European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 423

On February 18 2016 08:37 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to define democracy along those lines,at least if you want to keep the positive connotation of the word, it's more like tribalism

On February 18 2016 08:45 Nyxisto wrote:


The mainstream definition and one that is most genuine is probably somehwere in the middle. Pure popular will defined along national lines can be more tyrannical than most other things. Nationalism didn't do a lot of good things to socialism either. The market and international economy have it's place in democracy and they've been a great liberator in many regards. I'm also no proponent of laissez-faire stuff but I don't think there is a contradiction between internationalism and democracy or if there is one we ought to accept it rather than defining democracy along national lines.

A cartoon in the Catalan newspaper La Vanguardia sums up the state of play in the prolonged struggle to form a Spanish government.

A construction site worker brandishes a big metal panel in the shape of Catalonia and asks his boss where he should mount it, only to be told to leave that particular piece until last.

"As you wish," he says. "But I'm warning you - it's very big and we won't know where to put it."

The question of Catalonia and its surging separatist movement has become pivotal as Spain's political leaders try to thrash out a pact on a government after the most fragmented national election in decades.

The issue is shaping up as a deal-breaker for any left-wing alliance and as a big stumbling block for a "grand coalition" involving the ruling People's Party (PP) and the Socialists, who agree that the region must not become independent but differ hugely on what should be the stance of the central government.

The matter has become ever more pressing as Spain enters its third month in a political vacuum following the Dec. 20 election at a time when pro-secession Catalan authorities are trying to move forward with their so-called "roadmap" to independence.

But parties in Madrid have so far carefully avoided getting deeper into the question.

"They have it in mind but don't give it the attention they should given how important and significant it is," said Agustin Costa, a 47-year-old antique dealer by Barcelona's Gothic cathedral.

Like Costa, many in Catalonia believe the separatist question is used by parties to make political gains but none of them is actually ready to agree on painful compromises and risk a backlash with voters, thus making any coalition deal unlikely.

"Even Podemos, which is in favour of an independence referendum, seems to use this option depending on its political needs of the moment," Costa shrugged as he sheltered under his stall from a drizzle.

The conservative PP, which won most seats in the election but lost its parliamentary majority, passed on its first chance to form a government and now the baton has passed to the Socialists. Their natural allies would have appeared to be the left-wing Podemos but for the Catalan question.

Podemos has dangled the option of supporting a referendum on Catalan independence, a possibility backed by about 80 percent of people in Catalonia.

The Socialists reject this however, with their leader Pedro Sanchez saying he is ready to reform the constitution to better accommodate Catalonia but would not form an alliance with a party that supported the break-up of Spain.

Senior Podemos leaders have since blown hot and cold on the question of a plebiscite - a campaign pledge that helped them score a strong showing in Catalonia - even though the party said it would recommend voting against secession.

"The Socialist Party is not going to accept a referendum on independence," said Miquel Iceta, head of the Socialists' Catalan faction, at its offices in Barcelona.

If Podemos were to back down, it risks provoking internal divisions among its own Catalan contingent.

On February 18 2016 19:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

Ok so you are just naturally contrary and don't mind appearing crazy to do so.

You quoted someone only to talk about something else. You can talk all about the economic trillema all you want, when I am refering to a political trilemma put forth by Dani Rodrik, who is an economist at Harvard.

I mean seriously. What is going through your mind? I genuinely want to know what is going through the mind of someone who quotes and disagree with an argument by deciding that the statement in question is something else!

And not to do this once, but after being told by the quoted that he is refering to a different concept, goes and explains the irrelevant concept in words instead of a pictogram.



There's something very closeminded about someone who can only talk in terms of concepts he is already familiar with. Upon his brain being exposed to a new concept (in this case a political trilemma) he goes and decides that the concept is actually a concept he is familiar with (the economic trilemma). Upon his attention being directed that he refering to a different concept, he decides that the concepts are the one and the same.

On February 18 2016 20:21 puerk wrote:

wrong horse to ride....

Yes, a free market in the purest form have fixed exchange rate : it is the idea behind the gold standard, viewed as the best possible currency for trading (because it stabilize trading)... In exchanges, the money is supposed to be a veil, and thus should be stable enough not to impact on exchanges : an unstable currency create risks and prevent the market from functionning optimally, creating trading unstability. It is the same for Bretton Woods, that had fixed exchange rate in regard to the dollar (with a possibility to reevaluate the currency to a certain degree under certain circumstances) in order to stabilize trading.