|
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. |
On March 01 2016 01:13 Paljas wrote:
i never doubed the information.
posting fascist blogs as a source is just awful, dont now why we even have this debate.
The reason why this is important to me is cause i dont like fascists blogs as a news source, simple as that.
As if you know what fascism is. Nowadays, it means pretty much everything.
|
On March 01 2016 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 23:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Macedonian police have fired teargas as a group of refugees broke through a fence at the small frontier town of Idomeni on the Greek-Macedonian border.
A crush developed when rumours spread that Macedonian authorities were opening the border after it had been fully sealed for several hours.
Hundreds who gathered at the razor-wire fence used metal poles to bring down a gate by digging beneath the barrier and pushing it up and out. At least two people collapsed in the crush and use of teargas, Reuters television images showed.
Up to 500 people pushed their way past Greek police to reach the gate used to let trains through at the border crossing. A Reuters witness said Macedonian police fired several rounds of teargas into crowds, who were chanting “Open the border!” and throwing stones at the police.
About 6,500 people – mostly Syrian and Iraqi – are stuck on the Greek side of the border. Some have been there for up to eight days with little food or shelter as Macedonia accepts only a trickle of people each day.
The desperate scenes came as Angela Merkel warned that European countries cannot afford to let the continent’s refugee crisis plunge Greece into chaos by shutting their borders to migrants.
With up to 70,000 refugees expected to become stranded on Greece’s northern borders in the coming days, the German chancellor said the recently bailed-out Athens government could become paralysed by the huge numbers of arrivals from Syria, Afghanistan and conflict-ridden African countries.
“Do you seriously believe that all the euro states that last year fought all the way to keep Greece in the eurozone – and we were the strictest – can one year later allow Greece to, in a way, plunge into chaos?” Merkel said in an interview with the public broadcaster ARD.
Greece fears that it will become a “parking lot” for refugees as its northern neighbours tightly restrict the number of people coming into their territory. About 22,000 people are in Greece seeking to travel to countries in northern Europe. Source If only the EU leaders had come up with a viable solution rather then sit on their hands and forcing individual countries to solve the issue by locking down borders.
We simply need a European quota system and every country needs to take in a proportionate amount of people. Jesus this wouldn't even be a crisis if we'd have distributed people evenly on a 500 million pop European population. Now if Germany closes its borders too the countries that needed a European solution the most will be the ones that will be hit the hardest. Makes no sense.
|
On February 29 2016 22:33 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 18:50 RvB wrote:
Securities can insure against both upward and downward pressure on princes. It's to decrease volatility. I.E. when prices are lower this year you don't have to instantly cut production drastically which would only cause a shortage and high prices in the next year. Yes? Still that Isn't what it was about. Obviusly it plays into it because Banks/traders exploit this too but that was hardly the point of it.
It says they wanted to stop the rapid rise in food prices ... Which is one function of the securities they were trying to ban. Thus, thier motivations aren't that relevant, because they basically already said, "we want to lower STD rates, so we are banning condoms."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it seems the european sensibility with respect to refugees is coming from a rather low baseline expectation of immigration. in absolute amounts the refugee is not that big of a number if you have a functioning immigration structure and more vibrant economy that would absorb the labor and whatnot.
all this shock and awe over literally less than 1% of the population while the u.s. has absorbed way more in multiple waves of migration, when the economy was not nearly as productive.
|
Yep. One million people per year is 0.2% of the European population. Even three times that many people wouldn't be a problem if they'd be spread out proportionally. Eastern Europe needs to stop being scared of Muslims, three or four country's can't stomach this alone.
|
On March 01 2016 02:20 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 22:33 Velr wrote:On February 29 2016 18:50 RvB wrote:
Securities can insure against both upward and downward pressure on princes. It's to decrease volatility. I.E. when prices are lower this year you don't have to instantly cut production drastically which would only cause a shortage and high prices in the next year. Yes? Still that Isn't what it was about. Obviusly it plays into it because Banks/traders exploit this too but that was hardly the point of it. It says they wanted to stop the rapid rise in food prices ... Which is one function of the securities they were trying to ban. Thus, thier motivations aren't that relevant, because they basically already said, "we want to lower STD rates, so we are banning condoms."
If these functions would just be that (insurance and nothing Else) they actually would lead to stable prices and not into another casino for banks.
|
It''s less than 1% overall but those people won't settle proportionally across the whole Europe. Naturally most of them will stick together in big cities which can make the integration process really hard if not impossible. I have nothing against quota system btw, I just don't see how "it's just 1%" is supposed to convince anyone, there are much better arguments than this one.
|
On March 01 2016 02:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Yep. One million people per year is 0.2% of the European population. Even three times that many people wouldn't be a problem if they'd be spread out proportionally. Eastern Europe needs to stop being scared of Muslims, three or four country's can't stomach this alone.
Well good thing we can send more than 60% of "this" right back to where "it" comes from.
|
On March 01 2016 01:13 Paljas wrote:i never doubed the information.
So why didn´t you include that sentence in your last post?
On March 01 2016 01:13 Paljas wrote:
posting fascist blogs as a source is just awful, dont know why we even have this debate.
Because you didn´t include that last sentence. You don´t like those sites, thats fine. Like I said, I just wanted some english translation and the source provided that. I already admitted that the site itself is shitty, you´re right there.
On March 01 2016 01:13 Paljas wrote:
The reason why this is important to me is cause i dont like fascists blogs as a news source, simple as that.
Yet it contained the same information (even more, which might have been left out due to the "pressekodex") as other sources.
Hope we can let it rest now. I didn´t want to offend someone with choosing that blog. If I did then sorry. Didn´t change the news, though.
|
On March 01 2016 02:50 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 02:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Yep. One million people per year is 0.2% of the European population. Even three times that many people wouldn't be a problem if they'd be spread out proportionally. Eastern Europe needs to stop being scared of Muslims, three or four country's can't stomach this alone. Well good thing we can send more than 60% of "this" right back to where "it" comes from.
Except it is not nearly that easy. from people disappearing into illegality to simply not knowing where they came from or their home countries not accepting them back.
It would be much easier to distribute the refugees across Europe if we did the selection process at the border before we let them in, rather then after they are all already inside and receiving welfare.
|
On March 01 2016 02:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Yep. One million people per year is 0.2% of the European population. Even three times that many people wouldn't be a problem if they'd be spread out proportionally. Eastern Europe needs to stop being scared of Muslims, three or four country's can't stomach this alone.
You talk like the refugees/migrants would stay in a country if they are assigned to one. Without border controls that won´t happen. The countries in the EU are too different in the living conditions and the resources they provide. And people attract more people, because migrants want to go where friends or family already are.
Since the spread didn´t happen in the beginning I don´t see it happen in the future. The EU even fails at distributing 160 000 people. How do you want to spread several millions then ...
|
On March 01 2016 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 02:50 Ghostcom wrote:On March 01 2016 02:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Yep. One million people per year is 0.2% of the European population. Even three times that many people wouldn't be a problem if they'd be spread out proportionally. Eastern Europe needs to stop being scared of Muslims, three or four country's can't stomach this alone. Well good thing we can send more than 60% of "this" right back to where "it" comes from. Except it is not nearly that easy. from people disappearing into illegality to simply not knowing where they came from or their home countries not accepting them back. It would be much easier to distribute the refugees across Europe if we did the selection process at the border before we let them in, rather then after they are all already inside and receiving welfare.
I agree entirely with you. This entire ordeal could have been avoided had some geniouses not tried to import all of Syria and thus turned the Mediterrenean into a mass-grave.
|
On March 01 2016 03:01 Elizar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 02:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Yep. One million people per year is 0.2% of the European population. Even three times that many people wouldn't be a problem if they'd be spread out proportionally. Eastern Europe needs to stop being scared of Muslims, three or four country's can't stomach this alone. You talk like the refugees/migrants would stay in a country if they are assigned to one. Without border controls that won´t happen. The countries in the EU are too different in the living conditions and the resources they provide. And people attract more people, because migrants want to go where friends or family already are. Since the spread didn´t happen in the beginning I don´t see it happen in the future. The EU even fails at distributing 160 000 people. How do you want to spread several millions then ...
Ideally you'd ID them in the border countries and/or at hotspots, assign them to a country and then you'd have at least some information and control about where people are and could see that they only receive welfare in the nations they are assigned to. Given the fact that we don't have a European solution there is obviously no incentive to get infrastructure like this up in the first place and there is no political will to get something done.
Instead of this every country is consecutively going to barricade their borders, Greece is probably going to collapse in some fashion and in the end we'll be forced into a European solution anyway because the periphery will notice that their complete blockade of common solutions was utterly terrible. Which will probably cost a lot of money and political capital and scare the UK out but at least the glorious Visegrad group got their rebellion.
|
On March 01 2016 02:45 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 02:20 cLutZ wrote:On February 29 2016 22:33 Velr wrote:On February 29 2016 18:50 RvB wrote:
Securities can insure against both upward and downward pressure on princes. It's to decrease volatility. I.E. when prices are lower this year you don't have to instantly cut production drastically which would only cause a shortage and high prices in the next year. Yes? Still that Isn't what it was about. Obviusly it plays into it because Banks/traders exploit this too but that was hardly the point of it. It says they wanted to stop the rapid rise in food prices ... Which is one function of the securities they were trying to ban. Thus, thier motivations aren't that relevant, because they basically already said, "we want to lower STD rates, so we are banning condoms." If these functions would just be that (insurance and nothing Else) they actually would lead to stable prices and not into another casino for banks.
Except that derivative trading isn't the main driver of prices. They can compound price swings in the short term. In the long term they do lead to more stable prices.
|
On March 01 2016 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 03:01 Elizar wrote:On March 01 2016 02:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Yep. One million people per year is 0.2% of the European population. Even three times that many people wouldn't be a problem if they'd be spread out proportionally. Eastern Europe needs to stop being scared of Muslims, three or four country's can't stomach this alone. You talk like the refugees/migrants would stay in a country if they are assigned to one. Without border controls that won´t happen. The countries in the EU are too different in the living conditions and the resources they provide. And people attract more people, because migrants want to go where friends or family already are. Since the spread didn´t happen in the beginning I don´t see it happen in the future. The EU even fails at distributing 160 000 people. How do you want to spread several millions then ... Ideally you'd ID them in the border countries and/or at hotspots, assign them to a country and then you'd have at least some information and control about where people are and could see that they only receive welfare in the nations they are assigned to. Given the fact that we don't have a European solution there is obviously no incentive to get infrastructure like this up in the first place and there is no political will to get something done. Instead of this every country is consecutively going to barricade their borders, Greece is probably going to collapse in some fashion and in the end we'll be forced into a European solution anyway because the periphery will notice that their complete blockade of common solutions was utterly terrible. Which will probably cost a lot of money and political capital and scare the UK out but at least the glorious Visegrad group got their rebellion.
Really, what you are saying is there is a collective action problem at the southern border and German/French police/military should help out there. And that creates the 2nd collective action problem of distributing.
|
On March 01 2016 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 03:01 Elizar wrote:On March 01 2016 02:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Yep. One million people per year is 0.2% of the European population. Even three times that many people wouldn't be a problem if they'd be spread out proportionally. Eastern Europe needs to stop being scared of Muslims, three or four country's can't stomach this alone. You talk like the refugees/migrants would stay in a country if they are assigned to one. Without border controls that won´t happen. The countries in the EU are too different in the living conditions and the resources they provide. And people attract more people, because migrants want to go where friends or family already are. Since the spread didn´t happen in the beginning I don´t see it happen in the future. The EU even fails at distributing 160 000 people. How do you want to spread several millions then ... Ideally you'd ID them in the border countries and/or at hotspots, assign them to a country and then you'd have at least some information and control about where people are and could see that they only receive welfare in the nations they are assigned to. Given the fact that we don't have a European solution there is obviously no incentive to get infrastructure like this up in the first place and there is no political will to get something done. Instead of this every country is consecutively going to barricade their borders,
The CSU suggested hotspots on Germany´s borders. That idea was shut down because many people didn´t like to have prison like camps. On the other hand the EU (or at least some countries in the EU) suggests exactly that.
I´m with you on this one, but I have my doubts about the implementation.
On March 01 2016 02:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Greece is probably going to collapse in some fashion and in the end we'll be forced into a European solution anyway because the periphery will notice that their complete blockade of common solutions was utterly terrible. Which will probably cost a lot of money and political capital and scare the UK out but at least the glorious Visegrad group got their rebellion.
The alternative could be the implosion of the EU. The crisis as it is shows that the EU in this shape at this time does not work how it was intended to be. The EU was built on principles and treaties. How many of those are still unbroken?
It is sad, because the idea of the EU as a peace project is a great thing.
|
On March 01 2016 03:18 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:On March 01 2016 03:01 Elizar wrote:On March 01 2016 02:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Yep. One million people per year is 0.2% of the European population. Even three times that many people wouldn't be a problem if they'd be spread out proportionally. Eastern Europe needs to stop being scared of Muslims, three or four country's can't stomach this alone. You talk like the refugees/migrants would stay in a country if they are assigned to one. Without border controls that won´t happen. The countries in the EU are too different in the living conditions and the resources they provide. And people attract more people, because migrants want to go where friends or family already are. Since the spread didn´t happen in the beginning I don´t see it happen in the future. The EU even fails at distributing 160 000 people. How do you want to spread several millions then ... Ideally you'd ID them in the border countries and/or at hotspots, assign them to a country and then you'd have at least some information and control about where people are and could see that they only receive welfare in the nations they are assigned to. Given the fact that we don't have a European solution there is obviously no incentive to get infrastructure like this up in the first place and there is no political will to get something done. Instead of this every country is consecutively going to barricade their borders, Greece is probably going to collapse in some fashion and in the end we'll be forced into a European solution anyway because the periphery will notice that their complete blockade of common solutions was utterly terrible. Which will probably cost a lot of money and political capital and scare the UK out but at least the glorious Visegrad group got their rebellion. Really, what you are saying is there is a collective action problem at the southern border and German/French police/military should help out there. And that creates the 2nd collective action problem of distributing.
There are hundreds of thousands of people coming from the Middle-East who have legitimate asylum claims. The military can protect the border, but they will not shoot down refugees on the sea, that is in violation of about every EU members constitution and absolutely inhumane. Securing the outer borders will alleviate the situation, but not solve it.
|
On March 01 2016 03:11 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 02:45 Velr wrote:On March 01 2016 02:20 cLutZ wrote:On February 29 2016 22:33 Velr wrote:On February 29 2016 18:50 RvB wrote:
Securities can insure against both upward and downward pressure on princes. It's to decrease volatility. I.E. when prices are lower this year you don't have to instantly cut production drastically which would only cause a shortage and high prices in the next year. Yes? Still that Isn't what it was about. Obviusly it plays into it because Banks/traders exploit this too but that was hardly the point of it. It says they wanted to stop the rapid rise in food prices ... Which is one function of the securities they were trying to ban. Thus, thier motivations aren't that relevant, because they basically already said, "we want to lower STD rates, so we are banning condoms." If these functions would just be that (insurance and nothing Else) they actually would lead to stable prices and not into another casino for banks. Except that derivative trading isn't the main driver of prices. They can compound price swings in the short term. In the long term they do lead to more stable prices.
And how Do these lead to more stability than non-tradeable insurance?
|
On March 01 2016 04:57 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 03:11 RvB wrote:On March 01 2016 02:45 Velr wrote:On March 01 2016 02:20 cLutZ wrote:On February 29 2016 22:33 Velr wrote:On February 29 2016 18:50 RvB wrote:
Securities can insure against both upward and downward pressure on princes. It's to decrease volatility. I.E. when prices are lower this year you don't have to instantly cut production drastically which would only cause a shortage and high prices in the next year. Yes? Still that Isn't what it was about. Obviusly it plays into it because Banks/traders exploit this too but that was hardly the point of it. It says they wanted to stop the rapid rise in food prices ... Which is one function of the securities they were trying to ban. Thus, thier motivations aren't that relevant, because they basically already said, "we want to lower STD rates, so we are banning condoms." If these functions would just be that (insurance and nothing Else) they actually would lead to stable prices and not into another casino for banks. Except that derivative trading isn't the main driver of prices. They can compound price swings in the short term. In the long term they do lead to more stable prices. And how Do these lead to more stability than non-tradeable insurance?
You disaggregate the risk from being regionally concentrated. Or time-concentrated.
|
So how do big insurance companies handle this whiteout opening up the lottery?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
