|
YF-23 posted:To make a more serious post wrt labour laws/unemployment: Of course labour laws will have an impact on the labour-related figures, and you know what, neoliberal reforms just might bring unemployment down. The problem is that, whether they achieve that, and regardless of the scale of their effect on unemployment, they do it by actively changing what having a job means. Having a job gives you a certain amount of things such as monetary remuneration, contributions towards you future pension, a varying degree of job security, and those things form the gap between being employed and being unemployed. These reforms that GC loves so much attempt to reduce unemployment by closing the gap between being employed and being unemployed. That's loving rear end-backwards and ultimately hurts everyone as a whole, and it's thanks to stuff like that in spite of much lowered unemployment figures in a lot of countries since the crisis blew up, it still feels like the same crisis is still ongoing or that things are still worse than they were 8 years ago.
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
YF-23 posted:If wages truly were relative to productivity, you have to explain the wage stagnation from the '70s onwards somehow. I'm not buying the narrative that there's just less money to shuffle around, that is only true if you exclude the massive gains in relative wealth made by the rich (which the political establishments in most countries are glad to do, since you cannot really become part of that establishment without making friends with those sort of people). So many things here so I'm going to be a bit disorganized in my response: 1) The stagnating wages phenomenon is mainly a US phenomenon and, while partly valid, misses a lot of things such as rising healthcare costs and so on which form a part of compensation as well as an increasing population (wage growth is measured relative to US wages, not to the Mexican wages that Mexican immigrants to the US were originally paid) and so on. But it's a bit more complicated than just stagnating wages. Secondly, are we talking from the 70s now or the recent crisis? 2) In the EU, you don't really see the same gap to the same extent. Especially the EU's biggest crisis countries (Greece, Spain, Portugal) saw an opposite gap forming, at least relative to the rest of the EU, where wages rose more than productivity (both variables relative to the rest of the EU) since the 1990s. 3) With regards to the rich, the idea that the rich somehow benefited from the Euro crisis is crazy. Look at what's happened to the Greek stock market (measure of wealth for the rich) compared to wages and employment. Wages and employment might have fallen, a lot, but more than 70% of stock market wealth has been wiped out. I'm not saying the rich are worse off than the poor, but the idea that they've benefited from the crisis or made massive wealth gains is wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Just quickly from Wikipedia, German road fatalities are pretty low no matter what way you slice it, unless you compare to Sweden that's gone for 100% driver safety instead of having roads that are fun to drive edit: US with double Germany's rate lol, though not really surprised by that given how crazy driving there seems compared to driving in Finland for example
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:The deduction used to be a lot larger too, right up until the last bubble popped. Owning apartments and renting them out doesn't contribute towards a housing shortage, but really dumb rent control laws do (anyone interested in reading about how not to manage a housing market should google Stockholm apartments waiting list)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Gaj posted:is there any such imposition for flights going to Saudi Arabia or any of the other cover-up nations? I dunno about Iran Air or Saudia, but on non-Iranian airlines flying from Iran, all the women take off the scarf like the moment they get on the plane... going there, they put it on sometime during the flight
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Riso posted:Wasn't Germany the first to break the fiscal pact and tell the rest to go gently caress off? Or was it France? Much harder to fine the countries that contribute most of the EU budget vs countries which have been net recipients of EU funds for decades. "gently caress off, I'm not paying" means a lot more when it comes from someone who was actually paying at some point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Was there enough money for Northern Europe to do this before Dragi came into the ECB though? The German and French banks' assets were larger than GDP. Bank assets are not the same as exposure to bad debt
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Could you expand on this a little? The German/French banking systems might have a lot of assets (more than 100% of GDP), however most of the assets will not be loans to the periphery, and not all loans to the periphery will default, and loans that default do not lose 100% of their value. Hence the key number is German exposure to Italian banks, not the size of the German banking system.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
It's funny how a country with 25% of Greece's GDP per capita and population, a country that isn't allowed to use it's proper name in international organizations and a country without a border with Turkey managed to stem the flow of immigrants to Greece from Turkey. (Macedonia when they built the fence)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Funny how different naval borders are from the land ones, isn't it. Blocking the land border (which Greece could have done) instead of letting everyone flow through to Germany changed incentives for the migrants and cut flows from Turkey to Greece.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I do find it quaint how you lot love to deliberately use the word 'migrant' to imply 'economic migrant' instead of 'refugee' since that would imply some expression of common humanity. Funny how many of those genuine refugees stopped being in immediate danger when the path to Germany was blocked and it became apparent they'd have to claim asylum in Greece. I love how your lot keeps ignoring basic facts, like the fact that if many migrants stop coming when their path to Western Europe is blocked, those migrants weren't in that much danger to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:a large part of the European working class is Muslim The largest proportion of muslims in a Western European country is 7.5%, so if you go for the "working class = poorest x%" definition, it's quite hard for them to make up a large proportion unless x is very low and most Muslims are poor. If you go for the "working class = low-income workers" definition, you run into the problem that European Muslims don't work much.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Most of European Muslims work. Most of them and their descendants are in this continent because of Muslims literally being invited here for work. Don't equivocate "Muslims" with "refugees". It probably varies quite a bit per country but you're ignoring the fact that most people in Europe don't work, period. Given the problems many Muslims (including second generation ones) have, classifying them as working (let alone having them constitute a majority of the working class) is difficult, even though some would fall into "working class" by being families of those that work. Just some back of the envelope math: Labor force participation in France is 56%, then 10% unemployment on top of that means about half of all people work. Muslims will generally have much higher unemployment rates as well as much more children / young people, as well as lower female labor force participation.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Here's a nice interview about the state of the world/europe: It's like "bad/heterodox/crank economics" bingo: quote:the European Central Bank (ECB) is doing awful things that are inherently political, and turning off liquidity for domestic banking systems in violation of their own treaties etc. quote:I needed to rethink what Constructivism meant for IPE and political economy. quote:Then there was my whole engagement with Post-Structuralism, which Americans seem absolutely terrified by, almost as if opening a cover of Foucault is equivalent to reading Mein Kampf or something. quote:wrote some stuff with Nassim Taleb, namely The Black Swan of Cairo, which was really fruitful quote:Nassim Taleb quote:Cornel Ban’s book that just came out, Ruling Ideas: How Global Neolibralism Goes Local, is a wonderful example of ideas and comparative political economy put together. quote:Global Neolibralism quote:I am publishing a piece that’s forthcoming in the European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies quote:When this happens, capital gets organized, and that’s essentially the simplest explanation of the politics of the 1970s and 1980s. quote:and then I taught Piketty and then I read him again GaussianCopula posted:Greece is trying, again, to get war reperations.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Some sane economists (as opposed to Mark Blyth above) have a cool analysis of the Greek crisis. http://voxeu.org/article/greek-crisis-autopsy quote:Summarising, our model makes it possible to quantify the role that different factors played in driving macroeconomic dynamics during the Greek crisis. We find that, while an unavoidable fiscal consolidation was the most important factor driving the drop in output, it accounted for only for half of that drop. Much of the remainder can be explained by the higher funding costs of the government and the private sector due to the sudden stop. Lower leverage would have cushioned the Greek economy somewhat from the sudden stop. The peak-to-trough decline in output would have been smaller by about a third if Greece’s levels of debt were half of their pre-crisis values. More flexible prices and wages would also have softened the effects of the drop in domestic demand – the peak-to-trough decline in output would have been smaller by about 40% if prices and wages could adjust twice as fast.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:What? The man who wants to make firing people easy-peasy in Italy with a law that is a copycat of the law that pushed unemployement up to 25% in Spain, is a leftist-populist?? 1) Huge economic crisis happens in Spain 2) Government changes laws to help ease the economic crisis 3) Goon draws conclusion that the changes caused the economic crisis
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:
What "austerity program"? I'm curious though, what do you think the "objective" of cutbacks in government spending are? I mean if the goal is to maintain an inefficient, corrupt and over-reaching state as well as artificially high living standards, then yes, your way is probably better. Friendly Humour posted:He was talking about the unemployment created by these laws and retarded EU monetary masochism, not the unemployment caused by the banking crisis. You'd have to be completely retarded to think the laws caused the unemployment.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Well lookit how efficient, not-corrupt and under-reaching the state is all over Europe right now. Why, your country's economy is swirling the drain like a particularly pungent turd, good thing you didn't have those incompetent social democrats in charge! Actually Finland just returned to growth after about 8 years of doing nothing with unemployment falling almost 1 percentage point since the government gained power (and that's even with the left-wing throwing a hissy fit and going on strike). Things that changed: 3 center-right to right parties are in charge now. Isn't that weird? Not to mention for those 8 years Finland ran huge budget deficits and allowed for large increases in wages, which is pretty much the opposite of austerity. But you're still ignoring the question: What do you think the objective of austerity in Greece was? MiddleOne posted:They literally did cause unemployment though. You can argue about whether that is relevant or not but the cause and effect is still there. They "literally" did not. Workers would have lost their jobs anyway, either through firing or having their employers go bankrupt. I really can't think of anyone that thinks that the way to maintain high employment rates is by telling employers they can't fire workers. The reason these laws are implemented is to make conditions better for workers, not to improve overall employment levels.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Neoliberal states have been pretty great at being corrupt, ineffective, and over-reaching when it comes to prohibition, mass-surveillance, and limitation of due process. The only place that they seem to have any major objection to being overly interventionist is when it comes to private profits or employers curtailing those nasty workers' rights. Where in the world do you have better human rights than in the "neoliberal" (which is a retarded word but since you insist on using it) states of Western Europe and North America?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:Yeah that's just totally wrong. Looking at the most relevant example, Spain's infamous 2012 labour market reform, the goal was to create a more flexible labour market in the hopes that employers would hire more people. This was done by, most importantly, making it easier and cheaper to lay off workers and to increase the possiblity of collective dismissals for economic reasons (i.e. by businesses in trouble), but also by allowing employers to deviate from collective bargaining agreements and to reduce the possibility of them being extended. The government did this in the hopes of driving wages down to increase competitiveness and achieve the much-desired internal devaluation that would increase employment levels, since now it would no no longer be such a risk for firms to hire workers on permanent contracts. The evidence of the effects on overall employment levels is mixed at best (see here and here for some analysis), but the law has done basically nothing at all to reduce segmentation in the Spanish labour market and only increased precarity for workers, so that by now it is not uncommon for Spanish workers to have labour contracts that last only a few hours. It's absolutely a supply-side law and the fact that unemployment rates in Spain have decreased most likely has more to do with Mario Draghi than with Mariano Rajoy. Now you've changed the (your?) argument from "it increased unemployment" to "it didn't decrease unemployment". Which is still wrong, but a definite improvement. But I'm curious, what economic mechanism do YOU think is actually at play here? 1) Government changes law to make it easier to fire people. 2) Workers now have more 0-hours contracts, are easier to lay off if their job is no longer economically viable. So who gains? If the law wasn't in place, what would companies be doing instead? And how sustainable do you think that solution is? Tesseraction posted:Simple aversion to fiscal stimulus and a desire to obtain state resources on the cheap by starving the coffers. Do you have any actual numbers for starvation in Greece, or are you going to quote a Guardian article again? I'm just remembering the "HIV epidemic" that you guys felt was going on in Greece, where it turned out that in real terms the number of new infections was smaller than the number that followed the introduction of Craigslist's casual encounters in cities across the US. And Greece ran a budget deficit of 15% the year before asking for a bailout, how much more of a stimulus do you need? And what stage would you have started cutting back? And how do you not see the connection between legal reforms intended to improvement efficiency (such as improving tax collection, cut back on government waste) and budget discipline?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:No, I'm addressing your argument that "The reason these laws are implemented is to make conditions better for workers, not to improve overall employment levels." I don't think the 2012 labour reform increased unemployment, except possibly in the short term, since more firms would have wanted to fire people in the context of 2012 Spain than would be willing to hire new workers. It's probably too soon to talk about the long term effects but the increase in precarity means that unemployment levels are likely to explode again as fast as in 2008-9 if a new crisis hits. quote:Who knows? There is no good counterfactual. Given that Draghi ended the Spanish sovereign debt crisis and the EU bailed out the Spanish banks, it's entirely possible that unemployment would have gone down in the absence of the law. Other than that, there really are no solutions to the problems of the Spanish labour market that would not cause Spain to violate the Stability Pact yet again (it would require large investments in the modernization of the education system, in particular vocational education, and in the public employment services. Increasing unemployment benefits and reintroducing rent benefits to make Spanish workers more mobile within Spain would help too). As for "no solutions", you're making it seem like the situation in Spain is not improving, even though GDP is growing again and unemployment is down 6 percentage points. Yes it's slow but clearly something is happening. I really don't know about optimal investment in education or higher unemployment benefits (obviously it makes sense to invest, but whether it makes sense to invest x amount now is different), this was about job security related legislation which is zero investment policy that trades off decreased unemployment with worker preferences for security. Tesseraction posted:Because idiots like you were in charge. Reminder that SYRIZA led Greece is still prosecuting the former head of ELSTAT for aligning Greek debt figures with European standards.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It's useful to see the microeconomic effect on people with no other sources of income. The biggest worry about a GBI is that people receiving it won't try to get jobs or better their prospects so this can test that hypothesis. The problem is that this study only targets the unemployed, who by definition can't leave their jobs, meaning that we don't see any of that effect. And I don't know how it's going to work to address the incentives of people receiving ansiosidonnainen (~income linked unemployment benefits, which is much higher than 560e/m). Also, the amount is so high that its current implementation would leave Finland with a 15 billion euro deficit. I agree that in Finland we have a huge problem with unemployment benefits providing weird incentives for people. But a "UBI experiment" that doesn't look at the disincentives it might create for employed people and that's set unrealistically high doesn't really answer many questions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Sure it can. You compare them against a control which doesn't receive the benefits and compare employment rates after the experiment. quote:I thought they are cutting a corresponding amount from these people's other benefits to have it be revenue neutral?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:To fix a couple misunderstandings: It doesn't test the effectiveness of UBI for people who we really want to encourage to return to the workforce sooner (people on ansiosidonnainen, aka generally more skilled workers who receive higher benefits). Yeah fine, it's great to test the employment response for (essentially) the long-term unemployed, but that reduces this to essentially an academic study instead of something with significant policy relevance. Ok, we will know how likely some guys are to take up work that they're otherwise disincentivized from doing. But UBI would by definition need to be applied to all people (or all people in the labor force), in which case knowing whether it decreases effort and its total cost are kind of important.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Andrast posted:There are still a lot of stereotypes about them being thieves and similar stuff here though. It doesn't help with "stereotypes" when a minority (0.2% of the population) commits almost 20% of recorded thefts. You can try to ignore the actual facts like DarkCrawler does because I don't think he's ever talked to someone that runs a business, but if you own a shop in Finland, you'd be pretty drat stupid to NOT tell the security guy to watch the Romani closely - it's pretty simple statistical discrimination.  (Crimes per person - crimes leading to death, so murder, manslaughter etc.)  (Percentage of theft/robberies commited by ethnicity/nationality) Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Aug 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Emphasis being recorded. You seriously think their 100x over-representation in theft statistics is because of underreporting?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Obviously the solution here is to label all of them criminals. That will surely help these issues. It's one extreme to label them all criminals, it's another extreme to pretend like there's no problem and that they're successful businessmen who only racists have a problem with. Nitrousoxide posted:Does it control for other factors like poverty? No, they're simple summary statistics. They're not aiming to show a causal relationship between ethnicity and crime (not that controlling for poverty is very useful for that if poverty is a mediating variable)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Andrast posted:The stat about the robberies is about people suspected of robbery, not convicted ones. Even though "epäilty" translates to "suspect", it's talking about solved crimes. The report (https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/152533/TTA83_Lehti_2008.pdf?sequence=1) talks about "syyllistyneistä" (=guilty) when quoting the same numbers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Stefu posted:1. Finland had a center-right goverment for the first four of those "eight years of doing nothing" (unless you think that the presence of the Greens as the government's punching bag somehow negates the fact that it was run by the same parties that run the government now and use the True Finns as a punching bag)  Yes, I'm talking about the 20% increase in labor costs during a time when GDP or exports have not risen at all. Funny how you insist that we've been through "austerity" when both government spending and wages have both ballooned without any improvements in productivity etc. I'm absolutely in agreement that Vanhanen II and Kiviniemi were disasters that did the opposite of what they should have done (then again their situation was a bit different and the structural problems weren't as clear at the time). The current government is a lot better. 0.6% decrease in unemployment from a base rate of 10% or so in a year of government, especially given the tantrums thrown by the labor movement (not just the strike but repeated delays in negotiations with the government on a compromise) is pretty good. Also, your idea that the government "only" increased the deficit through unemployment spending is dumb not just because that's still spending (it's called an automatic stabilizer for a reason), but also because increases in työttömyysturva made up less than a quarter* of the increase in government spending between 2008 and 2015. If we'd had actually austerity, we wouldn't have had an increase, period, let alone one that's not even driven by unemployment benefits kicking in. You can pretty easily see that in the data here: http://valtionbudjetti.fi/ *1.5 billion increase in unemployment benefits, 9 billion euro increase in government spending Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Aug 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
ChainsawCharlie posted:LIke i said , i was sleepy. Right, but the point is that GDP didn't "crash", GDP stayed flat, or fell a few percent (5% according to "tradingeconomics.com", no idea what their data source is). You can try to pick little parts there where GDP did fall but there's no denying the overall trend over the whole time horizon. If over 6 years GDP is flat and ULC is up 20%, clearly labor costs went up. That's not even starting with why labor costs should be tracking productivity instead of being set arbitrarily...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
ChainsawCharlie posted:Because labour cost will always increase over time, even just based on inflation and wage adjustements,so you track them vs gdp by employee and productivity.if your productivity increases at a greater rate than labour cost youre efectivaly improving labour cost efeciency. I don't know why you're so hung up on your one datapoint when I'm telling you that over 8 years one number has gone down by about 5% while the other has gone up by 20%, and the people who received that 20% are complaining that it's not enough. Also yes the point of tracking ULC is to compare labor costs to productivity, I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. So when ULC goes up, as it has, it means that workers are being paid more per € of value produced. Which might be beneficial in some situations but has now effectively stalled the Finnish economy. And no, like I said already, it's not just driven by GDP, it's driven by wages going up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
ChainsawCharlie posted:Jesus loving christ on a cracker, are we the same species? Am i speaking in whale song? Oh ok your 3 data point cross section doesn't support your widely held belief, therefore ULC are irrelevant, but I'm the one missing numbers? Lol Norway is a resource based economy where the resource's price is falling, hence it kind of makes sense that ULC will rise. Norway's unemployment has risen and GDP is growing very slowly. Does that mean the situation there is bad? No, but I'm not sure why you think the numbers on the website are comparable to each other. The series are an index, not absolute numbers. You don't compare Finland's economy and current index to Norway and their index, you compare differences. As it happens, unemployment grew faster in Norway than Finland from 2010-2016, even if Norway's base rate of unemployment is much lower. While 2 years of training in economics is probably a waste, I would recommend you open up Wikipedia, read up on what indexes are, and think about why a cross-sectional comparison doesn't make sense when you have a baseline rate on one side and an index measuring changes om the other.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
The funny thing is how fishmech realizes that Sunday work restrictions are stupid (good!) but is too afraid to attack the left and unions who are responsible for maintaining them. So instead we have a stupid argument about how Christians (a group that is ok to dislike) are responsible for them, despite the fact that every single European here is saying that in Western Europe you haven't been able to justify any policy with "well, it's in the bible" for ages. This isn't America, this is a continent where politicians try to downplay their faith to avoid appearing "crazy" (Tony Blair for example).
Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
fishmech posted:
Why? It's a tax you can opt out of that just serves as an alternative to these organizations levying their own fees or scamming pensioners for donations. It's also collected by multiple churches, not just one, and I don't really see the influence of for example the Orthodox church in Finland (Orthodox Xmas isn't a public holiday) even though it has the right to collect church taxes. In Germany, Jews pay a church tax. Don't see how that affects their policies either. It's also completely irrelevant with regards to Sunday work restrictions, which are maintained by the left wing and unions, using arguments about workers' rights. You could have tried something more direct, but it wouldn't change the fact that it's completely irrelevant to public discourse today, especially about things like Sunday work restrictions (which are still a topical issue, and no one is using religion to argue for or against) Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
People should be free to choose whether to work or go shopping or whatever on Sundays. Fishmech is correct that in America, most people have weekends off despite no restrictions. It's completely arbitrarily restricting people's choices because of some bizarre fear that people might decide to make some more money because they don't value sitting around at home and posting as highly as the people here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
9-Volt Assault posted:Its extremely cool and good that society puts some restrictions on capitalism. We also dont allow children the ''freedom'' to choose to work in the mines from the age of 6, even though its completely arbitrarily restricting families choices to do so. Yes, that's completely the same as restricting willing and mentally competent adults from working on a Sunday because of their own preferences. Thanks for clearing that up, people having preferences = the same as child labor. We should also restrict free speech and political participation, because these so-called "freedoms" are just a capitalist conspiracy to get the children into the mines again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Mans posted:"if we aren't privatizing everything and creating giant walls to prevent refugees from coming in then the right wing will gain strenght (Insert your Tsipras neoliberal tears img here) btw can someone repost it in this thread so I can post it whenever Mans posts something?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 18:12
|
|
"
|
Cat Mattress posted:Do we need an FTA to trade with Canada or the USA? Are the tariffs high? The whole thing about how the EU not automatically rubber-stamping every trade agreement that comes its way is a proof that it's dysfunctional and backward is really ridiculous. How can you support the EU (and many other agreements that you just listed that have built-in dispute resolution mechanisms or supranational rules that override national policy on things like state aid) but oppose "any kind of ISDS"?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I do not support the current implementation of the EU anyway. How is dispute resolution in the ILO (as an example) or the EU (through EU courts/the commission) any different from a trade agreement using some judge/arbitrator determine whether member states violated the terms they agreed to when they entered into the trade agreement? Just because it's not formally called a court doesn't mean that it isn't doing the exact same thing, i.e. enforcing the rules that the country has agreed to abide by as part of the trade agreement. Not to mention the fact that I don't think many of the institutions you listed actually resolve their disputes through administrative courts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Because courts and judges are appointed via a democratic process, and corporate arbiters are not? I know a libertarian like yourself isn't too keen on the concept of democracy, but surely you can understand the desire of common fleshbags in the public to keep some semblance of democratic rule Well that totally makes your reasoning less inconsistent and retarded.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 11:30
|
|