Simply put, power. You really can't "invade and conquer" another nation in our current global landscape, but you certainly can make a multi-country alliance placing the more powerful nations in charge of the lesser nations. Slowly but surely, since the poorer countries probably wouldn't exist as well on their own, you can leverage your position as a wealthy nation and basically use the country as you see fit. Like in other settings, no one wants to be the garbage man, everyone wants to be the CEO. It's one of the biggest drawbacks to globalization. You can, but it's not going to net you much just chilling in a 401k, especially with the spread of assets that occupy most 401k funds. The US market will bounce back and probably boost much higher, especially if the Fed decides not to raise rates this year because of the uncertainty of the UK and global markets. If your 401k or IRA has the ability to invest in specific ways, I'd try to find some companies or a specific sector that are boosted by a strengthened Dollar, a falling Euro, or something ancillary to both. Think airlines or travel related sectors.
They always are to some extent, but I'm not sure if the EU actually works that way. It seems like the benefits flow out of Germany and France to smaller countries. I think that's why countries like Norway don't join. They're not a major power by any stretch, but they're rich as fuck for their size and don't want to send it to countries that are going to piss it away and then demand they follow arbitrary laws that may or may not be practical there. Edit: Speaking of Norway, aren't they a fine example of how you can be in Europe and not in the EU and have a thriving economy? I am NOT saying their situation is the same as the UK, but I can't help but feel like all this economic devastation talk is overblown in the long run.
For people that want to follow the election by an outlet that isn't outright fucking terrible, I would really recommend http://fivethirtyeight.com/ They don't have ubiquitous coverage and don't have a tv show (although there is a podcast segment), but they're the best out there at the moment from what I've seen. If anyone else knows any good non-partisan outlets please share because God knows we're in quite the shortage. I really miss VICE News before they went to hell.
Although it's not exactly how it works, it's pretty close. There's power in numbers, especially when you can start to dictate laws to other countries who wouldn't be able to survive on their own and can't leave your union otherwise they aren't sustainable. If you look through the list of the actual countries in the EU, it's a list of almost bankrupt, former big economies, a smattering of Eastern European cast offs from WW2, a few small but stable countries, France and Germany. You gather together all these states to form a solid block and then one by one start to influence laws to "enhance" the European State, which is really just a way to make the top countries more powerful. It's not a conspiracy so to speak, but there's no doubt people in power are carefully planning moves to slowly but surely transfer power over all these countries into one centralized government, whatever that may look like in the end. Yeah Norway and Switzerland are good examples of European countries who are more than capable of existing without belonging to the EU. What people are most worried about is the EU being vindictive against the UK when it's time to negotiate trade and travel deals with the other countries. It's a relatively stupid plan if the EU makes that play as they need the UK FAR GREATER than the UK needs them, but it wouldn't surprise me if they try to strong arm them into poor deals.
Does it actually make countries like Germany and France more powerful though? At least proportionally, most of the money goes out of the powerful nations and to the poor, smaller nations. I'm not really sure they get to shape laws to their advantage either. The current president of the commission is from Luxembourg and the president of the council is from Poland. Sure, Germany and France get more seats than other countries in the parliament because they have a larger population, but when you add up all the smaller nations they don't really hold a majority. The rich countries are putting in anywhere from 1/3 more to twice as much what they are getting back with countries like Estonia receiving 7x what they put in. I still don't really see the benefit of being a member unless you're a poor nation. These poor countries can survive on their own, but there's just no reason to leave when they're reaping most of the rewards. For me though, it's not even really the fact that these countries are losing money on the EU, it's that they have to abide by laws decided mostly by people who aren't even citizens of their country. I'm not sure what kind of fuckery the EU is going to do with the UK, but if they do some kind of shady travel ban that's going to make them look really ridiculous. I don't see the advantage in trying to screw them over on trade either. Obama has been a bit of a jackass over the whole thing, but he'll be out of office soon anyway and I sincerely doubt the US is going to support any revenge oriented trade measures. I wouldn't be surprised either if some of the major players at this point, like Germany, care more about their relationship with the US than they do most of their European neighbors.
Norway is able to do this due to their large oil reserves. They are 'independently wealthy' for lack of a better term. This is why they have a thriving economy and don't need to be part of the EU. So I don't think the comparison works.
So go with Switzerland then. Iceland and Liechtenstein aren't in the EU either and are doing just fine. Pretty much every other western European country is in the EU other than the UK who just left, so there isn't much else to go on.
Ok, folks. The whole Brexit thing? Start googling around and take a look at how globalization has benefited the ultra wealthy at the expense of the masses. But please, don't take my word for it, follow up. We are not the only country (though we pretend to be) on earth with these types of problems. It's all cyclical. We (collectively) were here circa 1929. You know what happened after that.
This is going to be a patented VI political rant, so if such things offend you, please feel free to move along, nothing to see here. As I've been watching events unfold, I'm struck by a thought that has haunted me for quite some time. We don't want to be a community anymore. We just don't. We want to be victims, we want to blame, we want to demonize 'the other' - in whatever shape or form that may take. I wish dearly (and seriously) that a politician would come along and stand up and say 'hey, we're all in this together, we are better as a group than going it alone.' I so want that. Someone to say 'Hey, you know, government can be a good thing, not even just good, but great. It can make all our lives better.' But it seems that no one wants to hear that. No one wants to believe that. But I do. I firmly believe that if we actually learned how our government can work, if we got the money out of it, and actually took seriously our responsibilities as citizens, we wouldn't have this plague of 'oh, those people are dragging us down.' Is it that hard to look at another human being that's having a hard time and say 'hey man, we're going to help you get back on your feet?' Is that so bad? Am I naive? Am I stupid? Maybe, I guess. I'd like to live in a country that didn't spend more on defense than all other discretionary programs combined. I'd like to live in a country where people weren't screaming for Social Security and Medicare to be taken away - despite the fact that we are specifically taxed for those programs. And they work. Are there always going to be 'free riders?' Of course. But is that a reason to get rid of the whole idea? Just because someone, somewhere, might be getting over on the rest of us? So be it, I'm ok with that, if we can help people by and large then I consider it an even trade. I have lived through the neoconservative revolution. Reaganomics and the politics of the so called 'welfare queen' and cutting taxes on the rich and spending money we don't have to build bombs. I've lived through Clinton and the neoliberal revolution. The idea that somehow if I think 'correctly' than everything will be ok. And both schools spending more and more on defense and killing people. When does it stop? When do we finally say 'we've had enough. Let's take care of us. If you're an American, you're on our team, and like a team, we carry you if you're down.' When does that happen? Or am I alone?
I think it's deeper than that... people want to feel important, feel recognized, feel like the centre of attention... without the weight of responsibility or the need to put in the work normally associated with those achievements. What you've described is the easiest way to achieve that, especially on social media. And also, you're only hearing those that scream that stuff the loudest... the vast majority of people that don't buy into social media don't act like that. If all you do is live online, and all you see is that stuff, then I'd say it's pretty easy to come to that conclusion.
Are people actually talking about taking away Social Security and Medicare? I know some talk about privatizing it. I have often said that if given the opportunity, I would forgo my SSI benefits if I were allowed to cut my contribution in half and invest the other half. I'd come out way ahead. SSI started as an economic stimulus, but then it morphed into an entitlement where many people have expected more out of it than they put into it. I think Reagan really envisioned an America where government programs were much less needed because people were doing so well, and I think that's the goal of anyone who talks about reducing government programs; not just taking away benefits, but reducing the actual need for them. If everyone were fully employed, why would we need welfare? The problem is that so many people really just don't want to work if they can make it on the benefits they receive, plus a little extra on the side. If a person is okay with that, if they have enough money to live within their comfort zone, what's their incentive to do anything else? I'm conflicted on defense. Yes, it would be great if we didn't spend so much money on "killing people", but is that really the purpose? Isn't it really the ability to defend our country, and now, the rest of the world? It's easy to criticize Reagan for deficit defense spending, but remember that Congress reneged on the spending cuts he was promised. Remember also that Congress ultimately holds the purse strings, not the President. I've said this before, but it bears repeating: O'Neil deficit, Gingrich surplus. Anyway, what would the world look like if Reagan ( and Thatcher) hadn't run the Soviet Union into collapse? What if Carter had won in 1980? It's easy to criticize anyone's results based on the world today, but it's impossible to know what the alternate path would have been.
Joint Base Andrews @JBA_NAFW 24 minutes ago JBA is currently on lockdown due to a report of an active shooter. All personnel are directed to shelter in place. More info as it comes. Joint Base Andrews @JBA_NAFW 8 minutes ago The incident is ongoing at the Malcolm Grow Medical Facility. First responders are on-scene now. All personnel continue to shelter in place Here we go again.
That's what I was thinking. It may be a false flag: Joint Base Andrews @JBA_NAFW 7 minutes ago The base was scheduled to conduct an active shooter exercise, however, reports of a real-world active shooter situation were reported. EDIT: Maybe not a false flag. "The Pentagon confirmed an active shooter at Joint Base Andrews on Thursday, as the base directed its personnel to shelter in place. A drill scheduled for Thursday morning had been cancelled and the base was calling the situation a "real world threat," according to Dylan Kuckolls, a senior airman and public information officer at JBA." EDIT 2: CNN is reporting it was a false report and the all clear has been given
This country has become increasingly divisive since Bush's second term. This election seems like the boiling point. I remember when Obama won in 2008 I thought he was going to be a good figurehead to simmer things down and help reestablish civil dialogue. It's only minimally his fault that that didn't happen, but holy shit was I off the mark. The forces that fostered an ethical media barely exist anymore, and in my opinion that's going to be the hardest part to overcome. It's a lot of problems; the hack pundits, the obsession with violence, the willingness to preferentially give mouth pieces to extremist views. Take that preacher who was recently celebrating the massacre in Orlando. Sure, he has a right to say it, but why does the media want to publish his nonsense and propagate his message? More commonly, for someone's take on the issue it seems like they always want to hear from the most unreasonable far left/right partisans rather than an actual political scientist or reputable economist. Then too it seems like people used to be able to accept unfairness in their lives. Now, it's utterly intolerable, and coupled with an increasing lack of responsibility. I hate when the older folks complain about my generation because it often sounds dismissive and generalizing, but there's a lot of truth to it too. The amount of millennials in their late 20s and even their 30s still living at home is staggering. Is that in part due to legitimate grievances? Sure, but how many are accepting accountability and how many are just blaming their situation on everything outside their control? As far as politics go I don't think it's truly a matter of needing larger or smaller government. I lean towards socialism on a lot of issues, but there's quite good ways to do either. We're starting to become increasingly stupid in both directions, somehow at the same time. From the ACC, to defunding planned parenthood, to ever increasing military spending, to perpetual welfare by default take your pick. I guess I'm often just as guilty of being a divisive nit wit as most Americans. It's become the new normal.
This was also around the time of the rise of social media. Every idiot had a voice. Of course the country got further apart. You could now link up with people that share your opinion and let others know about your hatred. Before your family and maybe a few friends knew. Not the whole world.
Even worse, the media then goes and grabs that one person's opinion and then uses it as a counterpoint... "critics say... <bullshit here>" which then gives them legitimacy. I've lost count the number of times I've seen some chemtrail-believing, tinfoil hat-wearing, anti-vaxxing idiot being interviewed or quoted in contrast to seriously credentialed individuals or solid scientific studies. I guess "yeah, that's interesting" isn't newsworthy without some sort of "we're all going to Hell" to counterbalance it.
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/32308903/deputies-police-investigating-nightclub-shooting Deputies: CWP holder injures Spartanburg Co. nightclub shooting suspect