The European Dream

[Lava]

QUOTE G. Adams:

> You need continual population growth to a)keep down labour costs

doesnt logically follow at all. Doesnt even begin to.


> b) expand the market for your products

that is rather achieved by increasing material wealth, not number of people. More money and resources means more consumption, more buying. Today we can afford lots we once could not, things will continue in that direction.

Secondly there is no necessaity to expand existing markets, new markets are being created day in day out. Check out the patent office, or just look in catalogues and see how many of those goods were not around 100 years ago, how many new markets exist today, and how many once small markets have expanded hugely.


> and c) have a sufficient labour force to keep up with the expanding world market.

what does "keep up with the expanding world market" even mean?


Lava

[castille]

Originally posted by G. Adams, You said "You remind me of Chinese ultra-nationalists who support genocide against Japanese people, while urging for everyone to remember the genocide against Chinese people".

You're willing to overlook the atrocities of the German left in 1930, because they agree with your personal opinion on how the world would be ruled.

Yep there is a difference between supporting those of a similiar opinion and supporting their crimes. I support those of my opinion, and cease to do so when they commit atrocities.

Yeah, everyone says that. But would you actually follow it up in reality? Bush claims to be moral too.

I'm not biased towards Britain, anyone of the Tory's in my political seminars will tell you I'm a bloody leftwinger who hates his country.

Chinese right-wing ultranationalists tell me I'm a moderatist who hates his country too. Doesn't mean much. What do the centrists think of you?

Nazi Germany rounded up and executed 6 million people in less than 12 years. Even accounting for the technology, the UK could not compare to those numbers.

Accounting for the technology, the extermination of North American and the Boers would've been done in 12 years by the British.

We ruled 1/4 of the world population, if we wanted to wipe out 6 million in 12 years I'm sure we could have done it without gas chambers, but we didn't. So don't compare the European Empires to Nazi Germany, they are a long way apart.

Didn't the British also hate and target Jews for active discrimination? Now that you mention it...

[G. Adams]

Lava first...

Yes, I've visted Africa. I've been to Kenya and Egypt, and at the end if next summer I'm going to South Africa (well that or Ibiza). Yeah, they are in a much poorer state than we are. Doesn't mean I have to like my country. Nationalism is anti-rational, I just can't see any truth to it.

On individualism and linking to our past empire - I agree with you, but just because I see that logic doesn't mean others do. People like, um, Castille continually berate me on multiple boards for the crimes of those behind me, even if at the time my family were all Irish.

Churchill? Oh well lets see; he supported to use of chemical weapons to suppress local populations, namely the Kurds. He hated Ghandi and wanted to keep India at all costs. He sucked as a military commander (take a look at Gallipoli and the landings in Norway). He was obssessed with his place in history and almost had us invade Poland to retake it from the USSR, only the US administratiosn were wise enough to restrain him. Chuchill was a figurehead, somebody with enough willpower to do what was right for the time without all the squabbling. I'm glad he took power in WWII, but it doesn't mean he was a good man. I don't hate the man, I just can't stand his glorification.

Sorry about the six million, I was kind of ranting, that should have been six million jews. There is the political opposition, the Romany, the homosexuals, the 20 million Russians etc

Now for the economic bit.

If your population expands greater than the job market, you get unemployment, okay? Value is based on supply and demand. If you have wider unemployment, the supply is high and the demand is low, which means the cost of labour goes down. See?

There are only so many cars, TV's and washing machines a single person needs. if you want an expanded home market you need a greater population. If you were really, really rich would you keep buying TV's?

Oh, and we arn't that rich today. Our income hasn't changed all that much in the UK since the Victorian age (relatively speaking). What has changed is a drop in the price of goods, an expansion of welfare and a massive expansion of credit. You say we can afford lots more; look at the consumer debt of this country and tell me if we can afford lots more.

Yes new markets are created, and old one die also. You still need consumers for that market, markets arn't selfsustaining.

Hrm, I'm puzzled too about what I meant on that last point. Well it was particularly drunk weekend, can't have been too sobre at the time of writing.

[G. Adams]

Castille now.

Which atrocities did the German communists commit up to 1919? I said Spartacists remember, and after Rosa and Liebknecht were murdered they wern't Spartacists any longer.

Yep, I would follow it up in reality. Why wouldn't I? I have nothing to lose by maintaining my principles? I don't follow movements blindly.

The Conservative Party are mostly moderates, not ultranationalists. The BNP are ultranationalists, and talking is a little beyond them.

Bullshit, we wouldn't have made it across the continent in 12 years, the railroads wern't built then to move the troops neccesary. Besides, the British didn't espouse manifest destiny, and we would have had to fight through French Louisiana first. Not to mention the fact we wern't really an empire in the 1700's, it was the 1800's when we became an empire. The Boers? The boers are dutch descendants you idiot, if we wanted to wipe out the "boer" race we'd have to kill all the white peoples of Europe too. The boer war was them fighting us for independance.

Nope, the British didn't hate the jews. Individuals in the British community may have, but the British population and state didn't. They did have limited civil rights, such as not being able to take a seat in Parliament in the early 1800's, but then neither could any woman or none-protestant. In 1858 Lionel de Rothschild took a place in the House of Commons.

[Lava]

Originally posted by G. Adams, Bullshit, we wouldn't have made it across the continent in 12 years, the railroads wern't built then to move the troops neccesary.

Im a bit puzzled why you keep talking of 12 years. It was the nazis that had 12 years, not the British empire. That had more like a century, eaily enough time to kill more than the nazis.

anyway, horses can take troops all round the world and back again in 12 years.

Lava

[Lava]

QUOTE G. Adams, Lava...


> Now for the economic bit.
>
> If your population expands greater than the job market, you get unemployment, okay?

Thats a fairly questionable if. Whatever angle you look at it from, it doesnt happen like that.


> Value is based on supply and demand.

yup

> If you have wider unemployment, the supply is high and the demand is low, which means the cost of labour goes down. See?

no, thats all scrambled up. Lets look at it, see what really happens.

If you add a milion more people, you have more demand, not less. (They cant live on nothing.) Since most of them will get jobs, you also have more supply. Since a percentage of them will start businesses, in fact the same percentage as the rest of the population, what you end up with is another million people with the same profile as the rest, same uneployment rate, same percentage starting bizzes, etc.

Supply and demand increase by the same percentage. No prices change.


> There are only so many cars, TV's and washing machines a single person needs. if you want an expanded home market you need a greater population. If you were really, really rich would you keep buying TV's?

Simple non sequitor. If I were majorly rich I'd buy _other_ goods and services that I dont have today. Not just more tvs.

As Ive said before, you expand the market by making goods more affordable, thus more people buy them, and developing new goods, new markets.


> Oh, and we arn't that rich today. Our income hasn't changed all that much in the UK since the Victorian age (relatively speaking).

relative to what?

It has changed hugely. The things we can afford today are way beyond what Victorians could buy with their income.


> What has changed is a drop in the price of goods,

They definitely cost more now. If only!


> an expansion of welfare and a massive expansion of credit. You say we can afford lots more; look at the consumer debt of this country and tell me if we can afford lots more.

Its plain obvious we can afford more than Victorians did. Look in anyone's house nowadays. Look at all the medical stuff we can afford now too, electrical goods, cars, computers, automatically controlled washing machines, carpets, the list goes on and on and on. Many of these are new markets since 1901. There will be more new markets.


Lava

[castille]

Originally posted by G. Adams, If your population expands greater than the job market, you get unemployment, okay?

You really need to take an economics lesson. Its far more complex than that. One example is if the population expands, so does demand for goods, which also drives employment.

Yes, I've visted Africa. I've been to Kenya and Egypt, and at the end if next summer I'm going to South Africa (well that or Ibiza).

Wow, you've been to all the tourist hotspots of Africa. You must be so worldly.

Oh, and we arn't that rich today. Our income hasn't changed all that much in the UK since the Victorian age (relatively speaking).

Relatively speaking, taking into account inflation and social conditions, income shouldn't increase. Where would all the new money come in? (keeping in mind, again, inflation)

You say we can afford lots more; look at the consumer debt of this country and tell me if we can afford lots more.

Compared to 100 years ago, we can afford a lot more. Think of the booming "common luxuries" markets - regular people can afford luxuries, not just the rich. How many people 100 years ago actually took a holiday? How many people could drive a car?

Which atrocities did the German communists commit up to 1919?

Like every extremist faction, they got into street fighting, murder, rape, looting.

Yep, I would follow it up in reality. Why wouldn't I? I have nothing to lose by maintaining my principles? I don't follow movements blindly.

Like I said, what you say on a message board isn't going to be what you do in real life. Why did so many Communists blindly take orders from the USSR during the 30s, despite knowing what was going on?

[rmnunez]

Adams, if you don't favour Germans stay away from Ibiza.

[rmnunez]

Why were the French hostages released?

The French government had repeatedly said it was trying to negotiate their release with "discretion" after an unofficial bid by a French MP in September came up empty-handed. The Islamic Army in Iraq's only demand relating to the French hostages was that Paris repeal a law banning Islamic headscarves in French state schools. The French government refused, and that law came into effect in September. The insurgency group that had been holding them, the Islamic Army in Iraq, said it released the pair because of France's stance against the US-led war in Iraq and their own support for Palestinian statehood, the Arabic television station Al-Jazeera reported.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/041222/1/3pf42.html

[G. Adams]

Quote by: rmnunez Adams, if you don't favour Germans stay away from Ibiza.

I've got nothing against Germans, although I wouldn't "favour" them above any other nationality, I don't favour my own to begin with so doing so for others would be even stranger. There's a lot to be admired about Germany, strong work ethics, good welfare system (well untill recently, it's about to be torn apart) a beauftiful country and a largely intelligent population.

[RickSp]

I wandered into this conversation rather late, which spares me from having to debate Nazis vs Brits or any of the other interesting, if not entirely on-topic digressions.

The one observation that I would like to make is that looking at the EU in the context of history, it is nothing short of a miracle. If it survives and prospers the EU will help transform the western world. Europe was the epi-center of two World Wars in a single century (OK, Japan played a big role in the last one). For countless centuries, the disparate countries, principalities and tribes dealt with each other at the end of a lance or sword. Wars end once countries stop seeing each other as foreign foes and start seeing each other as customers and partners. If Europe can transform itself into a marketplae and not a battle ground, its potential is boundless.

This "European Dream" shouldn't be a threat to the "American Dream." The greatest threat to the American Dream is already with us, from within our own borders. This is still a land of entreprenuers and of immigrants with grand dreams. Nevertheless we are close to being lost in our own imperial delusions. We seem to have forgotten that republics are more resiliant than empires and that hubris destroys all that is worth keeping. America, once "the last best hope for mankind", could do well to pay a bit more attention to the dreams of Europe.

[rmnunez]

Rick:

we are close to being lost in our own imperial delusions. We seem to have forgotten that republics are more resiliant than empires and that hubris destroys all that is worth keeping. America, once "the last best hope for mankind", could do well to pay a bit more attention to the dreams of Europe.

What are these "imperial delusions"? Is it the reasonable expectation, given the means and resources available, to project military power for a decisive and favorable outcome at a moment's notice anywhere in the world? Wouldn't this be the same even if you had a very non-imperialistic attitude and the same military capabilities?

Are republics more resiliant than empires? They certainly are not more resistant or lasting, as history clearly shows, the oldest republics are barely a couple of centuries old, whereas we've got more milenial empires than one can shake a stick at.

The dreams of Europe are fraying as tensions mount over unchecked immigration there. Enlarging the EU is one way of forestalling the inevitable, but the EU will restrict foreign influx further or find themselves overriden with unassimilitated, unaculturated Muslims who will not be as tolerant when they become the majority.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Rick: What are these "imperial delusions"? Is it the reasonable expectation, given the means and resources available, to project military power for a decisive and favorable outcome at a moment's notice anywhere in the world? Wouldn't this be the same even if you had a very non-imperialistic attitude and the same military capabilities?

This is as fine example of imperial delusion right here. The arrogance implied in saying that we have the "the means and resources available, to project military power for a decisive and favorable outcome at a moment's notice anywhere in the world" is staggering.

In Iraq we invaded a small country with a weak and ineffective military and now find ourselves overstretched, on the losing side of a guerrilla war. Rather that demonstrate our overwhelming might to reach a " decisive and favorable outcome" we have demonstrated our weakness.

The equally important issue is - what right do we have to invade countries that have never attacked us? What right do we have to destroy much of a country, kill tens of thousands of civilians and then claim that we are liberators?

Your comments on immigration are at very best zenophobic and more likely racist, and don't deserve further comment.

[Sonart]

Quote by: rmnunez What are these "imperial delusions"? Is it the reasonable expectation, given the means and resources available, to project military power for a decisive and favorable outcome at a moment's notice anywhere in the world? Wouldn't this be the same even if you had a very non-imperialistic attitude and the same military capabilities?

I think Rick nailed it here, rm. Who but an empire would DESIRE to project military power for a decisive outcome at a moment's notice anywhere in the world? Most first and second world nations are content simply to project enough military power to defend themselves. Add to that America's economic superpower, our ability and desire to dictate global politics by the weight of our economy and the desire to project policies favorable to our interests, even at the expense of others.

Quote by: rmnunez The dreams of Europe are fraying as tensions mount over unchecked immigration there.

I daresay that unchecked imigration has been fraying the nerves of Americans for decades. In these times, the higher one rises in the first world, the more it becomes a haven for those seeking to survive in the third world. Europe, alas, having older nationalist and ethnic traditions, must come further in adapting to the pluralism Americans have been adjusting to for much longer.

[rmnunez]

I think as Mexicans swell in the US to majority and establish their government there, we will see progress towards integration beyond NAFTA a la EU. The connundrums are integrating the military and foreign policy. These arise over whether the American military will be interventionist or not. The US are the leading decision-makers here since the military is theirs and they are interventionistic. Mexicans, who have suffered interventions, strongly oppose the practice. The Canadians have both intervened and opposed it and could go either way. With Mexicans by then the clear majority in the US, with a Mexican government in power in the US and tens of millions of US residents voting in Mexican elections too, what would Yankee interventionism look like?

The Mexican military continuously deploys nationwide to provide veterinary, dental, ophtalmic and medical, educational, academic and research support, they drill wells, install pumps, electric and telephone lines, do roadwork and erect hangars for public buildings where they repair everything from auto engines to sewing machines. They've been the government's arm to reach the remote indigenous communities in the hinterlands for decades and have acquired the expereince and capabilities to deliver basically what the US needs most; "nationbuilding".

Imagine the US, reinforced with a huge Mexican nationbuilding army even better equipped thanks to gringo wealth. They could immediately deploy to provide relief after natural disasters anywhere in the world and in vast numbers. Places like Sudan, Somalia or Haiti could be easily handled.