|
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 05:14 Velr wrote: So how do big insurance companies handle this whiteout opening up the lottery? What? Are you asking what they do if they can't trade in derivatives of ag? In that case they either issue less or smaller packages, and/or charge higher rates.
|
On March 01 2016 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 03:18 cLutZ wrote: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.
Stop spreading lies. They do not have legitimate asylum claims. They cross safe countries before coming to the EU and civil war is not a reason for asylum anyway.
|
On March 01 2016 05:50 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 05:14 Velr wrote: So how do big insurance companies handle this whiteout opening up the lottery? What? Are you asking what they do if they can't trade in derivatives of ag? In that case they either issue less or smaller packages, and/or charge higher rates.
My "problem" is, why do we speculate with food like we do with Oil/Gold/Other ressources, enitre countries go into turmoil when certain goods get too expensive...
The insurance thing. You can trade with an insurances derivatives (and that is fine), you can't trade with specific plans that would kick in during specific events (i hope!) and there is a damn good reason for that.
|
On March 01 2016 06:08 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 05:50 cLutZ wrote:On March 01 2016 05:14 Velr wrote: So how do big insurance companies handle this whiteout opening up the lottery? What? Are you asking what they do if they can't trade in derivatives of ag? In that case they either issue less or smaller packages, and/or charge higher rates. My "problem" is, why do we speculate with food like we do with Oil/Gold/Other ressources, enitre countries go into turmoil when certain goods get too expensive... The insurance thing. You can trade with an insurances derivatives (and that is fine), you can't trade with specific plans that would kick in during specific events (i hope!) and there is a damn good reason for that. You can trade those plans, you often bundle them with other plans to mitigate the risk of specific events.
Also, we speculate with food because otherwise the price becomes even more volatile due to supply and demand. The countries you think are thrown into turmoil would be in worse situations without it (in most cases, there are always exceptions, just like when the Pound got squeezed in the early 90s). The alternative to healthy speculation is price controls, and we can see what happens under that regime right now in Venezuela.
Its really pretty simple, your options basically boil down to: 1) Scarcity due to price controls; 2) Volatility due to supply/demand fluctuations; 3) #2 with hedges, insurance, and risk aggregation instruments smoothing it out.
Edit: With Respect to 3, I am not in tune enough with AG instruments to tell you what smart regulation of the market would look like so you can push the end price to consumers to look like a 3 year moving average, or the like. I know Southwest airlines was famous for having a 5 year jetfuel deal that made them bank. Its different for every industry how long you want the deals to mature at.
|
On March 01 2016 05:56 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:On March 01 2016 03:18 cLutZ wrote: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. Stop spreading lies. They do not have legitimate asylum claims. They cross safe countries before coming to the EU and civil war is not a reason for asylum anyway.
Not sure about every single nation, but in Germany, yes they have. Asylgesetz §3.1, crossing safe countries does violate Dublin, it doesn't void national asylum laws. National laws don't simply vanish because of EU agreements.
|
On March 01 2016 05:56 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:On March 01 2016 03:18 cLutZ wrote: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. Stop spreading lies. They do not have legitimate asylum claims. They cross safe countries before coming to the EU and civil war is not a reason for asylum anyway. Uninformed people urging others to stop spreading misinformation. All three of you claims are factually wrong! If you don't know what asylum is, then read up on it or stay quite on the issue. It's not that hard...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 01 2016 02:49 Sent. wrote: 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. cities are ordinarily pretty dynamic places economically speaking. it seems that europe's lack of a naturalization system for migrants is really the problem on the government side. you guys even spend money to teach people the language, why not give them more status.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
dublin convention has provisions for some classes of refugees(mostly youth and women) to resettle at places with their relatives. the european commission or w/e also has special instruction in this syrian thing to circumvent the dublin convention to distribute the refugees more evenly.
|
On February 29 2016 03:52 Nyxisto wrote: quite likely? What does that mean? How high is my chance to be sexually assaulted in a shopping mall and what is the significance of the wi-fi ? Also yes my statistics come from the past. I know that it is very lacklustre that I cannot report from the future for you but I will get on this issue immediately.
You're simply missing the narrative. The whole sexual assault thing is just a play on the old trope of foreign savages stealing our women and strangers jumping out of the bushes and so on. The idea is as old as human civilization and it still hasn't become more true. The Free Wifi is the reason the asylum seekers flock to this Mall. And "quite likely" means: regularely
http://www.kn-online.de/News/Nachrichten-aus-Kiel/Sophienhof-Abends-wachsen-die-Probleme
And we are running in circles. You are saying that these are single cases without statistical significance. Well, I have this.
It is also a very recent event that not only girls and women get harassed but that he harassers call their friends and instead of 3 harassers you have 20. This is something that hasn't happened in the past.
But please give me one argument that this all is covered by your statistic from the US and that I'm following the wrong narrative.
Regarding your other statement: It is also not true that "hundreds of thousands" people will get their asylum status accepted. For Asylum you personally have to be persecuted. It's not enough to "simply" be victim of war or displaced from your home. Let alone that the German constitution excludes all those who entered Germany from a save country. like Italy or Austria.
|
On March 01 2016 07:05 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 05:56 Yuljan wrote:On March 01 2016 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:On March 01 2016 03:18 cLutZ wrote: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. Stop spreading lies. They do not have legitimate asylum claims. They cross safe countries before coming to the EU and civil war is not a reason for asylum anyway. Uninformed people urging others to stop spreading misinformation. All three of you claims are factually wrong! If you don't know what asylum is, then read up on it or stay quite on the issue. It's not that hard...
The irony is appaling. Only political persecution is a recognized reason for asylum and that definition is also heavily narrowed in the law.
http://m.tagesspiegel.de/politik/fluechtlinge-integrationsbeauftragte-oezoguz-gruende-fuer-asyl-reichen-nicht/11871616.html?utm_referrer=
http://www.nds-fluerat.org/leitfaden/3-wer-bekommt-asyl/31-voraussetzungen-fuer-die-asyl-und-fluechtlingsanerkennung/
These are short extracts, for a full overview I would recommend reading the law instead of listening to your Antifa friends.
What is happening here is that the left radicals go to the refugees and help them create stories so that they are all politically persecuted all of a sudden.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^not true. the 1951 definition has been expanded in two significant ways. recognition of non-state persecution from social forces, due to one of the identity categories. then there is recognizing indiscriminate violence in subsidiary protection
so an active warzone like syria or afghanistan will most likely give ground to at least subsidiary protection.
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/limits-on-refugee-residence-can-t-be-based-on-financial-concerns Germany can’t limit where refugees live solely based on financial considerations, the European Union’s highest court said in a case involving two Syrian immigrants that came to the country more than a decade before the current crisis.
The only time a country could limit where a refugee lives would be to help them integrate with the community, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg said in a ruling Tuesday. The status of the refugees would have to be completely different to that of other non-EU immigrants to a nation.
Under EU law, governments are generally required to let people “move freely within their territory but also to choose their place of residence within that territory,” the court said.
The German Interior Ministry didn’t immediately return a request for comment.
|
Speaking on public television on Sunday, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany's borders would remain open to refugees. Merkel dismissed a "rigid limit," saying that "there is no point in believing that I can solve the problem through the unilateral closure of borders."
"I have no plan B," Merkel said, adding that she is convinced she is on the right track with efforts to redistribute refugees within Europe and addressing the problems causing mass displacement: "I am fighting for this approach."
Merkel sought to reassure viewers by insisting that her government's strategy is the only "logical" one - and came about after much thought.
The chancellor said she was concerned about disputes over migrants within the EU, and added that a breakdown of the European Union must be avoided.
Source
|
On March 01 2016 23:08 oneofthem wrote: ^not true. the 1951 definition has been expanded in two significant ways. recognition of non-state persecution from social forces, due to one of the identity categories. then there is recognizing indiscriminate violence in subsidiary protection
so an active warzone like syria or afghanistan will most likely give ground to at least subsidiary protection.
Subsidiary protection is not asylum. Does not refute that all these refugees come from safe states either. Also nice article that perfectly sums up the lunacy of Merkel. I have no plan but please stop asking.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you are talking about a protection granted in the asylum process. it refutes your stupid point about illegitimacy of seeking said protection
|
Dutch authorities identified about 30 war crimes suspects, a third of them Syrians, among the 59,000 people who applied for asylum last year, the immigration minister said on Monday.
Klaas Dijkhoff released the data in a letter amid an increasingly heated debate over immigration, stoked by an increase in arrivals from war zones across the Middle East.
He was responding to questions from members of parliament, many of whom have been calling on the government to start sending back migrants who are suspected of atrocities, or break Dutch laws.
Ten of the suspects were from Syria and the rest from Eritrea, Sudan, Nigeria, Georgia and other countries, he added, without going into further details.
Dijkhoff said the Syrians could not be sent home because international treaties prohibit forced repatriation to a country where there is ongoing conflict.
A backlash against immigration has boosted the Netherlands' far-right anti-Islam Freedom party, whose leader Geert Wilders is regularly rated the country's most popular politician.
Source
|
On March 02 2016 01:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Speaking on public television on Sunday, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany's borders would remain open to refugees. Merkel dismissed a "rigid limit," saying that "there is no point in believing that I can solve the problem through the unilateral closure of borders."
"I have no plan B," Merkel said, adding that she is convinced she is on the right track with efforts to redistribute refugees within Europe and addressing the problems causing mass displacement: "I am fighting for this approach."
Merkel sought to reassure viewers by insisting that her government's strategy is the only "logical" one - and came about after much thought.
The chancellor said she was concerned about disputes over migrants within the EU, and added that a breakdown of the European Union must be avoided. Source I'm actually quite impressed by Merkel. I'm pretty sure any normal politician would have abandoned that position some serious time ago already, but she keeps on fighting despite her gaining nothing from this.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
merkel and germany stronk eastern europe need to ditch the middle ages
|
On March 02 2016 02:16 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2016 01:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Speaking on public television on Sunday, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany's borders would remain open to refugees. Merkel dismissed a "rigid limit," saying that "there is no point in believing that I can solve the problem through the unilateral closure of borders."
"I have no plan B," Merkel said, adding that she is convinced she is on the right track with efforts to redistribute refugees within Europe and addressing the problems causing mass displacement: "I am fighting for this approach."
Merkel sought to reassure viewers by insisting that her government's strategy is the only "logical" one - and came about after much thought.
The chancellor said she was concerned about disputes over migrants within the EU, and added that a breakdown of the European Union must be avoided. Source I'm actually quite impressed by Merkel. I'm pretty sure any normal politician would have abandoned that position some serious time ago already, but she keeps on fighting despite her gaining nothing from this.
I agree - props for her tenacity (and setting a limit on refugees is indeed counterlogical).
Sadly she loses all that by her utter unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of refugees are in fact illegal immigrants and thinking the solution to the Syrian civil war is to import Syria to Europe.
|
The solution to the Syrian war is ending the Syrian war. As long as that isn't happening Merkel isn't going to say random shit to make the plebs happy. That's actually one of her redeeming qualities
|
|
|
|
|
|