Some of the World's Biggest Economies Are on the Brink of Recession (cnn.com) 280
Markets closed out last week on an anxious note. It's not difficult to see why: the coronavirus continues to spread, and there are signs that some of the world's top economies could slide into recession as the outbreak compounds pre-existing weaknesses. From a report: Take Japan: The world's third-largest economy shrank 1.6% in the fourth quarter of 2019 as the country absorbed the effects of a sales tax hike and a powerful typhoon. It was biggest contraction compared to the previous quarter since 2014. Then there's Germany. The biggest economy in Europe ground to a halt right before the coronavirus outbreak set in, dragged down by the country's struggling factories. The closely-watched ZEW Indicator of Economic Sentiment in Germany decreased sharply for February, reflecting fears that the virus could hit world trade.
Bank of America economist Ethan Harris points to the number of smaller economies that are hurting, too. Hong Kong is in recession and Singapore could soon suffer a similar fate. Fourth quarter GDP data from Indonesia hit a three-year low, while Malaysia had its worst reading in a decade, he noted to clients on Friday. Meanwhile, engines of growth like China and India slowed in 2019. Fourth quarter GDP data for the latter comes out this week. All of this brings to the fore concerns about the global economy's ability to withstand a shock from the coronavirus. Harris says the weak quarter was likely a result of lingering damage from the trade war between China and the United States. The coronavirus is poised to make matters worse.
Bank of America economist Ethan Harris points to the number of smaller economies that are hurting, too. Hong Kong is in recession and Singapore could soon suffer a similar fate. Fourth quarter GDP data from Indonesia hit a three-year low, while Malaysia had its worst reading in a decade, he noted to clients on Friday. Meanwhile, engines of growth like China and India slowed in 2019. Fourth quarter GDP data for the latter comes out this week. All of this brings to the fore concerns about the global economy's ability to withstand a shock from the coronavirus. Harris says the weak quarter was likely a result of lingering damage from the trade war between China and the United States. The coronavirus is poised to make matters worse.
the myth of growth (Score:2, Insightful)
Meanwhile, students of the Chicago School and other borderline criminal groups of economists with an agenda continue to believe that growth is the only important thing about an economy, not things like, say, the ability to supply its population with necessities, maintain its infrastructure and provide medical and educational services.
There was a time before the neo-liberal movement that caused a planned and intentional shift in culture and thinking when stock prices only mattered to stock brokers and the su
Re:the myth of growth (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll never understand the idiots who say modern economies that don't "actually produce anything of value". I mean, look out your window. Westerners are totally spoiled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The US has 3 car manufacturers and one airplane manufacturer. Everything else of value to everyday consumers is made elsewhere now. Shoes, clothing, appliances, etc...it's all been sent overseas. The virus outbreak is a pretty big reminder that China is the source of almost all goods.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, students of the Chicago School and other borderline criminal groups of economists with an agenda continue to believe that growth is the only important thing about an economy, not things like, say, the ability to supply its population with necessities, maintain its infrastructure and provide medical and educational services.
Completely agreed. Working in manufacturing, I'm seeing first hand what challenges we face in the coming months/years. Necessities, infrastructure, health, and education is what we need to focus on.
Re: the myth of growth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Going to college, racking up huge debt and then having that drown you for much of your adult life while getting jobs that don't pay nearly as well as non degree requiring jobs did 50+ years ago.
It was definitely better when you could buy a house in your early 20s based on earnings from a factory job that didn't require a degree, or getting a degree for little money and then having it pay off for you in a nice payday when you get out of school.
Things are good for some people these days, but its not nearly as
Re: (Score:2)
" We need something for the vast majority of the population to work on, now that even knowledge work is being destroyed."
Everyone become artists. The ARRR! economy needs you.*
*Slashdot too.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh for fuck's sake, stock market collapses have always been catastrophic, leading to credit market lock ups, losses of fortunes and misery for the underclasses. Again, I reiterate, the profound ignorance of history and economics around here, and in many other circles, truly makes me despair. Human beings, despite having one of the most wondrous objects in the observable universe sitting between their ears, are so capable of utter stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
"despite having one of the most wondrous objects in the observable universe sitting between their ears"
Business majors and MBAs excepted.
Re: (Score:3)
No, just about everyone excepted. Humans are still fundamentally great apes even at the neurological level. We're utterly incapable of assessing anything but the most proximal risk. We're psychologically incapable of planning for the future, for assessing and acting on long-term risks, or moving towards long-term benefit. We marry ourselves to ideologies, whether religious, political or economic, and then drive that bus right over the cliff because we are inflexible. Now and then, there's a marriage between
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the myth of growth (Score:5, Insightful)
Although stock market collapses have often been quite catastrophic (including an event that could be considered the first one - the Dutch tulip bubble), there WAS another decent capitalist economic model instead of the Chicago school's Anglo-Saxon model.
It treated workers and consumers much more fairly and saw them as equal partners to investors in shaping business. It worked quite well, for a period in the 20th century but wasn't to the liking of a certain economic and political power that under the misnomer of 'free trade' tried to break that all down when it started to really 'leverage' the goodwill it had gained in overthrowing another extremist kind of regime which wreaked havoc only decades earlier.
In came the hedge funds and private equity and everything that was worth slightly more than share-holders thought they had invested in, was cut up, broken down and received credit for. All in a bid for the mighty buck. We're now at a point that most companies only work for the share-holders and try to placate the other parties by being slightly less than equally bad than their competitors. Instead of livable wages and quality products we have blue collar workers working three jobs at once to keep out of debt and junk that falls apart whenever you look askance to it. That is... unless you live in a country where government at least regulates the worst of it. And guess which population of which country historically has been the most fervent proponent of small government and in which country that population is hit (dis)appropriately hard because of it?
Re: (Score:2)
Stop rent seeking and start making real stuff.
Re:the myth of growth (Score:5, Insightful)
That is what growth is. Increase in productivity per person, meaning on average each person produces more, so on average each person can create more infrastructure, and consume more necessities, medical care, and educational services.
Productivity and consumption are conserved - everything you consume must first be produced. For you to eat something, someone must first put in the work to produce, harvest, and deliver it to you. For you to receive medical care, someone must first put in the work to create medicines and provide care. For you to receive education, someone must put in the work to teach. If you wish to consume more (i.e. increase your standard of living), then it must be coupled with economic growth (increased productivity). The people producing these things have to produce more of it per year, before you can consume more per year. And likewise you produce more of whatever it is you make per year, so that others can consume more of it. In other words, economic growth == increase in standard of living; and it is impossible for the standard of living to increase without economic growth.
You can argue that the fruits of the productivity are being unfairly distributed, but that's separate from growth. Arguing that economic growth is unimportant, or worse, arguing that economic contraction isn't harmful, is just stupid and will result in decreasing the standard of living. e.g. Raising the minimum wage doesn't automatically create more productivity. It only does that if wage inequality is so skewed that the disproportionate fraction of business revenue being taken by the wealthy is causing economic inefficiencies in itself (i.e. is hurting growth). If you raise the minimum wage when that's not the case, it will actually hurt growth, and thus lower productivity and decrease the real purchasing power of the very people you're trying to help.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what growth is. Increase in productivity per person, meaning on average each person produces more, so on average each person can create more infrastructure, and consume more necessities, medical care, and educational services.
Productivity and consumption are conserved - everything you consume must first be produced. For you to eat something, someone must first put in the work to produce, harvest, and deliver it to you. For you to receive medical care, someone must first put in the work to create medicines and provide care. For you to receive education, someone must put in the work to teach. If you wish to consume more (i.e. increase your standard of living), then it must be coupled with economic growth (increased productivity). The people producing these things have to produce more of it per year, before you can consume more per year. And likewise you produce more of whatever it is you make per year, so that others can consume more of it. In other words, economic growth == increase in standard of living; and it is impossible for the standard of living to increase without economic growth.
No, standards of living can shift independently of GDP figures as it has a significant immaterial component.
Re:the myth of growth (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many problems with that equation.
It may well be that the way to maximize productivity is for all of us to live as slaves under constant surveillance and the threat of starvation and to simply burn what we produce to ashes to ensure continuing shortages and motivate us to keep it up. So what? Nobody would equate this to any meaningful definition of a good "standard of living."
Re: (Score:3)
The argument here isn't that growth is bad, but rather that the "growth at all costs" mindset sets us up for disaster and is unrealistic.
Growth can't go on forever, there are limits to growth. Sure, we can increase productivity for a long time (especially considering how wasteful many of our current processes are), but at some point you reach maximum efficiency and maximum exploitation of resources. You also have to start undergoing serious changes to everyone's way of life long before you reach that maximu
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this thing will do us all good and let us once again see that a fragile economy that doesn't actually produce anything of value isn't a good thing, no matter what a few bullshit numbers say
Well then you are holding to false hope. So long as money is so desired, new ways to move money from the poor to the rich will continue to be invented unabated. That desire is something innate to humans and thus what you're asking is for humans to act in a manner that is distinctly non-human. People will never of their own free will ever act in a manner that benefits society as a whole. That is why we invent things to do things opposite of our own human impulses for the good of society. It is also why
the myth of downloads. (Score:2)
"That is why we invent things to do things opposite of our own human impulses for the good of society. It is also why we despise those things. "
Well that explains BT and Piratebay.
Re: (Score:3)
People will never of their own free will ever act in a manner that benefits society as a whole.
That is scientifically proven to be untrue. That, right there, is the Chicago School. One of the mantras they have flooded us with is that humans are selfish, when the actual sciences that study humans very clearly demonstrate that that is not the case - but the Chicago type of economics needs the selfish actor as a principle to justify why the economy needs to be built on principles of competition, not cooperation.
The opposite is true. Humans are incredibly social and altruistic, much more so than most oth
Re: (Score:2)
believe that growth is the only important thing about an economy, not things like, say, the ability to supply its population with necessities, maintain its infrastructure and provide medical and educational services.
All of those goodies are a lot easier to achieve in a growing economy.
Re: the myth of growth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't call it a a myth. More of a myopic view. Growth is a fundamental requirement of the financial and monetary system we have put in place. It's absolutely a requirement for preserving the current economic system, which would collapse into chaos if growth ever stopped. So growth isn't sufficient for economic prosperity, but it IS necessary.
Re: the myth of growth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the current monetary system (at least in the US and similar systems) one of the factors of the business cycle is that money does not represent just debt.
When you exchange money for a good or service, that represents debt yes. But our monetary system does not create money as a representation of debt.
What I mean by creating money as a representation of debt: Consider a system where I build a widget and give it to you, but you don't have anything to exchange with me at the time. So you create an IOU and g
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, students of the Chicago School and other borderline criminal groups of economists with an agenda continue to believe that growth is the only important thing about an economy, not things like, say, the ability to supply its population with necessities, maintain its infrastructure and provide medical and educational services.
What a bunch of utter nonsense on top of a gross oversimplification. I'd be more worried about the adherents to other schools of economic thought that can't even manage to get the basics right [usatoday.com]. If stock prices matter more to the every day person, it's only because we have our retirement accounts or pension funds invested. The focus on growing economies and rewarding those who are best able to do it over the past several decades is exactly what has enabled so much of the world to be lifted out of poverty. Co
Re: (Score:3)
If stock prices matter more to the every day person, it's only because we have our retirement accounts or pension funds invested.
Which didn't happeny by accident buy precisely because it was pushed for. Making the stock market more important to average people was one of those shifts that I am talking about.
By rational thinking, it is utterly illogical and incredibly stupid. Who in their right mind would invest in something that by nature is chaotic and known to follow boom-bust cycles? There is a good chance that your stock investment will go through at least one bust and either evaporate or considerably increase the amount of money
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you know all those things? You measure long-term trends in average health, wealth, and longevity.
Guess what? A free economy is what the doctor ordered. [juliansimon.com]
Sever yourself from memes that only work in your head, and come on in for the big win of most rapid advancement in these averages.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets take out safeguards for faster growth. (Score:5, Insightful)
During the 2008 Great Recession, A lot of safeguards were rolled back, however they were never put back in which puts the economies in a dangerous and vulnerable states, even if they are growing.
It is like you have a data center, you had an emergency and you needed more storage so you temporary took some of the disk off the RAID array and made them Data. Problem solved we have more storage. However because this was such a cheap fix you boss never ordered all the extra drives to replace the ones you took out of the Raid, and to add additional fail over to the newly commissioned drives.
Things may work well for weeks months or perhaps years. Then at some point you will get a failure, and the data would be loss without a rollback.
The low interest rates meant to stimulate the economy, means a lot of companies are borrowing cheap money to grow their businesses. This is good... However too many businesses taking out large loans, and some factor hurts their projection, there will be a lot (and had been a lot) of companies going out of business not because of a bad business plan, but because their plan didn't work as well as it expected.
More costly loans, means businesses will need to take more careful loans, and for less amounts, so if there was a disruption they are not on the hook for as much money.
Sooner or later (Score:5, Interesting)
The USA is overdue for a recession, based on historical patterns. It will come eventually, if not now. The current administration should have focused on paying down the deficit instead of tax cuts so that we could have more room for stimuli when the inevitable recession comes.
I'm for a balanced budget amendment because Washington DC has shown they have no long-term discipline. The amendment should take Keynesian economics into consideration. And it should kick in gradually to avoid shocking the economy.
Re:Sooner or later (Score:5, Interesting)
But balanced budget amendments would always have to have their exceptions written into the legislation, in the event of war or other calamity. Such legislation would be worthless. Lawyers and politicians spend a fair portion of their lives figuring out how to work around such laws, and it would be no different here. If you want balanced budgets, then you'd best vote for someone who will move towards it. But here's the first tip. The Republicans won't. The Democrats, ironically enough, are more likely to balance the books, if that's even possible. Here's the reality. The US has carried a debt continuously since the US Civil War. During that period it rose to become the preeminent military and economic power. It built the most powerful military machine on the planet, it took over policing the high seas and guaranteeing trade movement in every international body of water on the planet, it rebuilt Europe and Japan, it put man on the moon, it built the most import communications system since the telegraph. It's universities have pushed out or attracted some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever known. And you know how it did most of that? By selling t-bills. Obviously there's waste, there always is, because humans aren't robots, but even now, even under an administration and congress that seems hopeless at doing anything other than mimicking chimpanzees flinging shit at each other, it still remains the preeminent power, without any meaningful competition. China may be a huge economy, but as this outbreak demonstrates, its economic and political engines are built on sand. Russia is a regional power, certainly capable of threatening its neighbors, but has a woefully inadequate economy that prevents it from even the kind of economic projection the Soviet Union could at times pull off.
Re: (Score:2)
Overdue? You forgetting about 2008?
Re: (Score:3)
The USA is overdue for a recession, based on historical patterns. It will come eventually, if not now. The current administration should have focused on paying down the deficit instead of tax cuts so that we could have more room for stimuli when the inevitable recession comes.
I'm for a balanced budget amendment because Washington DC has shown they have no long-term discipline. The amendment should take Keynesian economics into consideration. And it should kick in gradually to avoid shocking the economy.
The Federal Reserve has a literal infinite capacity to create money. The risk is inflation. We need to get out of the notion that we are ever going to pay back our Federal Debt with taxation or balance the budget under any circumstances while also servicing debt.
It would be downright unethical and undemocratic to try and force people to pay back decades of spending that they may not have been even alive to vote for. The best thing the Federal Reserve could start doing is to pay back debt from its account
Re: (Score:2)
The only way for the Fed to create money is for the country to grow its value. If you stimulate businesses (through tax cuts etc) your GDP grows and your percentage of debt reduces. A balanced budget would be useful, but since neither party has indicated any willingness to touch entitlements, you probably will only get some shavings on the budget left and right.
Re: (Score:2)
The current administration should have focused on paying down the deficit instead of tax cuts
Exactly this. The tax cuts failed in terms of the deficit, the massive growth that was supposed to happen, didn't. The deficit has increased massively under this administration. I hate that the Orange Guy has usurped the Republican party. It's not like Democrats will fair any better, but now that Trump has reshaped the GOP, there's not really anyone in any serious position of power who is sitting there advocating for "HOLY FUCKING SHIT PEOPLE! THIS SHIT IS OUT OF CONTROL!" like they should be doing. T
Re: (Score:2)
The growth did happen. You have massive investment in business, extremely low unemployment numbers but you can verify those yourself.
The deficit hasn't grown as a percentage of GDP, it has either flattened or dipped slightly to ~2-3% and this is just recovering from the previous administration that brought spending to 10% in the first term.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you must have been bamboozled into looking at a few carefully selected data points to reach those conclusions, they don't match the data at all:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/c... [forbes.com]
Dem vs. GOP spending [Re:Sooner or later] (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats have a better record than GOP. Bill C. mostly resisted the urge to spend away the boom of the late 90's. Obama inherited a terrible recession so didn't have a lot of options either way. Outside of (appropriate) stimulus, ACA is his only significant new budget item.
Reagan, Bush 2, and Don all squandered boom cycles. Bush 2 spent it on war, DHS, and Medicare Part B without matching tax increases to pay for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dem vs. GOP spending [Re:Sooner or later] (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republican controlled 105th Congress helped him resist.
Funny how the Republican-controlled Congress didn't help Dubya resist.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with the Tea Party was that they were not looking at all the solutions available. Sure, they wanted to hold the line on spending, which is all well and good, but they were all useful idiots for the Koch brothers types, with their signing of "no new taxes" pledges and so on.
The appropriations bills will never be fully paid for out of current tax revenues unless those tax revenues dramatically increase. And, we won't get to those levels on growth alone - new growth also means growth in spending.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The USA is overdue for a recession, based on historical patterns. It will come eventually, if not now. The current administration should have focused on paying down the deficit instead of tax cuts so that we could have more room for stimuli when the inevitable recession comes.
I'm for a balanced budget amendment because Washington DC has shown they have no long-term discipline. The amendment should take Keynesian economics into consideration. And it should kick in gradually to avoid shocking the economy.
The last time people were serious about fiscal discipline was the Republican Contract With America back in the 90s. Fiscal discipline was dropped with GW Bush and was never revived. It would need bi-partisan support to succeed in the long run. Based on the current thinking about free college / tax cuts / universal medical care / open borders (or close approximations like no penalty illegal immigration) I doubt fiscal sanity is on the horizon. Let me be clear - both parties are to blame for this.
Re:Keynesian economics? (Score:5, Interesting)
False. It's a fancy way to say "save up for a rainy day". Pay down the deficit during boom years so we can have strong stimuluses during slumps. To me, that's common sense.
UK tried austerity in the early 2010's and it failed. It appears to make slumps worse. One may argue it makes the long-term better, but most would rather have shallower slumps than bigger booms, if given a choice. It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs; dying of illness and starvation is not pleasant to most humans.
Keynesian works if you just practice discipline during the "up" years.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Slippery slope (Score:2)
History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The economy currently has an asset bubble, similar to the ones that caused the Dot.Com recession in 2001 and the Great Recession in 2008. Except the current bubble is larger in real terms than the one in 2008.
https://i.imgur.com/GVgzPF7.pn... [imgur.com]
The fundamental problem is that for 25 years, government has using loose money policies and deficit spending to paper over shortfalls in economic growth. And it looks like we're approaching the endgame. The bubble is bigger this time, but government's response is much more constrained. The Fed can't drop rates by ~5% like they usually due as rates are already 1.5-1.75%. Unconventional monetary policy fuels inequality and makes the next recession bigger. And fiscal stimulus is likely to be constrained due to record government deficits as well as increased partisanship in Congress.
And like Twain said, history doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme. In 2008, we had a financial crises because banks didn't trust the mortgage-backed securities they were lending as collateral. Today, the repo market is having a similar crises because banks don't trust the collateral that they are using for overnight loans.
Please sell! (Score:3)
My retirement strategy depends on collecting dividends for steady income. I usually keep 20% cash to take advantage of moments like today. Lower prices mean higher yields.
Re:Corona virus will provide the tipping point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Corona virus will provide the tipping point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Irrational fear of the unknown.
Re:Corona virus will provide the tipping point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Corona virus will provide the tipping point (Score:4, Informative)
From your link:
"That said, scientists have studied seasonal flu for decades. . . In contrast, very little is known about COVID-19 because it's so new. This means COVID-19 is something of a wild card in terms of how far it will spread and how many deaths it will cause. "
"Scientists are racing to find out more about COVID-19, and our understanding of the virus and the threat it poses may change as new information becomes available."
"With COVID-19, doctors are still trying to understand the full picture of disease symptoms and severity."
"It's important to note that, because respiratory viruses cause similar symptoms, it can be difficult to distinguish different respiratory viruses based on symptoms alone, according to WHO."
"Even so, the death rate for COVID-19 varied by location and an individual’s age, among other factors."
"Researchers are still working to determine the R0 for COVID-19"
"It's important to note that R0 is not necessarily a constant number. Estimates can vary by location, depending on such factors as how often people come into contact with each other and the efforts taken to reduce viral spread"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Corona virus will provide the tipping point (Score:5, Informative)
I never really thought such a contagious virus could be contained. I just assumed the stuff about containing it in the news, was bullshit
SARS was contained and eradicated. So was MERS.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Corona virus will provide the tipping point (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There's also some fun stuff like males potentially being rendered infertile
That COVID-19 causes male infertility [newsweek.com] is just conjecture at this point. There isn't even a single confirmed case of that happening so far.
There goes the old and the asthmatics.
Indeed. The mortality rate for the elderly is about 15%. So the disease should free up spaces in nursing homes and help relieve the social security deficit.
Interestingly, both the infection rate and the mortality rate is very low among children. For some reason we don't yet understand, kids don't catch it.
Re:Corona virus will provide the tipping point (Score:4, Funny)
Indeed. The mortality rate for the elderly is about 15%. So the disease should free up spaces in nursing homes and help relieve the social security deficit.
Interestingly, both the infection rate and the mortality rate is very low among children. For some reason we don't yet understand, kids don't catch it.
Are you saying it's going to wipe out Trump's base?
Poor people will provide the tipping point (Score:2)
"Eat good food. Try and catch the virus when you're in fine fettle, and not in combination with any other viruses."
I believe the group you're looking for is called...not being poor.
Re:Corona virus will provide the tipping point (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need a thing to create a tipping point. You just need the business cycle.
Nearly any kind of shenanigans are tolerable during a business cycle upswing, but when the time is ripe, all it takes is a little push to send the economy into a downward spiral.
So sure. Coronavirus could be a proximate or contributory cause to a recession. Given where we are in the business cycle it doesn't take much.
Re:Corona virus will provide the tipping point (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not a business cycle, it's a central bank credit cycle.
Early in the cycle there are plenty of places to productively deploy capital and growing businesses to lend to.
Later in the cycle the only people left to lend money to are subprime consumers and over-leveraged legacy businesses looking to jack up their share prices another point with buybacks.
Then the crap hits the fan, lenders take their losses (or the taxpayer bails them out) and we start over.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We're all likely to catch COVID-19, per https://www.theatlantic.com/he... [theatlantic.com] (but it doesn't really say much about your "backwater countries", though parts of India have such poor health care and lifestyles that they just built special walls to hide them from Trump). (By the way, it would be hilarious if Trump caught COVID-19 as he passes through Potemkin India.) No positive mod points for you!
However I think the underlying economic weakness the story should have focused on is in the stock market. Huge bubble
Re: (Score:2)
i think t
Re: Corona virus will provide the tipping point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully this will be the event (along with Brexit) that causing the EU to collapse completely.
A recession isn't enough to do that, but the ECB is working hard at finding something that will.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
And then what? A return to a divided Europe? This is a continent that suffered centuries of near-unremitting war. The only period of peace prior to the post-WWII economic unification was the post-Napoleonic period when France was on its knees as Germany was still divided into several states. In the 19th century, Britain essentially acted as a pacifier until France recovered and Germany unified. Now Britain was willfully removed itself from the European sphere, leaving France and Germany as the pre-eminent power for the first time since the Thirty Years War. Economic integration has created an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity, largely because those two nations have moved passed hostility towards cooperation. End that, and we're right back to the late 19th and early 20th century.
It's not like the United States is prepared to take Britain's place as the counterbalance between France and Germany. So why is it exactly you think the collapse of the EU is a good thing? You think war is good? You want Europe divided. Even if war doesn't break out, what purpose does that serve, other than to embolden Russia in Eastern Europe? Or would you rather have what also might happen, a much tighter political union between France and Germany, with smaller European nations basically forced into a Berlin-Paris hegemony?
This hatred of the EU demonstrates a profound ignorance of history that truly makes me despair. It's as if an entire generation of English-speaking people never cracked open a history book in their lives, and judge everything based on some perverse libertarian fantasy version of the world.
Some specifics (Score:4, Informative)
And then what? A return to a divided Europe?
A unified Europe is a good idea in general, no one really argues with that.
The problem was the specific implementation of the current EU, which seemed to have values and priorities that went against the population of the member states.
This is what Brexit was about, and you are (quite correctly) complaining about "EU breakup" in principle, without (quite incorrectly) reference to the conditions that caused Brexit in the current model.
This hatred of the EU demonstrates a profound ignorance of history that truly makes me despair. It's as if an entire generation of English-speaking people never cracked open a history book in their lives, and judge everything based on some perverse libertarian fantasy version of the world.
The world doesn't hate the EU, I don't even think Brits hate the EU, and Brexit wasn't fueled by hatred. The "other side" isn't driven by hatred.
Brexit happened for completely valid reasons, which came to a head and triggered a democratic decision to leave. The EU had lots and lots of warning and simply didn't put the welfare of its member state above its globalist agenda.
Why be a member of a group if there are no benefits?
Brexit is a completely sensible decision, hatred had nothing to do with it.
Re:Some specifics (Score:5, Insightful)
So frictionless trade is of no benefit to a nation that has been a trader nation for over a thousand years?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that it wasn't frictionless. There is no such thing as frictionless trade. In the EU, as part of the 'deal', you have to take in all immigrants, you have to accept all rules and regulations the EU sets forth, you get no representation when these laws are made etc etc.
Every agreement is a value proposition, the Brits believe (rightfully so) that the regulations in the EU are less valuable than the trade it brings and belonging to an outside trade group (like China, the US and other countries a
Re:Some specifics (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, now to the point. Free movement. And you know what, those Britons are wrong. The value of free movement, both in manufactured goods and financial services, far outweight some Romanians and Poles moving to the UK. Not to mention those Romanians and Poles take up a lot of the low level service industry jobs.
The potential damage to the City alone if some degree of open trade with European markets isn't retained would be catastrophic. All of this because of free movement.
Re:Some specifics (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, now to the point. Free movement. And you know what, those Britons are wrong. The value of free movement, both in manufactured goods and financial services, far outweight some Romanians and Poles moving to the UK.
Ah yes, now to the real point.
You don't get to make the decision as to whether self-determination or your idea of free trade is more important. They have elections for that.
Re: (Score:3)
I won't agree to that because I'm not a fantasist.
Re: (Score:3)
Kid, put down the Ayn Rand and back away slowly. You're spouting nonsense.
Re:Some specifics (Score:5, Insightful)
While that sounds plausible at a handwaving level, I have my doubts that the actual financial numbers were considered by most voters who pulled for Brexit. If it were the case, Johnson would not have needed to spout so many fantastic lies.
Re: (Score:3)
Brexit was driven heavily by hatred of immigration and dog-whistles around stopping immigrants from coming into Britton. It was also driven by lies about how cutting off support for the EU was going to allow more money for the national health but don't downplay the Britton for Brittons attitude that was a huge part of the push.
Re: Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Imperialistic ideals vs leave me with my wine and cheese. The Imperialistic ideology of the first and second world war has never really left Germany's political realm and since they are ruling the EU, they are making sure that Germany is the most benefited by the EU.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you want to see the EU collapse?
Did they beat you up and take your lunch money?
Trade Unions are a good way to regulate commerce allowing for a uniformed set of rules, with representation from all the countries involved.
Europe is a collection of small countries Most of them do not have the resources to operate alone, thus a strong trade union helps keeps all the governments operating in trade with each other.
UK was never fully into the EU for example they still kept the Pound vs the Eurodollar. As we
Re: (Score:3)
Soo... what did they do between 1950 and 1990? Not trade? The EU as a trade group would indeed make sense, but it hasn't been a trade group since the early 2000's, Germany took it over and it became a political group for German ideals to conquer Europe.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
causing the US to initiate its next civil war.
In 1861, America was divided regionally in a North-South divide.
Today, America is divided intra-regionally in a urban-rural divide.
So how is this civil war going to work? Are city folks going to burn the farms that feed them? Or are farmers going to attack their customers? Also, what will we be fighting and dying for? College loan interest rates? Obamacare reforms?
blood on the plow (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
causing the US to initiate its next civil war.
So how is this civil war going to work? Are city folks going to burn the farms that feed them? Or are farmers going to attack their customers? Also, what will we be fighting and dying for? College loan interest rates? Obamacare reforms?
The rural folks tend to be more self-sufficient. If I were them, I'd burn my own fields and disappear - the city folk will just starve, then tear each other to pieces fighting over the scraps.
Re: (Score:3)
the city folk will just starve, then tear each other to pieces fighting over the scraps.
Or... import our food?
Possibly not an option for all places, but here in Seattle, I suspect that's not too much of a problem being a major port with a major fishing industry.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
causing the US to initiate its next civil war.
In 1861, America was divided regionally in a North-South divide.
Today, America is divided intra-regionally in a urban-rural divide.
So how is this civil war going to work? Are city folks going to burn the farms that feed them? Or are farmers going to attack their customers? Also, what will we be fighting and dying for? College loan interest rates? Obamacare reforms?
The answer to your questions are:
1 - Fighting will be street to street, neighborhood against neighborhood. And in some places, neighbor against neighbor. After the initial fighting, territory will be more clearly defined in a way that traditional "battle lines" will be able to be recognized. But at first it's going to resemble ethnic gang wars of the Bronx in the late 70's more than Grant vs Lee at Gettysburg.
2 - We'll be fighting about what the meaning of "American" IS.... at first. Then we'll simply fight for either a) the right to be independent from each other, or, conversely b) we'll be fighting in a crusade to crush those that would hold back "progress". One side will want to be left alone. The other side will want to conquer and "civilize" the enemy. Which side you're on depends on your politics today, for the next one will be the most political war in our history.
Oh, and the snarky thing about "are cities going to burn the farms that feed them?", as if commerce ever stopped a war. France number one trading partner in 1938 was Germany.
When people are willing to fight and die for something important to them, trade won't make a whit of difference.
Re: (Score:3)