A correction:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
It was a very boring Ukraine thread until Gilrandir was allowed to post there.
Printable View
A correction:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
It was a very boring Ukraine thread until Gilrandir was allowed to post there.
Nothing like having a healthy self concept......Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Actually, the impacts are still happening over here and Brexit hasn't even started or happened yet officially. The pound has dropped significantly to that of the euro, all prices are rising at a minimum of 10%, in some cases, 40% We are getting the fabled "even more Austerity" being imposed upon us by the government. Scotland now pushing forward with a 2nd referendum. Our government went through a period of real instability, and the ramifications have had a profound impact on the political climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Short-term consequences were to be expected, and screw the political climate really, instability isn't always badQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Short-term consequences include this - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...r-with-unilev/
And these are short-term issues, which were eventually resolved by Tesco and Unilever. But what will happen in the future when bigger issues will occur, and not just Marmite?
Not having marmite is probably a very big issue for the English ;)
Tesco have since then warned that food prices are likely to rise sharply. Probably not an issue for you since you can afford to scoff, in more ways than one. You're neither British nor poor, so rises in the costs of essentials is something that you can comfortably laugh at. Just like the neolibs and 90s Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No I am not Brittish (and no I am not rich), and I certainly not having fun at your expense. If you dislike neolabarism so much, why do you dislike it so much that big-companies who come up with prices that can't be competed with are in trouble? Those are what the EU cater
What stayaway theorists like yourself and the neolibs fail to realise is that poor people need to eat too. For you and the neolibs, the purity of a political idea trumps the reality of needing to tighten belts because costs of essentials are rising, costs that the rich can easily account for, but which account for a far greater proportion of a poor household's budget. Why is Putin so popular in Russia? Because of Yeltsin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Skip the staway, the Brittish and Dutch ecomomy are way too interconnected to use such a word. I am no theorist I am a layman and but isn't an expert anything more than someone who can explain why he had it wrong? Economics aside there are other reasons to be rid of the hand in your pants. The EU has become an unacountable monsterQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The economies are about to become less interconnected, as you continue to have your common market, while we are about to leave, much to your pleasure. As for other reasons, I'd have thought that food on the table would be the first and overriding reason of politics, but I guess you think differently. It's easier for you to think differently after all, since you're not going to see food disappear, nor do you care if it happens to others, as long as you get to win your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I would be a sadistic psychopath if I would like food seing dissapear and I just happen to not be a sadistic psychopath. I would call the EU that as they keep dumping surpluss in Africa, literraly making it impossible to build something themselve. I wonder what will happen in Brittain when smaller companies actually have a chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Even higher prices as the whole economies of scale advantage is lost, efficiency goes down, resources are wasted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Are you familiar with the broken glass theory? A little bit harm can do a lot of good basicly. Libertarians are disgusted by the premise but we could see it in action in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Classical neolib argument. Never mind the decrease in living standards. It's all for your own good, says he who lives a world away. The political writer I admire most is George Orwell. Orwell sought to understand the people he was writing about by going there and living amongst them. You're the polar opposite of Orwell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Have never read anything of him so I can say nothing about it, but the English seem to have a broken window that needs fixing. You don't have to be so hostile, my mom and father have/had no education at all, my mom grew up in a lower-class neighbourhood in Haarlem and my father always kept his beard to hide the stabbing wounds. Do you think I am aristocracy or something. My face is covered with scars, I got scars from stabbing wounds everywere and got actually shot. Does Orwell?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I take it that he did, but you should get the point
Edit, ohlol, just forgot something. I'll take the redicule as a man
Frag, Marmite is one of those quintessential British things that also happens to be cheap and good affordable food for those who enjoyed it. Granted, it's not a staple food, but a lot of people enjoy it, and a shortage of Marmite and a significant price increase (10% at the minimum is not small) is something that would affect a considerable number of people.
Case in point - it did. And look what happened. A public price war between Tesco, the largest retailer, and Unilever, one of the largest producers of food products.
Lawyers are thriving because of Brexit - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ause-of-brexit
Price rises of between ten and forty percent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Given that inflation is only just tipped into 1% positive I'd like some data on that, please.
Also not seen "even more austerity", noises from Hammond point in much the opposite direction.
As to the government having a period of "real instability" that's just cobblers - at no point was there not a Prime Minister, at no point did we suffer mass-resignations from the Front Bench. That happened on the OTHER side of the chamber.
You're right about Scotland, though, but then the SNP have been sounding off like a bunch of shut in cats since the election.
Inflation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
From the previously posted link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...r-with-unilev/
There you also have your broken window theory. :sweatdrop:Quote:
The pound has fallen 17 per cent since Britain voted to leave the EU.
Bryan Roberts, a retail analyst at TCC Global, said: “A lot of suppliers are seeking to pass on price increases to retailers but in the current environment retailers are increasingly reluctant to take it. They want to keep prices as low as they can to increase their affordability against the competition.”
Former chairman of Northern Foods Lord Haskins told BBC Newsnight that he expected food inflation of around five per cent in the next year, with discounters affected as well as the main supermarket brands.
"Despite the fact that people will grumble about paying more for Marmite, they will pay more for Marmite and that’s what the strengths of good brands are," he said.
"But then the people who pay for Marmite have got less money to pay for something else so it will affect shopper’s behaviour in a substantial way."
I don't know about Marmite, but if the pound is falling, imports should become more expensive of course, nothing to do with inflation. Certainly not if retailers are so far trying to resist. And then how is inflation calculated in the UK? Here they use some "representative goods" to calculate it. With that method, only goods included in the calculations actually impact official inflation figures for obvious reasons.
The rapid decline in the value of the pound fuels inflation. And inflation was at 0.6%, and it almost doubled in a couple of months.
Bloomberg - Carney looking for inflation test - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...most-two-years
I didn't say that it doesn't, I said the effect can be delayed or that inflation numbers can be misleading as far as real inflation is concerned depending on how they're calculated or what you personally buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
edit: okay, the "nothing to do with inflation" was a bad formulation in that regard. :sweatdrop:
Oh and the inflation does also not impact prices, prices impact inflation, so you can't say that imported goods can't become more expensive due to low inflation. The same can be true for locally produced goods since inflation is just an average, single items can have a lower or higher change in price.
Are you that surprised? After the next mass extinction, the only creatures left will be cockroaches....and lawyers. I'll not offer an opinion on which would be preferable as the new "top species," but....Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Well, Unilever argument with Tesco was 10%. The 40% figure was the cost of importing bicycle parts from Japan from a BBC4 caller Bicycle UK Supplier, who is now getting the parts from an Italian manufacturer firm instead at only 25% the cost he was paying previously. There were numerous callers on this subject, and all the callers from businesses who import from outside the UK say prices for them were ranging from 10-40%, and this is currently getting swallowed by the hedge-funding and leverages the companies had in place, so they do not burden the customer with sudden price hikes, but these will be being passed on soon since said funding typically runs out after 6 months to a year. So if the situation doesn't improve, it hits our wallets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Either way, looks like Husar beaten me to it. It is to do with the value of the pound, and the price hikes of costs/increases of importing from aboard.
Inflation in the UK's case over here is fueled by Brexit - and look at the Tesco price war with Unilever. Unilever is suffering because of the pound, leading to higher prices and lower profits. They want to offset those costs by raising prices -> inflation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
And this is just one example.
The effect will be delayed for a little while before the rest of the producers and retailers see how the government is dealing with the formal application of Brexit. Hence why some are resisting price increases for the moment.
Eh, yes, I know a bit about economics considering I'm studying something sort of economic.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
I may have misunderstoof PVC since I thought he was saying that price hikes of 10-40% were not justified because inflation is only 1%. Now that I read it again he was probably saying they are not happening given that inflation is low. There are still a few possible explanations, such as the last calculation having been a while ago and so on, but it makes more sense now.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit.../inflation-cpi
Apparently it is calculated monthly.
Depreciation and inflation are not exactly the same thing, basically.
Just curious, what makes May and the rest of the government think that there's a mandate to leave the single market?
Slightly less than half of the population voted for the status quo. A razor thin majority voted for leaving. I can believe that a majority of the Leave voters wants out of the single market in order to curb immigration, but since when is the Will of the People (tm) determined by a 'majority of the majority'?
Oh common Europe is a continent, the EU an overhead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I disagree, smoked mackerel is much tastier than salmon.
Depends, mackerel is used for bait mostly. But yeah it's tasty. Add moyonaise, a lotQuote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Since always, pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
One could argue that with such an important issue, there should have been a requirement of a minimum 60-70% of people coming out to vote for any result to be valid, but the general agreement is that those who don't have an opinion shouldn't hold back those that do have one.
If you think the issue is important, get out and vote.
That reminds me of the guy who started the petition requiring a second referendum, if the turnout was low or the result was close. He filed it before the referendum was actually held, in the expectation that Remain would win, since he himself was in favour of leaving.
As it turns out, Leave won and the petition was then signed in huge numbers by Remainers....and the guy who originally started the petition then scorned the Remainers for trying to overturn the result.
Oh yeah that was hillarious, especially when it ended up flooded by foriegn proxies with the vatican city signers outnumbering the cuty' population 2 to 1.
Hyperbole is nice, but sources are better. This article says that there were some 77.000 fraudulent or suspicious signatures, of more than 3 million signatures at the time (it peaked at over 4 million). Less than 3 %.
Edit: the point was, of course, that the person who started the petition is a hypocritical POS.
The salt must flow.
22 Hypocrytical brexiteers vs 4 million bremain sore losers/democracy underminers, probably not the best place to claim moral superiority over.
Excercising the legal right to petition your government does not undermine democracy. It's a cornerstone of democratic government. Your way of thinking is bizarre.
And the person who started the petition is still a POS.
As are the 4 million people who signed it as they were using that right to attempt to redo a referendum because they didnt like the result.
Hardly a new idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/09/14/t...-of-the-world/Quote:
“Obamacare. We’re going to repel it, we’re going to replace it, get something great. Repeal it, replace it, get something great!” yelled Trump.
"As are the 4 million people who signed it as they were using that right to attempt to redo a referendum because they didnt like the result" That is called democracy. When you don't like something, you use debates and votes to change things.
It is not you have to agree with something, it is you have to accept the changes or rules until you can democratically change things.
Has Greyblades become so Americanized that he forgot the concept of the recall election?
18 states have recall elections on the books -- it is NOT an unknown element in US politics at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Mine doesn't. :tomato:Quote:
18 states have recall elections on the books -- it is NOT an unknown element in US politics at all.
More seriously, they are rare and inconsequential compared to those in other countries (in part owing to decentralization, maybe). I'll give you that they have become more popular recently.
Actually, damn it. The recall might just become the next trendy device of defiance a la the filibuster.
If you really need to recall the puniest of city officials, then perhaps those positions should not be electable in the first place.
Definitely not in my state - no thanks.
From the outside, British politics looks quite the curious thing - you have an unelected leader of the cabinet (Mrs May, the PM), working with the cabinet on the results of a referendum that are not legally binding (the Brexit vote), to trigger an outside event (the exit from the EU) that is legally binding and will be horribly difficult to work out, which by all means will be economically, socially and politically damaging to the country.
:inquisitive:
It could end up being a positive -- longer term -- on all three levels you name, but I cannot see it NOT being damaging for at least the next few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
"It could end up being a positive -- longer term -" Well, if someone could explain how and when, that would be nice.
New trade deals and markets; less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future; less strain from refugee problems...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Unfortunately, none of these are certainties (i said could not would) and the potential benefits would mostly take years to manifest.
One of the certainties is that, if we want to sell to EU countries, we have to abide by EU regulations. Same with any market, but the EU is 50% of our exports. As for refugee problems; none of them are EU-related.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
"less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future":laugh4: That is if you buy brexiters propaganda. Until now, none of them was able to tell which "bureaucratic" law they want to get rid of.
As I said above, actual EU and UK were completely in agreement.
As EU "bureaucracy" is concerned, the exiters were more concerned in cancelling human rights, workers protection and welfare benefit than to tackle taxes frauds and low wages wars on workers.
For the rest see Pannonian posts.:yes:
And I am still waiting to see the benefit of the cuts imposed to us by this reactionary government (literal sense) whose ideal lays in the 18-19 centuries, sharing this with the actual EU Parliament.
And by the way, 2 local Parliaments in EU can block a International trade agreement with Canada, whereas in UK a country (Scotland) can't do this. So, question, where is the lack of democracy (and holy algorithm knows I am against the actual EU!!!!).
Valid points. I also freely admit that I am only moderately familiar with the particulars of European trade deals and the like -- a good portion of it picked up here and from sources included by almost everyone in the backroom [sorry Frags].Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I am always a fan of pruning back the bureaucracy, which tends to choke activity by well-intentioned accretion that stifles innovation and organizational flexibility. On the other hand, there is a percentage to whom it means scrap the safety regulations in the interest of profit, which is obviously pretty scummy. It takes care to prune back regulation without removing truly valuable safety and record-keeping components.
There is a reason that Marx was able to critique the unrestrained capitalism of the early Victorian era and good reasons that Weber felt traditional management systems were ineffective. Some measure of bureaucratic regulation IS needful because of that 5% of exploitative types who would gleefully pimp their parents if it added shekels to the next quarter's statement. Silly me, I am rather a fan of drinkable tap water.
I thought you lived in Florida?Quote:
Silly me, I am rather a fan of drinkable tap water.
Just kidding, it turns out municipal water has improved quite a bit over the past decade (at least in South Florida).
I generally agree, Seamus, but why do you sound like bureaucracy is purely a government thing? I get the impression that corporations introduce quite a bit of bureaucracy of their own, perhaps as well because they become really hard to control beyond a certain size if things aren't kept track of and so on. Plus of course the idea that everything that can be measured can also be improved and more. Why wouldn't a country need a bureaucracy for similar reasons? Sure, I agree that it can go too far, but I still think that is partially due to the nature of many people that tries to exploit everything. And while a corporation can fire those types if needed (or hire them as lawyers or accountants :sweatdrop: ), a country cannot just throw them out and needs to counter with more laws and bureaucracy. Of course life would be easier if we all inherently stuck to the same rules and behaviors.
As for drinking water, several lab tests here in Germany have shown that our tap water contains fewer germs than many of the high-priced bottled waters, I would therefore apply the old principle of "never change a running system". I see no reason to privatise if the current system is so well-regulated that it works just fine and isn't overly expensive. The idea has come up here as well, but I'm very strongly against it.
The thing is, most of the criticised regulations are UK-driven rather than EU-driven. Where the EU really does add regulation is in the protection of regional specialities, protecting them from unregulated commercialisation that would use their names to label unrelated products. This can hurt national and multinational companies whose scope goes beyond a single region, but it protects regional small holders by allowing them and only them to use these labels. Funnily enough, it was exactly these areas whose commercial and infrastructure interests were protected by the EU that voted to leave the EU. And upon the Leave result, they immediately asked the UK government to safeguard them as the EU had done (fat chance). Idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I do, but in central Florida (Oviedo).* My wife and daughter drink bottled or tap water that has been re-filtered. I myself just drink it and notice nothing untoward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
*Only an hour away from the WDW complex....hence the location in my forum identity blurb
In a regulated but mostly open market, an overly bureaucratized organization will be weeded out when it cannot respond quickly enough to change or crisis or cost overheads prevent profitability. Thus the private sector (which does indeed need bureaucracy just as much as the public sector) is more self correcting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Example: Executives at my wife's company have to be a VP to get an admin person. Directors share admins at 1 admin per 4. Project managers and lower are expected to handle their own paperwork. Why? Because they will not be competitive in bidding for work if their overhead costs are too high.
NOT so, the pubic sector, hence my emphasis. The public sector has a "limitless" pool of funding for added bureaucracy [via taxation and or deficit spending] and thus has little competitive incentive to prune back. Moreover, organizational politics favors MORE positions, rules, and people to write them as individuals in the bureaucracy make logical [in their specific context] moves to enhance their power base and position by controlling more staff, funding, etc. Do not mistake me, the public sector is needed and must regulate the market to some extent....but it tends to overdo this task, not provide the minimum necessary.
Example: The US Dept. of Agriculture. 1900 8,000 employees regulating/serving 5.74 million farms with 843.75 million acres of farmland.
1955 85,500 employees regulating/serving 5.1 million farms with 1.052 billion acres of farmland.
NOW 105,778 employees regulating/serving 2.19 million farms with 952.65 million acres of farmland.
60% of their budget is the food stamps assistance program, which started after 1955.
As to the water, I tend to agree with you. Take note of this.
Ah...the old "have my cake and eat it too" approach taken by electorates world wide. I can understand your frustration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Predictably the UK government has moved to protect the commercial and financial interests of London and the City, for that is what UK governments do. That will take up a large chunk of government spending and reduce the impact of Brexit on London. This means the political actioning of Brexit will have to involve deregulation elsewhere (since it won't be any kind of Brexit otherwise). Which will screw the regions over.
Less power and more stakeholders, ultimately (or "constituents" if you prefer, though it's not quite the same). As a matter of most general functioning, bureaucracies drag along to avoid the potential of stepping on toes, violating rights, and so on. It's better for things to fall apart from inaction than to take a firm role but attract claimants, critics, competitors, and civil suits for whatever reason. This incentive even works when it inevitably leads to the same troubles it hopes to avert (i.e. negligence, e.g. Flint water crisis). Leaving aside long-term social or institutional impacts, the same process of individuals avoiding liabilities will naturally have a broader affect on the population with government agents than when it happens with private agents, except in cases like massive ecological disasters or proliferation of harmful substances.Quote:
Moreover, organizational politics favors MORE positions, rules, and people to write them as individuals in the bureaucracy make logical [in their specific context] moves to enhance their power base and position by controlling more staff, funding, etc.
The key difference you might name is that the government incentive is to avoid angering or alarming stakeholders, while in private industry there is clearer demand for concrete positive (for stakeholders) outcomes.
Looks like some people have been watching CGP Grey...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
This is based on a fantasy version of the world, and selective perception of what government does. The budget has increased because it does more. There is more complexity, and more awareness of that complexity (in agriculture there is more disease management, regulation of markets, research, environmental concern, technology, etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Secondly, the private sector pisses away money on dead ends and pointless projects. The idea that the private sector is more efficient is nonsense. The very fact that private sector makes money is a sign of excess. They have more cash to throw around because they are systematically encouraged to overcharge. Having an excess is their raison detre. Public sector may be just as useless, but they have an imperative to deliver something not just profit.
You are getting confused between motivation and justification.Quote:
Directors share admins at 1 admin per 4. Project managers and lower are expected to handle their own paperwork. Why? Because they will not be competitive in bidding for work if their overhead costs are too high.
The motivation for cost cutting is greater profit. The justification is pricing pressure.
Nice, but one mistake he makes is to forget the connection in dictatorships between 'subkeys' and 'the common citizens who can be ignored', which also highlights that he doesn't discuss at all the vital interactions, both direct and indirect, between rulers and the 'keys of keys'. And in general, he makes a mistake by simply assuming that citizens of democracies or educated and citizens of dictatorships are starving and illiterate, rather than examining how these individual factors are related to the poles he describes, or even whether they are tangential. To be frank, saying this didn't even impact the argument as he made it so it would have been better to completely avoid introducing that weakness.
Another thing he misses is that revolutions, as opposed to "revolts", are typically external, rather than internal. Members of the power structure who survive in the former are typically practicing opportunism rather than planned obsolescence.
Another one is that he doesn't consider how geography, and more generally history, generate the factors under consideration, and whether for example a productive population today might produce an autocracy now because there are more contributors to citizen productivity than there were a few centuries ago. A ruleset constructed just for today can't be robust.
And then there's his rule zero, which directly contradicts some of his first words: "take the throne to act, and the throne acts upon you".
But the biggest oversight is treating "treasure" as the central exchange, when ironically it is in fact concrete "power". Rulers trade power, not merely money or resources.
It feels like he's ripping on Charles Tilly, but not sufficiently.
----
Apparently that's a book he's summarizing. :shrug:
The fantasy line is neither accurate nor polite. Why don't you tone down your commentary with me, please. To my recollection, I have never tossed any rudeness (even implicitly) your way even when disagreeing with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
My USDA example does reflect the fact that much more complexity (and better science) went into farming, especially after the dust bowl caught everyone's attention. Yet the drop in the number of farms is not simply a product of individual farmers being more productive per person and per acre (they are) but of the growth of corporate agriculture. So a goodly portion of those services designed to cope with a more complex understanding of agriculture is being used to advance the corporations you seem to detest so thoroughly and it is not in service of "the little farmer."
Profit, and the market, DO have quite a lot of inefficiencies in practice. The "invisible hand" is as haphazard as any other human endeavor -- including government. Governments may not have to meet the earnings expectations of stockholders, but the other drags on their efficiency are every bit as problematic and -- to my experience -- more so. I would concur that most government control and regulation efforts are not intending to squeeze more from their customers, but too much of government (at least in the USA, I cannot claim to know yours equally well) is horribly inefficient and ends up costing the public as much or more for a given service than most private ventures.
On the other hand, some issues simply cannot be met effectively by the private sector (infrastructure issues for one; defense against aggression for another) and government is required to regulate the private sector at least to the level of minimizing fraud and keeping the air and water clean -- because some issues are too important and enough private sector folk are unethical so as to mandate the need for regulation.
I am neither unaware of, nor happy with, the weaknesses of a regulated but largely decentralized capitalist system. I am simply not trusting of government enough -- at least as it is currently constituted -- to see a small cadre of "experts" as the solution. That path also has too many pitfalls.
How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?
"How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?" Err, millennia? Not that long in Europe (few century ago in fact) market was not the benchmarking, but honour.
At your death bed, you had to give your fortune, your earthly possessions as you had to prepare to face God as you came, naked...
During millennia in fact, civilisations bloomed without the market economy. I explained it on the line market economy is a political construction, where the ones who possess protected their property/powers (through laws, force and propaganda) against the ones who have none.
It's looking good http://www.politico.eu/article/round...es-early-test/
It's remarkable how Dutchland is the best source for optimism over Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Of course, the Dutch are merchants at heart. A lot dutchies want out as well and really like it that England is doing fine, makes a nexit closer. Fellow dutchie Krazilec or TA will probably really disagree with me, and in a much better argumented manner. But the results don't lie. Results are neglectable. Not without any pain as so far, saying that would be cruel, but it looks promising.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Can I still move to the UK if I was right all the time?
I seem to recall something about a primitive form of stock market and banking developing in ancient Mesopotamia on the basis of futures and derivatives, until a particular monarch realized he could simply appropriate the wealth of the entire enterprise and it was no longer. So you're both right - the form is not persistent, but the impulse is.Quote:
"How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?" Err, millennia? Not that long in Europe (few century ago in fact) market was not the benchmarking, but honour.
At your death bed, you had to give your fortune, your earthly possessions as you had to prepare to face God as you came, naked...
During millennia in fact, civilisations bloomed without the market economy. I explained it on the line market economy is a political construction, where the ones who possess protected their property/powers (through laws, force and propaganda) against the ones who have none.
Who would've thought that greed isn't exactly a new concept? :creep:
On that we agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Fall in pound post-Brexit means price of tea will go up
Nations have fought wars of independence for less.
But what about straws, there are many hanging onto them. These aren't the colonal times. More expensive marmite and tea, oh noes. THIS MEANS, uhmmmm nothing really
Not yet, Frag. Not yet. We still haven't triggered Article 50 yet.
Again pessimistic news:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-haunts-market
Economy grew by 05% last quarter, more than expected post-Brexit.
My thought on this is that they're trying to bleed volatility out of the market by dragging all this out.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Not correct, not even a little bit.
Greece and Rome basically ran on Capitalism and the entire medieval period was a debate over capitalism.
That's why in English today when you get a loan the bank is lending you capital - because Thomas Aquinas determined that whilst loans were usury (a mortal sin) lending capital was not.
Mercantilism isn't equivalent to capitalism.Quote:
Greece and Rome basically ran on Capitalism