TacticalEvilDan

Lol, misdirection

Seriously, if that guy thinks the USA is the big bad Satan, he hasn't been paying attention to who pulls the strings.

__________________
DURKA DURKA JIHAD

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
-- Abraham Lincoln

PeteEU

Give me a break. You continue to ramble along with no facts. I have clearly shown in the freaking treaty of Rome, the reasoning for CAP, and you have produced nothing but some historical "facts" that no one could disagree with, as every single country through out time has had protectionistic laws for business or people.. in the middle ages they just killed people going over the border with goods.

Oh yea.. seen the new Free Air treaty between the US and Europe? If the US is a standard bearer of tarde liberalisation, then why are non Americans not allowed to own more than 25% of a US airline, where as in Europe the non Europeans are allowed to own 50%? Why if the US is a standard bearer of trade liberalisation, are no non US airlines allowed to fly between US cities, but US airlines are allowed to fly between European cities? As for the UK, its a bit hard to tell as the UK has been in the EU and in the trade liberalisation the EU has put in place. And what about the free trade agreement that the US has just droped with Colombia and is doing the same with South Korea?

So near slave labour is okay then as long as they get "paid" something? Comparative advantage is a THEORY, and THEORIES dont work in the real world for the most part.

No, I understand why it was put in place and as long as those factors are still valid then I understand why they have too remain. Personally I want all forms of corporate welfare to disappear, but that requires a free market, and that aint gonna happen.

Ever heard of logic? A blind man can see what will happen in market that is use to subsidies and suddenly when those subsidies disappear and you have to sell at world market prices. Costs > price = bankrupt. And dont try to deny that will happen. Even if the subsidies were drawn down over a decade, the effect will mean more bankrupcies and bigger "corporate" farms, the very type of farm that you have been so negative about.

So its suddenly bad to safegaurd national interests, like having a food production?

We will see, but I agree they will probally find another way to get money out of the state.. but that would have happened with or without the EU and happens on a national level all the time.

Only if the market was free, and it will NEVER be free as long as other nations have protectionistic laws in place. I dont deny the theories one bit, all I am saying is that like all theories they dont often work in the real world and often have alot of ifs and butts attached. You are totaly overlooking what the US would do, what Japan would do and random 3rd world country would do. All this has effects on your "theory".

You have presented nothing, no links no nothing.

I fully understand the "wonders of comparative advantage" and they look sweet on paper. But the real world is not theory, and comparative advantage is damn hard to get to work and I would rather not be the testing ground for economic theories, when other nations could care less about the theory of comparative advantage.

I agree political integration is not warrented at this time. As for economic intergration.. define it.. seriously, try splitting a free trade area and economic intergration appart, and making that free trade area a fair place to do business in. You keep rambling on about free trade area or agreements.. again name one that has given the same benifits as the EU has.

Compared to what it once was, yes. Today any EU citizen can move to any country and work. That is a key to movement of labour and more and more are doing it. Its no where near as it is internally in many countries, but its a begining.

What a load of crap. In the area I live, there are 250.000 brits living and working, and it aint in the UK. Is that a bit of xenophobia showing?

It is cucumber straightening as the EU does not produce bananas, and yes it is true, but not for the reasons that the anti EU crowd go rambling about. Standardisation of equipment has benifited the EU hugely, in lower costs for companies. If it was not for the EU we could have potentially had 25 different standards of every single product, and that would increase costs hugely.

Whatever, you are clearly not willing to debate facts.

EU Budget in detail - The current year

The budget for CAP fell 1.5%

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Q&A: Common Agricultural Policy

It also fell in 2004, and in 1998 and was pretty stable most other years. And before you go ape**** about the 2005 number.. new members means bigger budget.

Fact is that CAP has been a relative shrinking part of the overall EU budget for years now.

Prove it frankly, as there are plenty of articles on the web that say exactly what I have been stating.

BBC NEWS - Search Results For WTO

Many of the links there, show everyone to blame, from Brazil, to India, to China, to the US and yes to the UK.

That was Maggie Thatchers policies, not the EUs. Your recession was worse because of the failed policies of the past and present that lead to an economic melt down.

I have presented my evidence.. the UK is the second biggest economy in the EU! Aint that enough to show that the UK has shown considerable growth since it entered the EEC?

You are the one that mentioned a "structural break", whatever you mean by that beacuse you have yet to define it.

Ahh avoidance or just not willing to provide credible proof?

__________________
PeteEU

Scucca

Chortle, chortle, you can indeed refer to the weasel words! Golly gosh, who'd have thought? Understanding the nature of the EU requires a tad more effort dear chap. I've given you an understanding of the economic history and the nature of the main players. That CAP has played such a dominate role in European affairs is supportive of my stance.

Personally I'm rather sick of the worm-tonguing from the Europeans. Take all the guff they come out with regards supporting the promotion of democracy. The nobleness brings a tear to my eye, so it does! However, once we focus on the details we see them as the tut-worthy types that they are. As an example, consider Crawford (2005, The European Union and Democracy Promotion in Africa: The Case of Ghana, The European Journal of Development Research, Vol 17, pp. 571-600):

"This article contrasts European Union (EU) democracy promotion policy in Africa with the reality of its implementation in Ghana. The rhetorical vigour of EU democracy promotion policy is outlined initially, followed by an investigation into EU democracy and governance assistance in Ghana, inclusive of European Community and member states' support. It is found that the policy is high on rhetoric but remains low on delivery. It is argued that if policy performance is poor in Ghana, a favourable political environment, then it is unlikely to be better elsewhere in Africa. Three explanatory propositions of the rhetoric-reality gap are outlined, one bureaucratic, one political and one economic, and then applied to the Ghana case. Conclusions are two-fold. First, the EU's political activities in Africa are driven more by its self-interests than by the norms and principles of democratic governance. Second, democracy is narrowly conceived by the EU, being more concerned with limiting state power than extending popular control, consistent with hegemonic neo-liberalism."

So much for the weaseling...

It is factual to remark that Britain's and the US's periods of hegemonic power have corresponded with periods of trade liberalisation. It is also factual to remark that neither powers utilised the folly of agricultural subsidisation to the same extent as conservative Europe.

What an ignorant comment! If you knew anything about comparative advantage you'd know that labour wins in a labour abundant country. To be fair, it doesn't surprise me to see a Europhile so scared of applying economic analysis correctly.

That desire is inconsistent with support for the EU. The EU is a vehicle to enable such welfare after all.

In other words, you are reduced to fear-mongering ponce. You should write for the Daily Mail

I do hate to have to repeat myself! I'm against corporate welfare. I am not against the growth in the average size of the farm. Productivity maximisation is of course important.

Still herded by the worm-tonguing? Do you think those millions given to Prince Charles were about safe-guarding national interests? Be serious!

Supra-national organisation reduces/eliminates electoral competition. The gravy train is untouchable.

The existence of other protectionism only ensures that the international price does not become standard. It does not dispute my reasoning. A Britain, free from the disgusting CAP corporate welfare, would have food prices tending towards the New Zealand prices.

You're continuing to fail to understand comparative advantage. It is based on the notion of opportunity costs, something that you cannot dismiss. The only “theory for the real world” that needs to be considered is how comparative advantage is formed. For example, we'd have to consider how Britain's trade represented an “accident” generated by her naval dominance. However, here we do not have such worries. The British population (including those poor folk you don't mind crucifying with high prices) would benefit from greater trade with land abundant country.

Not at all! If the likes of the US did not follow suit (although their subsidies are already substantially lower than Europe's!), she would be harming her own population. If you knew your trade theory, you'd know that “beggar thy neighbour” protectionism is reliant on market power. Whilst there are loads of very very fat yanks, their importance for world food consumption is not that crucial!

It is not my fault that the concept of a library is alien to you

That clearly is a tad of a fib!

Preferential trade agreements can be broadly separated into free trade areas, custom unions and economic unions. The benefits from such agreements (assuming no impact on multilateralism of course) are dominated by trade creation effects. Those effects only require free trade areas.

There is no preferential trade agreement that can mirror the damage generated by the folly of the EU.

No integration of labour markets has occurred.

More crassness. How abhorrent!

You struggle to actually refer to the points raised. Are you denying that the significant movement of Eastern European labour has been damaging for the home countries?

Nonsense! Standardisation will naturally occur with globalisation. There is absolutely no need for a supra-national organisation to dictate it.

You really should not let your Europhiling pollute your ability to use simple data. Your very own source shows that subsidies have followed an upward trend, making your “all I remember is that years ago, I read that EU subsidies were being phased down slowly” even more ridiculous

What do you want me to prove? That agricultural subsidies are more important for the EU than the US? The EU locked itself into continued budget folly until 2013. At the same time, it is just factual to note that US subsidies are significantly lower.

Golly, you mean you can now see that there are non-EEC reasons behind developments in the British economy? Well done!

Ouch, back already to making spurious conclusion? That brief interlude with understanding ceteris paribus was way too short

It's awfully simple. Can you refer to any source that shows that, after controlling for all other variables, EEC membership generated an upward shift in Britain's economic performance?

You shouldn't be so scared of books! However, I'd hate for you to be provoked into a book burning, so perhaps you'd like to refer to one diddy source that provides an empirical investigation into the impact of EEC membership on Britain's growth?

__________________

PeteEU

LOL, talk about attempting to change the subject. We are not talking about Ghana, we are not talking about the big bad EU, but about C.A.P and its origins and that is in the Treaty of Rome article 39.

The US use at least 16 billion dollars in direct farm subsidies today. And you have yet to prove that the US and UK are the standard bearers of trade liberalisation. I have infact proven the opposite.

U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement put on hold - Los Angeles Times

Thats free trade?

And what a bull**** reply. You know as well as I do, that labour can not win in a dictatorship, where the "party" grants business owners (often also the party) unchecked power to do whatever they want and produce whatever they want.

Hardly. The EU is today much more than C.A.P and if it was not for the EU, Ireland would not be what it is today. You might think that helping struggling poor people is "corprate welfare", but I dont. Having an organisation like the EU, to advance regions of Europe that live in poverty, is frankly a godsend. It has improved the lives of many many people, even in the UK.

Funny, considering the Daily Mail is one of the most xenophobic anti Euro papers in the UK. And considering you have been fear-mongering since the start of the debate, usualy using half truths and economic theory that would never make it in the real world.

Very well, but you have not been clear at all. Are you against mega farms?

If Prince Charles has a farm thats contributing to food making, then yes. Or are you one of those people who think we should make laws that has exceptions for certain "type of people"? Goes against every principle of democracy and governance to make laws or part of laws excempt people based on religion, race, sex or economic standing. Not saying its not done though. And I would agree, that people like Charles should not recieve money from the EU because they can acutally afford not too.

Sigh, one can say that about any goverment.

WOW, economics 101.. so freaking what. Its a THEORY, that has a very hard time in the real word. Like it or not, for it to become even remotely usuable, all protectionistc laws have to be abanonded and that aint gonna happen.

And you dont get it. You live in a world of theories that belong in a text book. I fully understand comparative advantage, but it is you that do not understand that it will NOT WORK in the world we have today, unless serious changes are made in every single country.

So you are saying, that if the EU droped all its protectionistic laws, that the rest of the world including the US would follow suit? .... sure, and Santa Claus is real right?

Hello, we are discussing online. Provide the links so we can confirm you claims coming form some book, else find something else that backs your view up online.

Again living in a book. You are rambling on about theories that have never been succesfully proven even before the EU.

So you cant and are trying to change the subject again.

Hey, you did not say intergration, but movement. As for integration of labour markets, yes there has been very little but it is still early days. Freedom of movement of labour within the EU is not that old. But we dont have the same labour laws or unemployment laws and so on. But we do have the right to work and live in any EU state without requiring a crapload of visas and papers just to enter the country and settle. Thats the first step in an integration, the freedom of movement of labour. Why are you afraid of intergration of the labour markets?

In the UK? Yes. In the rest of Europe? Yes. Let me guess you are gonna cite some xenophobic article to prove your point? We had the same debate when Spain and Greece entered, and the same debate when Poland entered. The xenophobic comments have still yet to be proven.

Says who!? Name one form of standardisation that has occured across several borders without the help a "supra-natiional organisation". Or are you living in theory world again? We cant even agree on what side of the road to drive, or what voltage to use in the freaking plug, and you expect the free market to some how "standardise" stuff?

Ahh avoiding the subject again. Seems you overlooked last years decline, the decline in 2004, 1998. You missed that the % of CAP of the total budget has fallen, and of course that the EU has expanded several times, which means a larger CAP budget because more nations put money into it. As usualy, you focus on one little thing instead of the whole picture.

Again avoid to answer. Yes the US has less subsidies than the EU.. about 1/4 in direct subsidies. But what you tend to forget is the number of farms, and sizes.

According to Eurostat Yearbook (a book you can get Online), the EU-25 have over 9,8 million farms in 2003 (latest numbers).. that is quite a number compared to the 2.1 million in the US. The US subsidy budget is about 16. billion dollars last I looked, and the EUs is 55 billion euros. Now it does not take much math to see that per farm the EU pays much less than the US does even with the dollar tanking as much as it is.

You cant prove that the EEC did not have an impact on the UK economy after membership. I have never claimed that the EEC was the whole reason that the UK economy is today so good. I have claimed that it was a good portion of the reason.

Well did it not? You are today the 2nd largest economy in Europe. Let me guess, you gonna claim you did it all on your own and the EEC/EU had nothing to do with it? Seen Santa Clause yet?

Books have no relevance on an online discussion if you cant provide the links to quotes from said books. We have no way of confirming what you are claiming is true. I can quote loads of books, papers and magazines, but they wount be accepted on these boards or on other online boards unless a link for confirmation can be provided. As for you book burning comment.. pathetic.

Scucca

I haven't changed the subject. I've demonstrated, quite succinctly, the worm-tongue nature of EU policy. It is a shame that so many petty left and right are bought by it, given that can only enable the EU to magnify its negative influence further.

First, US subsidies can't compete with Europe. Here's a nice little article from the Independent on the nature of Europe's damage. You Europhiles really must hate poor people! Second, that Britain and the US were hegemonic powers in periods of trade liberalisation is also a blissful moment of economic history. Perhaps you need to read more than just the Treaty of Rome? Just a thought

If you cannot show basic etiquette, you really should keep your mush shut.

You really do need to catch up. Rising wages in China is a well known phenomenon. Those wage increases are quite consistent with comparative advantage.

It remains a vehicle for corporate welfare, given the centralisation of power and the reduction in electoral competition. CAP is one example. There will be more. To support the EU is at least tacit support of such profiteering.

Regional aid does not need economic integration. You're providing another slice of misinformation. Indeed, in terms of economic integration, it is actually important to ensure relative homogeneity. This ensures similar population needs and minimises the costs of producing public goods. As populations differ, political disintegration is warranted. Further, you're exaggerating the Irish “economic miracle”. Much of her growth represented catch-up and was predicted in economic convergence theory. Also it was not the EU that advanced her economy. Whilst it is true that the gluttonous Irish fed on the European teat, her advantage is her English speaking nature. In comparison to other peripheral economies, this ensured relatively substantial US investment.

The increased food prices suggests otherwise. If only we could get our poor people not to eat!

Your tactics apes the tabloid

Comparative advantage tells us how trade is not a zero sum game. Your attempt to suggest that somehow it is only textbook orientated only demonstrates to me that you do not know your economics. On the bright side, that is a common characteristic for the Europhiling clan.

Nope

Whilst you haven't made any hardcore comment, at least you're good for a giggle. To suggest that giving millions of quid to Prince Charles is “safe-guarding national interests” demonstrates to me the amusing extent that you will shun realism

What a silly reply! National government, by definition, involves electoral competition. There will be problems (e.g. the limitations of 'first past the post' electoral systems), but to suggest that it is comparable to supra-national organisatons is most uncunning.

Your hatred of economics goes spiffingly well with your Europhiing. However, my reasoning cannot be questioned. Theoretically, you haven't got a leg to stand on. Empirically, you haven't got a pot to urinate in. Food prices are substantially higher because of the European folly. They would naturally fall as trade reflected comparative advantage.

More nonsense! The extremes of autarky and free trade are only relevant to the Econ 101 student interested in measuring the economic gains available from comparative advantage. As we remove protectionism, there will be trade creation effects and therefore increases in economic welfare.

This statement only tells me that you are totally ignorant of the nature of comparative advantage. You really shouldn't try to suggest otherwise as that would be a dirty fib! Comparative advantage tells us how all countries benefit from trade. The mercantilist approach, whilst it does have some relevant lessons in terms of Keynesian macroeconomic analysis, is shown to be based on inappropriate trade theory. Unfortunately people that do not understand comparative advantage will tend towards a modern variation of the disease: economic nationalism.

The US certainly would respond by reducing their subsides. Indeed, they have a history of such tit4tat responses.

Are you suggesting that I'm fibbing?

I'm sorry that you're reduced to using wikipedia. If you don't like it, find a proper source.

A pathetic response. The nature of trade creation effects (including empirical testing) dates back to Viner (1950, The Customs Union International, Carnegie Endowment fo Peace, New York).

The lack of integration shows that is not a significant issue in terms of economic welfare effects. We'd see integration otherwise.

Its the EU that has a problem with foreigners, not me! They didn't all embrace freedom of movement with the Eastern Europeans did they now?

The nature of the automobile industry is a classic example.

You stated ”all I remember is that years ago, I read that EU subsidies were being phased down slowly”. Assuming that your memory is not dodgy, that was one of your more astoundingly inaccurate comments.

More blinkered tosh! You know that the CAP subsidies are concentrated on a relatively small number of European farms. I've already had to educate you over that matter.

I've referred to an economic study that investigates the impact of EEC membership, you have not. You have not as you cannot find one. Just admit the truth and stop boring me with this low brow bobbins.

If you think it had such a significant effect then you should be able to find just ONE economic analysis to support your hypothesis. You continue to bore me with non-economic rot.

Either grow a pair and accuse me of fibbing, or present an alternative source that is consistent with your position. Life is easy

Just don't be so scared of books! I'll let you borrow my library card if it helps

donsutherland1

PeteEU

Whatever Succa, you clearly dont want to debate the pros and cons regarding the EU in a civilized manner, based on facts.

But let me ask you this... Do you want to get rid of the EU and how fast? How fast do you want the UK out of the EU?

Scucca

You mean based on wikipedia and chanting from the Treaty of Rome, surely? I've consistently referred to the evidence, ranging from economic history to the application of trade theory.

Still cant find any empirical evidence showing these dramatic EEC gains?

As fast as practically possible. On one side, we have to ensure a well thought out free trade area. On the other, Britain needs to join the developing countries in enforcing rational reform of the WTO