England maybe leave EU june 23.

[n0el]

classic liberal economics

[fightinfrenchman]

Not with tax payers money from richer countries when said countries are running a deficit.

Let more immigrants in, it's good for your economy

[Riotcoke]

Skilled immigrants yes

[fightinfrenchman]

No

[Mr_Bramboy]

Let more immigrants in, it's good for your economy

Friday, November 13th, 2015.

[Amsel_]

Sovereign currency:
Able to deficit spend to extreme lengths to support the economy.
Never has to worry about solvency.
Only goes bankrupt if it chooses to.
Can always meet the demand for money.

Euro:
Can only spend what you take in.
A single late-payment makes you a slave to Germany and the IMF forever.
Can go bankrupt.
Unironically has to borrow its own currency.
Dependent on the ECB and bank loans for monetary expansion, and never getting it - deflation.
Economy can fail even if you have good workers, businessmen, and politicians.
Reliant on multiplier effects from taxed money and literal whos in Brussels to stimulate the economy.

[fightinfrenchman]

I understand why you'd want legitimate refugees coming into western countries. However the vast majority aren't
They're economic migrants, especially in regards to immigration from south east asia and india.

running away from poverty, you mean?
How about almost all of India and Africa will run from poverty soon? Do you still think it's not worth getting a Green New Deal

It's a catch 22, if you let some come in freely you'll get a mass exodus. Immigration is fine as long as that person is bringing something or is running from conflict or persecution. For example Australia's point system for immigration is good, it doesn't discriminate it just allows people they need in the country in and other out, a 100 percent fair system. Meanwhile in the UK immigration is mixed, with some good immigration and some immigration that is low skilled and is simply filling low skilled jobs that could be filled with British citizens, think of factory work. Also culture, although less important, is also worthwhile to look into. Some cultures simply have traditions or aspects that don't fit in western society.

Please don't talk about culture when you're a weeb

[Riotcoke]

Show hidden quotes

I understand why you'd want legitimate refugees coming into western countries. However the vast majority aren't
They're economic migrants, especially in regards to immigration from south east asia and india.

running away from poverty, you mean?
How about almost all of India and Africa will run from poverty soon? Do you still think it's not worth getting a Green New Deal

It's a catch 22, if you let some come in freely you'll get a mass exodus. Immigration is fine as long as that person is bringing something or is running from conflict or persecution. For example Australia's point system for immigration is good, it doesn't discriminate it just allows people they need in the country in and other out, a 100 percent fair system. Meanwhile in the UK immigration is mixed, with some good immigration and some immigration that is low skilled and is simply filling low skilled jobs that could be filled with British citizens, think of factory work. Also culture, although less important, is also worthwhile to look into. Some cultures simply have traditions or aspects that don't fit in western society.

Please don't talk about culture when you're a weeb

I'm no weeb, that's trevor not me.

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

I understand why you'd want legitimate refugees coming into western countries. However the vast majority aren't
They're economic migrants, especially in regards to immigration from south east asia and india.

running away from poverty, you mean?
How about almost all of India and Africa will run from poverty soon? Do you still think it's not worth getting a Green New Deal

It's a catch 22, if you let some come in freely you'll get a mass exodus. Immigration is fine as long as that person is bringing something or is running from conflict or persecution. For example Australia's point system for immigration is good, it doesn't discriminate it just allows people they need in the country in and other out, a 100 percent fair system. Meanwhile in the UK immigration is mixed, with some good immigration and some immigration that is low skilled and is simply filling low skilled jobs that could be filled with British citizens, think of factory work. Also culture, although less important, is also worthwhile to look into. Some cultures simply have traditions or aspects that don't fit in western society.

Please don't talk about culture when you're a weeb

I'm no weeb, that's trevor not me.

You are

[Riotcoke]

Show hidden quotes

I understand why you'd want legitimate refugees coming into western countries. However the vast majority aren't
They're economic migrants, especially in regards to immigration from south east asia and india.

running away from poverty, you mean?
How about almost all of India and Africa will run from poverty soon? Do you still think it's not worth getting a Green New Deal

It's a catch 22, if you let some come in freely you'll get a mass exodus. Immigration is fine as long as that person is bringing something or is running from conflict or persecution. For example Australia's point system for immigration is good, it doesn't discriminate it just allows people they need in the country in and other out, a 100 percent fair system. Meanwhile in the UK immigration is mixed, with some good immigration and some immigration that is low skilled and is simply filling low skilled jobs that could be filled with British citizens, think of factory work. Also culture, although less important, is also worthwhile to look into. Some cultures simply have traditions or aspects that don't fit in western society.

Please don't talk about culture when you're a weeb

I'm no weeb, that's trevor not me.

You are

Prove it.

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

I understand why you'd want legitimate refugees coming into western countries. However the vast majority aren't
They're economic migrants, especially in regards to immigration from south east asia and india.

running away from poverty, you mean?
How about almost all of India and Africa will run from poverty soon? Do you still think it's not worth getting a Green New Deal

It's a catch 22, if you let some come in freely you'll get a mass exodus. Immigration is fine as long as that person is bringing something or is running from conflict or persecution. For example Australia's point system for immigration is good, it doesn't discriminate it just allows people they need in the country in and other out, a 100 percent fair system. Meanwhile in the UK immigration is mixed, with some good immigration and some immigration that is low skilled and is simply filling low skilled jobs that could be filled with British citizens, think of factory work. Also culture, although less important, is also worthwhile to look into. Some cultures simply have traditions or aspects that don't fit in western society.

Please don't talk about culture when you're a weeb

I'm no weeb, that's trevor not me.

You are

Prove it.

Avatar, signature, your post in the ESOC memes thread I'm too lazy to link to

[Riotcoke]

Both Childhood cartoon films nothing more than that

[occamslightsaber]

Show hidden quotes

I understand why you'd want legitimate refugees coming into western countries. However the vast majority aren't
They're economic migrants, especially in regards to immigration from south east asia and india.

running away from poverty, you mean?
How about almost all of India and Africa will run from poverty soon? Do you still think it's not worth getting a Green New Deal

It's a catch 22, if you let some come in freely you'll get a mass exodus. Immigration is fine as long as that person is bringing something or is running from conflict or persecution. For example Australia's point system for immigration is good, it doesn't discriminate it just allows people they need in the country in and other out, a 100 percent fair system. Meanwhile in the UK immigration is mixed, with some good immigration and some immigration that is low skilled and is simply filling low skilled jobs that could be filled with British citizens, think of factory work. Also culture, although less important, is also worthwhile to look into. Some cultures simply have traditions or aspects that don't fit in western society.

Please don't talk about culture when you're a weeb

I'm no weeb, that's trevor not me.

Away with your Chinese cartoons!

[duckzilla]

Cannot really follow your argument. It is the same as saying that Arizona should not share the same currency as New York. In the end, you the choice between the two extremes of localized currencies for every village or a global currency for everyone. Where you believe the optimal solution to be is entirely ideological.

Different economies need different priced currencies, for germany a strong currency is beneficial because they are more competitive when importing whilst German products tend to be premium so the increase in price of euro overall benefits the German economy. Meanwhile in the southern countries (Greece, Italy, Spain) the increased cost of the euro has ruined their competitive advantage of having a low value currency meaning their economies overall are negatively effected. Look at china for example and how they quantitative ease to reduce the value of the Renminbi, which is technically illegal under WTO rules.

As I said, this is entirely ideological. You identify a need of differently priced currencies based on optimizing competitiveness in a beggar-thy-neighbor fashion. This is not what (independent) central banks are for. Further, the allegations against China holding the value of Renmimbi down would have been right 10-15 years ago. They changed their monetary policy in the meantime.

The conclusion which you draw for southern european countries is not entirely correct. Even within common currency areas such as the European Union, you have internal exchange rates, e.g. reflected by local prices and wages. These also have effects on a given country's effective exchange rate. The argument also neglects economically beneficial side effects of having a common currency, such as providing far more stability, leading to less uncertainty and lower interest rates.

No idea what @Amsel_ wants to say actually (apart acknowledging total German supremacy ). It seems to be an arbitrarily collected list of Trumpian statements without any knowledge about the european banking system and its institutions. Neither does a sovereign currency save a country from bankruptcy (see Argentina), nor did any country in Europe file for bankruptcy since introducing the Euro. It is actually the other way around. Greece would not have survived its financial crisis without a bankruptcy, if it would not have been part of the european common currency area.

[Dolan]

Greece was saved because their insolvent banks that were state-debt holders needed a haircut on their holdings, or else the Greek state would have gone into default. But since some of those Greek banks had German investors, a haircut on their state debt holdings would have effectively impacted the German banking system. That's why Merkel insisted on saving Greece, it was pretty much in the interest of the German financial system to avoid a Greek sovereign default.

[duckzilla]

That's why Merkel insisted on saving Greece, it was pretty much in the interest of the German financial system to avoid a Greek sovereign default.

Not sure whether you already mean it that way: this is exactly what more stability looks like. The multitude of interdependencies do not allow single countries to be left alone in their (not necessarily self-induced) misery.

[Amsel_]

Take the MMT-pill.

[Goodspeed]

[Dolan]

There was a Labour MP who made a fitting comparison yesterday in Commons:
The 2016 referendum gave people the choice on whether they want to go to the cinema or not. And the people voted to go to the cinema, but when they got there and saw they were supposed to watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre, they realised they didn't really want to be there.

[Amsel_]

It's weird how everything "they" want gets rammed through any government instantly, yet anything "they" don't want is severely delayed, overruled, or blocked in courts. (lol @ people who unironically think there are any "free" or "democratic" countries on the planet) A second referendum just helps set the precedent that politicians just have to throw a shit-fit and wait the public out, so that they don't have to actually represent their constituents when it goes against their personal beliefs. But you guys have already done this "vote until they choose correctly and then never vote on it again" shit before.

[fightinfrenchman]

Imagine being at that restaurant and putting fish into your French onion soup

[Dolan]

It's weird how everything "they" want gets rammed through any government instantly, yet anything "they" don't want is severely delayed, overruled, or blocked in courts. (lol @ people who unironically think there are any "free" or "democratic" countries on the planet) A second referendum just helps set the precedent that politicians just have to throw a shit-fit and wait the public out, so that they don't have to actually represent their constituents when it goes against their personal beliefs. But you guys have already done this "vote until they choose correctly and then never vote on it again" shit before.

1. Whatever happens in the UK from a political and institutional point of view is their internal business, nobody from outside the country decides for them. The MPs they elected are those who decided to block no-deal Brexit.

2. If you're referring to that referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon that was re-run in 2009 in Ireland after it failed to get popular approval in 2008, there's a whole background story to it. The Treaty of Lisbon that was meant to reform the EU was a very complex document that was hard to explain to laymen, so it was easy for those who were against the EU to run a negative campaign on it. Ireland was the only state that was required by its constitution to adopt any changes to EU treaties by referendum. And some of the topics that were covered by the Treaty of Lisbon touched on issues that were very sensitive in Ireland, like military neutrality, abortion laws, nuclear energy, etc. After the referendum result showed that the Irish had rejected the changes brought by the Treaty of Lisbon, the Irish government re-negotiated changes to the text of the treaty, which resulted in the so-called "Irish Guarantees". They basically eliminated all the provisions that were not acceptable to the Irish and left their government decide on how much they wanted to participate in EU military or nuclear projects. After those changes were made, the referendum was rerun and voters approved it. It wasn't the first time this happened, the Irish did the same with the Treaty of Nice too, in 2001-2002. Last time they did it was also because they were concerned changes to the EU treaties would affect Ireland's military neutrality. So the issues were clarified, a new form of the treaty was negotiated and the Irish agreed to the new form.
No, they weren't forced at gunpoint to vote yes in the 2nd referendum despite what Zerohedge, /pol/, and Breitbart say. The EU renegotiated a new form of the treaty because it would have been unreasonable for one small member to block much-needed reforms in the whole union.

Funny note: American neocon tycoons (like the Koch brothers) funded campaigns in Ireland to persuade people to vote No in the EU referendum. It seems there is a certain part of the American establishment that is actively working to undermine the EU and Europe in general. They seem afraid that a successful Europe might pose a threat to the USA's financial and economic influence. And yet, despite all these efforts to destroy the EU made by American big capital, the union is still here, thriving. We might actually see the USA unravel first, tbh, if we go by how much turmoil there is right now in American politics and society.

[Amsel_]

>hold three referendums https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendu ... etherlands
>vote wrong on all of them
>the government still ends up doing what you rejected
>then they take away your ability to have referendums

They do the same shit here. In California, the people voted to bar illegal immigrants from using public services and welfare. The courts blocked it for stupid reasons, and then the leftist cabinet refused to challenge the court ruling.

So weird to see people say money is more important than sovereignty, and that it's not undemocratic to blatantly undermine the results of a plebiscite. It's like you guys hate your own nations. I mean, I kind of hate mine too, but not in such a self-destructive way. And we can at least threaten civil war as a cope. You guys can't even shitpost on the internet without getting arrested for having illegal opinions.

[fightinfrenchman]

So weird to see people say money is more important than sovereignty,

It is, though

[lejend]

The Kochs are actually libertarian, not neoconservative. They (well, Charles) recently teamed up with Soros to undermine US foreign policy, which they deem too "interventionist."

Two things stand out about the Quincy Institute: its funders and its founders. The funders are George Soros and Charles Koch. This might confuse those focused on American politics but is unsurprising to anyone who knows that they share a similar lean on foreign affairs. Similarly, the founders come from the progressive left (Stephen Wertheim, Trita Parsi, Suzanne DiMaggio) and the realist right (Andrew Bacevich). The initial approach, as Bacevich told me, was a lean and mean group of thinkers to start with, “a fairly narrow focus: ending endless war; democratizing the formulation of foreign policy, which implies ending the elite monopoly; and putting U.S. policy in East Asia and the Middle East on a sound basis based on prudence, realism, and restraint.”

Unsurprisingly, this focus on restraint has led to a predictable sorting of critics and cheerleaders. The critics come from both sides of the aisle. Neoconservative Bill Kristol is definitely not a fan, tweeting that these ideas would be like reverting back to the interwar period. The Heritage Foundation’s James Jay Carafano branded the Quincy Institute “isolationists [who] would prefer America step off the playing field and wave from the sidelines.” Writing in Foreign Policy, James Traub is also dubious: “It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the lesser-footprint crowd is rearranging the world’s problems in order to fit their doctrine.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2 ... institute/

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/1/20677441/s ... s-military