Gorel Bras-Ficelle's page

WHOA! Since when was Britain ever able to sell the entire population of Ireland into slavery!?

The Irish fought when religion was suppressed, if they tried to sell us into slavery I gaurantee you it would have been a bloodbath.

Protestants were vastly outnumbered in Ireland itself, and while the Empire certainly would have won an outright war, I find it unlikely that many of the influential figures who kept houses and estates in Ireland would have been okay with that kind of a bloodbath on England's doorstep.

The Law would never have been upheld, and it would likely end up costing Britain more than it earned them. That's a...

Agreed.

But I am sure that this thread is really intended as a serious one. After all, it was spawned by the "100+ alternate history ideas", which counts quite a few silly posts, and a lot of really frivolous ones. Like : 120. Thierry Henry gets a conscience, Ireland get its righteous place in the world cup and beats the crap out of Spain. That sort.

So, with historic plausibility conveniently out the window, I'm sure nobody intended to imply that Irish would accept being sent overseas as human cattle.

Anyway, as a rule of thumb, it would be nice that thread doesn't become a subtle way of insulting countries, people, etc. Mind your manners, people!

I had a nice long response typed out, forgot to copy before posting and it was eaten. Lazarus can no longer be relied upon to do its job. sorry.

So, the Cliff notes version of my response:

I concede a couple of points, disagree with a couple, and am willing to debate a point or two. Sorry this is vague, but I'm still miffed at myself for relying on Lazarus instead of copying.

:)

Ouch. I hate it when it happens.

Take your time: anyway, Europe and USA are so far apart on policies and basic tenets that we could as well live on separate planets. I am just arguing for the sake of argument, to better know your point of view; I don't believe that I can convince you of anything, or the other way around.

Of course they're going to say that IN Europe. They don't want to see the troubles in the street Greece saw when the citizenry was told they couldn't expect government to do everything any more.

BUT...

Wasn't at all what they were saying at the G20. Whatever the "hot topic" is on an economic theory Europe never used and The States only partially used for eight years is, again, irrelevant. The fact is, Europe has been running on almost pure Keynesian economics since WWII. Friedman's theories...

I didnt' realize you were such an expert on european policies!

Three points:

1) yes, our various governments mean to scale down spendings and augment taxes, mainly by shutting down tax exemptions and superfluous investments, not by removing down social umbrellas during an economic storm. THAT would be sheer idiocy, leading straight to meltdown.

Our "social welfare" is what protected us from the full impact of the current financial crisis. So again, with some exceptions (czech republic, for instance), the current trend is to reinstate it. Citizens on welfare can still participate in the economy; hobboes can't.

2) we have newspapers too, so we know what was said in Toronto, and are well acquainted with the notion of double talk, thanks! :)

I agree that in Europe, only some countries (UK, Ireland) truly went for "reaganomics" (or "thatcherism", as it is called here). It's no coincidence that they were the most badly struck by the financial crisis.

Iceland (which is not part of the UE) turned itself into a banking haven... and went bankrupt last year.

3) where did you get the idea that our overall population was shrinking ? The UE counts 500M inhabitants in 2009, with a slower growth rate than the USA, but still a growth rate. I know that among neocon circles it's trendy to talk about the "Old Europe", but it's not litterally true.

In fact you have a wide spectrum, with Germany at one end (shrinking population) and France + UK at the other (growing population).

If I may, I add that one billionnaire doesn't have the same positive impact on the economy than an thousand middle class families. You have to cover basic needs only once, and buying a fifteenth house or a third yacht quickly becomes stale. So, excess money is hoarded and used to make more money, which in turn widen the gap between the super-rich and the rest of the population, which ultimately leads to social unrest, in a well-known historical pattern.

Also, for one self-made Bill Gates you have hundreds of "sons of", whose only merit was to be well born, on top of a big heap of money.

So, taxes are also a way of enforcing social stability. Wealth would otherwise tend to pool in private hands.

Yes, you can call me socialist if you want... We are used to it. :D

The ability to look at history and see, exactly, where any economic theory that depends on the government to efficiently manage an economy, other than regulation to ensure companies don't screw each other or the public has failed, usually miserably? Otherwise, any argument boils down to "we're smarter than [insert every instance of failure]were!".

Even Europe is feeling the pain of idealistic reliance on "cradle to grave" government social umbrellas, and have been vocal about it for at least the last year. Anyone paying attention to the G20 conference in Toronto would know that. And all of those umbrellas were based on the economic theory taught in most of our post-secondary institutions of higher learning for at least the last 70 years (Keynesian economics dominates these days, after all) . So, again, the real world is disproving theory.

An acknowledgment of this would go a long way towards my not dismissing someone's opinion. Otherwise, I feel free to dismiss away. Sorry.

Hi there!

As an european guy, I can tell you that the current hot topic here is the utter failure of the "reaganomics" theory, and the need to come back to a better regulated economy (regulated by the government, that is). In a word, more Keynes, less Friedmann. Even right wing political parties now agree (publicly) on that...

So all the talk is about improving/streamlining/strenghtening the social umbrella to preserve it, not about tearing it down..

Sorry!