Amsel_ wrote:1) I'll repeat for the dozenth time that I'm bringing up these domestic issues to show a microcosmic failure on the part of the EU. This isn't meant to be an argument on its own. It's just supposed to show supposed "leaks in the dam" about the EU not assuaging macro issues. Isolationist policies are also rather unlikely. There's no reason these countries can't trade with each other without the EU.
Dude, does your federal government have to account for every lil shit that happens inside one of your state? Is the Trump administration to blame for Illinois being one of the states with the worst roads in the USA? Or is the local administration? Does Illinois having bad infrastructure show a failure of centralised government or just local mismanagement? You probably don't blame your federal government for every failure of administration that is apparent at a state level. Then why would you blame the EU for these "microcosmic failures", if the EU is not even a country like the US.
Also, I've got news for you, the EU does a lot more than just facilitating trade between its members. A lot more. But not in areas which are the exclusive authority of sovereign states.
There is such a thing in the EU called the principle of subsidiarity. Which means that in areas in which the EU has no exclusive competence, it's up to each EU country to conduct their own policies. And when it comes to economic performance or public order, that's always the case. EU countries don't really lose their sovereignty when they join the EU, they just pool their sovereignty in some areas of common interest.
2) Surely you have seen the massive right-wing surge that has been explicitly anti-EU.
Yeah and most of them do not even share a common platform. You know, for example Steve Banon came to Europe to organise some kind "European awakening" here, after he got kicked out of the Trump administration, so he came here to lick his wounds by trying to somehow stir things up in Europe. You know what these local right-wing parties told him? To take his plans and put'em where the sun never shines. That's what Scandinavian right-wing parties told him, that's what Central European right-wing parties told him too. Only the Dutch, the French, some Belgian dude, and Italians were somewhat interested, but for example Le Pen rejected any idea that Banon would be involved in her party anymore than just a "consultant" and as someone who provides polls. That's all. All this narrative about some kind of major brewing right-wing uprising is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.
3) When those countries buy U.S. assets they are increasing our GDP. According to you, it should balance out. But inflation isn't just matching GDP to the money supply. Money creation is not inflationary as long as there are goods and services to buy with that money.
Which is not the case when you create new virtual currency, crediting accounts with new digital money that have no coverage whatsoever in the real economy. Because that's what you're doing when you're overspending. You are creating more currency beyond the forecast value of your GDP. The quantity of goods and services will not magically increase too. More money will be chasing a smaller quantity of goods and services.
Those examples (Japan, Greece, Western Europe) are so different and have such different underlying real-economy contexts, that for me to prove why this argument is not relevant it would take me a book, at least. Japan has a much different work ethic compared to Greece, their debt is mostly owned by Japanese citizens and part of their deflationary issues are also created by a general decline in demographics, during the last few decades. It's a very long story and it doesn't have much to do with monetising debt. It would be a gross oversimplification to claim Japan has been doing so well economically thanks to monetising debt. It would be a very shallow argument, the economy does not work only based on monetary forces. Or maybe that's what Americans think, the economy is basically printing more money, making more cheap credit available, period. That explains it all.
6) If one nuke goes off, all of them go off. That has been the situation since the cold-war.
In what way, when did this ever happen? When did one nuke go off which triggered the others to go off too?
7) The Louisiana territories never really developed their own nationality. Meanwhile Catalonia has its own language, history, politics, ethnicity, and culture. Time alone doesn't disqualify them from comparison to Yugoslavia.
Well they were Spanish. The Spanish could put any population they wanted there, it was their property. They could move half of their population there and it could be a new country. It's not like there is such a thing as an ethnic American either. So why would Louisiana continue to be part of the USA, when it could split, if all the people who were of Spanish or Mexican-Spanish ancestry could claim their independence from the USA?
Catalonia wants to be independent because their economy is doing well, that's why. There has been a trend at some point among some regions that were doing very well economically to claim they should split with the main country and go it alone. Same thing happened with Northern Italy. And what happened? Nothing, it all fizzled out.
We had something similar here in Romania, where in Transilvania there is a similar current of opinion, a similar distrust for Bucharest (basically our Washington) and a desire to go it alone, because they think they would do better by themselves. It's just regional pride, they feel that they are superior to the rest of the country and they don't want to pay taxes and fund another region which is less economically developed. Where would we all be if every region in a country that shares this superiority complex were allowed to split from a country? California could split from the USA, New York too, London from the UK, Flanders from Belgium (they speak a different language too), etc etc.
9) I don't have any ill will towards Europe. I just dislike the EU out of economic and national-sovereignty concerns. A stronger, independent Europe will make for much better allies than the flimsy little-girls, of both sexes, who seem to have a monopoly on power over there.
And a stronger Europe will not exist if every European country goes it alone, in the name of some 19th century ideology that led to two world wars. I fail to see how Europe would be stronger if each state went back to the constant bickering and petty conflicts that characterised their history until the second part of the 20th century.