I'll disagree that's it's perfectly fine food. Bacon is a type 1 carcinogen. Which means there is no doubt that it causes cancer. Non processed pork, is a type 2 carcinogen, which means it causes cancer, but they need more data to confirm it.
The risks aren't quite as high as with cigarettes but it's an extra set of dice I'm not going to roll. That's information from the W.H.O.

I'm not sure if this method would work in Hawaii, but they've had a lot of success in Europe with stray animals by using a catch a release program http://carocat.eu/the-catch-neuter-and-release-approach/. It's a little slower, but not that much since cats and dogs have a pretty short life-cycle when they are stray. I think you could make a few alterations and, the invasive boars instead of running away from hunters, would begin to approach them instead, and you could register, and neuter them.

Damn you blew my cover. I'm am indeed a pig, hence my bias in this thread. Here's a picture of me and my boat driver in the bahamas http://www.tecnologia-ambiente.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/maiale-isola.jpeg

Those rimshots seemed a little misplaced. Unless the BBC is trying to tell us what it really thinks of the EU.

Apologies, I got carried away... wall of text incoming.

@RedSky

I agree, monetary policy at low rates has very little to offer in terms of economic stimulus. Then again, the focus almost solely on monetary policy is part of the problem. Fiscal policy can have a massive impact, both directly (government purchases of goods and services) and indirectly (increase in automatic stabilizers). But for that you either need to be in control of your central bank, so that you can engage in Overt Monetary Financing ("printing" money). Or you need the blessing of the private banks, which is particularly true for a Vollgeld system.

The budget is the core of a parliamentary democracy, and to be at the whim of the folks at Deutsche Bank, HSBC or Credit Suisse -- no, thank you very much. We saw how that played out in Greece.

Anyway, the central bank can do miraculous things: if it provides funds to the democratically elected body in charge of the budget, aka parliament/the government. Trying to "motivate" the private banks to stock up on cheap reserves to stimulate lending is just a sign of ideology.

The great Michal Kalecki, in his essay The Political Aspects of Full Employment, summarized the general issue of government spending quite clearly. The industrial leaders stand in opposition to government spending aimed at full employment for three distinct reasons: a) dislike of government interference in the problem of employment as such; b) dislike of the direction of government spending (public investment and subsidizing consumption); c) dislike of the social and political changes resulting from the maintenance of full employment.

I'd say control over your currency is too great a tool to leave it in the hands of unelected managers. Clement Attlee knew very well why he had to nationalize the Bank of England in '46.

Back to the issue of inflation, I'd like to make two points. First, how big a role should inflation really play when talking policy. Second, what's the influence of a central bank on inflation.

Where does it come from, this focus on inflation. People usually talk about government spending when discussing inflation. Private spending is rarely brought up, even though it can be just as inflationary. So let's ignore private spending for a moment and talk purely government spending: should a deficit/surplus not be judged primarily by how well it helps us achieve our macroeconomic goals? Or more clearly, why should we sacrifice full employment or our general welfare on the altar of inflation? Yes, that's over the top. But so is the angst of inflation.

I'd say let's stick with Abba Lerner's concept of functional finance and judge deficits/surpluses purely by how well they help us achieve our macroeconomic goals. Besides, the US has run massive deficits during the GFC, so much in fact, that a great number of monetarists saw hyperinflation just around the corner. Still waiting for it. Same for Japan. Massive deficits... and deflation.

As long as spending, both private and government, doesn't push the economy beyond its limits (full employment, real resources, production capacity), out-of-control inflation just doesn't materialize. Plus, suppressing inflation is actually one thing central banks can do quite well. Unlike causing inflation, which both Japan and the EU are showcases off. Draghi can dance naked on the table, monetary policy (QE, mainly) won't push inflation upwards.

Which brings me to the second point: what's inflation, what's the cause of inflation, how can central banks manipulate it.

CPI is often used as a measure of inflation, but I prefer the GDP deflator. CPI doesn't account for externalities that you cannot influence, whatever you do. Prime case: the price of oil. Monetary policy of the Bank of Sweden has no influence on the price of oil. The GDP inflator, however, accounts for every economic activity within your currency zone -- much more useful.

General theory says, this measure of inflation goes up when demand surpasses supply. And vice versa. The primary factor of demand is domestic purchasing power, therefore wages. If you suppress wages, you suppress inflation. If you push wages, you push inflation. More specifically, you can see a direct correlation between unit labour costs and the GDP deflator in every country at any time. Here's a general graph for multiple countries, and the St. Louis FED provides a beauty for the US.

That's why it's easy for central banks to combat inflation, but almost impossible to fight deflation.

Italy:
Renzi is creating the conditons for a new bubble? Through deficit spending on... what? Unless they start building highways in the middle of nowhere like they did in Spain, I don't see any form of bubble coming out of deficit spending in Italy. The country's been in a major recession for quite some time now, with no light at the end of the tunnel and a massive shortfall in private spending. But meaningful deficit spending requires Renzi to tell Germany and the Eurogroup to pound sand -- not sure his balls have descended far enough for that just yet.

Referendum in Switzerland:
"Vollgeld". That's the German term for what the initiators of this referendum are aiming for: 100% reserve banking. It's monetarism in disguise, and they are adament to not be called monetarists. But that's what it is. Pure old-fashioned monetarism. Even if you don't give a jar of cold piss about all these fancy economic terms and theories, let me ask you this: the currency you use is quite an important part of all your daily life, isn't it? So why would anyone in his or her right mind remove it entirely from democratic control (even constitutionally)?
If you want to get into the economic nightmares of it, here are a few bullet points:
- no Overt Monetary Financing (printing money for deficit spending) means no lender of last resort and complete dependence on the market, S&P can tell you to fuck off and die as they did with PIIGS
- notion that the "right amount of money in circulation" will enable the market to keep itself in balance -- as if that ever worked
- notion that a bunch of technocrats can empirically determine this very amount in regular intervalls
- central bank is supposed to maintain price stability, nothing else -- single mandate, works beautifully for the ECB, at least if you like 25% unemployment
- concept is founded in the notion that the financial economy is the source of (almost) all problems of the "real" economy, thereby completely ignoring the fact that decades of wage suppression have simply killed widescale purchasing power of the masses, aka demand

Visegrad nations:
From a German perspective, they are walking on thin ice as it is. The conflict with Russia never had much support of the public to begin with, but even the establishment is becoming more divided on this issue. Given the authoritarian policies put in place in Poland recently and the utter refusal to take in their share of refugees, support might fade even more. If the Visegrad governments then decide to push for further conflict with Russia, Brussels and Berlin might tell them, very discreetly, to pipe the fuck down.

Turkey:
Wildcard. He mentioned how they will mess with Syria, the Kurds and Russia, but forgot to mention the conflict between Turkey and the EU. As of now, it seems as if Brussels is ready to pay Ankara in hard cash if they keep refugees away from Greece. Very similar to the deal with Morocco vis-a-vis the Spanish enclave. As long as they die out of sight, all is good for Brussels.

I would add France as a point of interest:
They recently announced that the state of emergency will be extended until ISIS is beaten. In other words, it'll be permanent, just like the Patriot Act in the US. A lof of attention has been given to the authoritarian shift of politics in Poland, all the while ignoring the equally disturbing shift in France. Those emergency measures basically suspend the rule of law in favour of a covert police state. Add the economic situation (abysmal), the Socialist President who avoids socialist policies, and the still ongoing rise of Front National... well, you get the picture.

Regarding the EU, I'll say this: between the refugee crisis (border controls, domestic problems, etc) and the economic crisis, they finally managed to convince me that this whole thing might come apart at the seams after all. Not this year, though, even if the Brits decide to distance themselves from this rotten creation.

*promote (drunk with power points!)

The magnificent mad rambling Slovenian bastard nailed it again!

The e-cig thing in particular is a hot topic for me at the moment due to the moronic new EU legislation & combined media shitstorm.

As we shoot down the layers of poorly researched bullshit the anti crowd throw at us in arguments it generally seems come down to something along the lines of "you are setting a bad example", or "you'd still be better off not smoking".

At that point "mind your own fucking business you self righteous prude" starts to seem like a perfectly mature response.

To address your points:

>> Bush: Disaster. Remember, remember the Patriot Act?
GW is not up for re-election and to the best of my knowledge Jeb had nothing to do with writing the Patriot Act. He supports it, but almost all the candidates do. I'm not a huge fan of Jeb, but he actually seems like the smart one in his family. Would still prefer him not to be president.

>> Clinton: Lying, manipulative, currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department. Really?
@newtboy already addressed the so-called "email-gate" or whatever. As for "lying, manipulative"? You're kidding, right? She's a politician. They're all lying and manipulative. Ultimately, I think Hillary will probably get the democratic nomination and while I'm not a huge fan, she's an order of magnitude better than any of the republicans.

>> Bernie Sanders: Self-purported Socialist. Lovely.
So what? "Socialist" is not a bad word. Many of the highest ranked countries for citizen health and happiness are socialist. America needs to grow the fuck up and get over it's childish clinging to McCarthyism. A bit of socialism would do it the world of good.

>> Ben Carson: I have no particular qualms, by all means intelligent, however, doesn't say anything beyond the bloated party line.
Ben Carson, "intelligent"? Are you fucking kidding me? The guy's borderline insane. How he ever got to be a surgeon baffles me.
This is a guy who thinks that "Joseph built the pyramids to store grain", that doesn't understand fucking magnets, er, gravity and believes evolution was ‘encouraged by’ Satan. He's a fucking moron.

>> That brings us full circle back to Trump... He has a real, tangible plan...
to fuck everything up? Seriously, Trump is an idiot and would be the worst thing to happen to the USA (and by extension the world) in decades. His ignorance is matched only by his ineptitude.

>> As for Obama, and I include him because many seem to think he is great for some reason..
a) I don't think he's great, he's been a huge disappointment and
b) he's irrelevant to this debate
but anyway...

>> His healthcare plan failed(look it up)
I did and it hasn't.

>> America is now over $18 Trillion in debt.
I wonder if the previous president starting two wars has anything to do with that?

>> And he insists on throwing pebbles at ISIS while the EU does all the fighting
Way too big a topic to address here. Post on another video if you want to discuss it further.

>> I am not necessarily saying that Trump is a good person, or would make a good President, but he would me loads better than the other shrimps for candidates...
He's not, he wouldn't and better than an invertebrate with a brain only barely recognisable as such is not a sufficient bar for the presidency.

To quote my view, which I mistakenly sent to Chaos Engine:


Who would you have Americans elect?

Bush: Disaster. Remember, remember the Patriot Act?

Clinton: Lying, manipulative, currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department. Really?

Bernie Sanders: Self-purported Socialist. Lovely.

Ben Carson: I have no particular qualms, by all means intelligent, however, doesn't say anything beyond the bloated party line.

That brings us full circle back to Trump... He has a real, tangible plan. Excluding "Feelings" and "Moral Obligation" and any other overused progressive excuses that simply cloud the fact that there is no fact there, his plan/s would work, and are necessary if America means to continue its lead as the second greatest nation on Earth(Sorry America, national pride, you know?).

As for Obama, and I include him because many seem to think he is great for some reason... His healthcare plan failed(look it up). America is now over $18 Trillion in debt. ...And he insists on throwing pebbles at ISIS while the EU does all the fighting... His speeches never really address anything tangibly, its all "Feeling" and fluff(watch the one where he addressed the attack on France).

I am not necessarily saying that Trump is a good person, or would make a good President, but he would me loads better than the other shrimps for candidates...

Who would you have Americans elect, sir?

Bush: Disaster. Remember, remember the Patriot Act?

Clinton: Lying, manipulative, currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department. Really?

Bernie Sanders: Self-purported Socialist. Lovely.

Ben Carson: I have no particular qualms, by all means intelligent, however, doesn't say anything beyond the bloated party line.

That brings us full circle back to Trump... He has a real, tangible plan. Excluding "Feelings" and "Moral Obligation" and any other overused progressive excuses that simply cloud the fact that there is no fact there, his plan/s would work, and are necessary if America means to continue its lead as the second greatest nation on Earth(Sorry America, national pride, you know?).

As for Obama, and I include him because many seem to think he is great for some reason... His healthcare plan failed(look it up). America is now over $18 Trillion in debt. ...And he insists on throwing pebbles at ISIS while the EU does all the fighting... His speeches never really address anything tangibly, its all "Feeling" and fluff(watch the one where he addressed the attack on France).

I am not necessarily saying that Trump is a good person, or would make a good President, but he would me loads better than the other shrimps for candidates...

I think Ratigan's summary is quite accurate for describing pre-9/11 motivation. Saudi promoted Wahhabi-ism can certainly be blamed for drawing stark divisions between Shia and Sunni Islam and fueling inter-Islamic conflicts in the region. Funds from Saudi benefactors (who have profited handsomely from the US/West's collaboration with Saudi Arabia due to its oil reserves) have certainly fueled terrorist groups.

Today, I would suggest that terrorist attacks are basically publicity, recruitment and funding campaigns for a militia based land battle by ISIS in the Middle East. Take for example the beheading of Americans that arguably escalated the US involvement in the conflict. it would seem that in terms of their survival this would have been counterproductive. I can only assume that a successful terrorist/militia organisation like ISIS is acting quote-unquote rationally in its own interests if it is as successful as it is. That forces me to conclude that the recruitment and funding that it gets from these publicized actions actually outweighs the cost of being attacked militarily by global powers like the US/EU.

While religion is certainly used to motivate the foot soldiers of these insurgents, I would not at all be surprised if the likes of the al-Baghdadi's of the conflict are purely in it for money and power. Kind of reminds me of how insurgents in Africa post-colonialism had to reinvent themselves to remain relevant and became either religiously or otherwise racially sectarian militias / factions.

OK.
Point 1. I do agree, the inability of many migrants to assimilate to their new homeland, and to expect the new land to change to suit them, is an issue...one not limited to Muslims, but one they certainly share.
Point 2. I would say 'asylum' does not exist if one must wait 5 years to even APPLY for it, and during that time must not work. That's ridiculous, just like saying they're running from asylum to asylum. They are moving to where they believe they might be able to eat, and maybe live outside a small, overcrowded cage. If honest, working refugee camps were to be erected in Turkey on the borders, funded by the EU and others, most of the refugees would go no farther...but that hasn't happened...at least not in any working way for the numbers coming.
I won't assume there's much 'insertion' of non-refugee migrants in the masses, they would have to travel across numerous closed borders and through numerous wars just to join the group...I don't think that's happening. Maybe a few that crossed the Mediterranean to Greece, but that's not many if any.
Point 3. Yes, the numbers are overwhelming. That does seem to be a good incentive for the EU and America (and the other Arab nations), and eventually Russia to do more to stabilize Syria, however, and also a good incentive for them to create systems to deal with these people while treating them as people.
Obviously, though, the only permanent solution is to stop them from being forced out of their homeland. No?

3 things, I may have mixed them a bit.

1 - past experience specifically with muslim migrants (some may have been refugees) in Europe - overall not great, mostly they consider our social system and political correctness as signs of weakness. They consider themselves superior, the first generation may be grateful for a better life than back home but the second and third generations feel superior to non-muslims (especially jews and atheists, but also christians) and entitled to benefits while hating the secular state. Will the current and future waves accomodate better? This has nothing to do with our imperative to help those in need, it is a practical problem. Also not racist - although I do admit racism and xenophobia are a major problem in many parts of Europe and trouble me very much in my own country. More so than the Vietnamese or Ukrainians or people from the Balkans "these people" organize in clans and tribes and will try to impose their view of the world on us, who organise in tiny families and on facebook. Albanian thugs are well organised but they dont hold the view that everyone else should be an Albanian thug too.

2 - current wave of migrants and refugees - lets assume we are talking only about real Syrians boarding boats in Turkey trying to reach Greek islands and not people from all over north africa trying to reach Italy or anyone else trying to reach the EU (possibly pretending to be Syrian). So we have this exemplary Syrian family which has run away from a war to Turkey. They are safe there, only they have to either stay for a couple of years in a refugee camp before they can try to find work or they have to survive in a grey economy sort of like Mexicans in the USA. They know that if they dont apply for asylum in Turkey and manage to set foot on EU soil they can ask for asylum there and be treated better than in Turkey. So these boat people are actually not running from war to asylum but rather from one asylum to another. They make sure not to stop in Greece or Croatia or Austria or Hungary but head for Germany or Sweden. Mostly I believe they have no idea of political geography but they have mobile phones and friends who have already made the journey and know how to milk the local system. So for purposes of compassion they are refugees and totally need our help but from a clinically economic (yes, materialistic) point of view they are very much migrants. Migrants we feel obliged to help because they are sort of refugees too.

3 - the mass and speed of the exodus means we are stretched to accomodate them and they will later start to passionately hate us because Europe will not be the heaven they expected it to be.
A few thousand refugees every year are no big deal even for a small EU state. Hundreds of thousands will be very difficult to take care of in the entire union. Inviting more is just irresponsible.

The good news is that the real Syrian refugees who make it to Europe will probably be the more resourceful, better educated part of the current wave of incoming people and will be able to take care of themselves fairly quickly by my estimate. Also they are mostly variants of Shia - the less orthodox branch of muslims. I am worried more about future waves than the current one.

Maybe we have messed up a bit but we need to learn from our mistakes, and even Germany is now guarding its borders. It would be better if we were able to guard the Shengen perimeter.
Then if we wanted to save more refugees we could send trains or planes to pick them up in Turkey or Jemen. You know, set up an EU consulate there so they could directly apply for asylum in the EU country of their picking. But we have to make a conscious decision first - how many people from the desolate and failing parts of the world do we want to save over a given time period so that we dont fail ourselves. Are we failing? Ask the jewish families who used to live in Malmo until recently.

Its not just about money. Integrating Muslim refugees (well mostly migrants) has proved to be difficult bordering on impossible in Europe. Ghettos, antisemitism, sectarian violence, attempts to impose islamic law on communities etc.

Nonetheless if a refugee asks for asylum in any EU country he will be given asylum in that country. Migrants are different, but since we do not have much of a mechanism for sending them back where they came from... not so very different.

Now some of these migrants and refugees that want to live in Germany and Sweden are supposed to be distributed by "quotas" among the other EU countries, how is that supposed to work in practice?

Dont get me wrong, we have hundreds of thousands of recently (within say 20 years) migrated foreigners in our country, but none of them are bitching about what I eat and drink, how often I pray or what my wife wears to the beach. So no big deal.

As long as these people get asylum and then get evaluated before getting citizenship and there is a limited number of citizenships available over a given period of time everything might yet work out fine.

It will not work out fine just by inertia and political correctness..

I would rather have one crazy polish fascist than a thousand people claiming to be syrian refugees come to my doorstep. I could deal with maybe five at most.

I take issue with the part about birth rates and the 35-year population forecast.

Firstly, the premise that we (Germany) need to stabilise our population level stems primarily from the depopulation of parts of the country, the north-east most of all. However, the cause is not low birth rates. It's urbanisation, which is part and parcel of capitalism. Everything gravitates towards the centres while the rest becomes hinterland to be exploited for resources.

Secondly, population forecasts turn into horseshit real fast. If we were to look at a 35-year forecast created in 1980, we'd miss the reunification, the breakup of Yugoslavia by NATO, about a dozen wars in the Middle East and the destabilisation/desolation in large parts of Southern Europe. Nevermind the EU with all its freedom of movement agreements that were recently suspended.

If we had made a 35-year forecast in 1910... well, you get my point.

Thirdly, Europe is not a singular unity. Our ongoing assault on the economies of Southern Europe (aka austerity) lead to a mass exodus already, Same for the Baltic countries. Unfortunatly, those countries who lost a significant portion of their young and educated over the last years are also the countries who are least equipped to deal with mass immigration in an orderly fashion.

Which brings me to my fourth point: many folks make the argument that we cannot possibly pay for the integration of 800k refugees, much less for 400k a year. Well, we payed for reunification in the most inefficient, corruption-inducing and anti-social way imaginable by piling the cost exclusively on our version of social security. And you know what? It still fucking worked. If Germany can shoulder the cost of reunification, the EU can pay for 2-3 million refugees. End of story.

Finally, we need immigration. Not to maintain population levels, not to even out low birth rates. We need it to not become too homogenous, especially Germany. Too much consensus, too much group think, not enough confrontation and cultural diversity. Shake things up before people start believing their own bullshit again about their own superiority. We've seen it already vis-a-vis Greece.

@eric3579

Does the Polish Six Flags guy look familiar? It's the very same racist imbecile who described the plan to create a unified driver's license across Europe as "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Ticket" while doing the Nazi salute.

I'd rather have a thousand Syrian refugees than people like him.

Congratulations, you've managed to recognise an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment by applying basic reading skills. Oh no, wait... you didn't.

You want credible sources?

Here ya go:
correlation of gun ownership with suicide and homocide
How right-to-carry impacts the crime rate (hint: it's not good)

Understand, I don't want to ban guns. I have friends who hunt and shoot a lot, (I've done it myself a few times and quite frankly, shooting is fun).

The problem is that it's simply way too easy to get a gun in the US. You know why you have "armed thugs" breaking into your house? BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS A FUCKING GUN. In other 1st world countries, most break-ins are unarmed, because as Jim said, most people just want your TV.

Now, it may be that the ship has sailed in the U.S. because you failed to do anything about this for so long. But it would absolutely make sense to make it just a bit more difficult for anyone to have access to a gun.

Media: "German intelligence services provide assistance to the NSA's espionage program, including selectors aimed at economic/political targets in Germany/EU"

Plebs/Parliamentary committee of inquiry: "Government, show us those selectors!"

Chancellory: "Sincerest apologies, but our hands are tied. The White House made it abundantly clear, we cannot hand these selectors over to any committee, much less the public, without risking the NSA's cooperation."

Media: "White House says it's up to the German Chancellory to make the call."

Chancellory: "Look, a three-headed monkey!"

I hate this pathetic joke of a government...