SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
 
User avatar
croot
Posts: 104
Joined: July 23rd, 2006, 8:30 pm

Paul's blog on Europe

December 19th, 2011, 8:28 am

Agree with katastrofa, NATO exists to fight wars for the interests of its members (eg 'the West') where need be,so protecting Europe+USA against the others,whereas the EU serves first to protect Europe from itself.Check non-partisan link:"The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War."http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_en.htm@MattF, you must have never stayed in Europe for any length of time to be so wrong?
 
User avatar
gc
Posts: 673
Joined: September 21st, 2002, 10:08 pm

Paul's blog on Europe

December 19th, 2011, 9:07 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: crootAgree with katastrofa, NATO exists to fight wars for the interests of its members (eg 'the West') where need be,so protecting Europe+USA against the others,whereas the EU serves first to protect Europe from itself.Check non-partisan link:"The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War."http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_en.htm@MattF, you must have never stayed in Europe for any length of time to be so wrong? Sadly this is one of the different viewpoints on Europe between continental Europeans and British. For the 6 founding countries who started the Coal and Steal comunity this was about avoiding war through economic cooperation. The ideal is that by creating stronger ties between european countries we would create a condition by which wars were not the best way to solve international conflicts. Well within the initial document the stated goal was a federal political union (which we almost obtained in the early sixties with the agreement of a common defence comunity and common political comunity but failed because of the begining of the cold war).For the British, the European comunity is only about money and commerce.One of the reasons why I am actually happy for Cameron's vote last week. It's time that this fondamental divergence of aims is spelled out and we have a debate on the real nature of Europe: whether or not to progress toward a Federal Union or drift away towards an common market.
Last edited by gc on December 18th, 2011, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Paul's blog on Europe

December 19th, 2011, 9:20 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuotepaul is correct of course.The trade with china is largely one-way as they are mercantilist, but the point being that free trade agreements are possible without regional governments such as the EU.And we could (and should) return to gold as a common currencyThis is one of your less cogent posts. I was not expecting a discussion of the gold standard.you were touting the advantages of a common currency, and gold would perform that role so much better and without the need for political unionOK, how would this pan out? Gold is just an abstraction.It would pan out exactly as it did when gold was used as a currency in the past. >> Exactly! A gold standard would be even worse that the Euro because it would transfer monetary authority to foreign gold miners and speculators.This is absurd.World Gold Councilthe total amount of gold ever mined is approx 166,600 metric tons. Most of that is still around. Because it's gold.2009 gold production is something like 1.5% of that (the number I saw was 2,572 metric tons).Even if all the miners in the world worked their asses off 24/7, how much of an increase in the global supply of gold would there me ?compare that to the wild swings in M3 for the fiat federal reserve note www.shadowstats.com
 
User avatar
Gamal
Posts: 2362
Joined: February 26th, 2004, 8:41 am

Paul's blog on Europe

December 19th, 2011, 9:28 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaAs an Eastern European I'm all for European integration, because it means that there's less chance for German or Russian tanks appearing on streets of my home country's capital.They'll get what they want without using tanks, isn't it?
 
User avatar
katastrofa
Posts: 9446
Joined: August 16th, 2007, 5:36 am
Location: Alpha Centauri

Paul's blog on Europe

December 19th, 2011, 9:56 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalQuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaAs an Eastern European I'm all for European integration, because it means that there's less chance for German or Russian tanks appearing on streets of my home country's capital.They'll get what they want without using tanks, isn't it?They won't leave millions of dead in their tracks.
 
User avatar
Gamal
Posts: 2362
Joined: February 26th, 2004, 8:41 am

Paul's blog on Europe

December 19th, 2011, 10:13 am

So you prefer to be slave rather than dead? Your choice. Did you ever imagine of being neither the first nor the second?I was not born in Germany but technically I am German. We don't want to make Poles our slaves these days, we aren't strong enough and we are too friendly. But if you insist, we could sell you to the Russians
 
User avatar
katastrofa
Posts: 9446
Joined: August 16th, 2007, 5:36 am
Location: Alpha Centauri

Paul's blog on Europe

December 19th, 2011, 2:17 pm

"So you prefer to be slave rather than dead?"Of course. Being a slave, I can always hope for the change for the better. Once dead, it's all over."Did you ever imagine of being neither the first nor the second?"Did you? You prob. work for a big corporation and lecture me on liberty? ;-)"We don't want to make Poles our slaves these days, we aren't strong enough and we are too friendly."And you got shit bombed out of you last time you tried taking over the world
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

Paul's blog on Europe

December 19th, 2011, 2:53 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuotepaul is correct of course.The trade with china is largely one-way as they are mercantilist, but the point being that free trade agreements are possible without regional governments such as the EU.And we could (and should) return to gold as a common currencyThis is one of your less cogent posts. I was not expecting a discussion of the gold standard.you were touting the advantages of a common currency, and gold would perform that role so much better and without the need for political unionOK, how would this pan out? Gold is just an abstraction.It would pan out exactly as it did when gold was used as a currency in the past. >> Exactly! A gold standard would be even worse that the Euro because it would transfer monetary authority to foreign gold miners and speculators.This is absurd.World Gold Councilthe total amount of gold ever mined is approx 166,600 metric tons. Most of that is still around. Because it's gold.2009 gold production is something like 1.5% of that (the number I saw was 2,572 metric tons).Even if all the miners in the world worked their asses off 24/7, how much of an increase in the global supply of gold would there me ?compare that to the wild swings in M3 for the fiat federal reserve note www.shadowstats.comShall we count the flaws in this comparison of M3 supply to Au supply?1. How does 166,600 metric tons of gold (only a fraction of which is in the US) cover the estimated $14 trillion in US M3 unless the U.S. buys a very large % of the world's gold stores at a very dear price. And if gold prices rise significantly, then gold production will exceed 1.5% by potentially arbitrary amounts. (How does one convert to a gold-standard in the first place? I would assume that the NewFed would ned to buy a very large store of gold, but with what?)2. One can't assume that just because the world's gold stores are relatively constant, that any given country's stores of gold are constant. The M3 of a gold-standard country would be impacted by problems such as capital flight, foreign gold mining cartels, and speculators. I know you don't trust the Fed to control the money supply, but can you trust foreign miners and speculators more? This is part of Greece's problem -- their money supply is under foreign control by Brussels/Berlin.3. Why should the money supply remain constant in the context of a modern dynamic economy? Although I certainly concede that a central bank can (and sometimes does) create the wrong level of money in an economy (for a variety of innocent, negligent, and nefarious reasons) that does not imply that a fixed supply is better. In a healthy economy, M3 should vary with variations in: investment in capital assets, risk aversion, demographics, business cycles, exogenous shocks, and technology-induced changes in money velocity. A fixed supply of money would be like a broken clock -- right twice a day, but wrong at all other times.
 
User avatar
Gamal
Posts: 2362
Joined: February 26th, 2004, 8:41 am

Paul's blog on Europe

December 19th, 2011, 2:57 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofa"So you prefer to be slave rather than dead?"Of course. Being a slave, I can always hope for the change for the better. Once dead, it's all over."Did you ever imagine of being neither the first nor the second?"Did you? You prob. work for a big corporation and lecture me on liberty? ;-)"We don't want to make Poles our slaves these days, we aren't strong enough and we are too friendly."And you got shit bombed out of you last time you tried taking over the world Listen dude, your text is insulting to my compatriots. Germans did a lot to overcome the heritage of WWII and accusing them for an intention to kill millions of people because... Because of what? Because one or another country doesn't sign a treaty? Be serious.Unless you really believe what you say and really think there are only two options for you: death or slavery and you choose slavery. Then be a good slave and be obedient. Otherwise option one applies.
Last edited by Gamal on December 18th, 2011, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Topic Author
Posts: 62608
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Paul's blog on Europe

December 19th, 2011, 3:31 pm

Cm'on boys and girls, relax.
Last edited by Cuchulainn on December 18th, 2011, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Step over the gap, not into it. Watch the space between platform and train.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl
 
User avatar
katastrofa
Posts: 9446
Joined: August 16th, 2007, 5:36 am
Location: Alpha Centauri

Paul's blog on Europe

December 19th, 2011, 10:31 pm

@GamalDon't start jokes which you later find insulting. It's self-contradictory.
 
User avatar
Gamal
Posts: 2362
Joined: February 26th, 2004, 8:41 am

Paul's blog on Europe

December 20th, 2011, 6:44 am

You were the first to talk about tanks and millions of casualities, weren't you, katastrofa? I may overreact to such abused keywords, for what I appologize.All right, let's be serious. So - in the contemporary Europe German tanks may be used in ONE case only: to defend Poland (or Estonia, or Latvia) attacked from the East. For sure they won't be used as a dicussion argument inside Europe, even if a counterparty does so. Germany needs partners, not slaves. If Poland stays in EU only because it fears German tanks, you may go freely.
 
User avatar
frenchX
Posts: 5911
Joined: March 29th, 2010, 6:54 pm

Paul's blog on Europe

December 20th, 2011, 7:36 am

@ Gamal and Katastrofa :I think that you argument resume well the problem of Europe. We have a long tumultous history and before being European we will always consider ourselves as Germans, Polish, French, etc ...Europe is an artificial coalition of countries which have a long history of killing each others. We are too different in politics, in economy and more important in culture, history and behaviour to make this coalition efficient.
 
User avatar
rmax
Posts: 6080
Joined: December 8th, 2005, 9:31 am

Paul's blog on Europe

December 20th, 2011, 8:00 am

As will all Yes Minister it all is still applicable. The Writing on the Wall was broadcast 24 March 1980 and The Devil you know was broadcast 23 March 1981. For those that have not seen the programme, Sir Humphrey is a Civil Servant, and Hacker is the elected minister.QuoteEpisode Five: The Writing on the WallSir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well? Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely? Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times. Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal? Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister. Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership? Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes. Hacker: What appalling cynicism. Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister. QuoteEpisode Five: The Devil You KnowHacker: Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal. Sir Humphrey: Oh, ha ha ha. Hacker: May we share the joke, Humphrey? Sir Humphrey: Oh Minister, let's look at this objectively. It is a game played for national interests, and always was. Why do you suppose we went into it? Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of free Western nations. Sir Humphrey: Oh really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans. Hacker: So why did the French go into it, then? Sir Humphrey: Well, to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition. Hacker: That certainly doesn't apply to the Germans. Sir Humphrey: No, no. They went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission to the human race. Hacker: I never heard such appalling cynicism! At least the small nations didn't go into it for selfish reasons. Sir Humphrey: Oh really? Luxembourg is in it for the perks; the capital of the EEC, all that foreign money pouring in. Hacker: Very sensible central location. Sir Humphrey: With the administration in Brussels and the Parliament in Strasbourg? Minister, it's like having the House of Commons in Swindon and the Civil Service in Kettering!
 
User avatar
Gamal
Posts: 2362
Joined: February 26th, 2004, 8:41 am

Paul's blog on Europe

December 20th, 2011, 8:08 am

Why would European coalition not work. frenchX? Very strange coalitions did work, so can EU. Only an integrated body wouldn't. Germany doesn't want unified Europe, Germany itself isn't unified, all we want is some responsibility of debtors. Partners, not slaves. Slaves are dangerous, because they don't think about future - and if you don't think about future, you don't control your obligations.
Last edited by Gamal on December 19th, 2011, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On