesson.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Another little observations. Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance. I have yet to see a liberal or European on this board, aside from perhaps BRussell, ever put substance into an argument on such grounds.
Personally, I think that "social-democratic" (read:socialist) idealouges about things not being black and white are half-baked. . . and given the economic status of Europe vs. America, I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)
Are you referring to me? Looks like it when you insist on the wrong social-democratic equals socialist idea.
What about the gini coefficient? High and ever rising in US and low and declining in Denmark even through a very positive economy we experienced from the 90s until this day (a very uncommon thing). Among the lowest in the world.
WHat about the working hours? Much shorter here.
What about the men/women work force ratio? Much more equal here etc. etc. etc.
Its all about priorities. You may see economy as the pile of money you can stack. But no its not as black and white as that. Its about priorities. What you want to use your wealth for.
But if Ireland hadn´t been part of EU it wouldn´t have been able to offer those benefits. Irealnd was HEAVILY subsidised from EU to get its economy up to european standard.
Originally posted by midwinter
And so there's no relation between the two?
Cheers
Scott
Sure except we didn't happen to sell Iraq weapons of mass destruction. If we were complaining about conventional weapons we would be hypocrits. However they found the sources and created those weapons themselves.
I just get tired of people using an action from 20+ years ago asa throw away excuse not to think. Saddam took power in 1979. He went to war with Iran in 1980. To say we knew in 1980 what we know now is silly. Likewise to use the fact that we sold him conventional weapons to say we have no grounds to deal with him regarding weapons of mass destruction is just pointless as well.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure except we didn't happen to sell Iraq weapons of mass destruction. If we were complaining about conventional weapons we would be hypocrits. However they found the sources and created those weapons themselves.
No, you sold him weapons of mass destruction (including anthrax and the bubonic plague) with the blessing of the government and a man named Rumsfeld.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...528574,00.html
I'm glad you agree that it is hypocritical.
edit: I'll also point out, for those too lazy to read the article, that you were aware Saddam was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against the Iranians, before you started selling him anthrax and the bubonic plague, and even after he gassed the civilian Kurds the official policy was still that even economic sanctions were not needed.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I was merely putting in argument in biblical terms in order to pressure fellowship's argument, which will have a religious motive to it since fellowship values religion, precisely Christianity. It's not really my nature or intent to wholeheartedly introduce spirtual beliefs into arguments about human-to-human involvements.
I know quite a bit about both topics. There are obviously people who know more than I do, but I'm not an economist or a politician. If you don't think I have any idea about economics or Europe, a non-backed-up one-liner isn't going to serve you well.
Another little observations. Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance. I have yet to see a liberal or European on this board, aside from perhaps BRussell, ever put substance into an argument on such grounds.
Personally, I think that "social-democratic" (read:socialist) idealouges about things not being black and white are half-baked. . . and given the economic status of Europe vs. America, I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)
Apologies to Fellowship, since by being so rhetorical I was undeniably being a jerk, but I just don't like one line responses. If you're going to respond, back yourself up. . . That goes especially to a number of posters in this thread. you know who you are
No apology needed, In days past I used to argue robustly as you do over the exact same subject you discuss and on the same side you take on the matter. I did this in another time/space realm. I think today I try to argue more along a philosophy of questions and soft suggestion that is backed with powerful evidence. I am perfectly fine if people take a different stance than I take. I think the best way to debate is to ask questions over vs/ the hit you over the head approach. In my college days I was hit over the head with socialist "there is no God" non-sense over and over and over and it led me to a period where I flat out rejected the crap the college num heads were trying to feed me. I would get on the internet in days past and trust me you would be suprised at how similar I argue as you do. Today I am not a big fan of "hit you over the head" style influence over another person as such a tactic caused me to flat out reject that which was attempted to be shoved to me. I have come to realize that any idea that is attempted to be advanced in such a way is likely to have a level of rejection. Today I argue in terms of it being ok to differ. I am quite "ok" if people disagree with me. I am comfortable with that. The reason it is important to allow people to disagree is because it is wrong to mandate people be like you are. It was wrong of most of my college professors to "expect" me to adopt with no dissent the CRAP they were trying to force feed me. So I personally have come to a mature realization that I will not use such tactics if I can help it while presenting a case of something I believe in. I am not saying you are working in the same frame as my former college professors but I also believe you have some room you could move towards the realization that not all will agree with you no matter how strongly you hold to your ideas. Again I agree with your political ideas with economics and we share the same disgust on socialism.
Fellowship
Originally posted by trumptman
If you support the status quo and it happens to be tyranny, then you support tyranny.
I was saying that only the Buchannonite-like complete isolationists were supporting the status quo.
Originally posted by pfflam
THe same can be said for Gypsy's except that Gypsies never took to the taboo occupations and never succeeded monetarily . . . so they never became the 'behind the scenes' kind of scapegoat merely the 'pest' kind of scapegtoat explanation.
Just an aside:
The Gypsy culture believes that their race began before Adam & Eve and thus the fall of man from grace. Because they were 'born' prior to original sin, they have no original sin. Now, being 'sinless', they are freed from the need to labor and work to earn a living. They're still in the garden of eden so to speak.
So, that's why they never took to taboo occupations, because they avoid all occupations since they don't need to work.
Just a history I learned back in the day.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
No, you sold him weapons of mass destruction (including anthrax and the bubonic plague) with the blessing of the government and a man named Rumsfeld.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...528574,00.html
I'm glad you agree that it is hypocritical.
edit: I'll also point out, for those too lazy to read the article, that you were aware Saddam was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against the Iranians, before you started selling him anthrax and the bubonic plague, and even after he gassed the civilian Kurds the official policy was still that even economic sanctions were not needed.
I think this version is a little more accurate and a little less paranoid. Though I can't say I would have called what they did even then intelligent.
I would say that sending them a sample that they claim is for medical research is not in the same league as shipping them 50 gallon drums of various biological and chemical weapons as your article asserts.
U.S. sends samples to Iraq from CDC
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I would say that sending them a sample that they claim is for medical research is not in the same league as shipping them 50 gallon drums of various biological and chemical weapons as your article asserts.
Yeah, and what is the key ingredient for making bacteria, say the bacteria that produce the botulinum toxin or gangrene gas?
What do you need in order to make a 50 gallon drums of anthrax spores?
Now I'm not a microbiologist by trade but I would have thought common sense would have covered this one.
Here's a key phrase from *your* link: seed stocks
Here's another classic: "Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for a biological weapons programs".
You think fulfilling "a shopping list for a biological weapons program" is acceptable? Because your government was "naive" (that's another quote from your article) at a time when it was aware (according to its own documents) that he was gassing Iranian army soldiers.
If I were you I'd be hoping my government officials were in on it because the alternative is gross stupidity on a grand scale.
Indonesia (and possibly the rest of Asia too) are considering dumping the US $ for the ?.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...d=anZbHuX9q8gI
Is Jakarta the next target for invasion? (j/k)
The Euro is looking more like the international currency of the future.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Just trying to get back on topic here....if the moderators don't mind. This article on bloomberg.com is of interest.
Indonesia (and possibly the rest of Asia too) are considering dumping the US $ for the ?.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...d=anZbHuX9q8gI
Is Jakarta the next target for invasion? (j/k)
The Euro is looking more like the international currency of the future.
I think that there will be two international currencies in the future : $ and ?. Considering that monopoles are bad, it will be a good thing that a viable alternative to the $ exist.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I think that there will be two international currencies in the future : $ and ?. Considering that monopoles are bad, it will be a good thing that a viable alternative to the $ exist.
But from a completely U.S. centric point of view this is a bad thing.
Originally posted by bunge
But from a completely U.S. centric point of view this is a bad thing.
I am sorry
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)
The best way to compare economic efficiency at the macro level is to look at labor productivity. According to one report, the EU 15 operated at 87% of US labor productivity levels in 2001 (source). 60% of this difference was attributed to shorter working hours in the EU and 40% to higher unemployment rates.
The four EU countries that outperformed the US in terms of labor productivity in 2001 (Luxembourg, Belgium, France and The Netherlands) and those that came within 7% of US levels (Ireland, Austria, Denmark and Germany) (source) all have well developed welfare states and strong representation by political groups in the social democrat tradition. Interestingly, all eight of these countries have shorter average work weeks (source) and half of them had significantly higher unemployment (source) then the US in 2001. Of course, for the purposes of comparing the EU and US, it is necessary to look at the full EU 15. Unemployment in 2001 hit an average of 7.7% in the EU and 4.8% in the US (source 1, source 2). The average work week in the EU is 40.3 hours (source). The average work week in the US is about 46 hours (source). For married American men with children under the age of 18, the average work week is almost 51 hours long (source).
So, when compared to the EU as a whole, the US economy is indisputably geared towards creating greater levels of wealth. This is achieved primarily through working longer hours and is furthered by a lower unemployment rate. But what about welfare? How do we quantify that? Bear in mind that welfare is defined as ?health, happiness, and good fortune.? These are difficult things to measure. The easiest way to do it is to use the utility generated by wealth (after subtracting the negative utility generated by the work required to attain that wealth) as a proxy. We already know that the distribution of wealth in the US is seriously skewed. With between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth owned by one percent of the population, I think we can agree that a lot of people are not getting to see the vast majority the wealth that is created. The law of diminishing marginal utility indicates that this is inherently inefficient. The marginal utility generated by giving an extra couple of hundred dollars to someone on minimum wage is many times greater than the marginal utility generated by giving the same amount to a high powered exec pulling in $900,000 plus p.a. If the flow of wealth to the richest 1% is disproportionately high, the utility generated by that wealth is reduced to a point where it becomes almost worthless.
To recap: People in the EU work shorter hours and take more vacation time. They create a little less wealth, and their governments tax more of their wages and salaries so as to redistribute it (via free public health care and unemployment benefits) to those who would otherwise receive less of the wealth created. People in the US work longer hours and take less vacation time. They are taxed less so there is less in the way of free public health care and unemployment benefits.
Result? Less SUVs in the driveways of the European middle classes, fewer CEOs pulling in multi-million dollar salaries and fewer people digging in the garbage for cans to recycle.
Edit: fixed link
Best of luck, you're going to need it.
Originally posted by groverat
And as the EU lets in poorer nations... watch out.
Best of luck, you're going to need it.
Yeah, that huge influx of highly educated, hard working central and eastern Europeans from countries with huge natural resources is going to be a real drag on the rest of Europe
And that huge new market to develop.
Nie wiem co robic.