|
| Thread: Should the EU be dissolved? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted September 26, 2013 08:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Genetically I don't know (do you?)
There are individuals who are more aggressive or anti-social because of genetic heritage but there are no genetic behavior patterns of races. Actually, (I think I've mentioned this before by giving the example of looking at a Jackson Pollock painting on a 256 color monitor), modern genetics says the opposite, we are all so interracial, genetically, it is hard to talk about races at all. Unless, you're from some tribe in a far away island or deep in the jungle, your genetic heritage is a mix of many many races.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 03:07 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
You'll find thousands of reports about gypsies stealing, raping and killing. Every time they install somewhere, the crime rate is going on rampage.
no crimes against gypsies? seeing how everyone seems to love them.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 05:38 PM |
|
|
Well, imo this is a carefully managed situation. "How the hell is it managed when things look so bad!?" you may ask.. Well in fact it's quite simple, and it's effective too.
It's called the Hegelian Dialectic and this is how it works:
"Why is it important for you to understand the subject of the Hegelian Dialectic? Because it is the process by which all change is being accomplished in society today. More importantly, it is the tool that the globalists are utilizing to manipulate the minds of the average American [not just the american, it's worldwide] to accept that change, where ordinarily they would refuse it.
The Hegelian Dialectic is, in short, the critical process by which the ruling elite create a problem, anticipating in advance the reaction that the population will have to the given crisis, and thus conditioning the people that a change is needed. When the population is properly conditioned, the desired agenda of the ruling elite is presented as the solution. The solution isn't intended to solve the problem, but rather to serve as the basis for a new problem or exacerbate the existing one." - copied from here.
Want another example? -- The 'terrorist attacks' on 9/11 as the problem and the resulting wars against Middle East countries as the solution. What did they acomplish with this? Well.. alot, just naming a few: new laws and taxes on the american citizen, a big fat budged for the military and the oil resources from the conquered countries.
You should look at the EU from this perspective also. At the time when the WW was the problem, the EU came as the solution. Now the EU became the problem.. and I can only speculate what the solution might be, but it's definetly not decentralisation, after all, the main objective is Globalization.
One world government, one world economy, one world bank, one world religion, one world community --- under one supreme ruler. The New World Order president Bush and the others were so eager about.. it's all on the agenda.
About the gypsy thing, Salamandre.. I know that it's a problem, but promoting hate-actions like "mr.french president" did won't solve anything, it will just avoid or postpone the issue, namely when gypsies come back in France.
Sorry, this was a bit long after all  Thank you.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 07:32 PM |
|
|
|
That's... erm... well, that's not Hegelian dialectics. That's just manipulating facts/events so they can have a result which is in your favour.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 07:36 PM |
|
|
Short answer: No
Long answer: Hell no
you can't believe how many job places have been created just because there are people needed to control if stuff fits EU standards.
If EU wasn't around, I'd be unemployed, because Pooland would not need the ERTMS rail system.
Not to mention it at least gives a measure of calm to know that one can GTFO to a normal country without the visa nightmare if things go really south.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 07:59 PM |
|
|
so thanks to EU you get to work on stuffs your country doesn't need? 
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 09:02 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:02, 26 Sep 2013.
|
Salamandre said:
that they basically ask is to give free houses to 40k illegal roms, invoking some obscure fundamental human rights. Pure snow.
I agree there shouldn't be free housing. EU migrants are required to support themselves which is more senseable to me. Free movement is more important than unconditional welfare.
Fauch said:
so thanks to EU you get to work on stuffs your country doesn't need?
I don't think it's possible to know what a country needs or doesn't need. It's one of the flaws with a planned economy. That the central planner doesn't have the knowledge to make the right decisions.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 10:39 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 22:40, 26 Sep 2013.
|
xerox said:
I don't think it's possible to know what a country needs or doesn't need. It's one of the flaws with a planned economy. That the central planner doesn't have the knowledge to make the right decisions.
How is it a planned economy then? Can you plan something and then say that you don't know what you just planned? Cuz what you said sounded just like that.
It's like saying you want to plan your weekend and after you finished say that you have no clue what you're gonna do.
But if you wanna believe that a country is like a plane with no pilot then enjoy yourself.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 10:55 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:01, 26 Sep 2013.
|
I'm saying in planned economies (like much of eastern Europe and Russia used to have) the central planner, i.e. the government, thinks it makes the right economic decisions but usually doesn't for various reasons. One being that it's hard for it to know which the right decisions are. Another that the supply-demand mechanism doesn't exist. There's a hilarious recent demonstration of this with Venezuela's price controls leading to a huge shortage of toilet paper!
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 10:56 PM |
|
|
|
I think housing should be free. of course that doesn't mean you could own 10 houses for free. you would only be authorized to own one in most cases. of course that can never happen as long as banks make the rules.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 11:11 PM |
|
|
Nah, I don't think there's a need to provide tax-financed housing to anyone. With an unregulated housing/construction market the rents would probably be cheap enough for the homeless to be a very small minority, picked up by charity.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 11:28 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Another that the supply-demand mechanism doesn't exist.
I'm having a hard time believing this, especially since I live in a ex-communist country. I'm certain that there were some food shortages here too but only on a small, local scale. It was due to being focused on paying foreign debt via income from massive exporting. But if what you say it's true, then not knowing how much demand is does not fit the definition of 'planned economy', don't cha think?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 11:39 PM |
|
|
The intention is of course for the central planner to know the demand. It tends to fail.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 11:47 PM |
|
|
|
don't unregulated markets tend to make prices increase?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2013 11:59 PM |
|
|
No, why do you think that would happen?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 12:48 AM |
|
|
|
maybe I'm just thinking of monopolies
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 07:41 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
I'm saying in planned economies (like much of eastern Europe and Russia used to have) the central planner, i.e. the government, thinks it makes the right economic decisions but usually doesn't for various reasons. One being that it's hard for it to know which the right decisions are. Another that the supply-demand mechanism doesn't exist. There's a hilarious recent demonstration of this with Venezuela's price controls leading to a huge shortage of toilet paper!
The planned economies are based on demand and supply, they just don't allow the market agents to determine the optimal amount of goods/services that should be present for transaction at any time. There is no way to ignore demand (and to provide somewhat adequate supply, if that is possible) in any type of economy, especially when critical goods/services are concerned, otherwise it will either crumble, or it will develop a big black market which will ultimately lead to the former or to the adaptation of the supply to the demand.
The issue is with the adaptability mechanism. Economies based on central planning adapt based on decisions taken by regulatory organs while "free" market economies adapt via interactions between the economic agents. Both types are based on decisions which may be right or wrong - just as the state could decide which production to prioritize, so the individual private agents can take the same decision and it may turn to be correct or incorrect given the conjuncture. The mysticism of the liberal economists about "invisible hands" and such just does not exist which is proven by pretty much every economic crisis - in reality there is just no synchronization between the decisions of the economic agents and the real market condition (which is always very complex and usually misinterpreted). Same issues plague the planned economies, with the difference being that the impact is never that sudden. In short, the planned economies can stagnate for quite some time due to some incorrect central decision (or more likely - a number of such decisions) but also remain in a stable state for longer, while the "free market" economies generally adapt faster but also destabilize faster.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:41 AM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
The mysticism of the liberal economists about "invisible hands" and such just does not exist which is proven by pretty much every economic crisis
I don't particularly feel like arguing about this right now, but this is the economics equivalent of "if evolution is true, why are monkeys still around?".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:45 AM |
|
|
|
Pretty inadequate analogy.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 09:18 AM |
|
|
Very inadequate. In the first example, there is disinformation (the monkeys running around are not the same as our ancestors) and put that aside, the question directly indicates that each new specie MUST cause its ancestor to go extinct, this has nothing to with the process of natural selection.
On the other hand, there is a relevant objection. Supporters of a totally free market indeed claim there is an invisible mechanism that sorts everything out and puts thing in balance (they sometimes even use biological evolution as an analogy in their arguments, which is flawed, because there is no "balance" or order in that sense in nature, organisms go extinct all the time, all of them may go extinct). This claim is relevantly being refuted when a crisis comes every now and then and the state interferes this way or the other.
|
|
|
|
