|
| Thread: The Euro-American War |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 01, 2005 08:22 PM |
|
|
In Agreement
"Filled with elitism" . . . .
I like that phrase. That's how I see the E.U.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted June 01, 2005 09:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Norway's really a country not very fit for (mass production) agriculture, so they rely on large subsidies to keep things going. It's both good for our active district policies, and to keep the traditional settlement patterns alive.
2 things:
1) Doesn't it cost more for the government to give subsidies than simply to import produce?
2) "traditionnal settlement patterns"? I don't get it. Do you mean the interior of Norway being populated? If so, why is that a good thing? (if we look at Australia, it's working fine!  ) Buy district policies, what do you mean?
Quote:
the socialists have traditionally been negative towards the EU. Sure, they call themselves Europeans, but at the same time they percieve the EU as a neoliberal project, filled with elitism and with a large democratic deficit. Social dumping is one of the main fears of the Norwegian left, since people have a tendency to start voting for the xenophobic and ultra rightwing Progress Party, once thigs start to go wrong.
But why? things arent wrong with EU at the moment, so what's to fear? Why is it seen as "neoliberal project, filled with elitism and with a large democratic deficit"?
Quote:
But I guess the reason that most people care about, is that if we became members, it'd be harder to hold back the "free flow of labour" (one of the "Four Freedoms" of the EU - the other three being capital, goods and services). We're already, in theory at least, obliged to open our borders to EU citizens, but since the Norwegian wage levels are extremely high, and e.g. Polish carpenters can be paid by Polish tariffs, we're allowed at least a minimum of protection.
Protection from what? from keeping high minimum wages?
Quote:
The Bolkenstein Directive (also known as the "Service Directive), however, would remove such protectionist measures. There's been strikes and lots of things like that in attempts to force the parliament into passing legslation that will secure foreign workers in Norway Norwegian wages, but these have been voted down by the righwing majority. Hopefully though, this will change after this autumn's elections...
Are you saying that Foreign workers in Norway don't get Norwegian wages? That's incredible! Who pays them then? In Canada, no matter where you are from, the employer you work for must give you Canadian minimum wages and in Canadian dollars.
Quote:
In the meantime, there's little to separate us from the actual members, since we're members of a small group of countries (in addition to Norway, this group includes Lichtenstein and Iceland - Switzerland has an individual agreement with the EU). So, sice we're part of the European Economic Cooperation, we're obliged to make European legislation part of our own laws. There's been lots of grumbling about this, especially since Norway's actually the country, EU-members and non-members, who are "best" at executing orders from Brüssel. In exchange for this, we recieve access to the European Inner Market; an important market for e.g. our timbers, gas and farmed fish.
Seems to me like Norway is trying to get best of both worlds here: don't want anyone to fish in their waters, but can sell on the European Inner Market... quite the monopoly.
Quote:
We also pay something like $250,000,000 to the EU every year, to help build up (or prop up) the economies of Eastern Europe.
So non members have to pay that much money? That's weird... why? you aren't even a member! who obligates you to pay that much money?
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted June 01, 2005 10:31 PM |
|
|
Another Defeat:
Quote:
Voters in the Netherlands have rejected the proposed European Union constitution by 63% to 37%.
More promise of greater E.U. reforms.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 02, 2005 01:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Norway's really a country not very fit for (mass production) agriculture, so they rely on large subsidies to keep things going. It's both good for our active district policies, and to keep the traditional settlement patterns alive.
2 things:
1) Doesn't it cost more for the government to give subsidies than simply to import produce?
2) "traditionnal settlement patterns"? I don't get it. Do you mean the interior of Norway being populated? If so, why is that a good thing? (if we look at Australia, it's working fine! ) Buy district policies, what do you mean?
1. Yes. But since we have our oil, we have come to the conclusion that we are willing to pay for this. It is, amongst other things, about employment and such.
2. Well, unlike the Swedes, we Norwegians have come to the conclusion that thanks to the oil we pump up from the North Sea, we can afford to pay lots of money and arrange special measures to maintain the traditional patterns of living in Norway. This basically means that we want to make sure that there are people living “everywhere” in our country. Of course, not even ambitious politicians have been able to stop the process of urbanisation, but it has been very much slowed down.
And I didn’t mean that we do this to populate the interior, but to keep it from depopulating. 
Quote:
Quote:
the socialists have traditionally been negative towards the EU. Sure, they call themselves Europeans, but at the same time they perceive the EU as a neoliberal project, filled with elitism and with a large democratic deficit. Social dumping is one of the main fears of the Norwegian left, since people have a tendency to start voting for the xenophobic and ultra rightwing Progress Party, once things start to go wrong.
But why? things arent wrong with EU at the moment, so what's to fear? Why is it seen as "neoliberal project, filled with elitism and with a large democratic deficit"?
It’s seen as a neoliberal project because the Four Freedoms is neoliberal, the anti-government/public sector policies of the EU are neoliberal, and so on.
As for the “democratic deficit”, this is a term that has arisen because only the European Parliament is directly elected by the European citizens. The rest are appointed by the political elite.
Quote:
Quote:
But I guess the reason that most people care about, is that if we became members, it'd be harder to hold back the "free flow of labour" (one of the "Four Freedoms" of the EU - the other three being capital, goods and services). We're already, in theory at least, obliged to open our borders to EU citizens, but since the Norwegian wage levels are extremely high, and e.g. Polish carpenters can be paid by Polish tariffs, we're allowed at least a minimum of protection.
Protection from what? from keeping high minimum wages?
Protecting from unemployment; if the corporations had the opportunity, they’d only hire cheap Eastern European labour, instead of the more expensive Norwegian one. See one of my previous posts for dilemmas I see in relation to this. See also the answer to your next question for further elaboration.
Quote:
Quote:
The Bolkenstein Directive (also known as the "Service Directive), however, would remove such protectionist measures. There's been strikes and lots of things like that in attempts to force the parliament into passing legslation that will secure foreign workers in Norway Norwegian wages, but these have been voted down by the righwing majority. Hopefully though, this will change after this autumn's elections...
Are you saying that Foreign workers in Norway don't get Norwegian wages? That's incredible! Who pays them then? In Canada, no matter where you are from, the employer you work for must give you Canadian minimum wages and in Canadian dollars.
It’s like this all over the European Area, not only in Norway. This is most likely one of the main reasons why so many French workers voted against the Constitution.
The workers get paid wages by the standards of their home countries; an example here can be that a Norwegian electricity company hired Polish workers for 22 Norwegian Kroner pr. hour, whereas a Norwegian worker’d been entitled to almost ten times more.
This is of course wrong, since it contributes to lowering the standards in the West, rather than raise it in the East. I believe I commented on this earlier.
Quote:
Quote:
In the meantime, there's little to separate us from the actual members, since we're members of a small group of countries (in addition to Norway, this group includes Lichtenstein and Iceland - Switzerland has an individual agreement with the EU). So, since we're part of the European Economic Cooperation, we're obliged to make European legislation part of our own laws. There's been lots of grumbling about this, especially since Norway's actually the country, EU-members and non-members, who are "best" at executing orders from Brüssel. In exchange for this, we receive access to the European Inner Market; an important market for e.g. our timbers, gas and farmed fish.
Seems to me like Norway is trying to get best of both worlds here: don't want anyone to fish in their waters, but can sell on the European Inner Market... quite the monopoly.
Sure. But of course, European products also get tax free entry Norwegian markets. This goes both ways. As for our protectionism when it comes to our maritime territories, that can be seen as a part of the aforementioned district policies: The people who live there are unable to compete with the Continental trawlers, so they’d lose their jobs and have to move to some city n order to get work, or simply sit in some rotten village and receive unemployment money (not to mention that the trawlers destroy both the underwater fauna and ditto flora).
Quote:
Quote:
We also pay something like $250,000,000 to the EU every year, to help build up (or prop up) the economies of Eastern Europe.
So non members have to pay that much money? That's weird... why? you aren't even a member! who obligates you to pay that much money?
We basically pay to get access to the markets of Europe: The government uses tax and oil revenue to pay for the membership of the EEC, so that our industry, etc., can benefit from it.
Hmm, and on second though, it appears as if I’ve miscalculated the fee we pay: We pay somewhere around 1-2 billion Norwegian Kroner, and I think the exchange rates for NOK vs. USD, is so that one has to pay 7,5NOK for 1 USD...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2005 07:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Voters in the Netherlands have rejected the proposed European Union constitution by 63% to 37%.
More promise of greater E.U. reforms.
HUH?
Im sorry Concis, but the constitution treaty was actually a great reform of the EU. Actually the "Non" and the "Nee" is promise of no EU reforms. Instead we will have a colossus on clay feet, where it will be extremely difficult to get anything done. As of right now, Europe is in a political deadlock, where nobody knows what to do, except hope for a miracle.
This is mainly the fault of the leading politicians around EU, who dont discuss EU at all during normal work processes, instead they think that people will just vote yes, when they are asked once in a blue moon. Mainly because it is an excellent constitution (Which it is). But the voters perceive it as a referendum on how their politicians are running EU, instead of a tool, that would make their voices heard alot better in Bruxelles.
Indeed this is a sad week, and it is very difficult to see any mitigating circumstances. Both from all the "No"-voters and from the political leadership who has failed in a miserable way.
Reforms you say. "Non", "Nee", "Nej", "No".
A couple of years where people have no clue as to whats going on: "Oui", "Ja", "Yes".
The future of EU and Europe: Today very uncertain.
Regards
Defreni
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 02, 2005 02:58 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 2 Jun 2005
|
No
That is your opinion Defreni. And not only did you lose the vote, but by a large margin as well. Thus far, the people of France and the Netherlands have spoken clearly.
I believe the E.U. constitution is nothing more than a banker's pipe dream. That is my opinion and it coincidentally coincides with a majority of French and Dutch people at this point. (hmm) When I say hope for better reforms, I mean it will probably need to be drawn up as an entirely different document. It focuses too much on capital and too little on national identities and civil rights.
Let me help you understand one of the flaws of my capitalist country. In some states, if a person dies and they haven't written a Living Will(document describing who receives property upon death) for who their property goes to then that property and all the person's financial assets are automatically awarded to the state. Sometimes this occurs even when the person has children. This is but one example of how a state government can obtain more financial assets in a capitalistic society.
You should understand what many Europeans understand. Those that voted against the constitution are weary of inheriting the flaws of American capitalism. They are also afraid they will be assimilated into a larger culture that doesn't accurately represent the true feelings of their people, history, and nationality. This is a real concern that some people choose to ignore.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2005 03:12 PM |
|
|
thanks Terje, quite enlightning. I guess you can see that I don't know much about Norwegian politics, which is the reason I am so interested in it.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2005 06:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That is your opinion Defreni. And not only did you lose the vote, but by a large margin as well. Thus far, the people of France and the Netherlands have spoken clearly.
I believe the E.U. constitution is nothing more than a banker's pipe dream. That is my opinion and it coincidentally coincides with a majority of French and Dutch people at this point. (hmm) When I say hope for better reforms, I mean it will probably need to be drawn up as an entirely different document. It focuses too much on capital and too little on national identities and civil rights.
Let me help you understand one of the flaws of my capitalist country. In some states, if a person dies and they haven't written a Living Will(document describing who receives property upon death) for who their property goes to then that property and all the person's financial assets are automatically awarded to the state. Sometimes this occurs even when the person has children. This is but one example of how a state government can obtain more financial assets in a capitalistic society.
You should understand what many Europeans understand. Those that voted against the constitution are weary of inheriting the flaws of American capitalism. They are also afraid they will be assimilated into a larger culture that doesn't accurately represent the true feelings of their people, history, and nationality. This is a real concern that some people choose to ignore.
You have some good points Concis, about why some people in France and Holland decided to reject the constitution, but the understand part is rather presumptious, seeing as I live in Denmark where there is a history of rejecting EU treaties. So dont tell me I dont understand, like It is incomprehensible to me. I do understand, I just dont agree, with the people who think that EU is a banker`s pipe dream as you put it.
Actually EU was sold as an economic project at first, but lately it is turning to something completely different than just a free market.
It is an attempt to put national interest in the background compared to the individuals right, and the greater good of all off mankind. Actually it is NOT a copy of the US story, where you have states that gradually became more and more federal in nature.
It is rather an attempt to secure and protect the individual in a more and more global world, where companies try to play countries out against eachother, to the sole benefit of said countries.
Just one example of how EU is preventing said things from happening in to large a degree in Europe is the law suit against microsoft.
The problem is not that EU is to far from the citicen in various european countries, but the fact that leading politician still work in a paradigm that makes the nation-state the pinnacle of society. Forgetting in the process that the nation-state has just existed in 150 years, and have not been able to solve any of the great problems existing in the world. Namely Poverty and War.
Imho, EU could be a possible solution to these 2 pressing problems, seeing that it has actually succeded in outlawing these 2 things in the part of Europe which EU comprise of.
The no-vote doesnt mean that it will be possible in the near future to bring this stabilizing feature to any more countries, aswell as there is a very real threat that EU will begin to slowly work backwards of what has been achieved in the last 20 years.
Meaning that the individual countries in EU will work more and more towards just securing their own populations instead of thinking in the greater good.
A very good comparison to this scenario would be the first decade of the 20eth century.
If their had been a proper public discussion of the EU, both its possibilities and its limitations in the last 10 years, this frightening scenario wouldnt have loomed over our heads today.
Instead people would have seen the real intention behind the constitution. Namely that it counts everybody in the EU as equals. Both poles, danes, brits.....
Instead we have a ressurection of the national chauvanistic feelings that have been the scourge of modern european history. A feeling I had hoped the EU could be a tool in eradicating.
I guess this should not be, at least not in the near future.
Regards
Defreni
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 02, 2005 08:49 PM |
|
|
Excellent point Defreni. Its certainly one aspect of the larger picture of the European vision. Indeed, therein lies a great potential for historical changes in the world. Unfortunately, will Europeans be ready for it? So far only "non" and "nee" are what echos round Europe.
Quote:
Whereas in a planned/mixed economy, the government can say: "Those people need food. You fat folks over there, you'll have to make due with less. Send the food and some excess food from other places to the people who are starving. Or that's how it should work in principle, at least.
I don’t think that’s a planned/mixed economy task. What differs liberal vs controlled economy is the direction(s) which the economy could take, where and how to invest and the ownership of the built facilities. On which principle would a planned economy give food to starving people who have no money to pay for it? On the other hand, why wouldn’t a completely liberal economy allocate some resources (from taxes) for social aid? Liberal economic system can exhibit social welfare features, just as planned economies don’t have to. Lets not mix the pots here. 
Though, a planned economy in theory has more power to turn the tide and improve living standards for the poor (but not by giving away money and goods for nothing), what profit-driven economies cant because the poor are generally not in their field of interest.
Quote:
As for the “democratic deficit”, this is a term that has arisen because only the European Parliament is directly elected by the European citizens. The rest are appointed by the political elite.
If there’s any democratic deficit in Europe, its in the voting electorate. The one way for Europeans to democratically influence their future in the EU is constantly “rejected” (to be a bit harsh). The elections for the Parliament are considered third-class elections in nearly all countries and always get pathetic censuses. Cant blame them really, with the limited maneuvering space the Parliament has, people realize the lack of concentration of political power. But that can only come with the increase in the state capacity of the EU, which has been halted by the referendums. But I wouldn’t go too far in saying that theres a “democratic deficit in the EU elitist structures”. All the other bodies in the EU (Council of EU, European Commission) are indirectly elected by the democratically elected governments or other EU bodies. Certainly more direct elections would only bureaucratize the Union even more and provide for even more poor voters turn-outs.
Before I comment on the labor policy terje, maybe u could clear up these things for me.
Isnt it true that illegal Eastern European workers are a big problem and a main reason why Norwegian jobs are threatened? In that case, obviously the workers will be paid by drastically lower standards than the Norwegian one. (i don’t know about Norway, but this is the case in the big EU countries)
But now, you’re saying that legal Polish workers as well are paid by Polish standards, is that right? In which case, unlikely but, is that higher than the minimum wage granted for Norwegians? Also, I assume these workers arent obliged to pay taxes and insurance, but then again they are recognized by the state, so it makes little sense. So, how high are the taxes (if any) that these legal Eastern European workers pay?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 03, 2005 06:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Before I comment on the labor policy terje, maybe u could clear up these things for me.
Isnt it true that illegal Eastern European workers are a big problem and a main reason why Norwegian jobs are threatened? In that case, obviously the workers will be paid by drastically lower standards than the Norwegian one. (i don’t know about Norway, but this is the case in the big EU countries)
But now, you’re saying that legal Polish workers as well are paid by Polish standards, is that right? In which case, unlikely but, is that higher than the minimum wage granted for Norwegians? Also, I assume these workers arent obliged to pay taxes and insurance, but then again they are recognized by the state, so it makes little sense. So, how high are the taxes (if any) that these legal Eastern European workers pay?
Illegal...
I've forgot the exact contents of those rules for movement of labour, so I'm afraid I won't be able to comment on your post in a satisfactory manner. Thus, I have to skip the part about the illegal workers. All I can say is that to the extent that there are illegal workers, they're mainly carpenters and similar, and yes, they are of course paid ridiculously low wages, by Norwegian standards. But on the other hand, Norwegian wages could be said to be ridiculously high, although I'd slightly disagree with that.
So, to the legal workers.
Yes, they are paid by Polish standards. Or, to be precise, slightly more, I think, but still way less than Norwegians are paid. (Due to price levels, and all that.) As for taxes, they pay taxes only to the Polish government, I think (I'm not sure). (Edit: I asked Woock, and he told me that the Polish income tax varies from 19% to 40% - Norwegian income taxes range from ca. 35%, and I think there re people who pay well over 60% in income taxes. Just to compare things somewhat...)
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 04, 2005 04:55 AM |
|
|
One has to admit, there are inequities in Europe and thats bad. A liberalization and a gradual merging of the labour markets is necessary. This redistribution of productive relations will certainly come with a price, and that will have its impact in the richer countries more or less. Yes, terje, the idea of ironing the differences through raising standards in Eastern Europe, rather than lowering in Norway, is in its basics good, but unfortunately practically may require a century before it comes true, or even longer, or never. So Norway will have to take some colateral damadge, even if they refused to have anything with the EU altogether. If Polish workers dont come to Norwegian facotries, then Norwegian factories will go to Polish workers.
Having realized that some sacrifice of standard will happen, the question is how much? If i remember correctly, after the admitance of the new member-states, it was calculated, the average European standard will drop by 18%. If the equalization was as brutal, the same drop would have had to be reflected in the Norwegian standard of living, or quite probably even more. Luckily, there are measures which are/have to be taken in oder to prevent such a huge hit. The best thing would be for Norwegians to face reality and reorient to more profitable areas, but its most difficult to implement. Another idea seems to be to make standards for all workers (foreign and domestic alike) equal, thus preventing people losing their jobs for cheaper labour. This measure could have some nasty consequences, forcing companies to move to some other country, but seeing as its timber and oil we're talking about, they cant. It could certainly make such jobs more attractive for foreign workers, thus threatening even more with unemployment for native Norwegians, but I dont think employers would be too fond of employing foreigners when for the same sum of money there will be fellow Norwegian candidates. What are the analyses in Norway like? Is this measure intended to raise or lower the number of Eastern European employees?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2005 12:16 PM |
|
|
Well it is not a certainty that the admission of eastern european countries will lead to social dumping or a lowering of the standard of living in western europe.
We have the same discussion in Denmark, where people are in uproar at the perspective of just one pole coming to Denmark to work. Just prior to the admittance of the 10 countries in 2004 some "econimist" (Yes, it is very hard for me to give them any credentials) figured that Denmark would be swamped with 100.000+ polish workers coming to Denmark to work for a fraction of what Danes earn.
This hasnt happened, but the few that have come here, is headline news, so the general population think its a far bigger problem, than realyties show us.
The same argument was put forth in 1986 when Spain, Portugal and Greece was admitted to the EU. The funny part is that I havent seen any low-paid worker from any of these countries in Denmark.
Instead it has taken them less than 20 years to reach living standards that compares with the original EU countries. I might add that it hasnt decreased the living standards of any country.
This leads to my point. Economics as of today, is not a zero-sum equation, where if some people increase their living standards, it has to decline for others.
This is perhaps the most powerfull argument for increasing ODA (Official Direct Assistance) for 3. world countries. Instead of trying to wall ourselves off from imigration from these countries. (In Europe it is offcourse former 2. world countries)
But instead of doing this, the EU (and in this, the US is doing just the same) the official policy makers is still relying on a Malthussian concept of zero-sum growth, which is refuted by 200 years of economic growth in primaily the western hemisphere, and 30 years of growth in East Asia.
Im just waiting to see if people isnt becoming tired of looking at the world through a blindfold, and instead looking at the grand opportunity we have these years, for actually making a difference.
On this note I will end this post with a recommendation of a great book written by the special economic advisor of Kofi Annan, Jeffrey Sachs. Its called "The End of Poverty" and has a foreword written by no other than U2 lead singer Bono.
Regards
Defreni
PS: Forgot to write that you are way off on your estimation that itr will take 1 century to gain equality in Europe, Svarog. We are talking a few decades, if people finally realise that EU has a great potential for social equality for its memberstates.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 05, 2005 04:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Forgot to write that you are way off on your estimation that itr will take 1 century to gain equality in Europe, Svarog. We are talking a few decades, if people finally realise that EU has a great potential for social equality for its memberstates.
My estimation was based on the presumption that Western Europe would retain their protectionism instead of opening up to other countries. Its also logical, since that protectionism was designed in a way to secure the countries privileged and dominant position. Living in a country which is decades behind the rest of Europe and knowing the conditions and prospects here, i'm firmly convinced that we will never reach the standards of Norway. Its not necessarily bad though, as long as we are put on a track which will ensure us stability and constant progress. Now about Portugal, Spain and Greece, you do know that the standard in these countries is couple of times lower than the standard in Luxemburg, for example.
As for the influx of foreign workers, I agree the public impression about it is much pumped up with xenophobic propaganda. Its the hardest decision one could bring to leave his family and work somewhere abroad, so if the country's on its way towards economic progress, if the people see optimistically in the future, there will be very few people who would actually make such a decision. And usually when new member-states are admitted, the economic growth is reasonably high, so theres no such danger. However, point still stands that there is some impact for the economies, especially in some branches (or do you think 63% discontent in Holland is to ignore?), but imo its nothing nearly threatening for the economy that the it cant handle and digest itself.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 05, 2005 04:28 AM |
|
|
"Protectionism" . . . ?
I think the word you're looking for is "nationalism". It's an important distinction in my opinion. They aren't protecting themselves from where I sit.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 05, 2005 04:39 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 4 Jun 2005
|
The word's fine. Protectionist as opposed to liberal approach. Motivated perhaps by nationalism, but thats not it.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted June 05, 2005 05:29 PM |
|
|
"Protectionist" refers to economic policies designed to give companies and/or workers a competitive advantage over those from other countries. The most overt forms of this are subsidies and tariffs although there are a number of other ways to stick one's thumb on the scales, so to speak.
Basically if you are "nationalist" you support shooting foreigners. If you are "protectionist" you support starving foreigners. I am a "giantcrocodilepitist" because I support putting both foreigners and locals in giant pits with hungry crocodiles for my own amusement.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 05, 2005 06:21 PM |
|
|
As The Man Once Said,
"This is the sort of pedantics up with which I will not put!"
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted June 05, 2005 07:10 PM |
|
|
Merci Beaucoup!
I never thought i would say this, but...
Viva la France!
My time is limited as of late, so I will put my thoughts in simple mathematical equation so that guys like Svarog and Hudson can understand:
1. European Union - France = Divided Europe
2. Divided Europe * Spread of Capitalism to Developing Countries = More Reliance on U.S. Capital & Corporations
3. Divided Europe + Reliance on U.S. = U.S. Remaining #1 Economic & Military SuperPower for another 20+ years
Conclusion: Right now, there is nothing that makes an American capitalist happier than a divided Europe. France may not support any U.S. foreign policy, but as long as they keep delaying the unification of Europe, they will always be considered a great ally of the United States by default.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2005 09:32 PM |
|
|
Okay let's agree on one thing atleast... that we the majestic Europeans are by far better than the puny Americans ...
For those of you who may not have understood the above, it is a joke.... or is it? ...
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted June 05, 2005 10:17 PM |
|
|
Khayman,
Quote:
...there is nothing that makes an American capitalist happier than a divided Europe...
Actually this has been the British philosophy ever since Duke William of Normandy conquered England. The British have a long historical record of keeping their version of the status quo in Europe. They have taken an active and sometimes extremely costly approach dating back from the Crimean wars to the last world war. If any single European nation attempts to acquire key geo-economic strategic resources or cities then you can be sure that Britain will be there to help fund and offer military aid to put that nation back in its place.
Americans could not care less what Europeans are doing. Our country has done more historically to illegally keep South American nations divided rather than European. We've funded guerilla wars and coup attempts. That is simply not the case in Europe. We have left that job to the trusty Brits.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
| |
|
|
