Statelessness in itself abridges human rights. There's no way to travel legally without a passport, nor do you have any standing in courts to redress your grievances.
Jews many times were objected to this kind of insidious degradation that essentially denies your personhood. All the more saddening to see Israel keep Palestinians in this graceless statelessness for so many decades.
To argue that the Palestinians have a state at this point is extremely disingenuous. They have no sovereignty about trade and allegiances. Are not allowed to keep a military, and their administrations are not recognized as national governments.
Gaza's kids are severely malnourished in this small area that is overcrowded with 1.7 millions. No chance that the land can support the entire population (even fishing is prohibited). Yet, given how populous and unprotected the area is, the IDF is essentially shooting fish in a barrel.
The suspicious timing of the IDF assassination attack on the Hamas leader that kicked off the recent fighting does not help.
It leaves the lingering impression that we are witnessing a most cynical wag the dog maneuver. Nothing like a war to distract the people from their economic hardship this close to an election. It'll be rather depressing if the leaders of Israel were indeed betraying their own people in this fashion.
You are stretching your own definition of protectionism to the breaking point. Any regulation that a foreign entity does not like fits your description.
I.e. all safety regulations, environmental, health e.g. to regulate smoking.
Taken to this extrem the term becomes completely useless.
As to the role of government in the creation of the Internet, of course the credit goes to the individual scientists. I leave it as an exercise to you to figure out how many of them held jobs at publicly sponsored institutions versus private ones at the time, and in case of the latter where working with public grants. Really not rocket science to figure that out.
"And as you note, some forms of protectionism aren't recognized as being within the purview of the WTO."
I note no such thing. I am pointing out that you cannot just make up your own definition of protectionism. If the WTO is doesn't call it protectionism it is not protectionism.
You cannot just make up your own definition.
You can also not re-write history: The Internet is older than AOL or Compuserve and the interesting content there was user generated (FAQs) or provided and hosted by research agencies such as NASA and CERN (where the web was invented).
And no, Hawala networks are not markets just because they are not owned by one entity. It still just remains a money brokering system.
The tendency of yours to just make up your own "facts" is simply flabbergasting.
What's in a name? "Metcalfe's Law" will have a hard time accounting for the fact that Facebook manages to tie people back into a reservation.
"Show us that isn't true first."
Spoken like a true ideologist.
"You asked for non-agricultural examples of protectionism and I gave you them. "
So WTO does not classify it as protectionism but it is nevertheless protectionism because you say so.
Alright then.
Hawala networks are transactional networks (think visa, paypal) not markets (e.g. ebay).
"My view is that the wealthier China is, the freer it will become."
That's a hope not a strategy.
"Also, we want their stuff."
Because the Western world greedily gave them the IP to build marketable stuff. What exactly did they produce that was of any interest before the Western world invested and started outsourcing?
"What has kept us going industrially is new industry creation", I see no reason to correct it.
As well you shouldn't. My point was that it is valid but kinda obvious.
As to the Internet, have you been around when AOL was blanketing everything with their CDs?
The reason these walled gardens went away was the pre-existing Internet that offered interesting content so that these services hooked up to it.
Led to an influx of really unsophisticated users into newsgroups who thought that AOL invented the Internet (fortunately nowadays everybody knows that Al Gore did that:-)
"Metcalfe's Law" - just because you call it a law doesn't make it so, especially in economics.
You seem to argue from a libertarian standpoint that assumes that markets naturally blossom and always create the best outcome.
Markets are created by fiat. If there was no government that enforces a level playing field you won't get a libertarian utopia but at best a Mad Max world.
None of the EU regulations that you cite are WTO accepted barriers to free trade. They are simply good governance. Apparently you never saw a regulation that you liked, that's the only explanation I have for arguing against policies like the Ecolabel that are designed to improve working and environmental standards.
From my point of view this doesn't even go far enough. IMHO democratic countries shouldn't have engaged in free trade with communist dictatorships like China to begin with. Free trade should have been the price for democratic reform and compliance with basic human rights. An opportunity squandered. Now the world has to content with an ever less free America in decline and Communist mandarins emasculated to the hilt with economic power and clout.
Well, at least we can agree on one thing:
"So you agree that there's a lot more manufacture in the US than there would be in the absence of new industry creation."
Yes, and the sky is blue in absence of clouds,and during daytime, unless you happen to be near one of the poles in the winter.
You are correct that the PIGS have been a net benefit to Germany, but where its economy shines are in areas that are not at all protected: Cars and machinery. Both items that sell very well in China.
Protectionism in the EU is all about agriculture. Please check your facts at bit more carefully.
As to your contention that new industry creation keeps the US going: While it is true that there is fortunately still great innovation happing, the rate has not been steep enough to compensate for the outsourcing loss to Asia.
Would also like to point out that companies like SpaceX could not exist if the government through NASA wouldn't have artificially created a marked in the first place (very good policy IMHO). And of course there'd be no Internet without the government either, just AOL and Compuserve walled-gardens.
So far the US has a very hard time to compete with China. Reducing the American worker to the standing of a Chinese one and hollowing out the US industrial sector seems to me to be a poor way to secure American prosperty and power.
By all accounts my birth country, Germany, is much more competitive with regards to China, and somehow they manage to do this with strong trade unions and a comprehensive wellfare system.
As education, health care and pensions are handled just fine by many other governments the world over (quite satisfied with the way things work up here in Canada), I can only conclude that the US suffers from especially malevolent public servants. Really sorry to hear that. Maybe you should move?
Just one simple counter example: One of the best 'domestic investment' over the last five years was gold. Worked like a charm for me.
You'd need massive capital controls to direct investment the way you envision. Freedom it ain't. I rather pay higher taxes but retain my economic liberty to invest my money the way I see fit. Apparently your mileage varies.
Opportunity cost makes only sense in the latter context. Most of the yellow wasn't spend but saved or put into investment vehicles, and had therefore very limited stimulus effect. If you want to stimulate the economy with tax cuts you have to tailor them to the lower income segment where the incentive for additional consumption is much higher. The Bush tax cuts on the other hand are structured exactly the other way around.
If I may interject, with regards to your first point, governmental services can leverage ultimate scale and provide investments that do not have to be short term profitable (infrastructure such as the Interstate system are a good example).
As to point number two: I would like to highlight that the US spends more on its military than several of the next larges powers combines. Plenty of room to cut.
This looks and feels very different from the outside. In my lifetime Democratic presidents did not start wars unilaterally. Bosnia as well as Lybia was very much in line with what the European allies wanted from the US. On the other hand the Iraq war was a big "f*** you" to the rest of the world.
As somebody who does not reside in the US I just may want to mention these little things called wars?
May not matter to the USians all that much, but really it would be nice if this could at least be an afterthought when you decide who's allowed to lead the most powerful military on this globe.
I haven't even heard of Lovelock before he got back into the limelight with his back-paddling. Certainly heard the hippie Gaia talk before. Always thought that was flower power nonsense. Now I know whom to blame.
But if it helps you to separate the world in two groups around this question...
'Gaia Theory', good thing you put it into quotes. This BS is as much theory as intelligent design, just another pseudo-religion catering to a different demographics.
... my favorite prof Scott Aaronson has been taking on the stupid.
His most salient point: You cannot attribute any single lung cancer death statistically to smoking, just like you cannot do the same for any particular storm event.
Yet, anybody looking at the accumulated data has to be willfully ignorant to maintain that smoking does not contribute to lung cancer.
While fortunately the tobacco industry and their lobby are widely shunned the global warming deniers still get a pass.
Slashdot Mirror
Statelessness in itself abridges human rights. There's no way to travel legally without a passport, nor do you have any standing in courts to redress your grievances.
Jews many times were objected to this kind of insidious degradation that essentially denies your personhood. All the more saddening to see Israel keep Palestinians in this graceless statelessness for so many decades.
To argue that the Palestinians have a state at this point is extremely disingenuous. They have no sovereignty about trade and allegiances. Are not allowed to keep a military, and their administrations are not recognized as national governments.
Gaza's kids are severely malnourished in this small area that is overcrowded with 1.7 millions. No chance that the land can support the entire population (even fishing is prohibited). Yet, given how populous and unprotected the area is, the IDF is essentially shooting fish in a barrel.
The suspicious timing of the IDF assassination attack on the Hamas leader that kicked off the recent fighting does not help.
It leaves the lingering impression that we are witnessing a most cynical wag the dog maneuver. Nothing like a war to distract the people from their economic hardship this close to an election. It'll be rather depressing if the leaders of Israel were indeed betraying their own people in this fashion.
Indeed, TFA could be summarized as:
And now get off my lawn!
Pebble bed reactors may not be the answer, but they are not the only alternative nuclear designs worth investigating.
For instance using an accelerator as neutron source makes for an inherently save reactor. One that can process Thorium as well as reduce the nuclear waste stockpile.
See, that's the problem. Your first paragraph summarizes precisely how I felt about your comments as well.
Well, I guess it was only a matter of time until we descend to name calling.
Fortunately, the US electorate is also "too stupid" to see your "wisdom".
I'll happily keep dwelling in my "ignorance" up here in Canada, where good governance as a concept is fortunately not contested.
Anyhow, nice talking to you. Take care.
You are stretching your own definition of protectionism to the breaking point. Any regulation that a foreign entity does not like fits your description.
I.e. all safety regulations, environmental, health e.g. to regulate smoking.
Taken to this extrem the term becomes completely useless.
As to the role of government in the creation of the Internet, of course the credit goes to the individual scientists. I leave it as an exercise to you to figure out how many of them held jobs at publicly sponsored institutions versus private ones at the time, and in case of the latter where working with public grants. Really not rocket science to figure that out.
"And as you note, some forms of protectionism aren't recognized as being within the purview of the WTO."
I note no such thing. I am pointing out that you cannot just make up your own definition of protectionism. If the WTO is doesn't call it protectionism it is not protectionism.
You cannot just make up your own definition.
You can also not re-write history: The Internet is older than AOL or Compuserve and the interesting content there was user generated (FAQs) or provided and hosted by research agencies such as NASA and CERN (where the web was invented).
And no, Hawala networks are not markets just because they are not owned by one entity. It still just remains a money brokering system.
The tendency of yours to just make up your own "facts" is simply flabbergasting.
Messed up my italics at the end of my previous post.
Trust you'll sort it out.
What's in a name? "Metcalfe's Law" will have a hard time accounting for the fact that Facebook manages to tie people back into a reservation.
"Show us that isn't true first."
Spoken like a true ideologist.
"You asked for non-agricultural examples of protectionism and I gave you them. "
So WTO does not classify it as protectionism but it is nevertheless protectionism because you say so.
Alright then.
Hawala networks are transactional networks (think visa, paypal) not markets (e.g. ebay).
"My view is that the wealthier China is, the freer it will become."
That's a hope not a strategy.
"Also, we want their stuff."
Because the Western world greedily gave them the IP to build marketable stuff. What exactly did they produce that was of any interest before the Western world invested and started outsourcing?
"What has kept us going industrially is new industry creation", I see no reason to correct it.
As well you shouldn't. My point was that it is valid but kinda obvious.
As to the Internet, have you been around when AOL was blanketing everything with their CDs?
The reason these walled gardens went away was the pre-existing Internet that offered interesting content so that these services hooked up to it.
Led to an influx of really unsophisticated users into newsgroups who thought that AOL invented the Internet (fortunately nowadays everybody knows that Al Gore did that :-)
"Metcalfe's Law" - just because you call it a law doesn't make it so, especially in economics.
You seem to argue from a libertarian standpoint that assumes that markets naturally blossom and always create the best outcome.
Markets are created by fiat. If there was no government that enforces a level playing field you won't get a libertarian utopia but at best a Mad Max world.
None of the EU regulations that you cite are WTO accepted barriers to free trade. They are simply good governance. Apparently you never saw a regulation that you liked, that's the only explanation I have for arguing against policies like the Ecolabel that are designed to improve working and environmental standards.
From my point of view this doesn't even go far enough. IMHO democratic countries shouldn't have engaged in free trade with communist dictatorships like China to begin with. Free trade should have been the price for democratic reform and compliance with basic human rights. An opportunity squandered. Now the world has to content with an ever less free America in decline and Communist mandarins emasculated to the hilt with economic power and clout.
Well, at least we can agree on one thing:
"So you agree that there's a lot more manufacture in the US than there would be in the absence of new industry creation."
Yes, and the sky is blue in absence of clouds ,and during daytime, unless you happen to be near one of the poles in the winter.
You are correct that the PIGS have been a net benefit to Germany, but where its economy shines are in areas that are not at all protected: Cars and machinery. Both items that sell very well in China.
Protectionism in the EU is all about agriculture. Please check your facts at bit more carefully.
As to your contention that new industry creation keeps the US going: While it is true that there is fortunately still great innovation happing, the rate has not been steep enough to compensate for the outsourcing loss to Asia.
Would also like to point out that companies like SpaceX could not exist if the government through NASA wouldn't have artificially created a marked in the first place (very good policy IMHO). And of course there'd be no Internet without the government either, just AOL and Compuserve walled-gardens.
So far the US has a very hard time to compete with China. Reducing the American worker to the standing of a Chinese one and hollowing out the US industrial sector seems to me to be a poor way to secure American prosperty and power.
By all accounts my birth country, Germany, is much more competitive with regards to China, and somehow they manage to do this with strong trade unions and a comprehensive wellfare system.
As education, health care and pensions are handled just fine by many other governments the world over (quite satisfied with the way things work up here in Canada), I can only conclude that the US suffers from especially malevolent public servants. Really sorry to hear that. Maybe you should move?
Just one simple counter example: One of the best 'domestic investment' over the last five years was gold. Worked like a charm for me.
You'd need massive capital controls to direct investment the way you envision. Freedom it ain't. I rather pay higher taxes but retain my economic liberty to invest my money the way I see fit. Apparently your mileage varies.
Indeed, the winger comments further up the thread unfortunately illustrate your point.
In the last crisis a lot of money indeed "burned up" as the credit supply and hence money in circulation shrunk (M3).
Econ 101.
Macroeconomics != Microeconomics
Opportunity cost makes only sense in the latter context. Most of the yellow wasn't spend but saved or put into investment vehicles, and had therefore very limited stimulus effect. If you want to stimulate the economy with tax cuts you have to tailor them to the lower income segment where the incentive for additional consumption is much higher. The Bush tax cuts on the other hand are structured exactly the other way around.
If you don't know why these tax cuts are still there you obviously did not pay any attention.
If I may interject, with regards to your first point, governmental services can leverage ultimate scale and provide investments that do not have to be short term profitable (infrastructure such as the Interstate system are a good example).
As to point number two: I would like to highlight that the US spends more on its military than several of the next larges powers combines. Plenty of room to cut.
This looks and feels very different from the outside. In my lifetime Democratic presidents did not start wars unilaterally. Bosnia as well as Lybia was very much in line with what the European allies wanted from the US. On the other hand the Iraq war was a big "f*** you" to the rest of the world.
As somebody who does not reside in the US I just may want to mention these little things called wars?
May not matter to the USians all that much, but really it would be nice if this could at least be an afterthought when you decide who's allowed to lead the most powerful military on this globe.
Can you put two and two together looking at this graph?
(Numbers and graph Courtesy of the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities).
My crowd?
I haven't even heard of Lovelock before he got back into the limelight with his back-paddling. Certainly heard the hippie Gaia talk before. Always thought that was flower power nonsense. Now I know whom to blame.
But if it helps you to separate the world in two groups around this question ...
'Gaia Theory', good thing you put it into quotes. This BS is as much theory as intelligent design, just another pseudo-religion catering to a different demographics.
Link to Scott's blog got swallowed:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1148
... my favorite prof Scott Aaronson has been taking on the stupid.
His most salient point: You cannot attribute any single lung cancer death statistically to smoking, just like you cannot do the same for any particular storm event.
Yet, anybody looking at the accumulated data has to be willfully ignorant to maintain that smoking does not contribute to lung cancer.
While fortunately the tobacco industry and their lobby are widely shunned the global warming deniers still get a pass.