|
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 November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage?
|
On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Also where is UK?
The UK is there: group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on)
|
On November 20 2016 08:50 warding wrote: How exactly is the euro to blame for inequality? And how is it preventing Europe from fixing itself?
Many countries that adopted euro used to rely on favorable currency exchange/currency debasement to stay more competitive. Now they cannot do that.
|
On November 20 2016 20:08 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 08:50 warding wrote: How exactly is the euro to blame for inequality? And how is it preventing Europe from fixing itself? Many countries that adopted euro used to rely on favorable currency exchange/currency debasement to stay more competitive. Now they cannot do that. Only germany really relied on favorable currency exchange rate ; most countries used the euro to get easy access to debt at low interests rate. Of course it is impossible to endebt yourself endlessly, and when the market actually understood that (the Minsky moment ?) they suddenly increased the interest rates of non german euro zone countries according to their risks (following their understanding that the european central bank would not pay for the debt).
On November 20 2016 08:50 warding wrote: How exactly is the euro to blame for inequality? And how is it preventing Europe from fixing itself? Because fixed exchange rate between countries with such a high difference in their capacity of production mean they have to reequilibrate by lowering their nominal cost (wage) and since the level of inflation in germany is usually low (due to the rather depressing habit of german to spend nothing and be good protestants) it is really hard (impossible) for a country like Portugal or Greece to actually lower their wage enough to compensate for their lack of economic prowess. The only somewhat viable solution would be to permit fiscal redistribution in the euro zone (i.e : create a federal state and a federal budget that would catch at least 10 % of the euro zone GDP), but the level of fiscal redistribution necessary is just too important : German would have to carry Portugal and Greece for a while, and even other european countries, to reequilibrate everybody (not politically viable - unless you want AfD in power).
|
On November 20 2016 20:12 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 08:50 warding wrote: How exactly is the euro to blame for inequality? And how is it preventing Europe from fixing itself? Because fixed exchange rate between countries with such a high difference in their capacity of production mean they have to reequilibrate by lowering their nominal cost (wage) and since the level of inflation in germany is usually low (due to the rather depressing habit of german to spend nothing and be good protestants) it is really hard (impossible) for a country like Portugal or Greece to actually lower their wage enough to compensate for their lack of economic prowess. The only somewhat viable solution would be to permit fiscal redistribution in the euro zone (i.e : create a federal state and a federal budget that would catch at least 10 % of the euro zone GDP), but the level of fiscal redistribution necessary is just too important : German would have to carry Portugal and Greece for a while, and even other european countries, to reequilibrate everybody (not politically viable - unless you want AfD in power). Only if you conveniently ignore the reality that inequality is on the rise globally and not just in the Euro zone. Or do you think the Euro is the cause for a global rise in inequality?
While the Euro may indeed have an effect on inequality, the idea that you can blame it entirely (or even significantly) when your dealing with a global phenomena is laughable.
|
On November 20 2016 20:12 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 20:08 maybenexttime wrote:On November 20 2016 08:50 warding wrote: How exactly is the euro to blame for inequality? And how is it preventing Europe from fixing itself? Many countries that adopted euro used to rely on favorable currency exchange/currency debasement to stay more competitive. Now they cannot do that. Only germany really relied on favorable currency exchange rate ; most countries used the euro to get easy access to debt at low interests rate. Of course it is impossible to endebt yourself endlessly, and when the market actually understood that (the Minsky moment ?) they suddenly increased the interest rates of non german euro zone countries according to their risks (following their understanding that the european central bank would not pay for the debt).
"Used to" - I was talking about what they used to do before they adopted the euro.
|
On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage? countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self). a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications. you'd have germans living under democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to. in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times.
|
On November 20 2016 21:24 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage? countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self). a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications. you'd have germans living under democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to. in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times. and in the same way you're trying to make neat little groups like that you're fundamentally against what you yourself are talking about. You say that one size doesn't just fit all so you go ahead an split up poland because you realize that there might be countries that don't fully belong into one group or the other based on what you consider important. They might have sizeable portions of population that would rather align with one while others would want to align with something else for whatever the reason.
So in that sense I fundamentally disagree with you. Yes one size doesn't just fit all but we've managed to not dissolve modern nations just because West Germany has a somewhat different take on things as East Germany might have. And I can tell you that despite that being the case (close to) noone here would want Germany to split apart again. I don't really see what makes a normal state any different and immune to this if you truly believe what you just said. Especially if we're considering that this isn't some kind of set-theory and differences of opinion are going to happen in some kind of gradient
|
On November 20 2016 21:24 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage? countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self). a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications. you'd have germans living under democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to. in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times.
You have no clue. How are Slavs more used to dictatorships than Germanic people or Romance people?
|
On November 20 2016 21:49 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 21:24 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage? countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self). a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications. you'd have germans living under democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to. in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times. and in the same way you're trying to make neat little groups like that you're fundamentally against what you yourself are talking about.You say that one size doesn't just fit all so you go ahead an split up poland because you realize that there might be countries that don't fully belong into one group or the other based on what you consider important. They might have sizeable portions of population that would rather align with one while others would want to align with something else for whatever the reason. So in that sense I fundamentally disagree with you. Yes one size doesn't just fit all but we've managed to not dissolve modern nations just because West Germany has a somewhat different take on things as East Germany might have. And I can tell you that despite that being the case (close to) noone here would want Germany to split apart again. I don't really see what makes a normal state any different and immune to this if you truly believe what you just said. Especially if we're considering that this isn't some kind of set-theory and differences of opinion are going to happen in some kind of gradient i don't make them, they are that way. the evolution made them that way. i'm merely (re)categorizing them based on objective measurable <metrics>.
|
On November 20 2016 22:03 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 21:49 Toadesstern wrote:On November 20 2016 21:24 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage? countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self). a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications. you'd have germans living under democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to. in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times. and in the same way you're trying to make neat little groups like that you're fundamentally against what you yourself are talking about.You say that one size doesn't just fit all so you go ahead an split up poland because you realize that there might be countries that don't fully belong into one group or the other based on what you consider important. They might have sizeable portions of population that would rather align with one while others would want to align with something else for whatever the reason. So in that sense I fundamentally disagree with you. Yes one size doesn't just fit all but we've managed to not dissolve modern nations just because West Germany has a somewhat different take on things as East Germany might have. And I can tell you that despite that being the case (close to) noone here would want Germany to split apart again. I don't really see what makes a normal state any different and immune to this if you truly believe what you just said. Especially if we're considering that this isn't some kind of set-theory and differences of opinion are going to happen in some kind of gradient i don't make them, they are that way. the evolution made them that way. i'm merely (re)categorizing them based on objective measurable <metrics>.
If you are so sure about the bullshit your wrote, why would you have to push for that, if it happens anyways? It's the old lie of the extreme right that they are merely doing what happens anyways that you are rehasing, when in fact things happen because people - in this case extremist right-wingers - make them happen.
That is what liberalism and the European Union stand to fight against at their core.
|
On November 20 2016 22:03 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 21:49 Toadesstern wrote:On November 20 2016 21:24 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage? countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self). a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications. you'd have germans living under democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to. in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times. and in the same way you're trying to make neat little groups like that you're fundamentally against what you yourself are talking about.You say that one size doesn't just fit all so you go ahead an split up poland because you realize that there might be countries that don't fully belong into one group or the other based on what you consider important. They might have sizeable portions of population that would rather align with one while others would want to align with something else for whatever the reason. So in that sense I fundamentally disagree with you. Yes one size doesn't just fit all but we've managed to not dissolve modern nations just because West Germany has a somewhat different take on things as East Germany might have. And I can tell you that despite that being the case (close to) noone here would want Germany to split apart again. I don't really see what makes a normal state any different and immune to this if you truly believe what you just said. Especially if we're considering that this isn't some kind of set-theory and differences of opinion are going to happen in some kind of gradient i don't make them, they are that way. the evolution made them that way. i'm merely (re)categorizing them based on objective measurable <metrics>. You sound just like the “scientific racism” theoreticians of the XIXth century...
|
On November 20 2016 21:24 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage? countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self). a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications. you'd have germans under a democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to. in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times. The link between culture/language/politics and genetics is much blurrier than you suggest. 'Romance people' don't exist in any way other than linguistically. The other two groups you suggested are almost as artificial.
+ Show Spoiler +
E: In case you were getting any ideas, dividing by haplogroups wouldn't make any sense either since the predominant one is often as low as 1/4 of the population in a certain region
|
On November 20 2016 22:03 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 21:49 Toadesstern wrote:On November 20 2016 21:24 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage? countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self). a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications. you'd have germans living under democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to. in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times. and in the same way you're trying to make neat little groups like that you're fundamentally against what you yourself are talking about.You say that one size doesn't just fit all so you go ahead an split up poland because you realize that there might be countries that don't fully belong into one group or the other based on what you consider important. They might have sizeable portions of population that would rather align with one while others would want to align with something else for whatever the reason. So in that sense I fundamentally disagree with you. Yes one size doesn't just fit all but we've managed to not dissolve modern nations just because West Germany has a somewhat different take on things as East Germany might have. And I can tell you that despite that being the case (close to) noone here would want Germany to split apart again. I don't really see what makes a normal state any different and immune to this if you truly believe what you just said. Especially if we're considering that this isn't some kind of set-theory and differences of opinion are going to happen in some kind of gradient i don't make them, they are that way. the evolution made them that way. i'm merely (re)categorizing them based on objective measurable <metrics>. Like I said, I agree that those differences exist. But you DO make them just the same way I'd make groups if I said "nono, the real important thing we should categorize with is hair color". And you yourself realize that your idea is flawed and can't make a clear cut as each step down you go you still have people feeling both ways no matter what objective you pick unless you want to go down to individual people. Some people want A while some people want B inside Europe? So you go down to nations and align them by which country would rather want A or B (you make an argument for what's the most important according to you but really what A and B is is completly irrelevant). Then you realize that you have to split apart Poland because they're divided on that issue. The same way you'd have to go down to cities and streets. There's always going to be people thinking differently to some degree.
You're just not going to get a clean cut group of people thinking the same. People might even disagree with your decision about what's important to look at in the first place.
Again, if what you said were true we wouldn't have nations because people inside Nation-X disagree from East to West. We wouldn't have cities because people disagree about matters. People make cities and nations nontheless because despite disagreeing on some issues they came to the conclusion that it's for the best.
//Edit: and what was written above me is what I was getting at with "people's opinions on those are not some kind of set-theory clear cut out groups but are going to be some kind of gradient." or whatever I called it. I can even assume your idea that this is based in nature and can't be overcome as correct (which I don't agree with either) and it STILL doesn't make any sense
|
On November 20 2016 20:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 20:12 WhiteDog wrote:On November 20 2016 08:50 warding wrote: How exactly is the euro to blame for inequality? And how is it preventing Europe from fixing itself? Because fixed exchange rate between countries with such a high difference in their capacity of production mean they have to reequilibrate by lowering their nominal cost (wage) and since the level of inflation in germany is usually low (due to the rather depressing habit of german to spend nothing and be good protestants) it is really hard (impossible) for a country like Portugal or Greece to actually lower their wage enough to compensate for their lack of economic prowess. The only somewhat viable solution would be to permit fiscal redistribution in the euro zone (i.e : create a federal state and a federal budget that would catch at least 10 % of the euro zone GDP), but the level of fiscal redistribution necessary is just too important : German would have to carry Portugal and Greece for a while, and even other european countries, to reequilibrate everybody (not politically viable - unless you want AfD in power). Only if you conveniently ignore the reality that inequality is on the rise globally and not just in the Euro zone. Or do you think the Euro is the cause for a global rise in inequality? While the Euro may indeed have an effect on inequality, the idea that you can blame it entirely (or even significantly) when your dealing with a global phenomena is laughable. Nono I m not talking about inequality of income between people but inequality of production between countries. It's a global drag on the economy.
|
On November 20 2016 22:08 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 22:03 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 21:49 Toadesstern wrote:On November 20 2016 21:24 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage? countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self). a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications. you'd have germans living under democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to. in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times. and in the same way you're trying to make neat little groups like that you're fundamentally against what you yourself are talking about.You say that one size doesn't just fit all so you go ahead an split up poland because you realize that there might be countries that don't fully belong into one group or the other based on what you consider important. They might have sizeable portions of population that would rather align with one while others would want to align with something else for whatever the reason. So in that sense I fundamentally disagree with you. Yes one size doesn't just fit all but we've managed to not dissolve modern nations just because West Germany has a somewhat different take on things as East Germany might have. And I can tell you that despite that being the case (close to) noone here would want Germany to split apart again. I don't really see what makes a normal state any different and immune to this if you truly believe what you just said. Especially if we're considering that this isn't some kind of set-theory and differences of opinion are going to happen in some kind of gradient i don't make them, they are that way. the evolution made them that way. i'm merely (re)categorizing them based on objective measurable <metrics>. If you are so sure about the bullshit your wrote, why would you have to push for that, if it happens anyways? It's the old lie of the extreme right that they are merely doing what happens anyways that you are rehasing, when in fact things happen because people - in this case extremist right-wingers - make them happen. That is what liberalism and the European Union stand to fight against at their core. i don't know what your point is(what would "happen anyway"?+ Show Spoiler +i'll argue that if confined, the sides will alternate but not unify until a very long time passes, time in which they'll all be miserable(history based assumption) ) so if you want to make one with an immediate practicability, i'm all ears. from where i'm sitting your point looks like this: if one speaks english then he must be american or british. EX: you take a polish dude+ Show Spoiler +sorry, but it happened to be about poles , send him to US, teach him the language, the culture(what ever you think that is) and by your logic he is an american. by my logic, i don't care how he calls himself, he will carry the genetic predispositions of his ancestry not those of americans.
i give no value to nurture, subscribe to the principle of least resistance/of least effort and believe that mathematical and theoretical biology will give an answer to ... well, let's call them peoples deterministic inclinations.
|
On November 20 2016 22:36 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 20:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2016 20:12 WhiteDog wrote:On November 20 2016 08:50 warding wrote: How exactly is the euro to blame for inequality? And how is it preventing Europe from fixing itself? Because fixed exchange rate between countries with such a high difference in their capacity of production mean they have to reequilibrate by lowering their nominal cost (wage) and since the level of inflation in germany is usually low (due to the rather depressing habit of german to spend nothing and be good protestants) it is really hard (impossible) for a country like Portugal or Greece to actually lower their wage enough to compensate for their lack of economic prowess. The only somewhat viable solution would be to permit fiscal redistribution in the euro zone (i.e : create a federal state and a federal budget that would catch at least 10 % of the euro zone GDP), but the level of fiscal redistribution necessary is just too important : German would have to carry Portugal and Greece for a while, and even other european countries, to reequilibrate everybody (not politically viable - unless you want AfD in power). Only if you conveniently ignore the reality that inequality is on the rise globally and not just in the Euro zone. Or do you think the Euro is the cause for a global rise in inequality? While the Euro may indeed have an effect on inequality, the idea that you can blame it entirely (or even significantly) when your dealing with a global phenomena is laughable. Nono I m not talking about inequality of income between people but inequality of production between countries. It's a global drag on the economy. Ah my mistake, that makes a lot more sense :p
I wonder tho if the same situation wouldn't also have happened without the Euro as there is only so much wiggle room to be had. I don't think these lower production countries were on course to close the gap pre-Eurozone.
Additionally in theory the much lower interest rates from the Euro should have allowed these countries to heavily invest in their industry to make themselves more competitive, tho as you said its really hard to compete with Germany. I feel like in most cases it is much more a fault of miss management and a lack of foresight in fixing their own upcoming economic problems. Governments would much rather use the cheap debt to pander to their voters.
The introduction of the Euro will have accelerated a process that would have almost inevitably happened anyway.
The same is probably the case for the result, where now the ECB and an inability to devaluate their debt is preventing a recovery you would otherwise have had a currency that was already circling the drain in an attempt to hide their failing production being unable to depress down far enough to recover from a financial crisis without running into hyper inflation.
|
On November 20 2016 22:12 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 22:03 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 21:49 Toadesstern wrote:On November 20 2016 21:24 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage? countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self). a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications. you'd have germans living under democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to. in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times. and in the same way you're trying to make neat little groups like that you're fundamentally against what you yourself are talking about.You say that one size doesn't just fit all so you go ahead an split up poland because you realize that there might be countries that don't fully belong into one group or the other based on what you consider important. They might have sizeable portions of population that would rather align with one while others would want to align with something else for whatever the reason. So in that sense I fundamentally disagree with you. Yes one size doesn't just fit all but we've managed to not dissolve modern nations just because West Germany has a somewhat different take on things as East Germany might have. And I can tell you that despite that being the case (close to) noone here would want Germany to split apart again. I don't really see what makes a normal state any different and immune to this if you truly believe what you just said. Especially if we're considering that this isn't some kind of set-theory and differences of opinion are going to happen in some kind of gradient i don't make them, they are that way. the evolution made them that way. i'm merely (re)categorizing them based on objective measurable <metrics>. Like I said, I agree that those differences exist. But you DO make them just the same way I'd make groups if I said "nono, the real important thing we should categorize with is hair color". And you yourself realize that your idea is flawed and can't make a clear cut as each step down you go you still have people feeling both ways no matter what objective you pick unless you want to go down to individual people. Some people want A while some people want B inside Europe? So you go down to nations and align them by which country would rather want A or B (you make an argument for what's the most important according to you but really what A and B is is completly irrelevant). Then you realize that you have to split apart Poland because they're divided on that issue. The same way you'd have to go down to cities and streets. There's always going to be people thinking differently to some degree. You're just not going to get a clean cut group of people thinking the same. People might even disagree with your decision about what's important to look at in the first place. Again, if what you said were true we wouldn't have nations because people inside Nation-X disagree from East to West. We wouldn't have cities because people disagree about matters. People make cities and nations nontheless because despite disagreeing on some issues they came to the conclusion that it's for the best. //Edit: and what was written above me is what I was getting at with "people's opinions on those are not some kind of set-theory clear cut out groups but are going to be some kind of gradient." or whatever I called it. I can even assume your idea that this is based in nature and can't be overcome as correct (which I don't agree with either) and it STILL doesn't make any sense yes, the idea is far from flawless(for now, humans lack the knowledge to make it statistically acceptable/relevant; medicine is making headway though) but as far as i'm concerned, i don't care about ones feelings. his physical(biological) well being, sure; it'll be my job to keep him fit and strong . feelings are an emergent and temporary propriety of bio-chemo-electro based triggers and stimuli.
everyone we're talking about here is in Europe; yea, even the russians. if you're talking about your made up EU, well that's your construct, your bauble from which you are arguing; can not help you there.
the rest of your post ... i don't know, the opinions could have some tangential applicability+ Show Spoiler +about hair colour ... really?, red hair could be relevant for its association with ones sensitivity to ultraviolet light; would help him not burn but where i'm living+ Show Spoiler +, the revelation of X belonging to Y for people would feel like someone battling with asthma for as long as he could remember is all of a sudden cured; ultimately, they'll choose to do it, submit to it.
besides i don't get it: how come people approving/supporting globalization and the free movement of people object to ... people moving freely and globally?.
|
On November 20 2016 23:26 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 22:12 Toadesstern wrote:On November 20 2016 22:03 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 21:49 Toadesstern wrote:On November 20 2016 21:24 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote: i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities: - group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on); - France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically); - then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians; (bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved); - tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke. You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage? countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self). a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications. you'd have germans living under democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to. in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times. and in the same way you're trying to make neat little groups like that you're fundamentally against what you yourself are talking about.You say that one size doesn't just fit all so you go ahead an split up poland because you realize that there might be countries that don't fully belong into one group or the other based on what you consider important. They might have sizeable portions of population that would rather align with one while others would want to align with something else for whatever the reason. So in that sense I fundamentally disagree with you. Yes one size doesn't just fit all but we've managed to not dissolve modern nations just because West Germany has a somewhat different take on things as East Germany might have. And I can tell you that despite that being the case (close to) noone here would want Germany to split apart again. I don't really see what makes a normal state any different and immune to this if you truly believe what you just said. Especially if we're considering that this isn't some kind of set-theory and differences of opinion are going to happen in some kind of gradient i don't make them, they are that way. the evolution made them that way. i'm merely (re)categorizing them based on objective measurable <metrics>. Like I said, I agree that those differences exist. But you DO make them just the same way I'd make groups if I said "nono, the real important thing we should categorize with is hair color". And you yourself realize that your idea is flawed and can't make a clear cut as each step down you go you still have people feeling both ways no matter what objective you pick unless you want to go down to individual people. Some people want A while some people want B inside Europe? So you go down to nations and align them by which country would rather want A or B (you make an argument for what's the most important according to you but really what A and B is is completly irrelevant). Then you realize that you have to split apart Poland because they're divided on that issue. The same way you'd have to go down to cities and streets. There's always going to be people thinking differently to some degree. You're just not going to get a clean cut group of people thinking the same. People might even disagree with your decision about what's important to look at in the first place. Again, if what you said were true we wouldn't have nations because people inside Nation-X disagree from East to West. We wouldn't have cities because people disagree about matters. People make cities and nations nontheless because despite disagreeing on some issues they came to the conclusion that it's for the best. //Edit: and what was written above me is what I was getting at with "people's opinions on those are not some kind of set-theory clear cut out groups but are going to be some kind of gradient." or whatever I called it. I can even assume your idea that this is based in nature and can't be overcome as correct (which I don't agree with either) and it STILL doesn't make any sense yes, the idea is far from flawless(for now, humans lack the knowledge to make it statistically acceptable/relevant; medicine is making headway though) but as far as i'm concerned, i don't care about ones feelings. his physical(biological) well being, sure; it'll be my job to keep him fit and strong  . feelings are an emergent and temporary propriety of bio-chemo-electro based triggers and stimuli. everyone we're talking about here is in Europe; yea, even the russians. if you're talking about your made up EU, well that's your construct, your bauble from which you are arguing; can not help you there. the rest of your post ... i don't know, the opinions could have some tangential applicability + Show Spoiler +about hair colour ... really?, red hair could be relevant for its association with ones sensitivity to ultraviolet light; would help him not burn but where i'm living + Show Spoiler +, the revelation of X belonging to Y for people would feel like someone battling with asthma for as long as he could remember is all of a sudden cured; ultimately, they'll choose to do it, submit to it. besides i don't get it: how come people approving/supporting globalization and the free movement of people object to ... people moving freely and globally?.
people aren't against people moving freely and globally. It's just your idea that people are unable to form a union for the perks involved without being able to deal with the downsides that is shocking me in particular. I see people married around me despite perhaps a lot of them not wanting to do the extra dishes (because let's be honest, that extra work will fall onto of the two people involved) because there are some real perks to it that are more important than some dishes. Same goes with cities, nations and ultimately the EU (for me). I don't really get where this anarchistic (?) idea of "unions just don't work because there are downsides to it" comes from when we see thousands of them in daily life working on a daily basis and people living like that just fine.
Sure some break apart because for them it's not worth it and maybe that's what you're trying to get at but I just don't see it as a thing that is fundamentally against human nature like you seemed to imply. Like, I'm pretty sure I can point at single cities that are strongholds for certain parties all over Germany. Maybe one voting 50% for some centre party, another one voting close to 50% for some far right party and another one voting close to 50% for a far left party. And I don't see cities leaving Germany because of that.
|
Zurich15352 Posts
So it's finally official: Merkel is running again next year.
|
|
|
|