Europe submits voluntarily

[bilby]

Is the West to blame for the vast corruption of practically the whole African continent?

See above.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Actually there are two issues corruption and exploitation that do not always cross over but sometimes do. Some of the most brilliant people I've met are Africans (especially Ibos) who are highly educated but end up working abroad. Your last point is correct.

Exploitation is one of these words thrown around by the left as if it is universally evil. Exploitation is what you get when there's a business transaction that takes place where there's a power imbalance. The weaker party will agree to terms that the stronger party, if the situation was reverse, would never agree to. That's exploitation. But here's the thing, it's still a voluntary business transaction. The weaker party is still better off entering into the unfair trade than not entering into the trade at all. An exploitative deal is better than nothing.

The left often have this mental picture of the world that either it is in every way fair or they're taking their toys and going home and nobody gets to play. The poor (and poor countries) will always get exploited by the rich (and rich countries). And it's not entirely obvious that this is bad. We don't want people to enter into businesses where they're put at a disadvantage. We want incentives that push people out of jobs where they risk exploitation.

This is one of those situations where it's better to just lay off the market and let it sort itself out and instead we give people security, while they're transferring from one job to another, by putting them on welfare. This is easily achieved with foreign aid. We need the welfare in order to prevent people from being locked in exploitative jobs. That's just another word for slavery.

Aid research suggests that the best bang for the buck is simply to give the poor money. They tend to be the best at figuring out what's the best investment for them personally.

 

[Jayjay]

Actually there are two issues corruption and exploitation that do not always cross over but sometimes do. Some of the most brilliant people I've met are Africans (especially Ibos) who are highly educated but end up working abroad. Your last point is correct.

Exploitation is one of these words thrown around by the left as if it is universally evil. Exploitation is what you get when there's a business transaction that takes place where there's a power imbalance. The weaker party will agree to terms that the stronger party, if the situation was reverse, would never agree to. That's exploitation. But here's the thing, it's still a voluntary business transaction. The weaker party is still better off entering into the unfair trade than not entering into the trade at all. An exploitative deal is better than nothing.

The left often have this mental picture of the world that either it is in every way fair or they're taking their toys and going home and nobody gets to play. The poor (and poor countries) will always get exploited by the rich (and rich countries). And it's not entirely obvious that this is bad. We don't want people to enter into businesses where they're put at a disadvantage. We want incentives that push people out of jobs where they risk exploitation.

This is one of those situations where it's better to just lay off the market and let it sort itself out and instead we give people security, while they're transferring from one job to another, by putting them on welfare. This is easily achieved with foreign aid. We need the welfare in order to prevent people from being locked in exploitative jobs. That's just another word for slavery.

Aid research suggests that the best bang for the buck is simply to give the poor money. They tend to be the best at figuring out what's the best investment for them personally.

The problem is corruption. When you are giving money to the peopel directly, as you would in case of social security within your own country, it is better to give people money. But foreign aid is usually given to governments and NGOs operating within foreign countries, where everyone is looking to take their cut and there isn't much that the donors can do about, except try to pick the least corrupt organizations to work with. I'm not convinced that simply funneling out money that way is most efficient because a lot of that might never make it to the intended recipients. Building infrastructure, providing education, and delivering food clothes and medicine might be more efficient when dealing with developing countries.

 

[TSwizzle]

Turkey threatens to unleash the next phase of the invasion;

Turkey is at breaking point and the time could come when the country would open the gates for refugees to travel to Europe, the Turkish president has threatened.

Telegraph

The EU will have to pay more jizya on top of the billions of Euro spent.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Exploitation is one of these words thrown around by the left as if it is universally evil. Exploitation is what you get when there's a business transaction that takes place where there's a power imbalance. The weaker party will agree to terms that the stronger party, if the situation was reverse, would never agree to. That's exploitation. But here's the thing, it's still a voluntary business transaction. The weaker party is still better off entering into the unfair trade than not entering into the trade at all. An exploitative deal is better than nothing.

The left often have this mental picture of the world that either it is in every way fair or they're taking their toys and going home and nobody gets to play. The poor (and poor countries) will always get exploited by the rich (and rich countries). And it's not entirely obvious that this is bad. We don't want people to enter into businesses where they're put at a disadvantage. We want incentives that push people out of jobs where they risk exploitation.

This is one of those situations where it's better to just lay off the market and let it sort itself out and instead we give people security, while they're transferring from one job to another, by putting them on welfare. This is easily achieved with foreign aid. We need the welfare in order to prevent people from being locked in exploitative jobs. That's just another word for slavery.

Aid research suggests that the best bang for the buck is simply to give the poor money. They tend to be the best at figuring out what's the best investment for them personally.

The problem is corruption. When you are giving money to the peopel directly, as you would in case of social security within your own country, it is better to give people money. But foreign aid is usually given to governments and NGOs operating within foreign countries, where everyone is looking to take their cut and there isn't much that the donors can do about, except try to pick the least corrupt organizations to work with. I'm not convinced that simply funneling out money that way is most efficient because a lot of that might never make it to the intended recipients. Building infrastructure, providing education, and delivering food clothes and medicine might be more efficient when dealing with developing countries.

This is where I heard it:
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/fig...al-evidence-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

I think it's pretty rare that money is given to governments directly. The donor countries don't trust the governments. On the instances where I know how it's gone down local organisations have applied directly to SIDA (the Swedish governments foreign aid organisation). The recipient countries government isn't allowed near that money. All auditing is done by the donor country (Sweden). There's really no way the recipient country can twist anybodies arm. It's completely out of their hands. And also that money donated can only be spent buying products in the donor country. It's usually a pretty narrow assortment of products that the donor country allows the recipient country to buy. And any money spent in Sweden can easily be traced back to the people buying it.

So within the existing paradigm I assume that it's the donor country that controls and distributes the money.

I'm just talking government-to-government aid. I assume that all money that goes through NGO's is embezzled and never reaches the intended target audience.

 

[TSwizzle]

Don't worry, the commander in chief, leader of the free world, POTUS, Barak Hussein Obama will be making an appearance on the Ellen Degeneres show tonight. Assad and Putin will be chuckling over the phone at this one.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Don't worry, the commander in chief, leader of the free world, POTUS, Barak Hussein Obama will be making an appearance on the Ellen Degeneres show tonight. Assad and Putin will be chuckling over the phone at this one.

He's already been on Marc Maron. That's hard to beat when it comes to slumming it.

 

[angelo]

Are you talking about the " Appeaser In Chief" here?

 

[TSwizzle]

Europe really is fucked;

Actor George Clooney and his wife Amal, a human rights lawyer, have had a private meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss the war in Syria and migration crisis in Europe.

BBC

 

[Jayjay]

Europe really is fucked;

Actor George Clooney and his wife Amal, a human rights lawyer, have had a private meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss the war in Syria and migration crisis in Europe.

BBC

George Clooney may be a shitty actor, but from what I've heard he's a decent human being. Don't see how this could make Europe any more fucked.

 

[TSwizzle]

Europe really is fucked;



BBC

George Clooney may be a shitty actor, but from what I've heard he's a decent human being.

I think he's a decent actor, some of his films have been pretty crap, some of them quite good. I do think he is one of the good guys, heart in the right place etc. Never the less, why should Clooney and the rest of the right on celebrity luvvies have unfettered access to world leaders to promote their latest hobby horse agenda ? Then again, perhaps Clooney was offering up his mansion on the banks on lake Como as a refugee center but I think that is unlikely.

Don't see how this could make Europe any more fucked.

Honestly ? Aging Europe is going to have to make some difficult choices soon. Meanwhile its world leaders fuck about getting selfies with their latest celebrity pals.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Europe really is fucked;



BBC

George Clooney may be a shitty actor, but from what I've heard he's a decent human being. Don't see how this could make Europe any more fucked.

This is everything I hate about the modern world. He's an actor. He's a professional liar. Why do we care what he says off-screen? I don't care one hoot what any entertainer says. Once they veer from their art I stop listening. It's always bullshit

 

[Jayjay]

George Clooney may be a shitty actor, but from what I've heard he's a decent human being. Don't see how this could make Europe any more fucked.

This is everything I hate about the modern world. He's an actor. He's a professional liar. Why do we care what he says off-screen? I don't care one hoot what any entertainer says. Once they veer from their art I stop listening. It's always bullshit

I don't care what he says either. The story is about hm meeting with Merkel, i.e. a politician. I don't see why I should be outraged or even surprised by one publicity-seeking professional liar meeting another.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Europe really is fucked;

Actor George Clooney and his wife Amal, a human rights lawyer, have had a private meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss the war in Syria and migration crisis in Europe.

BBC

...then of course Merkel would have been better listening to the German people, and also tightening up its immigration procedure.

- - - Updated - - -

George Clooney may be a shitty actor, but from what I've heard he's a decent human being. Don't see how this could make Europe any more fucked.

This is everything I hate about the modern world. He's an actor. He's a professional liar. Why do we care what he says off-screen? I don't care one hoot what any entertainer says. Once they veer from their art I stop listening. It's always bullshit

Sounds like he should be in politics.

 

[angelo]

Europe really is fucked;



BBC

George Clooney may be a shitty actor, but from what I've heard he's a decent human being. Don't see how this could make Europe any more fucked.

An actor and his bleeding heart wife who happens to be a human rights lawyer having a meeting with Merkel and you don't see nothing wrong with it?

 

[untermensche]

George Clooney may be a shitty actor, but from what I've heard he's a decent human being. Don't see how this could make Europe any more fucked.

This is everything I hate about the modern world. He's an actor. He's a professional liar. Why do we care what he says off-screen? I don't care one hoot what any entertainer says. Once they veer from their art I stop listening. It's always bullshit

Why should you not care just because he has a very successful career as an actor?

Why should that have any bearing on what he says?

He only has access to say it because he is famous, but that is meaningless. That is the way the world works.

 

[whichphilosophy]

George Clooney may be a shitty actor, but from what I've heard he's a decent human being. Don't see how this could make Europe any more fucked.

An actor and his bleeding heart wife who happens to be a human rights lawyer having a meeting with Merkel and you don't see nothing wrong with it?

If it is for support for Syrian refugees that's okay, but if it's support the current merger of the term refugee with economic migrant than there is a problem.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is everything I hate about the modern world. He's an actor. He's a professional liar. Why do we care what he says off-screen? I don't care one hoot what any entertainer says. Once they veer from their art I stop listening. It's always bullshit

Why should you not care just because he has a very successful career as an actor?

Why should that have any bearing on what he says?

He only has access to say it because he is famous, but that is meaningless. That is the way the world works.

The same reason I have for asking a scientist about science rather than a priest. He's not an authority in the field and hasn't a more nuanced opinion than any random idiot off the street.

Just having people's attention isn't the same thing as having anything to say. It's just pathetic. Same thing with musicians. It's always embarrassing when they share their political views.

If we give these people space to air their views the public discourse will get even more dumbed down. We don't need that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why should you not care just because he has a very successful career as an actor?

Why should that have any bearing on what he says?

He only has access to say it because he is famous, but that is meaningless. That is the way the world works.

The same reason I have for asking a scientist about science rather than a priest. He's not an authority in the field and hasn't a more nuanced opinion than any random idiot off the street.

Just having people's attention isn't the same thing as having anything to say. It's just pathetic. Same thing with musicians. It's always embarrassing when they share their political views.

If we give these people space to air their views the public discourse will get even more dumbed down. We don't need that.

If we ask politicians about politics we shall get a diversity of views. The most popular politicians do not necessarily have the correct answers or actions. A diversity of opinion, even to what we perceive in our time as a lunatic fringe is more healthy than cloistered political correctness. This is of course not what you mean but what you suggest could lead to that.

 

[angelo]

Politicians are elected to office to full fill the wishes of the voting public who put them there. At the present time, a majority of those voters want their elected representatives to close the borders and deal with the mess they have allowed to fester.

Ignoring those wishes will assure they get their arses well and truly kicked, and rightly so come elections.