At least it didn't end in a question mark :(
Printable View
At least it didn't end in a question mark :(
All bold are primarily consist of imported European settlers, and all italic primarily of Mestizos/mixed in Europeans. So what's left are some tropical islands, and Asian countries which aren't really better of than their Asian counterparts. And Malaysia and Venezuela have a lots of oil, even it isn't their sole income.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Um, a vast majority of Brazilians are mestizos. :bored: I don't quite get why being a tropical island is a reason to dismiss a country. And better than which Asian counterparts? You do realize that all of Asia was colonized, right?
Malaysia and Venezuela were fairly developed before oil became a prominent part of their economies.
Yes Loki, we get the message. In the long list of indefensible attrocities you defend we now have to add colonialism and imperialism. Is there anything you won't defend because you can't stop yourself ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Now maybe we should move on to the wonderful things the Germans did using forced Jewish labour and killing the other Jews in Gas chambers. I'll take the position it was vile exploitation of human beings and murder and you can educate everybody and his poodle about how it was an economically sound policy and all the Jews should consider themselves lucky for such a rigorous genetic selection.
You need to learn to differentiate between making objective claims (x had a y effect) and offering subjective views (x was good). Nowhere did I say that colonialism and imperialism was moral. I did say that imperialism had many measurable positive effects that still benefit the former colonies, while acknowledging that it also had plenty of negative effects. Your line of reasoning seems to be: since x was immoral, we should deny any positive facts relating to x. It might make for good propaganda, but not for good science.
No, 52% are white, non-mixed Europeans. Especially economic centers like Sao Paulo are dominated by white people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not many people living there? If you add all of them up, you don't even get close to the population of the failed country of Pakistan.Quote:
I don't quite get why being a tropical island is a reason to dismiss a country.
Thailand, Japan?Quote:
And better than which Asian counterparts? You do realize that all of Asia was colonized, right?
And that matters how to your GDP comparison of the current state?Quote:
Malaysia and Venezuela were fairly developed before oil became a prominent part of their economies.
Only if you go by self-identification, which is incredibly unreliable. Anyone who's even partially white claims to be white. European genes dominate, but most people are at least partially Amerindian or black.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
And why is this relevant? Which random criterion are you going to come up with next? In which way are your criteria related to the actual topic being discussed? Why not say that most of these people have dark hair, and therefore shouldn't be counted?Quote:
Not many people living there? If you add all of them up, you don't even get close to the population of the failed country of Pakistan.
My mistake. Though you're going to base your entire comparison on two countries? There's a massive case of self-selection here. The reason these countries weren't colonized is precisely because they were already fairly developed.Quote:
Thailand, Japan?
It matters because they developed economically without the oil. :bored:Quote:
And that matters how to your GDP comparison of the current state?
When have you been the last time to Brazil? Most Paulistas are as white as the average southern European.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't see why we should give a country the size of Liechtenstein the same weight as one of the size of Germany. Even my own country is huge compared to some on that list.Quote:
And why is this relevant? Which random criterion are you going to come up with next? In which way are your criteria related to the actual topic being discussed? Why not say that most of these people have dark hair, and therefore shouldn't be counted?
I rather have two countries including one that has over 100Million inhabitants as reference than Barbados or St. Kitts.Quote:
My mistake. Though you're going to base your entire comparison on two countries?
AND I said that all these positive side-effects were nothing more than that, side-effects of a morally wrong policy. They were driven by the desire of the colonizing power to keep territories under their control. They didn't build railroads to make the colony a better place but to make the colony a more profitable place. And that goes for every single improvement you can throw into this debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And how is this relevant to whether those policies ended up having a positive effect? Effects aren't measured by intentions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
In real news; the British government no longer seeks repatration of powers in return for euro treaty changes. I guess there must have been a lot of arm wrestling going on to achieve that U-turn. Eurosceptics will not be pleased, but then again Samaras did not want to sign up and Berlusconi wanted to stay. Seems everything becomes liquid under the right pressure. Which makes me wonder if Angela Merkel is a brilliant strategist or really doesn't know what she wants.
She did bring about two regime changes, and without using a single division of panzers this time. :p
Little light-hearted but amusing:Quote:
It is a slow winter day in a little Greek village; times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the village, stops at the local hotel and lays a €100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
The owner gives him some keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the €100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the €100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the €100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.
The guy at the Farmers' Co-op takes the €100 note and runs to pay his drinks bill at the taverna.
The publican slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him "services" on credit.
The hooker then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the €100 note.
The hotel proprietor then places the €100 note back on the counter so the rich traveller will not suspect anything. At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, picks up the €100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.
No one produced anything.
No one earned anything.
However, the whole village is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism.
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the bailout package works.
I totally missed the news about Croatia, which is supposed to join the EU july 1st, 2013.
For those who think the failure in Italy is/was all Berlusconi's fault (I do think he had a large portion of blame for not doing enough but others did far worse ...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News article from July 2007
Prodi took a situation were the crisis in pensions was starting to be addressed by his predecessors government (Berlusconi, who later returned to power) from 57 years and watered them down to please the unions and his fellow lefties. What is happening now? Sorry no link but a Youtube video:
Now its going to be retirement at 66 (still too low given their demographics IMO) and annual inflation adjustments are being scrapped so they'll be losing value too.Quote:
"ROME (Reuters / December 4) - Italy's welfare minister Elsa Fornero was reduced to tears at a news conference on Sunday as she outlined tough reforms to pensions contained in the government's plan to regain control of strained public finances and help solve Europe's debt crisis.
Under the austerity plan unveiled on Sunday, Italy will raise the minimum pension age for women and men to 66 by 2018, and will scrap annual inflation adjustments for many pensions.
"We had to... and it cost us a lot psychologically... ask for a..." Fornero said, but was unable to complete her sentence as she wiped tears from her eyes.
Prime Minister Mario Monti finished the sentence for her, speaking the word "sacrifice" that she'd been unable say."
Eat the poor :up:
Are you capable of any intellectually honest discussions?
Will my possible answer result in use of the ignore or ban function?
Ignore: No, I never ignore anyone.
Ban: No, I would never abuse powers like that.
Well. If your analysis is that I'm unable to do so, how on Earth would me saying otherwise be worth anything?
That's not my analysis.
Well by and large Italian politicians are a useless bunch. I would atill heap more blame on sleasy Berlusconi as he was in power longer than any of the others. He could at least have tried harder.
He did, Prodi reversed it though conceding to the unions. Typically lefty.
At least someone like Romano Prodi would never get to a senior position in the EU though, since Italians are such a "useless bunch" right? Must have been a doppelganger who became the President of the EU Commission.
Like those are always selected from the best and brightest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/wo...crisis.html?hp Interesting piece, written by Hazir's alter-ego.
The author forgot one important player in this field; the US has a bigger interest in saving the euro than it has in safe guarding the position of London as a financial center. To me it seems the 'special relationship' there mustbe very special indeed when Geithner tells the UK that it can't be so that the FED is acting in support of the EMU with the UK being obstructive.
P.S. On the front page there is a piece about how today's deal can break Obama's chances for re-election.
I'd rather be a bystander to a horrendous car-wreck than have been in the drivers seat.
In other news all the Eurozone* including Germany have been put on negative-watch for a reduction in their credit ratings.
* 15/17 nations except Italy which is already junk and one other already on it.
The only reason why the UK is still a 'good risk' is that its bonds go straight to the balance sheet of the BoE. Not difficult to be AAA if you are you own biggest debtor ;)
Also, since you used the metaphor; you are not a bystander looking at a car wreck, you are the pedestrian in the way with nowhere to run if that car wreck really should happen. All your banks will go bust with no hope for recovery. Also have fun trying to sell anything to Europe in the aftermath.
You guys are going to be in SUCH trouble if we nuke ourselves. Then you'll be sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I was reading back, since it's an extension of Rand's newer thread about the Eurozone becoming a single state (after this thread went to hell).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm still not quite sure what Hazir and Rand are fighting about, other than nationalism. :confused:
But it's worth asking why Cameron thinks London can or will continue to be a global financial center, in a world where technology and HFT can be more important than the location of consultants or portfolio managers...to the point he'd pull out of a cooperative trading agreement. I can understand the motivation, but only to a certain point...and then I'm perplexed. :confused:
It's not like the UK has the same trading power as a united Eurozone that includes manufacturing powerhouses like Germany. It's not as if the UK is an energy or commodity exporter. It's not like the pound sterling is used or valued the same way as the eurodollar. Seems like Cameron has decided that London is the epicenter of the global financial services industry, and nothing will be allowed to change that assumption. Why?
That just doesn't make sense to me, since even Wall Street in NYC is competing with HFT in other US states like NJ or CT, and Chicago mercantile and commodity exchanges are competing with local/regional traders that can bypass them entirely. It's a global world now. Is it just me, or has Cameron and his conservative coalition decided that London should remain important....simply because they've historically been important?
The UK is not pulling out of the Single Market.
It is precisely because we know the world is globalised that we needed to avoid shooting ourselves in the foot. The Merkozy plan would have merely insured that financial services were conducted outside of the EU.
Unlike in the British plan where they would have been conducted merely not under the rules of the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's not about nationalism at all, and people who think it's about that (say a Steely or LF) are more than a bit obtuse. It's really a debate about federation or not, where I want a federation and Randblade doesn't. The reason why I want the Brits out is that as a nation they are against federalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
The problem with the federation idea is that it doesn't seem to have much popular support anywhere, and eurocrats are consistently trying to sneak it through the backdoor. Perhaps people (not just Brits) wouldn't be complaining about the loss of sovereignty every time the EU asks for something if these actions weren't forced down their throats.
The EU is not a federation though. Maybe rather than trying to force it through the back door then complain about the Brits, how about asking the people of Europe if that's what they want? I'm open and honest about not wanting a federation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
If it's about being a federation then why is it you strongly insist that all the members retain their individual positions in organizations like the UN *in addition to getting new EU positions as well*? Because what you want is more and more advantages and powers accruing to Europe, regardless of whether they're in keeping with an integrating/integrated federation. The only time I recall conflating you and your positions with nationalism was the thread Dominique Strauss-Kahn's replacement as IMF President where you were absolutely opposed to the mere idea that the position can be held by anyone but a representative of Europe, another topic which has nothing whatsoever to do with European federalism. The topic of this weird bitter fighting/flirting you do with Rand is the degree of integration in Europe but I don't think it's the origin of your positions. I'm not sure about Rand's positions, he's less interested in seeing them tattooed into every poster's hide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I think 2 permanent EU members in the UNSC is ridiculous, and I think EU countries would be better served by a single representative in all these international fora. I think one single vote and voice for the EU is much more effective than a host of voices for individual European countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The replacement of DSK was an entirely different matter; I wanted a EU head for the IMF. For the simple reason that I wanted the EU to have an effective grip on that institution. And I still think that third world countries that think differently can go screw themselves.
If you want a serious discussion about the issue it would help for example if you wouldn't use terms like 'forced down their throaths'. People in Europe could vote for anti-EU parties that then could decide not to cooperate and stick to that stance. That however is not how people vote. That means that people have given OTHER politicians than those euro-hating parties a mandate to decide and negotiate in the EU. Only in the UK there is this 'original lie' that somehow things are entirely different and they didn't know what they were getting into.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It was clear that Maastricht was a step towards a more integrated type of Europe, Lisbon was hardly done by stealth either. Everybody knew that it was a re-run of the Constitution, and still people kept voting for politicians that would ratify it. And don't get me started about the Irish to have to re-do their referenda; they have an alternative to voting yes the second time every time. They could even try to test their standing with the rest by sticking to their noes. I can only remark that they didn't, because in reality what they had a problem with was not the EU forcing down their throaths something they didn't like, but because they didn't like the consequences of their no-vote all that much.
Highlighted the word that shows why you're wrong. Whether you like it or not the EU is a collection of nations, just as much as the UN is a collection of nations. It is not a federation of states. No single nation can claim to represent all 27.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Who would have represented the EU during the Lybian conflict (Germany chose not to take part, UK and France did)? Or during Iraq? If the EU were a single nation then there should be one representative, but its not.
Given that the permanent members of the UN-SC is to be perfectly frank meant to represent the powerful nations in the world (at least as it was in 1945), with all 5 being nuclear powers, what nuclear weapons can the EU fire? What military does it have?
UKIP is the "anti-EU" party in the UK, we don't vote for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Please name any nation that has explicitly voted for the abolition of the current nations and forming a federation instead.
So? None of the things you mention is how it should be. I think there should be no German Wehrmacht, no British navy and on French force de frappe.