CIA predicts collapse of EU

[notyoueither]

You should keep in mind that the largest trade relationship in the world is that between Canada and the United States, not Germany and France. Now, boot-strap Mexico into the relationship.

Three nations that occupy practically all of a continent that dwarfs Europe, and with enough human wealth, on top of financial, mineral, and biological wealth to do whatever we set our minds to. If we blow this, we deserve whatever happens.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I had heard of one in the far south. I also seem to recall a crisis in Sweden sometime around ten years ago. Seems it was like a flu was going around at the time. Even the yen was affected.

There's also an armed movement in Guerero, and there are frequent peasant uprisings throughout Mexico (though generally unarmed and/or short-lived). As for Sweden, whatever was going around had nothing to do with Mexico, which had artificially pumped up its currency (and I was wrong, it was 11 years ago).

Like I said, nice and safe and snug and able to grow.

Most of the problems in Latin America are internally generated, despite Nediverse rhetoric about outside agitators. While I'm not a betting man, if I were, I wouldn't put money down on Latin America as being stable, except maybe in comparison to Africa.

[Agathon]

What's the problem?

The money given to welfare recipients is spent by them on goods and services they need. As long as there is a consensus in the electorate that people will agree to the wealth transfer which they do in countries like Sweden, there shouldn't be a problem.

[chequita guevara]

The problem is that corporations can't suck as much profit as they'd like, and so they move their headquarters to countries like Bermuda, which have much lower taxes.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by notyoueither
I had heard of one in the far south. I also seem to recall a crisis in Sweden sometime around ten years ago. Seems it was like a flu was going around at the time. Even the yen was affected.

There's also an armed movement in Guerero, and there are frequent peasant uprisings throughout Mexico (though generally unarmed and/or short-lived). As for Sweden, whatever was going around had nothing to do with Mexico, which had artificially pumped up its currency (and I was wrong, it was 11 years ago).

Like I said, nice and safe and snug and able to grow.

Most of the problems in Latin America are internally generated, despite Nediverse rhetoric about outside agitators. While I'm not a betting man, if I were, I wouldn't put money down on Latin America as being stable, except maybe in comparison to Africa.

Mexico is not Guatamala, che. They have a functioning democracy and free access to the greatest consumer market in the world. Growth is something that could be expected.

So you have pointed out that Mexico has a couple of internal problems. Are those problems as serious as the tensions India faces with Pakistan over the Kashmir, or the tensions China regularly has on its borders (skirmishes with Russia and India, outright war with Vietnam within the last 40 years)?

[Agathon]

The problem is that corporations can't suck as much profit as they'd like, and so they move their headquarters to countries like Bermuda, which have much lower taxes.

Let them do it. If they want to screw things up by impoverishing their customers then let the revolt begin!!

[chequita guevara]

All I'm saying is rosey scenarios are not necessarily the case. I remember only eight years ago reading about the DOW hitting 30,000 and how recessions were a thing of the past. The economy of Mexico is rather dependent on that of the U.S., and we're looking into a tunnel and not sure whether the light we see is the other side or an oncoming train.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
What's the problem?

The money given to welfare recipients is spent by them on goods and services they need. As long as there is a consensus in the electorate that people will agree to the wealth transfer which they do in countries like Sweden, there shouldn't be a problem.

The problem is discouraging productive people from increasing the means of production through excessive taxation.

As the article you refer to pointed out, Sweden rode it's place as the undestroyed and unindebted European country to a place of great wealth in the aftermath of WW2 and the rebuilding. If you'd read between the lines, you would detect that they then squandered that wealth largely on the alter of their social system.

Incidently, Canada has done a similar thing, except maybe in a more sustainable way. The US has paid for the defence of the Americas for the last 50 years. Our governments have recognised this and progressively spent less and less on defence and more and more on healthcare. Now we can have tax rates similar to American ones, and can have our public healthcare, but only so long as the government feels that we do not need to pay for an actual defence. IOW, we are taking advantage of a rare position to be able to fund our social programs in ways that many other countries would not be able to do.

[chequita guevara]

Yeah, but we had the discussion as to whether or not Sweden was a free rider, and it turns out that it wasn't, because they weren't part of the alliance system, they had to spend more on their defense because they could only look to themselves.

As for excessive taxations not motivating people to work harder, I don't know anyone who thinks, that since the government will tax them more for making more, they just won't make more, unless they are stupid. If you're making more, you're still making more, even if the government is also getting more from you. If you want more, you still get more.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
All I'm saying is rosey scenarios are not necessarily the case. I remember only eight years ago reading about the DOW hitting 30,000 and how recessions were a thing of the past. The economy of Mexico is rather dependent on that of the U.S., and we're looking into a tunnel and not sure whether the light we see is the other side or an oncoming train.

And China and India are not dependant on trade as well?

This started by you lamenting that China and India would bury the US within 50 years.

I think that was a silly thing to say, especially because it fails to take into account that the US is not alone. You do not have an EU of NA, but you are the leaders of a continental trade system that has more mineral and other wealth in so many ways than China will ever dream of that comparisons are silly. The thing that fixates people is population. I thought it appropriate to point out that NAFTA has half a billion people, and that could easily be enlarged.

[Agathon]

People complain about how socialist policies will led to doom. Sweden has been at it for 50 years in one way or another and they are doing much better overall than the more capitalist countries.'

Slam dunk I'd say. The righties just don't know how to organize a society.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither

This started by you lamenting that China and India would bury the US within 50 years.

Didn't I say 100?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yeah, but we had the discussion as to whether or not Sweden was a free rider, and it turns out that it wasn't, because they weren't part of the alliance system, they had to spend more on their defense because they could only look to themselves.

Errmmm, who seriously argues that having to pay for a defence that is never used is more costly than having whole cities and provinces, or the entire country, obliterated by the machines of modern warfare, on top of paying to actually fight a war, and not just sitting in barracks waiting for one? Please point them out, I need a good laugh.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Didn't I say 100?

Whatever, it's still absurd. Reasons already given.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
People complain about how socialist policies will led to doom. Sweden has been at it for 50 years in one way or another and they are doing much better overall than the more capitalist countries.'

Slam dunk I'd say. The righties just don't know how to organize a society.

That's why they had 100 or 200% interest rates around 10 years ago, is it?