EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 100
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
| ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
On April 17 2015 02:16 oneofthem wrote: well before you guys talk about militarisation etc it maybe is helpful to note that this post is not a fair or accurate depiction of affairs. of course its not Oo you asked me what i think should/will happen in the future .. in the current state of europe of course a war is not possible. so what? you think the US spends and absurd amount of money on military and intelligence to get what in return? safety against invaders?! you think they spend 100 billions every year on NSA to stop terrorists, are you fucking kidding me? if you think you sit on a table, over some trade agreement, with someone who spends this amount of money on military and intelligence, and you think you can come ahead or even out of an negotiation, thats a level of naivety i cant understand. they will of course get something back from their investment, i think we can be sure of that. so europe cant go to war, and thats a reason for everyone to be happy right? we will in the future sacrifice every last ounce of sovereignty and freedom we have because we cant go to war, but hey at least we have a super nice allie. america has to defend its own freedom obviously, all day long, in countrys all around the world, at least thats what im hearing they are doing when drones bomb houses somewhere in the world. but the freedom of europeans doesnt need to be defended cause its not take away by evil terrorists, its taken away with trade agreements and a little bit of spying, but who the fuck cares as long as i can browse cat fotos on the internet and get my cheesburger. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the direction of this reasoning goes from observed euro military weakness causes euro economic exploitation.but this is not genuine causal reasoning, because you already have tis idea of subservient europe looking for a problem to be the cause. given recent economic development it is understandable you would feel some level of decline, esp framed as a populist narrative about ordinary people vs elites. but really you are first finding a concrete problem, the economy, and then grabbing an incorrect but convenient and insidious thing as cause. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
There is plenty of work on international trade, from people such as Krugman for exemple, that shows how a specific public investment, localised and even quite restricted in term of the scale, can permit a firm to a win a market. Saying that helping a specific firm or a sector to win over a market is "hurting yourself and the trading partner" is just short sighted : that's competition, it's the game. When the US act on a market, they just weight the cost (in term of prices, or market competition) and the benefice (in terms of job or whatever) and act accordingly, they don't necessarily go for the obvious illusionnary solution that is supposed to permit all of us to unite in utility maximization. Sure perfect trading in a perfect world might be different, but I'm not sure it's the religious thread, just the european thread. | ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
of course negotiations are wrestling matches, you give some, you get some, but at the end if you are america, you better come home with more than the other one got, or why the fuck would you else spend a trillion in military and intelligence if you cant even come out ahead on a simple trade deal. true. there's also the thing that american military presence and commitment to european defense is helping and not hurting europe. helping against .... ? dont say russia please. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
that instantly could turn into the biggest nightmare of humanity if the wrong people get a hold of it. i know this is all not in the realm of possibilitys for an american, cause probably all you learn about world war II is: there was a big bad guy and then USA USA USA. you are so scared that your own government could turn on you, that you feel its necessary to give every citizen a gun, but when your own government creates a fucking STASI network humanity has never seen its no threat at all. i think i take the military spending ANY DAY over that bullshit. i said this 20. pages ago, 1. i would try reinstate our freedom and sovereignty then comes long long time nothing, and after a long time we could talk about trade agreements  | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5277 Posts
On April 17 2015 06:56 oneofthem wrote: help with not spending on military, focus on social matters and not face militarized trade wars that's not true. every newcomer in NATO, is forced(more or less) to bring its military up to NATO standards. as such, we here are buying second hand F16s from Portugal/US, anti-air weapons from France, frigates from US,UK, Belgium, tanks, amphibious military vehicles, and so on. no one gives a crap about social matters; EU doesn't subsidize it either. we first need to comply with a bunch of rules and regulations, no questions asked. | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
On April 17 2015 07:16 oneofthem wrote: look, if the u.s. is trying to exploit europe by military power you guys would be really fucked by now. Um. I love me some Yankees and all but after WW2... Korea (stalemate), Vietnam (outright loss), Iraq (sort of success I guess?), Afghanistan (failure was predetermined here not military's fault), Iraq again (horrible failure resulting in ISIS). Not exactly a stellar record of military success. Having the big guns ensures wanton destruction and the ability to defend yourself, not victory in enemy territory. Sorry for offtopic but the comment was a bit too much. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On April 17 2015 06:49 phil.ipp wrote: i dont believe trade is a zero-sum game, dont know how you got that idea. of course negotiations are wrestling matches, you give some, you get some, but at the end if you are america, you better come home with more than the other one got, or why the fuck would you else spend a trillion in military and intelligence if you cant even come out ahead on a simple trade deal. helping against .... ? dont say russia please. How is the US coming ahead in all these trade deals and yet runs persistent trade deficits? You have a lot of your details mixed up too. US corporations sending assets overseas has been a boon to Europe, and a loss to the US government. Foreign nations benefit financially from US military bases as well. Trade deals generally try to reduce subsidies. They also can benefit developing countries a lot. The Doha talks are expected to be very beneficial to the developing world, particularly on a cost-benefit basis. What's the single best policy in terms of benefit-cost ratio? The background research paper by Kym Anderson suggests that completing the Doha talks for greater trade liberalization would have benefits for developing countries that are 2,100-4,700 times greater than costs. SourceIn the case of Indian food subsidies, the problem was that the subsidies were to farmers, which is generally frowned upon (by you as well). No one held the position that feeding the poor was a bad thing, and no one tried to stop India from feeding starving people. From the WTO: What’s the problem? SourceThe Bali decision on stockholding arises because some developing countries fear they could breach the limits they have agreed on trade-distorting domestic support — ie, support that influences prices and quantities. The stockholding programmes are considered to distort trade when they involve purchases from farmers at prices fixed by the governments, known as “supported” or “administered” prices. Normally the support is within the agreed limits (see technical note) but some countries fear this might not always be the case. (Purchases at market prices are not counted as supported.) The concern is only on the purchasing side because there are no limits on supplying cheap or free food specifically to the poor or malnourished. | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
but will creating another usa solve this problem? chinese army is getting as bigger as ours and will probably be stronger in the next century. having thousands of tanks and jets and nukes is a bad thing, but trying to balance this is worse. so, instead of accepting every decision that our army takes, maybe raise your voice and dont let your politicians accept another war, and soon we understand that war is not a thing that we can build an economy onto, we nearly see that is an investment. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 16 2015 03:15 Makro wrote: world class security level, if she was crazy and had a weapon like a knife he would have been seriously injured Europe has the most attractive protesters. What happens when dollar gets devalued as European and Asian money migrates to China anyway? US housing market collapses? | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
On April 17 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote: Europe has the most attractive protesters. What happens when dollar gets devalued as European and Asian money migrates to China anyway? US housing market collapses? Well, the US Dollar is appreciating right now, but assuming it did devalue, that would just make US exports more competitive and reduce the trade deficit until an equilibrium was reached. | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
The European Parliament has called on Turkey to recognise the "Armenian genocide", sparking condemnation from Ankara, which says the move is "inconsistent with international law". Same topic strikes to Eu after USA, can someone really enlighten me about this toxic issue? Google does not provide an end-answer. If Turkey did this crime against humanity, why arent other countries taking serious necessary measures to force them accept, including embargo. Armenian lives dont matter or what? If Turkey did not commit this, why do every freaking goddamn year we have this debate. Even Pope talks, yet no historians. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 17 2015 10:03 cLutZ wrote: Well, the US Dollar is appreciating right now, but assuming it did devalue, that would just make US exports more competitive and reduce the trade deficit until an equilibrium was reached. You make it sound like a good thing. Why is Larry Summers so upset then? http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-summers-the-us-has-lost-its-role-as-the-worlds-economic-leader-2015-4 Maybe because when the dollar collapses the real estate market (a source of investment tied up in the American dollar) collapses and then everything goes? What do you think he means by "demand will be in short supply"? | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KFDuGEX.gif)
![[image loading]](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2015/04/CColzUrWEAA07mb.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CConh-RVEAAGWfR.jpg:small)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCo0l8rVAAAKYVa.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CConh5YUsAAFk9C.jpg:small)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CConh6pVAAAi_9O.jpg:small)
