Germany: 'Europe United' Must Be Answer To Trump's 'America First'

(edited)

9 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Not sure what you don't understand.

From what I see, there is an ongoing battle between a push to globalize the world, and a push by nations to remain independent.  And to me, these opposing forces appear to roughly correspond with the opposing forces of Socialism vs. Capitalism.

To me, both of the ideas of Globalism and Socialism fall under the concept of "Collectivism" or more appropriately "The Borg Collective".

And both of the ideas of Nationalism and Capitalism fall under the concept of "Individualism"  or "Personal Responsibility".

I have gleefully mocked the Globalism Collectivism ideal of turning the rainbow vast spectrum of individualism into the clammy grey NPC Borg collective of enforced samethink.  

bb3357ccc350511fb6850da534ce6958314a6585d8326883cc686418c8d528d6.png

The UN - styled Globalism Collective initiative by un-elected, un-accountable Ivory Tower bureaucrats is scary.

Hungary in the EU flipped the middle finger to un-elected EU bureaucrat dictators in Brussels when the EU Collectivism bureaucrats demanded that Hungary unquestioningly accept vast amounts of unvetted, illegal migrants from Africa.

The UN recently demanded that the US accept vast amounts of unvetted, illegal migrants from Central America (the same illegal migrants who refused refugee status in Mexico while en route to the promised Welfare Land of the USA.  Trump rightfully put his foot down and refused. 

The proper procedure is to go through lawful immigration procedures, with background checks, health check, etc.  Not violently breaking through fences and swarming over a border.

I prefer the rainbow of individualism and personal responsibility over the grey muddy collective of irresponsible Socialist Globalism.

Just my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.

In my view globalism is a product capitalism and nationalism more of product of socialism. Or more like the latter 2 morphe into 1. 

 

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

In my view globalism is a product capitalism and nationalism more of product of socialism. Or more like the latter 2 morphe into 1. 

You lost me there.  I don't understand (I'm being serious, I don't get what you are saying).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

You lost me there.  I don't understand (I'm being serious, I don't get what you are saying).

Globalism is product of true capitalism and the free market - i.e. I can sell my products, goods or services all over the world. And I can buy products and services from all over the world. Nobody tells me what to buy, or where sell my stuff. All the joys of individualism. This is what I believe in. 

Socalism on the other hand is inherently limited to country borders, securing these and securing rigths (or taking them away depending on your perspective) for people inside these borders. OK, in Marxs utopia socialism was to be a global thing, but we all know how that went. 

I might be totally of my definitions here, in which case I would like to be set straigth. 

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure we are on totally different wavelengths here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Malaysia, in the 90's, there was "allegedly" something called Project IC (Identity Card).

Bear in mind that since I live in Malaysia, I need to choose my words carefully on this topic, it is "sensitive".

Anyway, in the 90's there was allegedly a concerted effort by the federal government to change the demographics of the state of Sabah.  Allegedly, over 1 million illegal aliens were granted Identity Cards and allowed to vote.  Allegedly, most of the alleged illegal aliens were Muslim from neighboring countries.

As it currently stands, the original natives of Sabah are now allegedly a minority in Sabah.

And Sabah is currently one of the poorest states in Malaysia.

Perhaps you can better understand my skepticism that enforced acceptance of unvetted illegal aliens is supposed to be good for a country.

If, as the UN claims, migrants create wealth, then the UN needs to send thousands of migrants to Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Somalia, Honduras, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw this and laughed:

 

2e4bb0c7647671e620bd0fe5188fa1498f1d26c81436ff38506c9863af1f09b6.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2018 at 7:13 AM, Petar said:

The fact is that EU brought prosperity, peace, and stability in Europe. But nationalists and populists from Hungary, Italy and Poland today, or Germany tomorrow bring "dissolution"...

NATO, including the full might of the U.S. Military, brought peace and prosperity to Europe.  Thus far the EU has brought little of either for most of its members.  

Capitalism and free trade bring prosperity, history bears that out.  

Globalism, which is the new socialism/communism saps individual freedom, stymies productivity, espouses thought crime and generally breeds misery everywhere it raises its head.

Europe’s embrace of socialism is quite simply the vestiges of people’s who never threw off the chains of monarchy/oligarchy rule.      The in-fighting of the EU member states is the very real disparity between not so equal “equal” members.  

I see no evidence of nationalism being responsible for the woes of the EU.  Except just recently, there has been very little of it and only now because some people in Europe have woken up to the fact that their national identities are becoming extinct.  That’s the real goal of globalism.

The real culprit is over extension by governments giving out “free stuff” dolled out to everyone, including most recently huge numbers of immigrants, being paid for by an ever decreasing number of folks actually paying into the system.  It’s un-sustainable.  Controlling people by “taking care of them” cradle to grave is a mechanism of controlling the masses and also the real goal of globalism.  Granted it’s an easy fairytale to buy into but hugely expensive both monetarily and in terms of personal liberty and hugely unsuccessful.  Our Democratic Party here in the US is in a full blown love affair with it as well.  I hope we continue to resist it.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TXPower said:

NATO, including the full might of the U.S. Military, brought peace and prosperity to Europe.  Thus far the EU has brought little of either for most of its members.  

Capitalism and free trade bring prosperity, history bears that out.  

Globalism, which is the new socialism/communism saps individual freedom, stymies productivity, espouses thought crime and generally breeds misery everywhere it raises its head.

Europe’s embrace of socialism is quite simply the vestiges of people’s who never threw off the chains of monarchy/oligarchy rule.      The in-fighting of the EU member states is the very real disparity between not so equal “equal” members.  

I see no evidence of nationalism being responsible for the woes of the EU.  Except just recently, there has been very little of it and only now because some people in Europe have woken up to the fact that their national identities are becoming extinct.  That’s the real goal of globalism.

The real culprit is over extension by governments giving out “free stuff” dolled out to everyone, including most recently huge numbers of immigrants, being paid for by an ever decreasing number of folks actually paying into the system.  It’s un-sustainable.  Controlling people by “taking care of them” cradle to grave is a mechanism of controlling the masses and also the real goal of globalism.  Granted it’s an easy fairytale to buy into but hugely expensive both monetarily and in terms of personal liberty and hugely unsuccessful.  Our Democratic Party here in the US is in a full blown love affair with it as well.  I hope we continue to resist it.

^  Very.  Well.  Said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Not sure what you don't understand.

From what I see, there is an ongoing battle between a push to globalize the world, and a push by nations to remain independent.  And to me, these opposing forces appear to roughly correspond with the opposing forces of Socialism vs. Capitalism.

To me, both of the ideas of Globalism and Socialism fall under the concept of "Collectivism" or more appropriately "The Borg Collective".

 

I don't agree with your simplistic equations. You can have different combinations. Not only Nationalism+Capitalism against Globalism+Socialism. You can also have Nationalism+Socialism and Globalism+Capitalism. Its more like positioning in a two axis graph with the Nationalism-Globalism axis on one side and the Socialism-Capitalism axis on the other side.

If you combine capitalism and globalism, you have for instance the CEO of a multinational firm promoting free trade agreements to create a global market and sell products to a global market earning more very capitalist profits.

If you combine capitalism and nationalism you have the protectionism and pro-tariffs of the Trump administration.

Combining socialism with nationalism you can have for instance labor unions promoting the establishment of tariffs to protect local workers from foreign competition.

And if you combine socialism with globalism you can find for instance those who want  more international regulations to increase solidarity at international level.

The field is not divided in only two camps. The picture is more complicated. Sometimes a globalist-capitalist will be on the same side as a nationalist-capitalist as both have common capitalist interests. But on other matters the globalist-capitalist will rather be on the same side as a globalist-socialist as they have common globalist interests.

It's for that that the classical left-right axis is not alwaiys accurate to explain the political context.

The US Republican party is divided between a globalist-capitalist wing and a nationalist-capitalist wing.

The British labour party is divided between a pro-Brexit nationalist-socialist wing and a pro-remain globalist-socialist wing and even a pro-remain capitalist-globalist wing (Blair-type).

 

 

Edited by Guillaume Albasini
typo
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 9:36 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Let's have this conversation in about 10 years time. Something has to happen. I don't disagree that the EU doesn't work, but I believe that we need to try to fix it, rather than burn it to the ground. Maybe Trump will be good for Europe in as much as he makes us see that we need to truly come together.... 

edit

Edited by BigJets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TXPower said:

NATO, including the full might of the U.S. Military, brought peace and prosperity to Europe.  Thus far the EU has brought little of either for most of its members.  

Capitalism and free trade bring prosperity, history bears that out.  

Globalism, which is the new socialism/communism saps individual freedom, stymies productivity, espouses thought crime and generally breeds misery everywhere it raises its head.

Europe’s embrace of socialism is quite simply the vestiges of people’s who never threw off the chains of monarchy/oligarchy rule.      The in-fighting of the EU member states is the very real disparity between not so equal “equal” members.  

I see no evidence of nationalism being responsible for the woes of the EU.  Except just recently, there has been very little of it and only now because some people in Europe have woken up to the fact that their national identities are becoming extinct.  That’s the real goal of globalism.

The real culprit is over extension by governments giving out “free stuff” dolled out to everyone, including most recently huge numbers of immigrants, being paid for by an ever decreasing number of folks actually paying into the system.  It’s un-sustainable.  Controlling people by “taking care of them” cradle to grave is a mechanism of controlling the masses and also the real goal of globalism.  Granted it’s an easy fairytale to buy into but hugely expensive both monetarily and in terms of personal liberty and hugely unsuccessful.  Our Democratic Party here in the US is in a full blown love affair with it as well.  I hope we continue to resist it.

 

 

Angela Merkel, from Eastern Germany, is a fine example of this.  She thought she could test the theories again, but in her own enlightened way.  How's that working out for her?  And for Germany?  Migrants from anywhere, anywhere at all, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Here in Malaysia, in the 90's, there was "allegedly" something called Project IC (Identity Card).

Bear in mind that since I live in Malaysia, I need to choose my words carefully on this topic, it is "sensitive".

Anyway, in the 90's there was allegedly a concerted effort by the federal government to change the demographics of the state of Sabah.  Allegedly, over 1 million illegal aliens were granted Identity Cards and allowed to vote.  Allegedly, most of the alleged illegal aliens were Muslim from neighboring countries.

As it currently stands, the original natives of Sabah are now allegedly a minority in Sabah.

And Sabah is currently one of the poorest states in Malaysia.

Perhaps you can better understand my skepticism that enforced acceptance of unvetted illegal aliens is supposed to be good for a country.

If, as the UN claims, migrants create wealth, then the UN needs to send thousands of migrants to Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Somalia, Honduras, etc.

Why do you live in Malaysia?  just curious..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BigJets said:

Why do you live in Malaysia?  just curious..

I like tropical weather and hate ice and snow.  My wife is Chinese Malaysian.  We lived in New York City for almost a decade.

Then 6 weeks after 9/11 we moved to Malaysia, as NYC had turned into a total basket case.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

I don't agree with your simplistic equations. You can have different combinations. Not only Nationalism+Capitalism against Globalism+Socialism. You can also have Nationalism+Socialism and Globalism+Capitalism. Its more like positioning in a two axis graph with the Nationalism-Globalism axis on one side and the Socialism-Capitalism axis on the other side.

If you combine capitalism and globalism, you have for instance the CEO of a multinational firm promoting free trade agreements to create a global market and sell products to a global market earning more very capitalist profits.

If you combine capitalism and nationalism you have the protectionism and pro-tariffs of the Trump administration.

Combining socialism with nationalism you can have for instance labor unions promoting the establishment of tariffs to protect local workers from foreign competition.

And if you combine socialism with globalism you can find for instance those who want  more international regulations to increase solidarity at international level.

The field is not divided in only two camps. The picture is more complicated. Sometimes a globalist-capitalist will be on the same side as a nationalist-capitalist as both have common capitalist interests. But on other matters the globalist-capitalist will rather be on the same side as a globalist-socialist as they have common globalist interests.

It's for that that the classical left-right axis is not alwaiys accurate to explain the political context.

The US Republican party is divided between a globalist-capitalist wing and a nationalist-capitalist wing.

The British labour party is divided between a pro-Brexit nationalist-socialist wing and a pro-remain globalist-socialist wing and even a pro-remain capitalist-globalist wing (Blair-type).

Guillaume, you validly point out that I am oversimplifying.  Fair enough.

But I am deliberately trying to keep the focus on the overall bigger picture.  And to me, the bigger picture remains an epic battle between 2 generally opposing forces:

● Globalism + Socialism

● Nationalism + Capitalism

Granted, it is far more complex than that.  But from a global perspective, that is the big battle that I see.

Here is an article from a month ago.  Note that I view Fox News in the U.S. as heavily biased MSM just like CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, etc.

Macron popularity plummets at home as he pushes globalism on world stage

French President Emmanuel Macron has presented himself as the international leader defending multilateralism and globalism against the rising forces of nationalism -- but at home he is facing a bleaker political outlook and plummeting poll numbers.

The dashing Frenchmen ran for the presidency in 2017 on a platform of pragmatic centrism, mixed with a dash of globalism amid a wave of nationalism sweeping through the continent. His comfortable victory over the nationalist Marine Le Pen was greeted with relief and joy by those concerned by the populist wave.

He was soon hailed as an unofficial leader of Europe, and even the world. As recently as April, Politico called him the “new leader of the free world.” Macron appeared to embrace that mantle as he came to the U.S. and made a fiery speech to Congress warning against nationalism and calling for an embrace of multilateralism and international cooperation.

“We will not let the rampaging work of extreme nationalism shake a world full of hopes for greater prosperity,” he told Congress.

Last month, he was at the United Nations General Assembly, castigating the same nationalist forces -- which was widely seen as a swipe at President Trump as he slammed a unilateralist approach that entails "a certain lawlessness where everyone pursues their own interests."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

But I am deliberately trying to keep the focus on the overall bigger picture.  And to me, the bigger picture remains an epic battle between 2 generally opposing forces:

● Globalism + Socialism

● Nationalism + Capitalism

In essence, my point is that I tend to view the push for Globalism as a global version of enforced Socialism.  

Example: the U.N. last week "ordering" the U.S. to accept 10,000+ illegal migrants from Central America, with absolutely zero vetting, ignoring legal U.S. immigration protocols, ignoring health screenings, completely ignoring a country's borders, running roughshod over a country's sovereign independence, etc.

Example: the EU "ordering" Hungary to accept vast amounts of illegal migrants.

The UN and the EU are globalist forces attempting to remove the sovereignty of countries, ignore laws of countries, enact a single global government, impose a single global currency, ignore elected officials in every country, and basically force the world to become a muddy mess of enforced Socialism, for "the good of the world".

Trump has upset a heckuva lot of people and countries by placing as his priority the country that he is in charge of.  Reminds me of Putin's nationalism.

That Macron gets upset about Trump's defiant Nationalism is a very good thing.

Even though I no longer live in the U.S. I sure as heck don't want to see the U.S. meekly subservient to EU Socialism by unelected dictator bureaucrats in Brussels, or be led around by the nose by the nuthouse that is the UN.

Clearly, we are not going to agree about Globalism vs. Nationalism.  And I'm perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree.  May the better ideology prevail. 

=============================

Just my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.

 

“I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.”

– Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Europe hasn't be united since the fall of the roman empire, is very unlikely they can unite it under a German or french banner for much longer

Because a lot of countries just don't like the idea of the UE or their methodologies ,all countries pay for the agricultural funds to help the agrarian European population, 80% of those funds go to France, despite more than half of the countryside population in Europa lives in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech republic 8 if Portugal can't even be a sole country with Spain, then what gives the idea all of Europe could form a confederation

the UE is a good idea in many ways, but is a stupid idea in many others

there are different countries in Europe with different plans and different interest, and without a specific common enemy to unite them all even, in the 20th century that enemy was the USSR and the menace of communism, but that ended in the 90's so... what's now?

Edited by Sebastian Meana
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Europe hasn't be united since the fall of the roman empire, is very unlikely they can unite it under a German or french banner for much longer

Because a lot of countries just don't like the idea of the UE or their methodologies ,all countries pay for the agricultural funds to help the agrarian European population, 80% of those funds go to France, despite more than half of the countryside population in Europa lives in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech republic 8 if Portugal can't even be a sole country with Spain, then what gives the idea all of Europe could form a confederation

the UE is a good idea in many ways, but is a stupid idea in many others

there are different countries in Europe with different plans and different interest, and without a specific common enemy to unite them all even, in the 20th century that enemy was the USSR and the menace of communism, but that ended in the 90's so... what's now?

The common enemy is poverty.  Something to ponder.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I like tropical weather and hate ice and snow.  My wife is Chinese Malaysian.  We lived in New York City for almost a decade.

Then 6 weeks after 9/11 we moved to Malaysia, as NYC had turned into a total basket case.

Then as a displaced New Yorker you would not be soothed by the current weather in Vermont.  We just had another snowfall overnight, the power went off for several hours  (wet snow and tree limbs with the leaves still on them create heavy dead weight on the trees and bring them down over the power lines, happens every year), and the roads are all iced up.  Tomorrow will stay below the freezing point all day, and overnight temps go to 20 degrees.  

in Vermont, there are 317,000 paid wages workers.  Of those, some 76,000 are paid minimum wage.  The median hourly wage is $14.42.  That is not enough to buy #2 heating oil.  So we have these poor rural folks whose only survival alternative is to go forage in the forest. Deer rifle hunting season started today, and the woods are alive with the sounds of gunfire.  The poor fillet the deer in the woods, haul out the meat, and smoke it and put it in the freezer for their winter protein.  If they could not take deer then they would have zero meat for the year, they cannot afford beef in the grocery store.  That is the face of poverty in the USA. 

The New Yorkers come up here to build their idyllic ski houses, which they spend some $800,000 to $1.200,000 on, and then buy the woods and Post the woods, preventing traditional hunting rights on the forest land.  That seriously gets class warfare started.  Me, they can go hunt all they want, just don't shoot in the direction of my house, that's all. The rural poor in America seriously take it in the shorts. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Then as a displaced New Yorker you would not be soothed by the current weather in Vermont.  We just had another snowfall overnight, the power went off for several hours  (wet snow and tree limbs with the leaves still on them create heavy dead weight on the trees and bring them down over the power lines, happens every year), and the roads are all iced up.  Tomorrow will stay below the freezing point all day, and overnight temps go to 20 degrees.  

I don't miss snow, ice, sleet, and freezing my rear end off half of every year.  Tropical weather is my preference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Guys, medium wage in Poland=example of economic success in a  group of new European Union members 30 years after communism is still  about 600 euros after taxes. Average wage is something about 800 euros but 70% workers earn less. 

Only 10% of  highest paid workers in Poland earn more than 5.000 zlotys (1150 euros) after taxes. Im member of this group but I wouldnt call myself well-off. 1.000 euros is really a good salary in Poland but although live is of course cheaper in Poland its still 1.000 euros if you want to buy for example new car..

In eurozone area medium wage is still 3-4 times higher.

Thats a true reason for modern nationalism and authoritarism in Poland and Hungary. High gdp growth unfortunately from the very beginning based on low wages strategy with significant capital outflow from Poland after accesion to  EC- in last decade 15-25 bilion euros per year = about 4-5 % of polish gdp. 

We also have only very few big private domestic companies, banks and very few really wealthy people= classic lack of capital so we have to rely heavily on FDI but this also means quite big capital outflow especially in a situation of high level of tax evasion in Poland because tax collectors are not very effectiive so most even chain of supermarkets according to their financial statements bring losses  year after year = after illcit transfers of money  to Germany UK of France.. 

Im personally not a big fan of economic union where wages in Bulgaria are about 5 times lower than in Denmark. Some people are now talking about Ukraine accession but I really  dont see it in a situation where wages in Ukraine would be 10 times lower than in wealthiest eurozone countries.

Edited by Tomasz
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very complex matter. Super complex in fact. The recent cum ex fraud against many European governments could have been stopped back 2012 had there been better cooperation European countries. 

I am not saying big government is necessarily good, but it ain't all bad. Why this let's burn it all to the ground mentality ? why not a qualitative discussion on how to make it work? 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

This is a very complex matter. Super complex in fact. The recent cum ex fraud against many European governments could have been stopped back 2012 had there been better cooperation European countries. 

I am not saying big government is necessarily good, but it ain't all bad. Why this let's burn it all to the ground mentality ? why not a qualitative discussion on how to make it work? 

Here's your problem, Rasmus:  that "big government" is composed of bureaucrats, remote, aloof, uncaring, basically vacuous, unintelligent men who then proceed to run and ruin everybody else's lives.  It is that bureaucracy run amok, which we saw in the spectacular case of the Bulgarian Cow that wandered over the Border into Serbia and was ordered killed by the bureaucrats in Brussels  (the cow became an "alien cow," and had no immigration papers!) (You can't make this stuff up.)   It is that insolence, that raw arrogance, that uncaring, unthinking, unfeeling attitude of disdain and contempt that so totally rankles the peasants outside Brussels. 

I don't see any resolution to that. It conclude that it is inherent in an Administrative State.  Such governments simply do not attract intelligent, imaginative people to work in the bureaucracy.  You end up with these dullards and simpletons, and it all goes to hell in a handbasket. 

When anybody can figure out how to get better quality people into the bureaucracy, then you have the possibility of "making it work."  Right now, there does not seem to be one, and nobody can figure it out.  Do you have suggestions?  Cheers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tomasz said:

Guys, medium wage in Poland=example of economic success in a  group of new European Union members 30 years after communism is still  about 600 euros after taxes. Average wage is something about 800 euros but 70% workers earn less. 

Only 10% of  highest paid workers in Poland earn more than 5.000 zlotys (1150 euros) after taxes.

Im personally not a big fan of economic union where wages in Bulgaria are about 5 times lower than in Denmark. Some people are now talking about Ukraine accession but I really  dont see it in a situation where wages in Ukraine would be 10 times lower than in wealthiest eurozone countries.

Tomasz, you have hit the nail on the head:  wages imbalance is a big EU problem. 

Given enough time, and investment in education, it will tend to even out.  But that will probably take three generations.  Maybe longer. An equally large problem is the advent of exploitation of women in the poorer areas.  You get this "sex tourism" from rich countries including England and Germany into  Eastern Europe, and the girls who have little economic future end up doing prostitution.  Right now the going rate for a young woman of 21 in Ukraine is about $45/hour,  figure on $400 for all night.  When an equivalent woman of equal calibre in New York City charges $10,000, you can see the motivation.  So places like Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine end up with these sex tourists from Germany coming in and exploiting the local girls.  That is not a healthy environment. 

That one hour's work with a tourist is equal to a week's pay at the retail store as a shopgirl.  

This low-wage economy is in large part driven by the oligopolists, those who have extracted so much wealth from their societies. There does not seem to be any movement to redistribution of the oligopolist's takings of so much of their societal wealth, which surprises me. I don't see any clear avenue for economic progress where the oligopolists control so much of the society. And that is why I think it will take several generations for full economic integration - if it is even possible.  The other path may be that the people "empty out" and all flow to the West.  It will leave countries such as Romania and Moldova with only the old and the unemployable.  that is not a pleasant prospect. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Here's your problem, Rasmus:  that "big government" is composed of bureaucrats, remote, aloof, uncaring, basically vacuous, unintelligent men who then proceed to run and ruin everybody else's lives.  It is that bureaucracy run amok, which we saw in the spectacular case of the Bulgarian Cow that wandered over the Border into Serbia and was ordered killed by the bureaucrats in Brussels  (the cow became an "alien cow," and had no immigration papers!) (You can't make this stuff up.)   It is that insolence, that raw arrogance, that uncaring, unthinking, unfeeling attitude of disdain and contempt that so totally rankles the peasants outside Brussels. 

I don't see any resolution to that. It conclude that it is inherent in an Administrative State.  Such governments simply do not attract intelligent, imaginative people to work in the bureaucracy.  You end up with these dullards and simpletons, and it all goes to hell in a handbasket. 

When anybody can figure out how to get better quality people into the bureaucracy, then you have the possibility of "making it work."  Right now, there does not seem to be one, and nobody can figure it out.  Do you have suggestions?  Cheers.

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing... You and other like like-minded could step up. 

To a large extent I think the answer lies in education - the better the populace is educated the better the likelihood of better quality bureaucrats. Partly, because the pool to choose from will be "better", partly because the populace will be more difficult to fool. This is a longterm strategy of course. I am not naive, it is the nitty-gritty of this that is difficult. 

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites