There was talk about renaming the Krugman thread for this purpose, but that seems to be going nowhere. Besides which, I feel the Krugman thread should be left to discuss Krugman while this thread can be used for more general economic discussion.
Discuss:
- The merits of competing theories.
- The role of the government in managing the economy.
- The causes of and solutions to our current economic woes.
- Comparisons between the economic systems of different countries.
- Theoretical and existing alternatives to our current market system.
edited 17th Dec '12 10:58:52 AM by Topazan
Good one.
It's good to see a standard being made for the Internet of Things. Otherwise, why buy these Things if they won't work together? Or if you absolutely must buy only ones from the same company? (which of course some large companies would love, but small ones would hate) There are times where standards are just a good idea.
How many years did you lose thanks to the recession?
Typical family incomes in Ireland, Spain and Luxembourg fell back to levels not seen for a decade while those in Italy slipped back eight years.
But the UK is ranked alongside Latvia and Belgium with six lost years, worse than Bulgaria, Estonia, Malta, Romania and Slovenia where growth in household incomes was set back fours years.
Typical family incomes in Ireland, Spain and Luxembourg fell back to levels not seen for a decade while those in Italy slipped back eight years.
One of these is not like the others.
No sympathy for Luxembourg. Tax haven panhandlers. There's a country that would really deserve some "structural reforms" right up the backside.
Or Anschluss.
edited 28th Oct '14 9:05:46 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiCare to explain?
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurAgreed.
What Achaemenid and Greenmantle said.
edited 28th Oct '14 9:23:51 AM by Quag15
Luxembourg.
edited 28th Oct '14 9:08:56 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On@Gab
I think he means Luxembourg, which is a tax haven with the world's second-highest GDP per capita. Gits.
"Ooh, look at us, we have a population the size of Edinburgh and we launder dodgy money, look at how perfect our little society is, check out our sweet castle. Oh, and we're special snowflakes, totally a real nation and not merely a bunch of Frogs, Belgians, and Krauts too selfish to share our money."
Zoomers.
edited 28th Oct '14 9:17:55 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiCool. Thanks guys!
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurLuxembourg *was* a part of the German Confederation, forged after the Napoleonic wars, even before it gained independence from the Dutch. For whatever reason, Bismarck didn't go for that.
Also: Lims is the strangest not-Dutch-not-German-not-Flemish thing out there.
It makes Afrikaans look "normal".
Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.
edited 28th Oct '14 11:01:53 AM by Euodiachloris
I thought to speak Afrikaans you just spoke Dutch but punched a black person as you did it?
Schild und Schwert der ParteiBwahaha!
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur‘Free’ Trade and the Sovereignty Squeeze. I'll quoteblock it in full:
The classic mercantilism, the one associated with the idea that the precious metals obtained through a favorable balance of foreign trade were essential to a powerful nation, may be historically obsolete. The core of the mercantilist view, namely that self-interested states maximize economic development by optimizing political control to strengthen national power, is very much alive and well. Indeed, the vitality of mercantilism as a state of mind may have infiltrated every corner of the international political economy. If one considers the essence of mercantilism through Robert Gilpin’s definition – the attempt of governments to manipulate economic arrangements in order to maximize their own interests – multiple examples immediately come to mind: Japan’s “economic totalitarianism” system in which the entire society was united in deterring foreign competition in the postwar period, China’s ascendance since 1980s through an export-led development mode underpinned by a deliberately undervalued currency, and Germany’s unprecedented trade surplus accrued from the stringent austerity imposed on its economy to sustain competitiveness in the aftermath of the euro crisis.
Compared to those national triumphs of classic mercantilism, there is a less visible showroom, but one in which mercantilism presents itself over and over again in the form of legal mercantilism. This would be free trade agreements (FT As), negotiations of which are usually kept in the dark. In bilateral FTA negotiations, legal mercantilist governments endeavor to impose their own (or desirable) trade rules and economic policies on other sovereign countries, usually with the aid of a combination of economic immensity, political hegemony, and asymmetric trade dependence, to create a sort of “international best practice,” favorable trade rules, and legal gains that can be leveraged and multilateralized at a regional and/or global level. The “competitive liberalization” strategy aptly pursued by the U.S. since 2002 is one such legal mercantilist policy, which aims to create another “gold standard” in international trade standard setting to project U.S.-friendly economic policies all over the world. In short, the U.S. expects the trade policies of other nations to follow those of the U.S., in the same way that their currencies used to peg to the U.S. dollar.
The U.S.–Peru FTA (PTPA) marks the very first success of Washington’s attempts to subordinate other countries’ sovereignty to its own national interest by squeezing non-trade-related provisions into a bilateral trade liberalization agreement and overriding foreign national laws. To provide a level playing field for American companies, the PTPA lays out detailed measures that Peru is obliged to take to govern its forest sector. The Forest Annex of the PTPA requires Peru to set up an independent forestry oversight body and even enact new Forestry and Wildlife Laws to legalize key provisions of PTPA. The U.S.–Colombia FTA (CTPA)’s labor provisions represent an “even more blatant assault on another country’s sovereignty.” Meanwhile, Colombia was forced to agree to establish a dedicated labor ministry; endorse legislations outlawing interference in the exercise of labor rights; double the size of its labor inspectorate; and set up a phone hotline and an internet-based system to deal with labor complaints. Examples of similar provisions abound: Don’t forget that the U.S.-Panama FTA has “helped” revamp Panama’s tax policy on behalf of Panamanians.
In a similarly coercive fashion, the EU has never been shy of imposing its own will on other countries in trade. Last week, a November 2011 diplomatic cable between Ecuador’s then-ambassador in Brussels, Fernando Yepez Lasso, and the Ecuadorian vice minister for Foreign Relations, Kintto Lucas Lopez, was leaked. The confidential communication suggests that Ecuador was “bullied into a EU trade agreement.” Denouncing it as “biased,” Ecuador was convinced the agenda was set to prioritize the trade liberalization component of the agreement that was able to accrue immediate gains to the EU over two other pillars of the EU-Andean Association Agreement, namely, an economic cooperation agreement and a forum for political dialogue, which were of more long-term significance to Andean states. So Ecuador pulled out of the talks in 2009. To compel Ecuador to return to the negotiating table, the EU resorted to stark threats of economic isolation as the Ambassador admitted in the cable that “[t]he proposal of the European Commission, which includes criteria that could exclude Ecuador from the preferences framework [...], is an element of pressure on Ecuador to join the free trade agreement.” Afraid of being left out and sustaining a $1.2 billion loss to its economy if trade ties with EU was disconnected, the Ecuador government crumbled and finally inked the agreement on July 17. This painful experience has taught Ecuador a lesson that what governs trade negotiations is the law of the jungle and prompted Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa to comment in an interview after signing the FTA that free trade “is the most anti-historical thing that exists; almost no developed country used it.”
In the rule making of regional and mega-FT As, the U.S. likewise is not afraid to pressure other negotiating parties to move their stance closer to Washington’s. Although the multilateral nature of mega-FTA talks ensures that the U.S. may not be able to have it all its own way – for instance, the U.S. failed to pressure Brazil to agree to excessive concessions under the framework of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) in the 1990s – mega-FT As, once formalized, will curb potential adversaries’ dexterity in pursuing unfriendly or incompatible economic policies provided they are lured by a potential membership.
A case in point is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Widely seen as an “anyone but China club” in the Pacific Rim as a politically constructed economic alliance to counterbalance China’s growing economic clout in the region, the TPP as a strategic legal undertaking to socialize China is rather less appreciated. TPP envisions locking-in economic reform efforts in China and encouraging it to further integrate into the world economy. As a trading bloc accounting for 40 percent of world trade with four out of China’s top ten trading partners potentially on board, the TPP represents a potent economic magnet for China. However, by explicitly claiming the TPP to be a 21st century trade agreement with a high bar in areas such as intellectual property, labor and environment protection, government procurement, e-commerce, and state-owned enterprises – all areas where China has a tarnished track record – the U.S. is sending a clear signal to Beijing: If China hopes to join the TPP one day, it will have to abandon its mercantilist policies and play by U.S. trade rules.
From China’s perspective, even if it wants to join the TPP, it will face a set of established TPP rules as a fait accompli, a formidable and well-articulated legal fortress guarded by all the savvy signatories. There is no possibility that the TPP will cater to the special needs of China by creating a set of exceptions, since the China-specific rules will undermine the initial strategic objective of using rules to contain China. Indeed, if new exceptions were to be created for China, it makes no sense whatsoever for existing TPP members to negotiate stringent rules in the first place. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman confirmed this point by asserting that “[o]ur goal is to have high standards. It’s not worth it to have another country join just to lower the standard.” As such, China will not seek TPP membership since it has no control over the process and outcome of TPP rule-making. It will have to pay a high premium for late TPP accession as a rule-taker and not a rule-maker. Given the maturity of TPP negotiations after twenty-one rounds of talks, the likelihood of Chinese participation is minimal.
China is well aware that it is hard to win a game when your opponent gets to write the rules; therefore, it’s highly likely that China will not play the game of TPP at all (although a high-ranking Chinese official did recently make positive noises about TPP membership). Washington’s penchant competitive legalization will also galvanize China to join the global trade legalization race, to fill the legal vacuum in those areas where no multilateral rules exist. Discarding its longstanding favoring of voluntary codes of conduct over formally binding rules in foreign economic relations, China has become more devoted to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a similar but much less ambitious trading bloc being negotiated among ASEAN and its six ASEAN+1 FTA partners. China sees RCEP as a platform to multilateralize China-friendly rules. A more plausible scenario for the legal rivalry is that these two gargantuan and largely self-sufficient trade blocs will write different trade rules at the expense of each other, eventually giving rise to the fragmented trade structure outlined by Michael Hudson in his book Global Fracture.
FT As will never be free. The irony is encapsulated in the titles of the mega-FTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and Transatlantic Investment and Trade Partnership, which all very noticeably lack the word “free.” FT As pose an enormous threat to the ability of economically weaker governments to regulate their own economies, and the give economically stronger economies undue control over the domestic affairs of other sovereign states, making the latter slaves to the national interests of those economic hegemons. To paraphrase Jagdish Bhagwati, if you want to join a golf club, you need to play golf. But you shouldn’t have to go to church and sing hymns with the other club members.
edited 28th Oct '14 4:02:13 PM by Quag15
The major issue a lot of people have with Germany is its trade surplus is occurring when the same time it's professing it wants to be a part of a semi-political-economic union. Basically the surplus is a component of Germany being two-faced (not that all countries are), but with the state of the EU, Germany's two-faced-ness is especially sadistic.
I am personally expecting something's going to happen to devolve the current state of Globalization. An "Enough is enough" event.
The tide's definitely turning against Globalisation, from both the Left and Right.
Serious Fraud Office starts Tesco criminal investigation
Keep Rolling OnThe tide's turning, but we haven't had the proverbial watershed event, me thinks.
I wouldn't say the problem is globalisation itself, more the way it was hijacked by the 1% to pay less wages and to engage in tax evasion and off-shoring. Not to mention the privatisation of everything, which led to worse services being provided for pretty much everyone.
That being said, sooner or later, said period of globalisation will end, if the current state keeps continuing and getting worse.
edited 29th Oct '14 10:25:01 AM by Quag15
[Insert My Constant Response That Vast Inequality Like This Usually Ends With The Rich Against The Wall]
Yellen Mentions Inequality; Right Scandalized
What Strain does not mention is that Yellen is hardly alone among Federal Reserve chairs…. Hardly a week went by without Greenspan interjecting himself into the political debate. And Greenspan, a former follower of Ayn Rand with staunchly conservative views, had none of Yellen’s careful reserve…. Is the new rule here that, starting now, the Federal Reserve chair has to stay completely out of partisan politics? Or is the rule that they need to stay out of politics unless they’re conservative?
Rightwing think tank blames skyrocketing inequality on single mothers and absent fathers.
Are Economists Ready For Income Redistribution?
Economists post the 2008 crash are still reluctant to talk about the need of government intervention beyond nations' central banks. Reasons why is many consider that we already solved the Great Depression issues due to research into monetary, not fiscal policy. The second reason is ideological differences in Congress make discussing it pointless.
But the end thesis is Economists need to get ready to answer the questions of redistribution, because it is going to become important soon.
edited 29th Oct '14 10:48:15 AM by PotatoesRock
It's almost like they haven't noticed that a significant body of economists has been calling for redistribution policies for decades...
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Likely because such re-distributive policies, near as I can tell, were considered "disproven" to a good number in the 60s~80s as Milton Friedman and like minded economists rose to positions of power and influence.
Stagflation is supposedly the phenomena that disproved Keynes, and so it's hard to get people from that era (who are all the power people now) to get on board with redistribution
Google's Nest welcomes still more product partners
Eating a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite.