The exports to the EU are almost 2.5 times than to the US. A country by country comparison doesn't make sense. Whether a trade deficit is good or bad is not something economists agree on so your comment is baseless. Empirical research in the matter show that countries with large capital inflows don't need to worry about it (like the US and UK). See for some preliminary info: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/051515/pros-cons-trade-deficit.asp

So sure, you don't need a trade deal, but why make Brexit cost more than necessary?

I unfortunately don't have a lot of time these days to react in depth to your considerate posts. Just a few quick snippets where you'd have to think of some other approaches.

This means that the haircut that ordinary people take (or ordinary pension funds take who's assets are made up of ordinary people's pensions) can easily take a smaller haircut while the fed and the US, and also those untrustworthy foreigners can get shafted. Who cares about those foreign investors stupid enough to invest in US Treasuries etc! A 2/3 debt jubilee certainly have an effect. — ssu

Good idea but unfortunately totally illegal and no national law is going to set it aside. No discrimination between types of bond holders. Since this is laid down in the various human rights treaties and often enshrined in constitutions you can't do it this way.

First, pension schemes aren't piggy banks. Especially the state versions simply pay with the contributions of the working the pensions of the present pensioners. And even private pension schemes can quit well make schemes to pensions that will be only paid decades from now. — ssu

That's only partially true. It's usually a mix of piggy bank and contributions from the active work force. Suffice is to say that for Dutch people it would wipe out about 25% of their savings (as a society as a whole). For Italians it's close to 80%. Not an acceptable outcome.

Of course, the easy solution I hinted to before is using the lower interest burden of the State to make up the difference.

In any case, I don't see the use of doing this without changing the system that caused it. Or you'll just have to do this again in 50 to 100 years.

What basically universal income does is that the threshold to take a job increases. This is obvious even more clear with unemployment benefits. In a welfare state like mine one if paid unemployment benefits to perpetuity (as long as one lives) with the social welfare net paying your rent for a small apartment in the capital or a larger house in the countryside. What really can happen is that it alienates some people not to work, but at least they won't be beggars on the streets and homeless (which is a huge advantage, actually). The logic is quite reasonable: if you go to work at McDonalds, basically you are going to be left with a similar amount of money, but you have far less spare time to uhh.... discuss universal basic income in PF. — ssu

This effect is always mentioned and I have never ever seen research into it proving it.

Well, I'm certainly not talking about population density as the average for an entire country if that was the impression I gave.

They're not comparable due to different moments of starting measures and different types of measures. Population density has an obvious effect on R0 because it increases the number of contacts an average person is likely to have, which creates an opportunity for the virus to infect another. See also : https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/dissertations/AAI9929469/

The conversion to deaths per capita is meaningless.

Imagine two completely identical societies implementing equal measures, except one has 10 million and another 20 million citizens. Before herd immunity kicks in, the virus will spread at exactly the same speed but the second country will have half the deaths per million as the other.

I think population density is an important factor where the rate of infection is concerned. All things being equal though total population numbers only become relevant once herd immunity effects start to kick in.

And this is convenient for a ruling class that won't share its wealth. — jamalrob

And from a strict economic perspective also totally wrong. Unemployment is the lubricant of our labour market. Without a pool of willing employees, you can never get rid of badly performing employees because there's no alternative. The unemployed therefore fulfil a very important economic function in society and deserve good pay from the very corporations that stand to benefit from this function as a result!

Just as an example, Dutch pension scheme associations (PSA) have invested about 25% in low risk bonds from countries like the Netherlands and Germany and they hold riskier ones as well.

Banks have to hold high quality liquid assets to meet regulatory obligations; mostly leverage ratio and capital requirements. They mostly hold that in bonds as well. So a debt jubilee will wipe out their capital base, making them much less safe vehicles for financing activities in the real economy. So you need to relax those rules or think of something else.

It also doesn't solve, in my view, the resulting inequality of the debt fueled asset inflation. The rich got richer (especially those in the financial industry) and they'll stay rich. The debt jubilee would only solve one part of the equation. As you see in the German example capital has a much lower exchange rate to the DM.

This is all to say that a debt jubilee is a good idea but with resulting problems you need to solve but also with the realisation the existing system that resulted in this situation continues afterwards. A debt jubilee every 50 years is going to create tremendous moral hazard so if you're going to do this, you'd better fix the system in such a way it doesn't happen again.

Well, I worked in finance for quite some time and was interested in it before that. So ask me whatever you want to know and I'll try to answer it (I don't know everything either obviously).

Of course people can agree on things but what should they agree on? How would you propose saving pension savings from the debt jubilee?

I'm not saying not to do it. I'm saying you need to solve this problem. Large PSAs and banks are large holders of government bonds that they hold on behalf of pensions for everybody. Especially low paying jobs that don't naturally manage to save money will be hit hardest if their pensions are wiped out. So what's your solution to this?

There's one pretty obvious but let's see if there are more roads to Rome for this problem.

It will also evaporate most pensions so you need to think of something there.

That would be comparing efforts to save COVID 19 patients to the efforts that are going to be needed to heal the damage to our society long after a Vaccine and treatment are common place. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I am very specifically talking about deaths though. I'm not sure what damage you're talking about.

a small business couldn't build a Jumbo jet, — Chester

Actually, they definitely could. Just not the number of jets Boeing or Airbus build and not at a similar price point.

I agree with your economic outlook but I fail to see how leaving the EU contributed to it or indeed how the Tories will. Tories might be small government but definitely pro big business.

Also, what parts of government should be diminished/abolished? NHS? Public transport? The army? State departments?

the correct reply was: "I'm not your buddy, friend". Know your classics!

I didn't compare Trump to Hitler. I used your reasoning in a more extreme scenario illustrating it results in ridiculous conclusions. It's a form of a reductio as absurdum.

Also, I'm not your mate, buddy.

Not his biggest fan but still a fan? And credit where credit is due, but Hitler was nice to dogs.

I'm missing a time scale for that 6 trillion so it's difficult to understand the perspective.

Since when?

On the positive side. The depression in the US might be less severe than in other countries because you'll have herd immunity sooner and can ease lock down earlier.

To be honest, I'm starting to worry about the deaths resulting from reduced wealth in the long run. Lower income, joblessness, stress, less money for welfare programs in the long run may all contribute to deaths for years to come. In that sense the current answer to covid-19 needs to be carefully weighed against those effects that cause future deaths.

Edit: I don't have the sense anyone is doing that yet. The Netherlands just announced borrowing 93 billion extra. That's about 25% of existing debt and about 3 times as much as we borrowed extra in 2008. What does that mean for society as a whole in the long run?

Pfff... As we say: God created the earth but the Dutch created the Netherlands.

And after 2100? What then?

The Netherlands is doing a lot better than in the 1950s. What's your point?

You only make unsubstantiated claims about things you apparently think are true. Educate yourself. You can start with this : Factfulness

You're wrong about wordwide population growth and you're wrong about mass immigration somehow leading to... What exactly? The extrapolation of past population growth you attempted is wrong and the effects of mass immigration grossly exaggerated.

Unless your next reply contains substantiated projections on population growth and mass immigration for the Netherlands I think we can safely conclude you shouldn't be having an opinion on the matter one way or the other.

I'm fine with something that's never going to happen as is everybody else in the Netherlands,. Just like we don't worry about being attacked by dragons.

What if unicorns existed; would you be ok with them?

LOL. My god, you're really badly informed aren't you. Why don't you first prove that's even remotely likely going to happen.

And this despite the so-called democratic deficit in the EU, which at least is now democratic than the UK. But at least those guys are leaving.

Not everybody is happy about paying taxes. Some aren't even happy to be alive. What's your point if not to say that it was a predominant problem?

Only a maximum of 20% voted right wing due to immigration, probably a lot less.

This is why I think you're seriously better off getting Trump for another 4 years than some appeasement from Biden that very likely had the effect of diminishing the start of this fire.

Edit: in the long run obviously. In the short run it's shooting yourself in the foot.

Reminiscing about the latest family reunion eh?

I didn't realise you did so I supposed to just contradict your statement based on the same effort you put into it!

No, we don't.

I know. But the fact that it was promising was known weeks earlier. One wonders why the US researchers are repeating peer-reviewed research already done in Japan and Europe. Waste of time and effort.

Meanwhile, this looks promising as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/world/europe/coronavirus-vaccine-update-oxford.html

SSU, pay attention to this prediction please, that will be #2. :joke:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/396667

About time the US got with the program: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/403978

Slow pokes.

Apparently a very considerate and informed people that they keep their distance as much as possible without it having to be enforced. We tried a loose approach in the Netherlands as well and it didn't work, which resulted in more stringent rules.

you don't get to demand respect if you're a disinformation agent Nos. It's good faith towards the wider community here, so that it's clear what you write is 99% spin.

Of course there's a double standard. One for truth and one for lies. One for people who argue in good faith and another for partisan hacks like you. Keep spouting lies and I'll keep pointing them out.

It's true you just have a problem with reading comprehension. While the other papers are indeed not right wing rags, I referred to news negative of Trump which you will always go out of your way to deny, or claim it's anti-Trump or indeed untrustworthy mainstream media. The point stands and your trolling continues.

Trump is corrupt and has obstructed justice as proved by the investigation by Mueller.

I believe it’s wise to be careful and diligent with any information, — NOS4A2

If only you were. Again with the hypocrisy. Here's your heuristic in a nutshell: negative of Trump - - > unreliable, must go out of my way to discredit. Untrustworthy right wing rag publishes story favourable of Trump - - > must tell the world.