Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 521 posts

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#511

Post by bArray »

dgellow wrote: post #487
bArray wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean when a government is elected by a low turnout, that it is also not democratic? The current UK government was elected on a 59.7% electorate turnout [1], whereas Brexit was decided based on a 72.2% electorate turnout [2]. [1] https://closer.ac.uk/contextual-data/turnout-uk-general-elec... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_U...

Democratic isn’t binary, it’s a spectrum. And I said it’s not a good example of a democratic vote, not that it is undemocratic. It’s closer to the undemocratic end of the spectrum. Though that turnout number is actually way higher than I remember, 70% is actually very high!

I don't know how it can be argued towards the undemocratic end of the spectrum, it was possibly one of the most democratic processes the UK has undergone in a long time?

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#512

Post by OkayPhysicist »

WalterBright wrote: post #382
rozab wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This means giving up all the advantages of central banking and is generally only done informally by countries experiencing hyperinflation without capital controls. It's a marker of a failed state. I remember in live TV debates for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the Yes leader insisted that Scotland could not be prevented from using the Pound sterling. It's technically true, but a very, very bad idea.

> This means giving up all the advantages of central banking and is generally only done informally by countries experiencing hyperinflation without capital controls. It's a marker of a failed state. The US did not have a central bank until 1914. And there was zero net inflation from 1800-1914. The central bank introduced endemic inflation, which appeared immediately.

By design. Having a slightly positive inflation rate gives you a cushion against deflation, which tends to cause market crashes. A currency I can be confident will lose a couple percent yearly is more useful than one that might be worth wildly different amounts year to year.

If you scroll down a bit on this page, you can see the massive inflation/deflation spikes in ~10yr cycles that existed prior to central banking.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#513

Post by snowpid »

broken-kebab wrote: post #494
snowpid wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started the discussion with the EU is infact a military alliance. You shifted the goal post by your counter argument. Talking about EU politics you have to use non English sources sometimes. Why not auto translate them?

I shifted nothing, and as we are on the nets, everybody can verify it above. I said you can stretch the notion of military alliance to cover the EU, but because nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. Like if Russia lands on IS, there's no agreement to defend it even if it joined the union. >Why not auto translate them? I did, and I clearly mentioned it. And it supports what I…

" nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. " 1.) My source claims the opposite. 2.) This is the same for NATO and Mecca Pact practically. 3.) Actually a lot of lawyers see the EU article is more stricter than the NATO article. I trust them more than a goal shifting HN poster.

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#514

Post by WalterBright »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #512
WalterBright wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This means giving up all the advantages of central banking and is generally only done informally by countries experiencing hyperinflation without capital controls. It's a marker of a failed state. The US did not have a central bank until 1914. And there was zero net inflation from 1800-1914. The central bank introduced endemic inflation, which appeared immediately.

By design. Having a slightly positive inflation rate gives you a cushion against deflation, which tends to cause market crashes. A currency I can be confident will lose a couple percent yearly is more useful than one that might be worth wildly different amounts year to year. If you scroll down a bit on this page, you can see the massive inflation/deflation spikes in ~10yr cycles that existed prior to central banking.…

> massive inflation/deflation spikes in ~10yr cycles

A 1914 dollar is worth $33 today. Great job, Fed!

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#515

Post by OkayPhysicist »

WalterBright wrote: post #514
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By design. Having a slightly positive inflation rate gives you a cushion against deflation, which tends to cause market crashes. A currency I can be confident will lose a couple percent yearly is more useful than one that might be worth wildly different amounts year to year. If you scroll down a bit on this page, you can see the massive inflation/deflation spikes in ~10yr cycles that existed prior to central banking.…

> massive inflation/deflation spikes in ~10yr cycles A 1914 dollar is worth $33 today. Great job, Fed!

You're completely missing the point. The Fed did a fantastic job, because they could have given a pretty good estimate of that number in 1914. If you had asked someone in 1814 what a dollar would be worth in 1914, hell, 1824, they would have been guessing, and been wildly wrong.

Making sure that the nitwits stuffing their mattresses with dollar bills maintain their net worth is not the goal of our monetary policy, nor is a good goal. The goal is to ensure predictability.

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#516

Post by nrr »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #515
WalterBright wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> massive inflation/deflation spikes in ~10yr cycles A 1914 dollar is worth $33 today. Great job, Fed!

You're completely missing the point. The Fed did a fantastic job, because they could have given a pretty good estimate of that number in 1914. If you had asked someone in 1814 what a dollar would be worth in 1914, hell, 1824, they would have been guessing, and been wildly wrong. Making sure that the nitwits stuffing their mattresses with dollar bills maintain their net worth is not the goal of our monetary policy, no…

To this end, we can model the price level at some point in time in a way similar to how we model compounding interest: P(t) = P(0) * (1.0 + r)^t. Take P(0) = 1.0, r = 0.032, and t = 2026-1914 = 112. Then, P(112) = 1.0 * (1.032)^112 = 34.05. We've had an average 3.2% rate of inflation in the price level over the past 112 years, give or take.

We can make certain assumptions that the rate of inflation won't be far off from this when we evaluate certain financial risks.

Just as in modeling adjustable interest rates for compounding interest, we can make r depend on t, and at that point, it becomes an ODE problem: dP/dt = r(t) * P(t).

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#517

Post by runarberg »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #464
inigyou wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would there be a limited number of ferry licenses?

Limited port capacity? Erosion? Limit disturbance of wild life? Either way it is a public resource. On one side access to a countries fishing grounds to make money from it. On the other side access to a countries tax money to make money from it. I get a feeling that you think fishermen should have some special heritage rights guaranteeing large profit margins rather than having to pay the public for the access to a s…

Iceland already has fishing fees, which is effectively a tax to use the national resource.

If you introduce capitalism into the equation you are just opening the doors for the rich to exploit the workers in a systemic manner, and the workers in this case are fishermen.

Just do a standard fishing license you apply for and pay a nominal fee which can be refunded after some conditions are met, and then hand out quota evenly (or based on capabilities, history, etc.). Iceland already has a system similar to that called Strandveiðar for small fishing boats during a small window.

OR (and I like this better) ban trawling.

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#518

Post by runarberg »

GlacierFox wrote: post #504
runarberg wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I have experienced is being in an international relationship and having to have to go through the (legal) immigration process twice. First by my married spouse immigrating to Iceland, and then again by me, and Icelandic citizen moving to the USA. What I have heard are people being deported from Europe, immigrants unable to move to the place they want to seek better life, asylum seekers sent back to the dangerous…

"Immigrants, no matter how many millions, can never cause the same harm to a fellow working European as a politician who stripes away your human rights." See this is the point where you're so out of touch with reality it's truely perplexing. Both things are horrifically damaging to a country and it's residents. Thanks for outlining the things you've 'heard'. I see my country tearing itself apart at the seams and ther…

Immigrants are not bad for your country, and claiming they are is racist.

If your country is bad it is because of the people in charge (i.e. the rich and the powerful; i.e. politicians and billionaires). If your job sucks, you blame your boss, not your most recent hires. And if you don‘t get paid enough, you blame your shareholders, not your customers.

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#519

Post by broken-kebab »

snowpid wrote: post #513
broken-kebab wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I shifted nothing, and as we are on the nets, everybody can verify it above. I said you can stretch the notion of military alliance to cover the EU, but because nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. Like if Russia lands on IS, there's no agreement to defend it even if it joined the union. >Why not auto translate them? I did, and I clearly mentioned it. And it supports what I…

" nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. " 1.) My source claims the opposite. 2.) This is the same for NATO and Mecca Pact practically . 3.) Actually a lot of lawyers see the EU article is more stricter than the NATO article. I trust them more than a goal shifting HN poster.

1. You are welcome to cite exact wording. 2. That's literally the first normal argument you expressed in the thread. I'm so delighted! NATO is practically very much different, cause it has tried-and-proven structures, drills, and more importantly American military behind it. Given the current state of affairs we of course can have our doubts, but during its existence there always has been a wide consensus, that the USA considers NATO members its area of responsibility, and are ready to act. And the alliance's Article 5 is way more obliging. Once agreed it forces members to regard themselves to be in conflict. 3. Good ones, bad ones, imagined ones? Care to show them?

Ad hominem doesn't make anybody look smart. Dishonest ad hominem, I guess, even worse?

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#520

Post by jijijijij »

testing22321 wrote: post #457
jijijijij wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would be tripwire forces located in Greenland. The US would likely be required to directly engage European troops. I would expect Europe to let the carrier know it got no chance before it even starts shit, in the above scenario. Like when the US under Biden surfaced a nuclear triad sub in the Baltic Sea to dampen Russia's nuclear threats against Europe, early in the Ukraine war. Not sure Europe could afford to…

> It would be wise for them [Canada] to stand with Europe, if they want to keep their own independence. NATO article 5 says they have to. And I have no doubt they would. There is only one country that is reneging on their commitments. It ain’t Canada.

No one knows what NATO even means, if the US of all countries attacks a member state. Eg. there is no legal procedure for the US to leave NATO. There isn't really a NATO without the US. Although many countries would be advised to stand by the general idea of collective defense to ensure protection against other big players, following through is anything but certain. Therefore article 5 obligations are not particularly straightforward in this case.

That's why merely the US rhetoric is damaging to the deterrence function of NATO (and global peace, nuclear disarmament for that matter). It's different for the EU, because the EU membership itself has collective defense obligations in case of attack. The EU got lucky France had an independent nuclear program, as we can't really count on the UK anymore, because they are not part of the EU anymore and also depend on the US technologically. That said, countries like Germany are expected to be able to gain nuclear capabilities quickly, if they have to.

Post reply on HN