EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1229
| 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. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 01 2019 05:19 Ghostcom wrote: The euro doesn't equal the internal market. No, but by removing the newer Eastern members from your study under the given pretense you're precisely eliminating countries that developed successfully under the currency union (and the market), which is obviously the point of the study. It's just cherry picked data pushing the Euro = Good for Germany, bad for the south narrative that completely ignores the East because it doesn't fit into the worldview. The narrative of Greece being ruined by being in a monetary union with Germany falls apart pretty quickly if you consider that the significantly poorer Eastern members actually did absolutely fine or even thrived. I mean I don't even understand their justification even if you take it at face value. Most of the old European countries joined the Union in the 70s or 80s, and adopted the Euro about 20 years later. The same is true for many of the Eastern states, just with the 90s and mid 2000s respectively. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9335 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
I mean I don't even understand their justification even if you take it at face value. Most of the old European countries joined the Union in the 70s or 80s, and adopted the Euro about 20 years later. The same is true for many of the Eastern states, just with the 90s and mid 2000s respectively. So with Germany what they do is they compare it to countries with similar economic data all throughout 1980-1998. Then they extrapolate that data and compare with real Germany after 1998. What are they supposed to do with Estonia? Somehow try to get Soviet numbers and single out the data for Estonia in the 80s, then take the post-Soviet data lateron, try to find similar countries (which you probably won't even find worldwide) and extrapolate from that? From what I gather from wikipedia the institute acts on Hayekian theories, in which free markets are good, but currency itself should be put to the competition. So I guess it is not a question of "good for Germany, bad for the South" in this case. They want to show the general disfunctionality of big, single-currency zones. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On March 01 2019 07:26 Big J wrote: So with Germany what they do is they compare it to countries with similar economic data all throughout 1980-1998. Then they extrapolate that data and compare with real Germany after 1998. They do not give the complete data, but from the report (CEP report), it looks like they create a single virtual country from the aggregate of countries in the reference group, tuning weights on each country until the aggregate matches the target. Visually, Germany did not behave like Switzerland or Bahrein. It behaved similarly to Japan and the UK, but the study considered it behaved close to 35.8%Japan + 28.1% Bahrein + 26.4% UK + 9.7% Switzerland. I would agree with Acrofales that tinkering with the countries and weights selected you can probably get a match on the first period and about any result you want on the second. If you do not purposely select the outcome, you get a random result (which may be what the CEP was aiming for). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
But as far as I read under the additional condition - which is contradictory to the statement that they did not respect other factors - that all of those countries developed structurally similar to Germany during the 1980-1998 period to begin with. (according to numbers such as BIP, exports, imports etc.) I.e. the way the control group for a country was chosen already respects the economic structure of the country and is not arbitrarily chosen to create whatever result they want. And the weights are then derived using regression analysis to create the closest match of development to real German development. Applying that development to the 1998 German status quo and onwards then creates the fictional "non-Euro Germany". I believe if anything can be questioned it would be the controls for choosing the control group. But obviously in economic theory at some point you will always hit an ideological choice, which in this case will probably something along the lines of nationalist-liberterian import/export equilibria. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
On March 01 2019 21:57 Big J wrote: I was unclear in my phrasing (partly in purpose because I don't know the exact methodology). But yes, what you describe is what I also expect they did. But as far as I read under the additional condition - which is contradictory to the statement that they did not respect other factors - that all of those countries developed structurally similar to Germany during the 1980-1998 period to begin with. (according to numbers such as BIP, exports, imports etc.) I.e. the way the control group for a country was chosen already respects the economic structure of the country and is not arbitrarily chosen to create whatever result they want. And the weights are then derived using regression analysis to create the closest match of development to real German development. Applying that development to the 1998 German status quo and onwards then creates the fictional "non-Euro Germany". I believe if anything can be questioned it would be the controls for choosing the control group. But obviously in economic theory at some point you will always hit an ideological choice, which in this case will probably something along the lines of nationalist-liberterian import/export equilibria. Obviously. But regression analysis for economic data has been shown time and time again to be quite useless (I wish it were as simple as doing regression analysis on stock market prices and then picking the one with the most growth). You go back to the 80s you get X countries with Y coefficients as your closest match. You go back to the 70s, you get completely different countries with different coefficients. You don't look only at GDP and import/export, but include employment rate, tax rate, main stock market index, or any number of ways for quantifying varying aspects of the economy and economic policy, and following the exact same methodology, you get an entirely different "control group". And with this variation in control groups, you obviously get different outcomes for the model. So the real point is that these choices have to be very well justified, and probably compared with other reasonable choices for cut-offs, selection criteria, etc. for setting up the "control group". If you see general trends appear even when you vary these types of things, then you can probably say that there is something to it. But until that is actually done, this might just as well be random noise. Just because you can run a simulation model and interpret the results doesn't mean that actually mean anything at all. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 02 2019 03:27 Acrofales wrote: Obviously. But regression analysis for economic data has been shown time and time again to be quite useless (I wish it were as simple as doing regression analysis on stock market prices and then picking the one with the most growth). You go back to the 80s you get X countries with Y coefficients as your closest match. You go back to the 70s, you get completely different countries with different coefficients. You don't look only at GDP and import/export, but include employment rate, tax rate, main stock market index, or any number of ways for quantifying varying aspects of the economy and economic policy, and following the exact same methodology, you get an entirely different "control group". And with this variation in control groups, you obviously get different outcomes for the model. So the real point is that these choices have to be very well justified, and probably compared with other reasonable choices for cut-offs, selection criteria, etc. for setting up the "control group". If you see general trends appear even when you vary these types of things, then you can probably say that there is something to it. But until that is actually done, this might just as well be random noise. Just because you can run a simulation model and interpret the results doesn't mean that actually mean anything at all. Look, I'm not one to believe in any sort of "precise" economic forecasting. But for what it is, I don't really see a reason why this model would be generally worse than the daily "unemployment will fall 0.4% this year. Wait, now it's 0.52%. Yes, 0.71%. Shit, down to 0.42% again. Seems like it was 0.47% in the end, we got it almost right in 3 of 4 cases, look how amazing this science is." All economic models are of such nature. Picking out this one in particular while being fine with all the numbers that get thrown around every day, just because the European mainstream politics does not want the Euro to be a fail, is not quite scientific. It's a social science that is foremost useful to collect data on how the world has developed, not so much on how it will develop. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9335 Posts
I'm not going to copy parts of the letter here because the whole thing is worth a read. I'll post what I think about Macron's proposals: European Agency for the Protection of Democracies This sounds like he wants to give federalists a tool to influence local elections. Other ideas like banning the funding of European political parties by foreign powers are fine, but this one sounds awful. One asylum policy with the same acceptance and refusal rules I still can't tell if north-western left and center left is ignorant or purposely promising the impossible to score easy PR points. One asylum policy without internal borders simply cannot work in a union encompassing both Sweden and Bulgaria. Unless you go full Orban and don't let any refugees in, but I'm guessing that's not what Macron wants. Treaty on defence and security: increased defence spending, a truly operational mutual defence clause, and the European Security Council with the United Kingdom on board to prepare our collective decisions. Sounds good but I'm worried there's no will for serious commitment among the member states. France might want that, Germany will probably say it wants that but won't do anything in that direction, the UK is busy self-destructing, and then there is a group of countries whose borders are so far from Moscow they see no reason to increase their spending, a group of countries whose borders are so close to Moscow they'll always prioritize NATO, and a group of countries whose leaders have too many friends in Moscow. Penalties or a ban in Europe on businesses that compromise our strategic interests and fundamental values and the adoption of European preference in strategic industries and our public procurement, as our American and Chinese competitors do Sounds great. Minimum European wage appropriate to each country I don't understand how that's different from minimum national wages. Zero carbon by 2050 and pesticides halved by 2025 with European Climate Bank to finance the ecological transition I don't believe in the first part, but good to see Macron is proposing specific measures instead of just telling people to stop using coal. Regulate the digital giants by putting in place European supervision of the major platforms (prompt penalties for unfair competition, transparent algorithms, etc.) Yesss, the sooner that happens the better. Supporting African development with such measures as investment, academic partnerships and education for girls. He didn't give any specifics but the fact the he chose to put that in the letter is kind of important. In this Europe, the peoples will really take back control of their future. In this Europe, the United Kingdom, I am sure, will find its true place. I don't know if it's intentional, but it was funny to see him suggest the UK's return to the EU right after the words "take back control". I'm aware most of my post might look negative, but it's mostly because I don't really have much to say about the things I agree with. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Point is, history has shown us that these are traits of states and not of some international organization. If Macron means those things then he should join the fight for a European democratic republic, not to give more power to a wonky government of governments. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
The push for federalism and common asylum policies I think is good. I wouldn't consider it ignorant or impossible, because the alternative, which is fragmentation and weakening of the EU, is significantly worse. And I have honestly no idea when greater unity between European countries is ever supposed to be proposed without causing a huge amount of drama, and at least he's not deciding to just permanently delay it like Merkel. And support for development in Africa, which I guess is also important in the context of more and more Chinese influence in Europe, the Middle East and Africa is important and also a very neglected topic in Europe at the moment. Better ecological policies and emission reduction is good as well, but I think that's becoming an uncontroversial position. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On March 06 2019 06:40 Sent. wrote: I still can't tell if north-western left and center left is ignorant or purposely promising the impossible to score easy PR points. One asylum policy without internal borders simply cannot work in a union encompassing both Sweden and Bulgaria. Unless you go full Orban and don't let any refugees in, but I'm guessing that's not what Macron wants. Of course it can. Sweden will have to bring their numbers down and Bulgaria up. I think you're stuck in 2016, Sweden is far stricter now. Just waiting for countries like Bulgaria and Poland to reply in kind. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On March 06 2019 06:40 Sent. wrote: I don't know if it's intentional, but it was funny to see him suggest the UK's return to the EU right after the words "take back control". I'm aware most of my post might look negative, but it's mostly because I don't really have much to say about the things I agree with. It's totally intentional. I'm not a fan of Macron, but this kind of dig at UK is kinda funny. | ||
|
Yurie
12181 Posts
On March 06 2019 19:26 Longshank wrote: Of course it can. Sweden will have to bring their numbers down and Bulgaria up. I think you're stuck in 2016, Sweden is far stricter now. Just waiting for countries like Bulgaria and Poland to reply in kind. Isn't there pretty clear UN rules regarding this? Those should serve as the baseline with the details discussed on how to implement them and what they actually mean. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9335 Posts
On March 06 2019 19:26 Longshank wrote: Of course it can. Sweden will have to bring their numbers down and Bulgaria up. I think you're stuck in 2016, Sweden is far stricter now. Just waiting for countries like Bulgaria and Poland to reply in kind. My point had nothing to do with acceptance rates. It was about other numbers, like those related to demographics, how much a given country can spend on an asylum seeker, how much an asylum seeker can earn in a given country and how much they can buy for that, assuming they can earn anything, legally or not. If an asylum seeker loses the lottery and gets a ticket to Riga or Krakow, it makes perfect sense for them to hop on a train to Berlin as fast as possible, even if them getting a refugee status in Germany is highly unlikely. I don't understand what you don't understand. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On March 07 2019 01:54 Sent. wrote: My point had nothing to do with acceptance rates. It was about other numbers, like those related to demographics, how much a given country can spend on an asylum seeker, how much an asylum seeker can earn in a given country and how much they can buy for that, assuming they can earn anything, legally or not. If an asylum seeker loses the lottery and gets a ticket to Riga or Krakow, it makes perfect sense for them to hop on a train to Berlin as fast as possible, even if them getting a refugee status in Germany is highly unlikely. I don't understand what you don't understand. With those low numbers we're talking about, the question isn't how much a country can spend, rather how much they are willing to spend. And from my experience in the poorer parts of Sweden, if asylum seekers are given a fair chance to integrate, support themselves and made feeling welcome in their communities, they're perfectly happy to stay even if there's more money to be made in Stockholm. If what you're saying is true, that should go for anyone living in Krakow or Riga. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
http://business-review.eu/tech/magurele-laser-part-of-eli-project-reached-maximum-power-of-10-petawats-197989 The laser at Magurele, part of the European ELI Project, marked a world premiere after reaching the highest power, 10 PetaWats. The laser was designed to reach 10 PT of power through two laser arms, completed by a very bright laser beam that can reach up to 19.5 MeV. ELI-NP is the most advanced research infrastructure in the world that focuses on the study of photonuclear physics and its applications, consisting of a high-intensity laser consisting of two lasers with ultra-short pulses of 10PW and the brightest beam adjustable gamma rays. This unique combination of experiments will allow ELI-NP to address a broad spectrum of research topics in the fields of fundamental physics, nuclear physics and astrophysics as well as materials science, nuclear material management and life sciences. ... The laser at Magurele is the most powerful of its kind in the world and it could help in areas like discovering new radioactive isotopes to treat cancer or test materials used in space missions. ELI-NP is the most important scientific research center in Romania and in the region, with a total investment of EUR 356 million, of which the European funds were EUR 311 million. i don't know much more than what is written there so ... , it's a laser, it's cool, pewpew. for a more statement-based article, click here “This is the accomplishment of a complex and complete team. (…) We used the largest sapphire crystal with titanium ions ever grown on Earth, a crystal that is 20 centimeters in diameter (…) For this system to work an incredible infrastructure is needed. The entire laser system, along with the experiments, is placed on an anti-vibration plate that completely disengages us from external vibrations. From a technical point of view we are dealing with a fantastic system,” Dancus explained. hoping for good things.According to him, the system contains thousands of optical and electronic components. “We will use this laser to respond to two of our great calls: curiosity – to better understand what happens to the Universe around us and creativity – to develop something that will help humanity live better lives,” he said. (also, mandatory wiki link) The ELI NP Research Centre[4] is an under construction facility in Măgurele, Romania, that will host the world's most powerful laser.[5] The laser technology might be used to destroy nuclear waste and provide a new type of cancer radiotherapy called hadrontherapy.[6] The largest scientific project in Romania, ELI-NP will be the only European and international centre for high-level research on ultra-high intensity laser, laser-matter interaction and secondary sources with unparalleled possibilities. ELI-NP is a very complex facility which will host two machines of extreme performances: a very high intensity laser, where beams from two 10 PW lasers are coherently added to get intensities of the order of 1023–1024 W/cm2 and electrical fields of 1015 V/m over an area of a few square micrometers.[7] a very intense (1013 γ/s), brilliant γ beam, 0.1% bandwidth, with Ev > 19 MeV, which is obtained by incoherent Compton back scattering of a laser light off a very brilliant, intense, classical electron beam (Ee > 700 MeV) produced by a warm linac. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9335 Posts
“Fidesz will be suspended with immediate effect and until further notice,” Joseph Daul, the president of the European People’s party, announced on Twitter, saying that 190 members had voted in favour and three against. “The suspension entails: no attendance at any party meeting; no voting rights; no right to propose candidates for posts,” Daul said in a tweet. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/20/manfred-weber-calls-for-freezing-of-hungarian-partys-voting-rights Turns out putting Juncker on a propaganda poster wasn't the smartest move. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6326 Posts
| ||
|
Volband
Hungary6034 Posts
What the goverment media said: Fidesz did NOT get suspended. Fidesz decided to suspend their membership willingly. It's funny until it's not. | ||
| ||
