Angela Merkel new German Chancellor

[Streathamite]

I would say the US locks up too many people. Its a big problem. The US has it's problems.

And so does Germany.

well that was the most insightful, incisive and useful statement of the week, wasn't it?

 

[mears]

well that was the most insightful, incisive and useful statement of the week, wasn't it?

I can admit the US has problems. But the thing of it is, this is a thread on the new German Chancellor. But people around here are really interested in one thing.

All America all the time.

 

[mears]

Thing is that I doubt that mears cares about the ideological position of his sources, just so long as he can use them to support his thesis. Most people realise that "think tanks" exist purely to create ideologically-loaded extrapolations of data. It's all about interpretation, and anyone who believes that "thinktanks" produce truth rather than an interpretation of it is either doing so from deliberate choice or is an idiot.

Of course, that leaves mears's "arguments" open to dissection and dismemberment, but by his usual skillful avoidance of answering any hard questions put to him and merely reiterating the same second-rate material time and again, he feels some form of security.

I suppose it's all about avoiding cognitive dissonance.

What sources should I use? How do we determine the standard of living amongst peoples if not sources I have used.

What sources do you use?

Exactly

 

[nino_savatte]

I can admit the US has problems. But the thing of it is, this is a thread on the new German Chancellor. But people around here are really interested in one thing.

All America all the time.

Oh really? You seem to have a selective blindness most of the time and as usual you end this post with the by now, familiar catchphrase. Only problem is, it isn't based on anything like the truth - is it?

 

[nino_savatte]

What sources should I use? How do we determine the standard of living amongst peoples if not sources I have used.

What sources do you use?

Exactly

Your means of measurement, as has been pointed out, is flawed and has been conscripted to provide you with emotional support and comfort. Which is interesting, given the fact that Randists are unfeeling automatons with superiority complexes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What sources should I use? How do we determine the standard of living amongst peoples if not sources I have used.

Are you a halfwit?
As I said in the post you quoted, sources that give the data, not an interpretation of it.
I think yuo'll find that even poor nations have bureaux of national statistics.

What sources do you use?

Exactly

Exactly my arse.
If I use sources I use ones that provide the raw material, not partisan interpretations of it. I prefer people to make up their own minds, rather than have them fed a diet of simplified and pre-digested goo.

 

[mears]

Are you a halfwit?
As I said in the post you quoted, sources that give the data, not an interpretation of it.
I think yuo'll find that even poor nations have bureaux of national statistics.

Exactly my arse.
If I use sources I use ones that provide the raw material, not partisan interpretations of it. I prefer people to make up their own minds, rather than have them fed a diet of simplified and pre-digested goo.

You have no game, and it really shows when no one attempts to bail you out, as in this case. You refuse to believe the sources though they are straightforward and credible.

But where are your sources? Mine are wrong you believe, but you are unable to tell me where to look. Where can I get credible information on standards of living in the US and Europe? If not GNP per capita, than what? If not Sweedish economists than whom?

Don't get me wrong. I don't want you to come up with anything. I constantly ask the question hoping you are unable to answer.

And in fact you are unable.

 

[In Bloom]

I can admit the US has problems. But the thing of it is, this is a thread on the new German Chancellor. But people around here are really interested in one thing.

All America all the time.

You pretty much said that the German economy would be better if the government converted to your quasi-religious brand of voodoo economics, of the kind practiced in America. Do you have some kind of objection to good examples?

 

[mears]

You pretty much said that the German economy would be better if the government converted to your quasi-religious brand of voodoo economics, of the kind practiced in America. Do you have some kind of objection to good examples?

I believe they would be better off it they reformed their labour system. No more 35 hour work weeks for instance. Make it easier to fire people. Make it easier to hire people. Take the steps to cut into their double digit unemployment rate.

You represent the status quo. You are on the side of those lucky enough to have a job and those 4 week paid vacations, full health care, full pensions, 35 hour work weeks. Those who don't want a change in the system that might make it easier to hire additional workers. And why should they want a change in the system? They have it good.

Or is this not what you represent? Don't let me speak for you.

 

[In Bloom]

I believe they would be better off it they reformed their labour system. No more 35 hour work weeks for instance. Make it easier to fire people. Make it easier to hire people. Take the steps to cut into their double digit unemployment rate.

Where is the evidence that this would cut the unemployment rate? Thatcher rolled back huge ammounts of progress acheived by the unions, the results - soaring unemployment levels.

You represent the status quo. You are on the side of those lucky enough to have a job and those 4 week paid vacations, full health care, full pensions, 35 hour work weeks. Those who don't want a change in the system that might make it easier to hire additional workers. And why should they want a change in the system? They have it good.

Or is this not what you represent? Don't let me speak for you.

Personally, I'd be happiest scrapping the whole bloody lot. But in the short term, I'm all for minimum wages, strong unions, paid vacations. Everybody benefits, except for the bosses, who I couldn't give a rats arse about.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You have no game, and it really shows when no one attempts to bail you out, as in this case. You refuse to believe the sources though they are straightforward and credible.

Who is playing a "game"?
As for "credible sources", when I see the word "credible" I presume that what is being discussed is raw data or primary data that hasn't been subjected to interpretation, you appear to think it means interpreted data given a politically partisan synthesis.
You appear to assume I need "bailing out", perhaps what's actually happening is that I don't need "bailing out". Perhaps people are laughing at your CREDULITY so hard they can't be bothered to set you straight.

But where are your sources? Mine are wrong you believe, but you are unable to tell me where to look. Where can I get credible information on standards of living in the US and Europe? If not GNP per capita, than what? If not Sweedish economists than whom?

Don't get me wrong. I don't want you to come up with anything. I constantly ask the question hoping you are unable to answer.

And in fact you are unable.

And again:
Credible information: The Bureau of National Statistics (or whatever the name might be in any individual country) is where you should get your data from. It's where your "Sweedish[sic] economists" would have looked for their source material.

Hell, it might mean pulling your finger out of your arsehole and having to actually look for data, so I can see why the thought of not receiving your information pre-digested causes you so much angst.

 

[mears]

Who is playing a "game"?
As for "credible sources", when I see the word "credible" I presume that what is being discussed is raw data or primary data that hasn't been subjected to interpretation, you appear to think it means interpreted data given a politically partisan synthesis.
You appear to assume I need "bailing out", perhaps what's actually happening is that I don't need "bailing out". Perhaps people are laughing at your CREDULITY so hard they can't be bothered to set you straight.


And again:
Credible information: The Bureau of National Statistics (or whatever the name might be in any individual country) is where you should get your data from. It's where your "Sweedish[sic] economists" would have looked for their source material.

Hell, it might mean pulling your finger out of your arsehole and having to actually look for data, so I can see why the thought of not receiving your information pre-digested causes you so much angst.

Again, thank you for not answering.

 

[nino_savatte]

Again, thank you for not answering.

He did answer but as per usual you have chosen not to see it.

 

[Isambard]

I take it you lads and lasses are "holding the end up" so I shall stay quiet here in Oz!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Again, thank you for not answering.

No, thank you for working so hard to reinforce many board-users' opinion of you as a credulous fool.

 

[Streathamite]

I can admit the US has problems. But the thing of it is, this is a thread on the new German Chancellor. But people around here are really interested in one thing.

All America all the time.

oh jesus wept. are you being quite serious? It was actually you who has conntinually compared USA and europe on this thread, and led the thread's narrative back to that comparison.

 

[ViolentPanda]

oh jesus wept. are you being quite serious? It was actually you who has conntinually compared USA and europe on this thread, and led the thread's narrative back to that comparison.

he's good at that.

BTW Jezza, are you one of those evil people who mears mentions in post #127 of this thread where he says apropos of the supposed poorness of my case that "no one attempts to bail you out"?

'Cos I think I should be told if you think my case is poor you know. Be harsh, I can take it from you , probably because I actually respect your opinion, whereas mears' means nothing to me.

Mind you, I suppose it could be his case that is shabby.

Nah, that couldn't possibly be it, it must be my fault! My G-d, what a bastard I am!

 

[mears]

Here is an article from a couple days ago. It seems the new Chancellor will fight against new spending. A telling quote:Merkel said "Germany’s “frightening” debt levels meant the economy would not be able to tolerate new budget obligations."

Meanwhile the new Chancellor doesn't even rate her countries economy as one of the top three in Europe.
"Chancellor Angela Merkel today said she aimed to get Germany’s economy back among the top three in Europe, sending a signal of optimism as she set out her new government’s programme."
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=164308792&p=y643x9498

 

[Isambard]

Utterly meaningless of course and to a large extent, wrong.

Germany is banned by the ECB from creating more than 3% new state debt compared to GDP by the European Central Bank.

Also, the German constitution itself forbids the federal government of creating more new debt than the money that is gong for investment.

The estwhile partner of Merkel's party, the FDP has already threatened to go before the constitutional court to have any uconsitutonal budget blocked.

 

[fishfingerer]

Personally, I'd be happiest scrapping the whole bloody lot. But in the short term, I'm all for minimum wages, strong unions, paid vacations. Everybody benefits, except for the bosses, who I couldn't give a rats arse about.

There's no minimum wage in Germany because the unions are so strong.

 

[In Bloom]

There's no minimum wage in Germany because the unions are so strong.

Really?

 

[Streathamite]

BTW Jezza, are you one of those evil people who mears mentions in post #127 of this thread where he says apropos of the supposed poorness of my case that "no one attempts to bail you out"?

'Cos I think I should be told if you think my case is poor you know. Be harsh, I can take it from you , probably because I actually respect your opinion, whereas mears' means nothing to me.

Mind you, I suppose it could be his case that is shabby.

Nah, that couldn't possibly be it, it must be my fault! My G-d, what a bastard I am!

awe shucks
nope you got it nailed. his tortutured, twisted selected 'facts' from people with the most partisan of axes to grind, and his failure to consider any other factors is positively pbmaniac
and TIMBRO? jesus. they make the adam smith foundation look balanced and objective
edit to add; didn't join in earlier as didn't have time to read thread. have to get back to work now as have loads of innocent gullible programmers to deceive and manipulate

 

[ViolentPanda]

awe shucks
nope you got it nailed. his tortutured, twisted selected 'facts' from people with the most partisan of axes to grind, and his failure to consider any other factors is positively pbmaniac
and TIMBRO? jesus. they make the adam smith foundation look balanced and objective

Having read some Adam Smith, including bks 1-3 of "The Wealth of Nations", I've never quite been able to work out how the Adam Smith Institute have the cheek to use that name, given their partisan interpretation of his work.

edit to add; didn't join in earlier as didn't have time to read thread. have to get back to work now as have loads of innocent gullible programmers to deceive and manipulate

That time of year again?

"Hello little computer spod. So you want to work for Acmecorp, do you? Well I'm the guy to get you that position. Just sign this contract in blood..."

"What's that? Of course not, just the firstborn".

 

[nino_savatte]

Having read some Adam Smith, including bks 1-3 of "The Wealth of Nations", I've never quite been able to work out how the Adam Smith Institute have the cheek to use that name, given their partisan interpretation of his work.

That really pisses me off too. It seems to me none of them have actually read the book properly. Madsen twatting Pirie!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

That really pisses me off too. It seems to me none of them have actually read the book properly. Madsen twatting Pirie!!

It's all to do with the way they interpret the idea of "the invisible hand" though, isn't it? Some (like Pirie) interpret it to mean laissez faire is the order of the day, others that all things being equal a market will function at/settle to equilibrium.

 

[nino_savatte]

It's all to do with the way they interpret the idea of "the invisible hand" though, isn't it? Some (like Pirie) interpret it to mean laissez faire is the order of the day, others that all things being equal a market will function at/settle to equilibrium.

All in all, it's a little like religion (and Pirie is the High Priest) in that respect; with the ASI being some sort of cult devoted to the worship of free market economics.

 

[Fuchs66]

Really?

Yes it's true there is no minimum wage, that's how employers here get away with legally hiring East Europeans for a pittance.