91–100 of 379 posts
Crazy times it wasn't long ago that a pound bought over $2. The interesting thing this week is that the most fragile and indebted country that the EU has bailed out for 30 years straight (Italy) has elected a govt that doesn't like the EU. Good times ahead.
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1573649995290628096 The iron law of Krugman strikes again. I really need to start trading on this.
That's hilarious, but is it a currency crisis or is it just trading down a bit?
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1573649995290628096 The iron law of Krugman strikes again. I really need to start trading on this.
Paul Krugman is probably the most consistently wrong popular economist I can think of.
Taleb loves making fun of economists. One of his jokes:
Trader comes to manager and told him he lost 10 mil because he bought treasuries since the bank economist said they would go up. Manager fires him. Trader asks why, is he required to always win? Manager says no, I didn't fire you because you lost money, I fired you because you listened to the bank economist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
Nearly all A&E (ER) rooms are managed by the NHS. Private ones are few and far between so it’s likely that a tourist with insurance will end up in a standard A&E - which can have very long wait times[1]. The NHS is also using private clinics to help clear backlogs - so even private insurance can lead to a long time to see a consultant. Ambulances also do not have good response times. [1] https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/…
I always hear and read complaints that the US doesn't have a single player public option for health insurance, and that it makes our country one of the worst.
Other nations with "good health care" seem to pay their workers less, have higher taxes, have long wait times at the ER, weak militaries, etc. Something always seems to give.
How would you rank and quantify the various medical systems of the world? Where does the US fall? Why, and how could we make it better?
I'd like to be better informed about healthcare as a matter of policy and how it fits into the bigger scope of government spending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> intentionally cutting themselves out of a massive common market probably isn't helping much. My understanding is that they never intended to leave the common market but to gain a trade deal that would leave market access substantially the same. However, the EU wouldn’t let them keep access in the divorce if for no reason other than as a cautionary tale for other member states. So, it turned ugly and there they are.
I want to have my cake and eat it, too! From my outsider’s perspective, the EU’s justification is far stronger than a “cautionary tale”: a Union means a Union. No other country or state structure in the world allows its constituent members to carve out only the bits that they themselves like; that would subvert the entire point of the Union.
The EU more or less does exactly that with Norway, a non-EU country with common market access and freedom of movement etc. That was the model I recall being promoted for a UK/EU relationship. They never intended to leave the common market or eschew all regulatory commonality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm no economist, but intentionally cutting themselves out of a massive common market probably isn't helping much.
> intentionally cutting themselves out of a massive common market probably isn't helping much. My understanding is that they never intended to leave the common market but to gain a trade deal that would leave market access substantially the same. However, the EU wouldn’t let them keep access in the divorce if for no reason other than as a cautionary tale for other member states. So, it turned ugly and there they are.
Pretty much every sticking point of the UK/EU negotiations boiled down this. And the stated reasoning was an "I'm Me" argument. The UK deserved sovereignty because I'm me. The UK deserved market access because I'm me. The UK should not lose access to their cake just because they ate it because I'm me. The UK deserved no border in the Irish sea and no border in Ireland because I'm me. Absolutely no effort was spent on meeting the EU halfway or, at the very least, trying to adopt a negotiating position that was not immediately poked full of holes by random Internet commenters.
And, for what it's worth... the UK never intended to leave the EU at all. Brexit was a sham vote intended to go the same way as the Scottish independence referendum. When it blew up in David Cameron's face he basically jumped ship and handed UKIP the keys to the country.
This is the problem with antiglobalism: it has yet to suggest a viable alternative to the thing it is fighting. Putting up borders and trade barriers everywhere means rolling back everyone's living standards to the 1970s; but it does not matter because the antiglobalists would become richer in the process. In a sense, the UK's negotiating position was less "we want market access and a trade deal" and more "we want you to unconditionally surrender and join the new British Empire".
Crazy times it wasn't long ago that a pound bought over $2. The interesting thing this week is that the most fragile and indebted country that the EU has bailed out for 30 years straight (Italy) has elected a govt that doesn't like the EU. Good times ahead.
It's not that simple. Germany wanted a country like Italy in the Euro so it would pull the currency down and not allow it to appreciate too much (like the Deutsche Mark did). That would would be very bad for German exports.
At the same time it was made much easier (at lower interest rates) for southern European countries to borrow money from northern European countries and other markets, as creditors would feel more secure that they'd get their money back. Creditors would assume the northern European countries would bail-out southern European countries in case of problems.
And that caused southern European countries to lend more which might benefit a country like Germany again. These countries could lend more easily to buy luxury cars, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> intentionally cutting themselves out of a massive common market probably isn't helping much. My understanding is that they never intended to leave the common market but to gain a trade deal that would leave market access substantially the same. However, the EU wouldn’t let them keep access in the divorce if for no reason other than as a cautionary tale for other member states. So, it turned ugly and there they are.
My understanding is, that they didn’t want to keep all those laws that would be required for a trade-deal. They wanted their sovereignty.
Now introducing any level friction of trade quickly moves trade to somewhere else if price is competitive and there is less friction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want to have my cake and eat it, too! From my outsider’s perspective, the EU’s justification is far stronger than a “cautionary tale”: a Union means a Union. No other country or state structure in the world allows its constituent members to carve out only the bits that they themselves like; that would subvert the entire point of the Union.
> No other country or state structure in the world allows its constituent members to carve out only the bits that they themselves like The EU more or less does exactly that with Norway, a non-EU country with common market access and freedom of movement etc. That was the model I recall being promoted for a UK/EU relationship. They never intended to leave the common market or eschew all regulatory commonality.
The UK also regularly complains that the EU won't let them opt-out of ECJ jurisdiction in any trade deal negotiations, which is pretty basic as far as a deal goes. US trade deals demand ISDS processes which are arguably worse, and the WTO has its own court jurisdiction for trade disputes under its treaties. All global trade requires an agreement as to who can sue where for what, which means surrendering some sovereignty.