 |
With the conclusion of G-20, what do you think it will lead to?
Did Obama give away the store, and will the economic future of the US be under the control of this group?
If so, is that not a violation of our Constitution that clearly says that our own government is responsible for the issuing of our money?
If you think he gave the store away at the G-20 summit, just wait until the Copenhagen free for all that's coming up. That will make your hair curl and turn white in comparison.
If we are lucky the G-20 will lead to greater cooperation but the US has to realise it is no longer in the drivers seat, other nations have strong economic power. Your constitution is only applicable within your borders so if you are debtor nation, as you are, you can expect that someoneelse will be ordering your decisions. Since your currency is an international medium of exchange that might mean that you have to do something to maintain its value, such as reigning in your national debt and not printing money to get yourselves out of the crisis your lack of self control caused.. Others have found they have had to bite the bullet.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Clete ;excellent point. It is hard to argue autonomy as a debter nation. It's like the zombie banks ,with the government havng a large equity share trying to argue they can set salaries.
It will lead to what is is intended to lead to,a Global economy and a one world order.
It's the beginning of the end!
Hello
I remember speaking to my great grandfather who was born at the tail end of the height of the britsih empire
He had thoughts in the 70s that as a country we were giving away too much power to the EU, losing our controlover our finances and the like
Truth is, with the world getting smaller and smaller, and economics showing us that cooperation is the only way forward, we need a council to sit at the top representing all interested parties
As much as I hate the concept of the EU as I am ENglish and wish to remain English in my heart, my head knows we have to agree with other countries if world trade and world peace can be realised and not just a dream
No longer can a single country stand alone - it just isn't feasible, so we need to speak to the French and the Germans and be friends, which considering our history together, if we can do it then so can everyone else
PS I still sing Two World Wars and One world Cup in Germany - that will never change :)
Phlanx,Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
I have just one question.
Where does it say that a country needs to give up its autonomy in order to cooperate economically with other nations? When did political autonomy (or the end thereof) become linked to economic cooperation?
Elliot
Salvo Elliot,
It doesn't, however for economic union, there must also be trade union
Simple regulations that govern the manufacture of goods are becoming universal
As these regulations grow so does the need for unionson of political parties
Within the EU, all member states are at the table negotiating, when they have decided on a ruling, then all member states move forward in the same direction
Few countries within the EU have the right to Veto (decide to not follow the ruling) this is the right mostly of the founding members
However most of the newer states have a need to follow without veto as they will receive aid, cooperation, trade etc
This as you I am sure could argue is giving away some of its autonomy
But then we are back at square one with our argument
Individuality or work together?
The old eastern blocks have suffered and fallen behined the rest of us on devolopment, so they give up some rights for what they are seeing as the better deal
Regardless though of the political agenda behind unionifcation of a continent, if you want to trade with the EU you have to abide by its regulations
Just as if we want to trade with the US we must abide by your rules
Eventually all regulations for products will be similar around the world, ecomically the rules around the world are starting to fall into line with each other, and isn't part of what we are fighting for in the middle east, a democratic world?
This doesn't change the fact that you are an american and I am english, we will still sit at opposite ends of a stadium
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Why?Quote:
Within the EU, all member states are at the table negotiating, when they have decided on a ruling, then all member states move forward in the same direction
Do you consider this to be a good thing? Do you think that the few should decide the fate of the many?Quote:
Few countries within the EU have the right to Veto (decide to not follow the ruling) this is the right mostly of the founding members
No, the question is working together as individuals, or working together as a single homogenous body. BOTH are cooperative, but only one of them allows for personal determination.Quote:
However most of the newer states have a need to follow without veto as they will receive aid, cooperation, trade etc
This as you I am sure could argue is giving away some of its autonomy
But then we are back at square one with our argument
Individuality or work together?
Again, why? Why should ANYONE do that when there is an alternative?Quote:
The old eastern blocks have suffered and fallen behined the rest of us on devolopment, so they give up some rights for what they are seeing as the better deal
I disagree. If we wish to trade with each other, then what we need to abide by is the INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT under which the deal is operating. There is no need to give up autonomy to accomplish that goal.Quote:
Regardless though of the political agenda behind unionifcation of a continent, if you want to trade with the EU you have to abide by its regulations
Just as if we want to trade with the US we must abide by your rules
I thought that democracy was the right to individual self determination. I guess I was wrong... I guess it means having another country's rules imposed on you. My mistake.Quote:
Eventually all regulations for products will be similar around the world, ecomically the rules around the world are starting to fall into line with each other, and isn't part of what we are fighting for in the middle east, a democratic world?
Elliot
Elliot,
Your thoughts are a little draconian mate
Lets try this tactic :)
A democratic scoiety has the right to freedom of choice
Companies are a major supplier of this choice
Industry looks at available markets to sell to
Businesses want to expand into new markets but don't want to redisgn the product to suit a countries old regulations
Governments are lobbied to introduce measures that will force new markets to accept the higher standards
Companies supply old product to new market to make more profit
This is in effect what is happening in the EU - the individual contries have a right to choose - except the deal or not
Surely that is at the heart of what you are saying, but instead of looking at Eliot, in the US, the system is looking at the bigger picture of 7bn in the world
Nowhere in your argument do you state cultural influience as a factor in determining self determination
It is impossible for anybody in this world not be influienced by another person, or countries attitude
I am English, I wear the english rose and three lions with pride, doesn't mean I don't like some of the culture from the far east, and if I had a choice I would have an ornamental garden
I am still an individual, making freedom of choice of a lifestyle, while at the same time, happy in the knowledge that the products I buy are of the highest standards possible, made by companies that follow a democratic rule system, that helps both me and the rest of the chimps on planet earth
Very simplifed view of what it takes to get to that point, but still, the idea that an individual has self rule is in my opinon an illusion
PS. EU is like or going to be like you system of government, senate or MEP house, president at the top, so everybody has an equal say on lobbying, but those that have the most power on lobbying are those that have the money and are willing to send it the countries to help raise their standards
Actually, I would think the imposition of a centralized government over the will of the individual states would be considered draconian. I'm actually the OPPOSITE of draconian... I'm acting "libertarian" or "classical liberal" in this sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
What you seem to be saying is that if I want to sell one product to one company in one country in the EU, I have to accept ALL of the EU's rules and regulations. Or else I can choose to sell to NONE of them. Those are my only options under your scenario.Quote:
Lets try this tactic :)
A democratic scoiety has the right to freedom of choice
Companies are a major supplier of this choice
Industry looks at available markets to sell to
Businesses want to expand into new markets but don't want to redisgn the product to suit a countries old regulations
Governments are lobbied to introduce measures that will force new markets to accept the higher standards
Companies supply old product to new market to make more profit
This is in effect what is happening in the EU - the individual contries have a right to choose - except the deal or not
Surely that is at the heart of what you are saying, but instead of looking at Eliot, in the US, the system is looking at the bigger picture of 7bn in the world
Under my scenario, I can sell any product I want to any company under whatever terms are worked out between the two parties regardless of who runs the government. I can do this as many times as I wish, without having the rules of other countries imposed on me.
You tell me which of these two scenarios is better for business.
And my 9-year-old son plays soccer (that's "football" to you Brits).Quote:
Nowhere in your argument do you state cultural influience as a factor in determining self determination
It is impossible for anybody in this world not be influienced by another person, or countries attitude
I am English, I wear the english rose and three lions with pride, doesn't mean I don't like some of the culture from the far east, and if I had a choice I would have an ornamental garden
Does the fact that we accept certain influences that WE CHOOSE to accept mean that we have to accept the imposition of another country's rules and regulations? We take what we want and leave the rest... without having the rest impose on us from outside.
Are you?Quote:
I am still an individual, making freedom of choice of a lifestyle,
So I can only do business with companies that follow a democratic rule system? I can't buy cheap knicknacks from China anymore? Or Korea? Can't buy oil from Saudi Arabia? Can't buy diamonds from Africa? None of these countries operate their countries under "democratic rule".Quote:
while at the same time, happy in the knowledge that the products I buy are of the highest standards possible, made by companies that follow a democratic rule system, that helps both me and the rest of the chimps on planet earth
That's because your system, with life under the EU, really DOESN'T have self rule for individuals. We still do, and I'm trying to keep us from going in the direction that you have, where self-determination becomes an illusion.Quote:
Very simplifed view of what it takes to get to that point, but still, the idea that an individual has self rule is in my opinon an illusion
If it is imposed from the outside, it doesn't matter if it's "just the same" as our system or not. It isn't our system.Quote:
PS. EU is like or going to be like you system of government, senate or MEP house, president at the top, so everybody has an equal say on lobbying, but those that have the most power on lobbying are those that have the money and are willing to send it the countries to help raise their standards
Elliot
The end of what? The US lording it over the rest of the world? Viva la revolution!Quote:
Originally Posted by artlady
Elliot, firstly Draconian, meaning rigorous; unusually severe or cruel: Draconian forms of punishment. Probably not the best word to pick - but was my first choice at the time :)
Eu Regs - You have to abide by the rules that govern that particular product - so whichever way you look at it, if the US wants to sell their products they must meet the standards required for that product - Stop Nit Picking :)
Under your scenario you could bring a product to the market that could do harm, the problem with that it could kill people - if you learn from the past we can move to the future, we don't want mistakes happening again, or "dodgy" companies
Elliot your scenario only works if everybody is lawabiding and nice - and that isn't going to happen
Football - (never soccor) is governed by FiFA - a world organistaion that sets out the rules and regs for the entire world
What rules your son abides to so do we here. These rules are covered by a council elected by the individual FA's (Football Assciations - in every country) This is then a democratic elected body, governed by the interests of the business with influence from every country - Wow thanks for proving my point - yet again
Democratic rule, was me stating what us the western world would like to see happen elsewhere, I was taking about eutopian ideals
Besides, let me know once a set of rules have been written that precisily describe democracy - it seems that by virtue of "what it is, it cannot be determined to what it shall be"
Illusion, lets face it any control you think you have over your life is an illusion anyway
You have to understand something, I am proud to be a subject of the crown, as such my first thought on how britain should be is based upon a monachical system, Europe for me is purely a way of establishing peace, and where as it has many flaws, so far it is heading in the right direction to keep stability to this region
As regards your system - what is this, "it is my ball and I am going home" - can't we share :)
My interest is that I most certainly DON'T want foreign laws imposed on me and my family.
So maybe an economic agreement will not lead to that.
But we do live in a world of the "golden rule". He who has the gold rules, and it matters very little who writes the laws.
Any international treaty has the potential to take away what our Constitution promises.
That is exactly why Obama is so dangerous. What he doesn't give away on purpose, he may give away because of his inexperience.
Wonderful sentiment that, have you thought that the other 95% of the population of the world are of the same opinion. We don't want US laws and US ideas of democracy imposed on us. Is this because we necessarily think these things are bad, no, just that they may not apply to our circumstances, our culture or our ethos.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
We are in agreement, Clete.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
But what Phlanx is proposing is that the USA become part of the EU... becoming subserviant to the EU's rules and regulations. I think it's a bad idea, and apparently so do you.
Personally, I think the idea of an EU is a bad idea, because it imposes rules and regulations that, as you describe it, "may not apply to our circumstances, our culture or our ethos" on everyone.
Elliot
Elliot
Stop putting words in my mouth!
And that's why I stopped arguing with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Hahhaa, I always find it interestingQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
When an argument that is so rigid and does not bend, then the people who make it try to bend the argument of the opponent
I think this is a backwards way of saying they can't find a reason not to compromise and change, but just can't say it out loud
Which words would those be?Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
On one hand I see you arguing that the USA should become part of the EU and be subsumed by it's rules.
On the other hand I see you arguing that Russia should not.
What words did I put in your mouth?
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:47 AM. |