News that makes you say WTF! (102 Viewers)

[Juliano13]

Only that these kind of taxations would need to be unified in a FTA too, and that doesn't seem likely to be the case with TTIP.

That is not true in most cases, except global warming. In the case of pollution the negative externality is local.

Example: Country A and B both produce some good X. The production of good X creates pollution, so country A imposes a tax on good X, while country B doesn't. Then it becomes cheaper for country A to import good X and shift production to other goods that don't pollute the air. That way country A gets all the benefits from consuming good X, but also enjoys clean air. In effect, country B is subsidising the clean air of country A by not imposing the appropriate tax.

This is not the case for global warming, because the negative externality affects the whole world. I doubt TTIP will have much effect on the negotiations about reducing carbon emissions, though.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

That is not true in most cases, except global warming. In the case of pollution the negative externality is local.

Example: Country A and B both produce some good X. The production of good X creates pollution, so country A imposes a tax on good X, while country B doesn't. Then it becomes cheaper for country A to import good X and shift production to other goods that don't pollute the air. That way country A gets all the benefits from consuming good X, but also enjoys clean air. In effect, country B is subsidising the clean air of country A by not imposing the appropriate tax.

This is not the case for global warming, because the negative externality affects the whole world. I doubt TTIP will have much effect on the negotiations about reducing carbon emissions, though.

You make it sounds as if the TTIP is between the EU and Bangladesh.

 

[Ocelot]

That is not true in most cases, except global warming. In the case of pollution the negative externality is local.

Example: Country A and B both produce some good X. The production of good X creates pollution, so country A imposes a tax on good X, while country B doesn't. Then it becomes cheaper for country A to import good X and shift production to other goods that don't pollute the air. That way country A gets all the benefits from consuming good X, but also enjoys clean air. In effect, country B is subsidising the clean air of country A by not imposing the appropriate tax.

This is not the case for global warming, because the negative externality affects the whole world. I doubt TTIP will have much effect on the negotiations about reducing carbon emissions, though.

Even in your perfect scenario one country loses a shitton of jobs and the other one gets a fucked up environment.

Hardly a perfect outcome.

 

[Juliano13]

You make it sounds as if the TTIP is between the EU and Bangladesh.

As a general rule, I never ignore anyone, but do you ever have anything useful to say? The point Ocelot was making is that the US is more lax on environmental issues than the EU, which is probably true. I said that the EU can impose Pigouvian taxes regardless of what the USA does, except in the case of global warming. How is your comment relevant at all?

 

[Seven]

As a general rule, I never ignore anyone, but do you ever have anything useful to say? The point Ocelot was making is that the US is more lax on environmental issues than the EU, which is probably true. I said that the EU can impose Pigouvian taxes regardless of what the USA does, except in the case of global warming. How is your comment relevant at all?

Of course it's relevant. Btw, you still haven't shown me you grasp the insurance thing. What exactly is your healthcare plan? Please enlighten me on this.

Lax fiscal and environmental laws is something completely different from no fiscal or environmental laws. If you don't coordinate fiscal rules first, you end up with a shitton of problems.

 

[Juliano13]

Even in your perfect scenario one country loses a shitton of jobs and the other one gets a fucked up environment.

Hardly a perfect outcome.

Think about it and you'll see why this is not true. What happens is there is a shift in jobs from the production of good X to the production of good Y. This happens because in order to import good X, country A has to export something to country B. They're not selling good X for free. The second part is correct, country B fucks up it's environment, thats why imposing a Pigouvian tax is a dominant strategy.

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't coordinate fiscal rules first, you end up with a shitton of problems.

That is true in the case of the Eurozone and fixed exchange rate regimes but not true for America and the EU. In fact, the Eurozone debt crisis was sort of predicted by some economists like Robert Barro back when the Euro was introduced.

Edit. Sometimes we see the same problem within countries, when some municipalities accumulate way too much debt.

 

[Seven]

Think about it and you'll see why this is not true. What happens is there is a shift in jobs from the production of good X to the production of good Y. This happens because in order to import good X, country A has to export something to country B. They're not selling good X for free. The second part is correct, country B fucks up it's environment, thats why imposing a Pigouvian tax is a dominant strategy.

- - - Updated - - -



That is true in the case of the Eurozone and fixed exchange rate regimes but not true for America and the EU. In fact, the Eurozone debt crisis was sort of predicted by some economists like Robert Barro back when the Euro was introduced.

You're still not saying anything about health care. Have you read my post on why I believe you can't have it solely through insurance companies? Do you agree? If not, why do you not agree?

Oh, and BTW, this is from the Wiki page on TTIP:

Health care
See also: Healthcare in Europe and Health care in the United States

British unions such as Unite and the TUC have opposed TTIP on the grounds that it would undermine the National Health Service and allows for the further privatisation of public services. A Unite spokesperson described TTIP as "about deregulation and a race to the bottom on standards. Unison has fought and won on bringing services back into the public sector. ... We cannot allow TTIP to threaten those successes."[94]

Former Foreign Secretary David Owen said that TTIP would have a significant negative impact on the UK's National Health Service because the Service would be subject to increased competition under the TTIP regime.[95]

UK prime minister David Cameron said that critics of free-trade should not use the National Health Service (NHS) to take people's attention away, and honestly speak about trade deals. UK's Department of Business, Innovation and Skills said that TTIP provided adequate protection for UK's NHS.[96]

Assistant General Secretary of Unite Gail Cartmail said that TTIP was a real and serious threat to the NHS, adding that the threat would not be neutralised unless David Cameron gave a cast-iron guarantee that he would exclude the NHS from TTIP.[96]

So I guess I wasn't the first to think this was kind of relevant.


Apart from all that, why would you say it's not true for the US and the EU?

 

[Juliano13]

Apart from all that, why would you say it's not true for the US and the EU?

By it, I meant coordinating fiscal rules. It's not true because there is a floating USD/EUR exchange rate. Under this system each country can have it's own independent fiscal and monetary policy and trade deficits are self-correcting problem.

 

[Seven]

By it, I meant coordinating fiscal rules. It's not true because there is a floating USD/EUR exchange rate. Under this system each country can have it's own independent fiscal and monetary policy and trade deficits are self-correcting problem.

Again, I see that you have failed to respond to my post about private health care and why it doesn't work. This despite the fact I have just shown you that it is indeed relevant. I can only imagine that you couldn't find my post and therefore couldn't reply. Here is the link: http://www.juventuz.com/threads/29185-News-that-makes-you-say-WTF!?p=5367127&viewfull=1#post5367127

Why do you believe a floating USD/EUR exchange rate is enough to have an independent fiscal and monetary policy?

 

[Juliano13]

Again, I see that you have failed to respond to my post about private health care and why it doesn't work. This despite the fact I have just shown you that it is indeed relevant. I can only imagine that you couldn't find my post and therefore couldn't reply. Here is the link: http://www.juventuz.com/threads/29185-News-that-makes-you-say-WTF!?p=5367127&viewfull=1#post5367127

Why do you believe a floating USD/EUR exchange rate is enough to have an independent fiscal and monetary policy?

In the case of monetary policy, the central bank has 1 degree of freedom. It can determine either the money supply or the interest rate. That's why they have a choice of either having an independent monetary policy, which is usually some form of inflation targeting, or exchange rate targeting. The Fed does inflation targeting, even though they are not as strict about it as some other countries. Bulgaria, for example, has a fixed exchange rate with the Euro. That means that we cannot have an independent monetary policy. The only thing our central bank does is buy Levs using the foreign reserves if it starts dropping or sell Levs if it starts going up. Our monetary policy is in effect determined by the European Central Bank.

Fiscal policy refers to how much the government spends and how much it collects in taxes. Countries can actually have an independent fiscal policy even with a fixed exchange rate, in fact, most such countries do. The problem is that they can't print as much money as they want, so they run into trouble if they accumulate too much debt. Then they either have to be bailed out or they forfeit on their debt. In the case of Bulgaria, if we can't pay our debt, we can print money but then the fixed exchange rate regime with the Euro will fall apart.

 

[Seven]

In the case of monetary policy, the central bank has 1 degree of freedom. It can determine either the money supply or the interest rate. That's why they have a choice of either having an independent monetary policy, which is usually some form of inflation targeting, or exchange rate targeting. The Fed does inflation targeting, even though they are not as strict about it as some other countries. Bulgaria, for example, has a fixed exchange rate with the Euro. That means that we cannot have an independent monetary policy. The only thing our central bank does is buy Levs using the foreign reserves if it starts dropping or sell Levs if it starts going up. Our monetary policy is in effect determined by the European Central Bank.

Fiscal policy refers to how much the government spends and how much it collects in taxes. Countries can actually have an independent fiscal policy even with a fixed exchange rate, in fact, most such countries do. The problem is that they can't print as much money as they want, so they run into trouble if they accumulate too much debt. Then they either have to be bailed out or they forfeit on their debt. In the case of Bulgaria, if we can't pay our debt, we can print money but then the fixed exchange rate regime with the Euro will fall apart.

I see that unfortunately you were unable to find my post about private healthcare, even though I provided you with the link. Just so that you can't miss it again, I'll quote it for you here:

No, it wouldn't. The US is a prime example that it simply is not. Healthcare is more expensive than it is in western Europe and it's worse too. It is in fact the prime example of what can go wrong with a free market and you'd have to blind not to see it.

Health insurance as such would be impossible for a lot of people in a free market. I'll try to explain this you in a few logical steps:

1. An insurance policy is an aleatory contract, this is a contract in which the performance of one or both parties is contingent upon the occurrence of a particular event. This means there is always a risk involved. For the guy paying for the insurance, it's the possiblity that he may never need the insurance and thus lost money paying the premiums. For the insurance company, it's the possibility that the event actually takes place and they have to pay;

2. Everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives. In an ideal world you go for routine checkups with doctors and dentists at least once a year. This means you can't really get an insurance policy for this type of thing, because the so called uncertain event will always take place.

3. That's why in a lot of European countries you have a socialist healthcare system. This means that the system pays for routine check ups for example. If you are hospitalized though, you get a basic care package, but on top of that you can get an insurance policy for any additional losses you might face. For example the system will pay you 1,000 Euros a month because you can't work, but you can get an insurance policy that pays you 500 on top of that, because you are used to making at least 1,500 Euros. The reason you can get an insurance policy for this type of health care is that the event is not guaranteed to take place. Everyone needs routine check ups, not everyone gets hospitalized on a yearly basis.

4. However, there comes a point when even getting hospitalized yearly becomes inevitable. If you've had cancer before, if you're overweight or even if you're just old, the risk of you getting hospitalized is very high. It is in fact so high that an insurance company won't offer you a policy, because the only reason they offer you one is that they gamble on the fact you won't get sick. If they are pretty sure you will get sick, it makes no sense to offer you a policy. At this point, you have become uninsurable. Given enough time, this will happen to everyone.

The consequence of all this? Well, easy. In a completely free market insurance system, people die from illness or old age out on the streets. That's the logical consequence of what you are proposing.

Which is exactly why not a single developed country in the history of the world has considered your system viable.

There. I know it's kind of a nuisance and perhaps it isn't easy to completely understand, but it's important that you do.


I think you're conflating several issues here. They will have an independent fiscal system in the sense that they both levy taxes in their own countries obviously. But with free trade it can't be fully independent because you actually have to coordinate taxes. Regardless of the exchange rate, you have to take into account that sometimes products are taxed at a different stage of the supply chain. Which could mean you get a polluting product that is made in the States and taxed when it is sold to the supplier, but taxed again in the EU when it is sold by the supplier to the consumer (when it wouldn't be taxed in the States, because it already had been taxed). And this is just one example. There would be quite a few of these issues, none of which really have anything to do with exchange rates.

 

[Juliano13]

I think you're conflating several issues here. They will have an independent fiscal system in the sense that they both levy taxes in their own countries obviously. But with free trade it can't be fully independent because you actually have to coordinate taxes. Regardless of the exchange rate, you have to take into account that sometimes products are taxed at a different stage of the supply chain. Which could mean you get a polluting product that is made in the States and taxed when it is sold to the supplier, but taxed again in the EU when it is sold by the supplier to the consumer (when it wouldn't be taxed in the States, because it already had been taxed). And this is just one example. There would be quite a few of these issues, none of which really have anything to do with exchange rates.

You can coordinate fiscal policy, but you don't have to and there will be no major meltdown if you don't.

It is true that the fiscal policy of one country will have an effect on its trading partners, but that is not what is understood when one says independent fiscal policy. Even now, the USA and the EU trade a lot, even if there are some tariffs, and the fiscal policy of one affects the other.

 

[Seven]

You can coordinate fiscal policy, but you don't have to and there will be no major meltdown if you don't.

It is true that the fiscal policy of one country will have an effect on its trading partners, but that is not what is understood when one says independent fiscal policy. Even now, the USA and the EU trade a lot, even if there are some tariffs, and the fiscal policy of one affects the other.

Of course there will no major meltdown. If anything is true in economics, it's that everything can be overcome. But it would have some very significant effects.

Also, I invite you, again, to have a look at my post about private healthcare. I'm not trying to ridicule you here. It's important you read it. I've noticed that most people who are in favour of private healthcare simply are not informed about what insurance policies actually are and how they work. If you do understand them, you'll notice that it is impossible to use them instead of a nationwide healthcare system.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Yikes

 

[Juliano13]

Of course there will no major meltdown. If anything is true in economics, it's that everything can be overcome. But it would have some very significant effects.

Actually, the effects would be quite small. All effects from TTIP would be small because we start from a low level of protectionism. The difference between going from a small to tariff to no tariffs is smaller than going from very large tariffs, like in the old days, to small ones.

 

[Seven]

Yikes

Private health insurance doesn't work. Sorry, X

 

[Fr3sh]

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/is-r...y-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems

I got scared and laughed my ass of while reading this, a friend sent it to me.
@swag @X @AFL_ITALIA @DAiDEViL @Osman @Mohad @lgorTudor @Post Ironic

 

[X Æ A-12]

You know thats not real right?

 

[Fr3sh]

You know thats not real right?

She's not serious? Thought she was for real

 

[X Æ A-12]

Its her youtube persona she makes videos making fun of radical feminists