EU joke(s)

Chat and items of interest about Crete and Greece.
Toebs
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Toebs » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:04 am

Kilkis wrote:Was the free trade deal with India an advantage or a disadvantage?


The company is owned by people. A small company might be owned by one person, a large company may have shareholders. It is not owned by the State, nor by the mass of people. What the company does *is entirely its own business*. This is a matter of *freedom*. What is wrong is in fact the initial *lack* of freedom, in the first place, which *prevented* the company from moving or working in India, until this deal was made. There should have been no restrictions to begin with, and their existance is an imposition on the freedom of the person or people who own the company.

One expert that both Philppos and I follow predicts that there is an inevitable progression from currency wars to trade wars and finally to military wars. All the big players in the world have been fighting currency wars at least since 2008 after the financial crash. That is now evolving into trade wars with Trump imposing tariffs on many good on the basis of America first. The timescale for the first transition was ten years but there is no way to predict what the timescale to the second transition is.


I can't say there's been a trade war. Trump is a fool and a knave. His arbitrary and capricious behaviour reflects only his own personal issues : it does not reflect a deeper national interest, which would consistently drive the nation and its Government in a particular direction.

Military conflict normally occurs between neighbouring States, and inevitably occurs, given time (the long current peace within Europe is due to NATO, which has military unified these States, and then the EU in addition, but NATO is enough by itself). Wars between more distant States are unusual and rare.

Kilkis
Posts: 10770
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Kilkis » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:38 am

Toebs wrote:...Wars between more distant States are unusual and rare.


Are you serious? The USA, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands etc have fought wars all over the world.

Warwick

Toebs
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Toebs » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:50 am

Kilkis wrote:
Toebs wrote:...Wars between more distant States are unusual and rare.


Are you serious? The USA, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands etc have fought wars all over the world.


There are a much, much larger number of nations, over a much longer period of time, who have only or almost only fought wars with their neighbours, and I would also say of those countries you have listed as examples, they have in general fought far more with their neighbours or near neighbours than with non-neighbours. The USA seems exceptional, but I would say only seemingly so, because it has only two near neighbours (both of whom it has been to war with).

To turn it on its head : I find it quite hard to think of -any- countries which have -not- gone to war with their neighbours. I think some of the northern and central western African countries, where they are all so recent, have not yet had enough time to do so.

However, for any country, typially the number of non-neighbouring countries with whom there has been war is very low, or zero. South Africa, for recent example, has fought all of its neighbours, and no-one else.

I may be wrong, but I think it's fair to say that in general the further apart two nations are, the less likely they are to go to war. Eritrea has fought Ethopia tooth and nail since they separated, but the number of wars between Eritrea and (say) Canada is very low.

In all things there are factors which encourage and there are factors which discourage, and in the end, you get what you get.

Distance tends to reduce causes for conflict (Canada has no border disputes with Eritrea) and make conflict harder to promulgate. It is a strong discouraging factor.
Last edited by Toebs on Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Keltz
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:53 am

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Keltz » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:04 pm

The World Economy Explained link shoots itself in the hoof basing its joke on Corporations of countries parodied. Corporations are now run by Multinational and have more powers than many countries making membership of the EU more important than ever where it can rebuff the bargain basement trade agreements with the likes of USA who see the EU as a threat and not too happy at TTIP being quietly rejected by the EU although UK Westminster made it clear they welcomed it with open arms, including its low safety standards, chlorinated chicken, US multinationals litigate against government if the do not open up tendering of All contracts (NHS....).
No the EU is far from perfect but the world is changing with predatory multinationals taking over if allowed.
Social change is also happening where information available to people is now traded, manipulated and used by said multinationals. To rely solely on news being fed to you via a TV is to have no news at all and open to manipulation by people who repeat misinformation until you start to believe it.
It is best to deal in facts where they can be found and avoid people who say a lot but give very little of factual information basing their arguments mainly on assertions. They are easy to spot.

Kamisiana
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:06 pm

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Kamisiana » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:12 pm

Keltz wrote:The World Economy Explained link shoots itself in the hoof basing its joke on Corporations of countries parodied. Corporations are now run by Multinational and have more powers than many countries making membership of the EU more important than ever where it can rebuff the bargain basement trade agreements with the likes of USA who see the EU as a threat and not too happy at TTIP being quietly rejected by the EU although UK Westminster made it clear they welcomed it with open arms, including its low safety standards, chlorinated chicken, US multinationals litigate against government if the do not open up tendering of All contracts (NHS....).
No the EU is far from perfect but the world is changing with predatory multinationals taking over if allowed.
Social change is also happening where information available to people is now traded, manipulated and used by said multinationals. To rely solely on news being fed to you via a TV is to have no news at all and open to manipulation by people who repeat misinformation until you start to believe it.
It is best to deal in facts where they can be found and avoid people who say a lot but give very little of factual information basing their arguments mainly on assertions. They are easy to spot.


The old chlorinated chicken pops up again have you tried turkey it's very much like chicken :shock:

Kilkis
Posts: 10770
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Kilkis » Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:01 pm

It is not chlorinated chicken as such, Kamisiana, that is the issue but what it represents.

All countries have regulations. As a member of the EU, UK regulations were decided jointly with 27 other countries, i.e. shared sovereignty. Outside the EU, the UK can make its own regulations, i.e. take back sovereignty. The people who argued for leaving the EU on that basis cannot wait to do a trade deal with the USA and the USA has made it completely clear that, to get such a trade deal, the UK will have to accept US regulations, i.e. the UK will have to accept products that conform to US regulations and will not be allowed to impose UK regulations on them. If such a trade deal is agreed to, instead of moving from shared sovereignty to own sovereignty the UK will have moved from shared sovereignty to accepting US sovereignty. Enjoy.

Warwick

Toebs
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Toebs » Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:03 pm

Kilkis wrote:All countries have regulations. As a member of the EU, UK regulations were decided jointly with 27 other countries, i.e. shared sovereignty. Outside the EU, the UK can make its own regulations, i.e. take back sovereignty.


I may be wrong, but I think the regulation made by State in the normal way of things have effects entirely unlike those intended.

This is inherent and a manifestation of an information problem. Real life is complex. The humans enacting regulation are a long way from the people who are affected by regulation, have distorted and limited information about the situation, and a set of incentives which - humans being human - tend strongly to have them act in their own self-interest, rather than in the actual self-interest of others.

They then lack the capability to pass regulation which will have the desired effect, and the wish to regulate in the interest of those being regulated is less than the wish to regulate in their own interest. It is I think well understood the interests of State are not by any means invariably well-aligned with the interests of the citizens of the State.

Importantly, moreover, those regulated have little or no say or influence in regulation.

This is true for those regulated by the EU Government and for those regulated by the UK Government.

I can't see a difference, a meaningful change, in leaving the EU, in this matter. The distant, uncaring, self-interested people become a different set of people, who remain distant, uncaring and self-interested.

The problem is not the UK, or the EU. The problem is regulation itself.

Regulation, fundamentally and inherently, is typically unethical, because it is typically imposed without meaningful consent. It is wrong, ethically, to force people to do things, unless you act in self-defence.

I may be wrong, but I think however most people do not think this. Most people hold it is acceptable to force others, so long as what you force them to do, you would be happy to have forced upon yourself.

This of course doesn't actually work, because there are incompatible views in the world. Thus we have Labour and Cons, vying for the power to impose their views upon all, until, so sick of it and the harm done, we change masters and lurch back whence we came.

It would be better that we had freedom, where only that done is voluntary and understood by all involved, with the sole exception of self-defence, where all bets are off.

scooby
Posts: 1700
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:54 pm

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby scooby » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:33 pm

The prime minister has just announced that we will definitely leave the EU when the DFS sale ends.
Men in suits will always make you pay.

Keltz
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:53 am

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Keltz » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:49 pm

Kamisiana wrote:The old chlorinated chicken pops up again:


Another example of USA food standards is best illustrated by the fact that almost 80% of all antibiotics in the United States aren't taken by people. They're given to cows, pigs, and chickens to make them grow more.

Toebs
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Toebs » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:46 pm

Keltz wrote:
Kamisiana wrote:The old chlorinated chicken pops up again:


Another example of USA food standards is best illustrated by the fact that almost 80% of all antibiotics in the United States aren't taken by people. They're given to cows, pigs, and chickens to make them grow more.


There are about 29 billion chickens in the world. I don't know how many of those are in the US, but I would expect it to be a significant proportion - many billions. I'd guess up to about 10 billion.

I say nothing of cows (there are not so many in the world, I think - only a billion?) and pigs (no clue how many, but more than cows and less than chickens).

There are I think about 330 million humans in the USA.

If 1 in 20 chickens in the USA were given antibiotics, and *all* humans in the USA were given antibiotics, still more chickens in the USA would be receiving antibotics than humans - and if I look at my friends, I think I know of one friend in the last several years who took antibiotics once.

I note also a typical chicken bred for meat (which I think is most of them) lives for about two or three months. If we consider a single human lives for say 70 or 80 years, in that time about 75*2.5 = 188 chickens will have lived. If any of these chickens are receiving antibiotics, and if humans rarely receive them, then naturally, many more animals will be receiving antibiotics than humans, even though in fact everyone coudl be receiving only a single course.

So if we imagine a single human living for one year and eating chicken once a week, 52 chickens lived and died. If the human takes antibiotics once, and each chicken once, then we find 1 - 1/53 = 98% of all antibiotics are given to chickens (assuming dosages and types were meaningfully comparable between human and chicken, which is unlikely as chickens weigh at slaughter about half a kilo). If we say 98% of antiobotics are fed to animals, all we are really saying is there are many more animals than humans.

I would be interested to know where the figure of 80% comes from, and so to find out how it was calculated, and so have an idea what is actually means.

There are so many ways it could be misleading that without knowing how it was calculated.

For example, did the term "taking" have the same meaning for animals as humans? what is classified as an antiobiotic? do animals routinely receive antibotics, perhaps in -all- countries, at some particular point in their farming? is it regulatory? did the time period covered for the study match for humans and animals? were there any special events for one or both during that time? are we counting *courses* of antibiotics, or for example, quantity by weight? or by price? etc.

(I'm actually on reflection increasingly suspicious of that 80% figure. Given how vastly more animals there are than humans, and how infrequently humans take antibiotics, I would expect the percentage to be much higher. I begin to get the feeling this is a figure which has ended up being selected to be convincing).
Last edited by Toebs on Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kilkis
Posts: 10770
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Kilkis » Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:01 am

I'll give you a simple example of regulation that works for the benefit of people, Toebs. When I was young hardly anybody had a television and hardly anybody had a car. Every time a car drove past a house with a television both the sound and the picture were wiped out. It was an irritation rather than a major problem because hardly anybody had a television and hardly anybody had a car. Fast forward a few decades and virtually everybody had a car and virtually everybody had a television. Would it have still been an irritation or would television have been effectively useless? Government introduced a regulation to make car manufacturers fit suppression devices to their cars and to test their cars against defined standards to prove that the suppression devices were effective. Problem solved. I presume you think that government should have done nothing?

I am not religious but around 2,000 years ago a clever man made a very simple statement that I think forms the basis of all ethical standards and should form the basis of all laws: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them". I believe that people should be free to do whatever they want with one proviso: it must not adversely affect someone else. Clearly car drivers were adversely affecting TV watchers therefore it is reasonable for governments to introduce laws to stop them doing that. If laws/regulations fit that category then I judge them as good. If they don't then I judge them as bad.

All countries in the EU, and beyond, face the same problem. What is better, to have 28 different regulations in 28 different countries each with slightly different nuances and force manufacturers to have 28 different designs and meet 28 different tests or to have a single regulation and a single test for all 28 countries? What do you think is going to cost the consumer the least? Now multiply that by all the regulations that cars must meet in order to be sold legally, all of which are there to protect the consumer, to make cars safer. Now expand that across every product you can think of.

Warwick

Toebs
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Toebs » Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:35 am

Kilkis wrote:I am not religious but around 2,000 years ago a clever man made a very simple statement that I think forms the basis of all ethical standards and should form the basis of all laws: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them".


If you think chemical castration is acceptable for homosexuals, and you would have it done to yourself if you were homosexual, would it then be okay for you to have it done to others who were homosexual? *despite their lack of consent?*

If you think abortion is wrong, and you would never do it yourself, and you would be happy to have it globally banned and that law imposed on yourself, can you then impose yourself on others who disagree?

Or do we say, more generally, that *imposition is wrong*? in which case the Government should not have regulated the car industry since it was an imposition.

I believe that people should be free to do whatever they want with one proviso: it must not adversely affect someone else.


If someone is breaking into my house, I may adversely affect the chap breaking into my house with a crowbar :-) I could be wrong, but I expect you allow to me that, so I would guess you mean what you have said, with the exception of self-defence?

I'm not allowed to adversely effect others, but what if I have a investment deal with a 50% chance of adversely affecting those who invest. What do we make of it?

Do we mean to say all things which can possibly adversely affect others are unacceptable? do we forbid relationships between men and women?

You do not mean this, of course.

But then what *do* we mean to say?

It all seems to turn on what *adverse* means.

"We cannot do the things which we cannot do, and the word 'adverse' defines them". It's not very helpful. Different people have different definitions of adverse. All it really means is 'bad' and now we're only playing with semantics. Good things are good and we should do them. Bad things are bad and we should not do them.

Okay, fine, but what -are- good and bad? On what basis do we decide them? or agree about them across many people? what of imposition of one group upon aother? is that inherently bad, or is it (somehow) acceptable in some cases, such as State regulation for car interference, but also for chemical castration of homosexuals.

I would say it is better never to impose, unless it is in self-defence.

Kamisiana
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:06 pm

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Kamisiana » Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:35 am

Toebs wrote:
Kilkis wrote:I am not religious but around 2,000 years ago a clever man made a very simple statement that I think forms the basis of all ethical standards and should form the basis of all laws: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them".


If you think chemical castration is acceptable for homosexuals, and you would have it done to yourself if you were homosexual, would it then be okay for you to have it done to others who were homosexual? *despite their lack of consent?*

If you think abortion is wrong, and you would never do it yourself, and you would be happy to have it globally banned and that law imposed on yourself, can you then impose yourself on others who disagree?

Or do we say, more generally, that *imposition is wrong*? in which case the Government should not have regulated the car industry since it was an imposition.

I believe that people should be free to do whatever they want with one proviso: it must not adversely affect someone else.


If someone is breaking into my house, I may adversely affect the chap breaking into my house with a crowbar :-) I could be wrong, but I expect you allow to me that, so I would guess you mean what you have said, with the exception of self-defence?

I'm not allowed to adversely effect others, but what if I have a investment deal with a 50% chance of adversely affecting those who invest. What do we make of it?

Do we mean to say all things which can possibly adversely affect others are unacceptable? do we forbid relationships between men and women?

You do not mean this, of course.

But then what *do* we mean to say?

It all seems to turn on what *adverse* means.

"We cannot do the things which we cannot do, and the word 'adverse' defines them". It's not very helpful. Different people have different definitions of adverse. All it really means is 'bad' and now we're only playing with semantics. Good things are good and we should do them. Bad things are bad and we should not do them.

Okay, fine, but what -are- good and bad? On what basis do we decide them? or agree about them across many people? what of imposition of one group upon aother? is that inherently bad, or is it (somehow) acceptable in some cases, such as State regulation for car interference, but also for chemical castration of homosexuals.

I would say it is better never to impose, unless it is in self-defence.


:?: Ti-Que-What :?:

paul g
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:20 pm
Location: Nr. Kato Gouves

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby paul g » Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:40 am

I'm all for adversely affecting burglars with a crowbar.

Kilkis
Posts: 10770
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: EU joke(s)

Postby Kilkis » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:45 am

1 Everybody has the right to whatever sexual activity they wish provided it is with the consent of the other person. So no, I do not believe it would be right to impose chemical castration on somebody else but yes, I should be able to impose it on myself if I so chose.
2 I don't think anybody thinks abortion is a good thing, including the people who seek one. Some women seek abortion because they are desperate and as a society we have no control over that. As a society the only thing we can control is how they obtain that abortion; legally in sterile conditions under medical supervision or illegally in non sterile conditions with no medical supervision. I would support the former. I also think that individual medical practitioners should be free to refuse to perform an abortion on religious/ethical grounds but that they should have to refer the patient to someone else.
3 Cars are designed and built by expert engineers. As a purchaser I am not an expert engineer so I rely on the car industry to sell me a car that is safe. The car industry exists to make a profit. The safety motivation and the profit motivation may not always be aligned. I think governments should impose regulation on the car industry so that the car industry does not impose on me a car that is dangerous. Over a long period of time the safety of cars and the fuel efficiency of cars has improved astronomically all driven by regulation. That's better for everybody who drives a car, for the environment and for the world's resources.
4 If someone breaks into your house they are the ones that are breaking my rule. Their action is clearly adversely affecting you so they should not have the right to carry out that action. Exactly what steps should be taken if they do carry out such an act is open to debate but it should be defined in law so people do not make arbitrary decisions. If the law says you can defend yourself with a crowbar then you can defend yourself with a crowbar. If the law says that you can't defend yourself with a crowbar then you can't. Society functions on rule of law. Abolish rule of law and there is no society.
5 I don't understand your comment on "forbidding relationships between men and women". All the relationships between men and women that I know began as consensual so you cannot describe that as one person adversely affecting another. If the relationship develops so that one party is adversely affected then that party should be free to end it.
6 I think my post clearly defined what adverse means: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them"

Most product regulations imposed by governments on companies exist to stop the consumer being injured or killed by the products those companies sell. Some Libertarians would argue such regulations are not needed and should be scrapped. It is an opinion. After all there are lots of people in the world so if some of them die because of some badly designed/built products it probably wouldn't have a major effect. I disagree with that view. Companies are supposed to be experts in what they produce and consumers are not. I think it is reasonable to expect companies to use that expertise to ensure that what they sell is safe, i.e. does not adversely affect their customers, and I think it is reasonable to have regulations to ensure they do so. As with all laws it cannot actually stop companies selling a dangerous product but it does allow for legal redress if they do.

Warwick


Return to “Chatter”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests