News that makes you say WTF! (39 Viewers)

[campionesidd]

This is a couple of days old, but it's still sickening.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._s_murder_is_devastating_and_infuriating.html

This is what dog whistles are meant for; inciting the bigoted and hateful to take action against the other.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Juliano13]

You are right and his claim about free trade being that great is just an opinion. Nothing more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_debate - Is a good place to start to read easily about pros and cons.

TTIP is the purest shite. Something I hope dies sooner than later.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...nsatlantic-trade-investment-partnership-guide

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

It's not just an opinion, in the same way that evolution is not just an opinion. The difference between evolution and creationism is that one opinion is supported by a ton of evidence and almost all scientists in the field, while the other is "just an opinion" of a bunch of brain-dead retards who don't care one bit about evidence.

It's the same thing with free trade. Theory and evidence supports the claim that free trade is mutually beneficial and almost all economists agree, but a large part of the public is retarded.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m

- - - Updated - - -

Bypassing the WTO is one thing, desperately trying every dirty move in the book to bypass each and every democratic institution is another. Of course they have to do that, because as soon as the people or even their legislative representatives get to know the details of the agreement, they're naturally against it.

Free Trade is good and well, but those FTA (at least TTIP, but pretty sure it's not much different with the Trans Pacific version) are a disgrace, and pretty muc the epitome of what it going tremendously wrong in modern politics and this version of capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, while pretty much all economists agree that free trade is a good thing in principle, there are a lot of conditions in which plenty of economists rightfully point out that it's a pretty stupid thing to do for a lot of the parties & stakeholders involved.

What a load of bcrap. I read this several times and I fail to find even one meaningful point, just the usual general bitching about capitalism, trade and America by the regressive left. Is there even one specific argument you have?

 

[Seven]

It's not just an opinion, in the same way that evolution is not just an opinion. The difference between evolution and creationism is that one opinion is supported by a ton of evidence and almost all scientists in the field, while the other is "just an opinion" of a bunch of brain-dead retards who don't care one bit about evidence.

It's the same thing with free trade. Theory and evidence supports the claim that free trade is mutually beneficial and almost all economists agree, but a large part of the public is retarded.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m

- - - Updated - - -



What a load of bcrap. I read this several times and I fail to find even one meaningful point, just the usual general bitching about capitalism, trade and America by the regressive left. Is there even one specific argument you have?

I see that you're at this again.

Let me give you one, very easy example. 100% free trade does not work in the insurance sector. It just doesn't. Not even the US will allow it.

 

[Juliano13]

I see that you're at this again.

Let me give you one, very easy example. 100% free trade does not work in the insurance sector. It just doesn't. Not even the US will allow it.

do tell

 

[GordoDeCentral]

It's not just an opinion, in the same way that evolution is not just an opinion. The difference between evolution and creationism is that one opinion is supported by a ton of evidence and almost all scientists in the field, while the other is "just an opinion" of a bunch of brain-dead retards who don't care one bit about evidence.

It's the same thing with free trade. Theory and evidence supports the claim that free trade is mutually beneficial and almost all economists agree, but a large part of the public is retarded.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m

- - - Updated - - -



What a load of bcrap. I read this several times and I fail to find even one meaningful point, just the usual general bitching about capitalism, trade and America by the regressive left. Is there even one specific argument you have?

Except in America it's the right that's all about protectionist policies, ever heard trump on the subject

 

[Ocelot]

What a load of bcrap. I read this several times and I fail to find even one meaningful point, just the usual general bitching about capitalism, trade and America by the regressive left. Is there even one specific argument you have?

TTIP would entail the virtual abolition of a lot of safety and environmental standards for one, or the fact that for some mysterious reason the deal is kept at maximum secrecy levels and not even the elected members of congress or the European parlamiant are getting much insight into what is actually discussed.

Can give you more details & articles later, don't have that much right now.

- - - Updated - - -

A few pages back X posted a quite good video/podcast on the subject, the Illusion of Control by...Carlin I think.

 

[Juliano13]

Except in America it's the right that's all about protectionist policies, ever heard trump on the subject

Trump is running as a Republican, but in reality he's a Democrat. That's why the Republican establishment hate him. He has given more money to Democratic candidates, including Hillary, and he even admitted that he identifies himself more as a Democrat:


- - - Updated - - -

TTIP would entail the virtual abolition of a lot of safety and environmental standards for one, or the fact that for some mysterious reason the deal is kept at maximum secrecy levels and not even the elected members of congress or the European parlamiant are getting much insight into what is actually discussed.

Can give you more details & articles later, don't have that much right now.

- - - Updated - - -

A few pages back X posted a quite good video/podcast on the subject, the Illusion of Control by...Carlin I think.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that it will. I hope you are right, because the environmental mafia is one of the worst things about Europe.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Trump is running as a Republican, but in reality he's a Democrat. That's why the Republican establishment hate him. He has given more money to Democratic candidates, including Hillary, and he even admitted that he identifies himself more as a Democrat:


- - - Updated - - -



Unfortunately, I'm not sure that it will. I hope you are right, because the environmental mafia is one of the worst things about Europe.

Was reagan a Democrat too? Nafta and other gatt free trade agreements were signed by Democrat administrations too. This is not to say I'm against free trade especially for the US, but historically repubs have been more the protectionists going against the very principles they believe in.

 

[Juliano13]

Was reagan a Democrat too? Nafta and other gatt free trade agreements were signed by Democrat administrations too. This is not to say I'm against free trade especially for the US, but historically repubs have been more the protectionists going against the very principles they believe in.

Republicans were protectionist mainly in the 19th and early 20th century, but there has been a huge change in the positions of both parties, so that's hardly relevant. As to Clinton, most Republicans hate him because he's a lying, corrupt hypocrite, but as a president he was much more to the right than the other Democrats. I'd say he was better than Bush and Obama.

Recently, the public in both America and Europe has become much more anti-trade, but the reasons have nothing to do with Economics. There's an interesting paper on the subject https://www.sas.upenn.edu/polisci/sites/www.sas.upenn.edu.polisci/files/MansfieldMutz101509.pdf.

What's curious is that the authors find that trade preferences are not mainly determined by self-interest. Even though trade is beneficial as a whole, there are some losers. You would expect that people who work in industries that are negatively affected by free trade are against it, and those who work in industries that benefit support it. But the authors find no evidence of that. In reality, the main factor for anti-trade people is nationalism and racism, which explains why support for free trade is positively correlated with education.

 

[Seven]

do tell

You can't allow the market to regulate insurance products on its own. You'd get policies that cover basically nothing for starters.

With healthcare you end up with people who are unable to get any health insurance whatsoever. You need some form of state subsidized insurance policies for these people, but as they are very cheap they are obviously detrimental to the free market (which in this case is a good thing).

Claiming that free trade solves everything is the simplistic viewpoint of a 12 year old. Nothing is ever that simple. It's like saying the world would be better off communist, because we'd all share.

 

[Juliano13]

You can't allow the market to regulate insurance products on its own. You'd get policies that cover basically nothing for starters.

With healthcare you end up with people who are unable to get any health insurance whatsoever. You need some form of state subsidized insurance policies for these people, but as they are very cheap they are obviously detrimental to the free market (which in this case is a good thing).

In a completely free market, you'd have all kinds of insurance products covering different illnesses. Just like with most other products, a private system would be much more efficient than a state run or state regulated one.

If the issue is that some people would be unable to get a health insurance, or would only be able to get a limited one, than there is a much better way to solve this problem. How about just giving those the people the money to buy an insurance? The cost to the taxpayers is the same, but without the distortionary effects of a state regulated system.

- - - Updated - - -

Claiming that free trade solves everything is the simplistic viewpoint of a 12 year old. Nothing is ever that simple. It's like saying the world would be better off communist, because we'd all share.

When did I say that? Saying that free trade is mutually beneficial is not the same as saying that free trade solves everything. Most 12-year-olds understand this. You seriously need to do some reading comprehension exercises.

 

[Seven]

In a completely free market, you'd have all kinds of insurance products covering different illnesses. Just like with most other products, a private system would be much more efficient than a state run or state regulated one.

If the issue is that some people would be unable to get a health insurance, or would only be able to get a limited one, than there is a much better way to solve this problem. How about just giving those the people the money to buy an insurance? The cost to the taxpayers is the same, but without the distortionary effects of a state regulated system.

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.

 

[Ocelot]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that it will. I hope you are right, because the environmental mafia is one of the worst things about Europe.

It will, if most US products get access to the European market and vice versa, the lowest standards will prevail, due to products produced under lower standards generally being cheaper and simple market forces. And in many cases that would be a very detrimental development for the general public.

And a huge lol at that statement, last time I checked negative externalities of production were included in an Economics 101 book, maybe you should brush up on those.

 

[Juliano13]

It will, if most US products get access to the European market and vice versa, the lowest standards will prevail, due to products produced under lower standards generally being cheaper and simple market forces. And in many cases that would be a very detrimental development for the general public.

And a huge lol at that statement, last time I checked negative externalities of production were included in an Economics 101 book, maybe you should brush up on those.

The way you deal with externalities is with Pigouvian taxation.

 

[Maddy]

It will, if most US products get access to the European market and vice versa, the lowest standards will prevail, due to products produced under lower standards generally being cheaper and simple market forces. And in many cases that would be a very detrimental development for the general public.

And a huge lol at that statement, last time I checked negative externalities of production were included in an Economics 101 book, maybe you should brush up on those.

And what effect will this have on the working class who is already facing hardship in the neo-liberal dominated globalization. It just ain't as black and white; especially when it comes to economics and the effect of the market.

 

[Juliano13]

And what effect will this have on the working class who is already facing hardship in the neo-liberal dominated globalization. It just ain't as black and white; especially when it comes to economics and the effect of the market.

The working class, my Marxist friend, is better off under capitalism than under communism.

 

[Ocelot]

The way you deal with externalities is with Pigouvian taxation.

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.

And some damages are virtually irriversible, no matter how much money you throw at it - those can't be expressed with classical externalities, but they're still important.

- - - Updated - - -

And what effect will this have on the working class who is already facing hardship in the neo-liberal dominated globalization. It just ain't as black and white; especially when it comes to economics and the effect of the market.

Yup.

Imo a FTA needs some degree of fiscal coordination to be truly successful for all parties involved - the EU partly faces the same problem, though with the Euro zone there's obviously the massive added problem of a common currency without a common fiscal policy.

 

[Seven]

The working class, my Marxist friend, is better off under capitalism than under communism.

I like that you saw that I replied and decided that you couldn't answer my post because you were wrong. Kudos to you, no point in fighting a losing battle

 

[Juliano13]

I like that you saw that I replied and decided that you couldn't answer my post because you were wrong. Kudos to you, no point in fighting a losing battle

I'm not going over the insurance debate with you again, it's hopeless. Clearly, you didn't even read my entire post. I compared two systems that both can provide healthcare to all citizens, but you totally ignored that. Also, this has nothing to do with the debate here, which is TTIP and free trade.

 

[Seven]

I'm not going over the insurance debate with you again, it's hopeless. Clearly, you didn't even read my entire post. I compared two systems that both can provide healthcare to all citizens, but you totally ignored that. Also, this has nothing to do with the debate here, which is TTIP and free trade.

You never understood insurance the first time. A completely free market for health care doesn't work. Which is why not a single country in the world has implemented it. Also, it does have to do with the debate here. Free trade depends on free market. For example you have various restrictions on the sort of insurance policy you are allowed to offer as a company and if you do offer one, you are obligated to cover certain events.

Oh and you didn't give an alternative system at all. You just said, give the people the money to buy insurance. But that doesn't work if insurance companies don't even go as far as offering you health insurance. Like I said, vast segments of the population are uninsurable. Read my post, try to comprehend it, then come back and admit you were wrong. Thank you.