Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

That's stupid.

[entropy]

not as stupid as Trumps tweet..

[Da Geezer]

Mike: The video is more offensive than reading the quote

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

IMO, American politicians should just keep their mouths shut about prospective elections in other countries. I also believe that today, after the vote, we should be stepping forward to help the Brits make a smooth transition as much as possible. I can't imagine the arrogance it takes to speak as Obama did.

[Wild Hoss]

Indeed you can, but I don't think that you can find a single historical example of government on the scale of the EU working successfully. The nation state is the optimal form of government. Empires fail because they are too big and their consituencies are way too diverse. The EU was subtly evolving into a de facto empire that was going to gradually erode the nations of Europe and it is governed by beauracrats completely lacking in accountability. I don't see any way to fix that problem.

I also predict that the economic doomsday scenarios being predicted will not come to pass. I have seen no evidence that the EU legitimately creates wealth.

I don?t believe it?s the size so much as the diversity. These are political entities that have developed and matured separately, and many have done so at odds with each other in doing so. That?s starkly different than the American example, where we started out as, essentially, different nation-states, but grew and matured together. We had to fight a war along the way, but that?s not exactly an unusual state of affairs in Europe.

But I am also with SLF in regards to nationalism. It can often serve as a convenient cloak for racism, as it did in the previous century, with high costs in blood.

[entropy]

is wanting to dig a big whole and fill it with water in what is now considered Iowa really that bad?

[Wild Hoss]

Why would it be considered bad at all?

[hack]

The EU was subtly evolving into a de facto empire that was going to gradually erode the nations of Europe and it is governed by beauracrats completely lacking in accountability. I don't see any way to fix that problem.

That problem is an academic one. Based on a theory, and not necessarily reality. A full cost-benefit analysis would include some sort of nod to such theories, and a determination of whether some of those consequences are worth the upsides you get along with them. But if you wanted to make a prediction wouldn't you want to also factor in things actually measurable? Most of the bottomline here is trade policy. Is a large part of the reason why a proper forecast is an challenge of numerical precision and not of punditry. There's no need for the latter when you have the former. The UK won't escape EU regulation because if they still want to sell into that market they must meet product standards. Anyway, this is a good take on the various scenarios and their assumptions: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68c61094-3...#axzz4CVoS2x9h

[hack]

The nation state is the optimal form of government.

I think so too, but getting one thing entails giving up another. There are things that would be better handled at a theoretical one-level up, such as taxation (end tax havens) and the global shipping industry (Liberian/Panamanian flags of convenience). But it seems highly unlikely to happen. The weaknesses of the state-centric system are particularly impactful and getting worse though.

[Da Geezer]

Hack: The Financial Times is hardly a neutral source. That is an "elite" publication, and their side lost the vote.

I think that a major effect that the Brexit vote will have on our election (I'm America-centric and proudly so) will be as we watch what actually happens in the to the UK in the next few months relative to the predictions of catastrophe. I remember clearly that when the Brits decided not to use the euro, there were predictions that banking would leave London. Didn't happen. When Reagan was running, the same stuff was said about him as about Trump now. (trade war, racist, dangerous) Didn't happen. Most events turn out to be neither as good nor as bad as predicted.

What is good about the vote yesterday is that it increased the liberty of the British people. You know, a couple of years back, the Iranians captured a British ship and held the crew for 15 days. The Brits had to go to Brussels in order to negotiate for the crew's release through the EU. God bless the nation state.

[hack]

Hack: The Financial Times is hardly a neutral source. That is an "elite" publication, and their side lost the vote.


I think that's a facile excuse not to look at the actual information available. In addition it does not belie an understanding of the historical positions the paper has taken. Please look at the actual numbers, Geezer. You are unusually willing to do so for a person with your beliefs, which is a trait very much appreciated. Don't take the data from the FT if you don't want to -- there's plenty of intellectually and mathematically rigorous analysis out there based on actual real-world implications. You can get that analysis from a group with ideological fealty to your own beliefs too if you like. https://piie.com/commentary/op-eds/d...fshore-britain. Peterson, the guy in the name of that think tank, is easily verifiable as being ``on your side'', if it has to come down to that.

[Hannibal]

The EU was subtly evolving into a de facto empire that was going to gradually erode the nations of Europe and it is governed by beauracrats completely lacking in accountability. I don't see any way to fix that problem.

That problem is an academic one. Based on a theory, and not necessarily reality

No, it's a genuinely unfixable problem. A lot of people like to use the expression "too big to fail". With entities like the EU, I use the expression "too big to reform". That is why I say that government on that scale cannot work, no matter how good the initial intentions are. I saw comments from many people who claim to be from the UK and voted "remain" because they thought that the EU had its issues, but that these issues could be fixed. They can't. An entity with that kind of inertia will always be unaccountable to its people and inherently unfixable. The people who run them -- massive, power hungry ego cases incapable of introspection and change. Government can only reach a size where people have at least some faith that their interests are generally the ones being looked after. When there are a billion people with dozens of competing factions, ethnicities, and interests, then it becomes impossible, and the right solution is for one of those groups to break off and be independent.

[iam416]

I don’t believe it’s the size so much as the diversity. These are political entities that have developed and matured separately, and many have done so at odds with each other in doing so. That’s starkly different than the American example, where we started out as, essentially, different nation-states, but grew and matured together.

Hoss is exactly right. 4 words I've never typed before. The EU works as a "free trade" and "open Europe" idea. However, as the EU tries to centralize power it becomes increasingly likely to fail and fail in an awful way.

[hack]

No, it's a genuinely unfixable problem. A lot of people like to use the expression "too big to fail". With entities like the EU, I use the expression "too big to reform". That is why I say that government on that scale cannot work, no matter how good the initial intentions are. I saw comments from many people who claim to be from the UK and voted "remain" because they thought that the EU had its issues, but that these issues could be fixed. They can't. An entity with that kind of inertia will always be unaccountable to its people and inherently unfixable. The people who run them -- massive, power hungry ego cases incapable of introspection and change. Government can only reach a size where people have at least some faith that their interests are generally the ones being looked after. When there are a billion people with dozens of competing factions, ethnicities, and interests, then it becomes impossible, and the right solution is for one of those groups to break off and be independent.

Did I say its a fixable problem?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Most seem to point to the introduction of a common currency as when things started trending badly for the EU. For the common currency to succeed the EU needs a level of control over the economies of every member state that's much more pervasive than before.

Ironically though the EU probably bent over backwards for the UK more than any other member state.

[iam416]

Right. And the problem, of course, is the invariable lurch toward more power. Then you have what many view as a failure in handling the Greek economic crisis as well as a naked power grab. It's one thing to cede authority to an organization that meets expectations. It's another to do so to an organization that is viewed by some as less than effective.

Plus, man -- my sort of 30,000 ft sense of Europe is that its corruption runs to the core in ways that even American city machines would find shameful. Perhaps I've read too much Henry James. Perhaps my view is jaded by the despicable FIFA. Or despicable IOC. Or the stunning corruption in the Italian government. Or, well...you know...the list goes on.

Anywho...casting your lot with that group -- with unelected fucktwats making decisions -- my sort of sense is that's just not good.