What do you know about the European Union

[kevinsmith]

You import those. I doubt your nation has the culinary skills.

Yeah, and Ireland is known as a culinary Mecca for sure.

And your incessant "bragging" that you know more about us than we know about you is like a fanboy going up to his favorite actor and bragging that he knows more about the actor than the actor does about the inconsequential little person.

 

[Fero]

Yeah, and Ireland is known as a culinary Mecca for sure.

 

[kevinsmith]

I believe that's Haggis, and isn't that Scottish?

 

[Fero]

There's a difference?

 

[Devastation the Almighty]

The Scots don't worship the color green.

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

I got seven correct

 

[Fero]

Not bad really. I just had the president of parliament wrong, never even heard of the guy.

The agriculture question was pure nostalgia. Every European who was a kid in the nineties remembers the pissed off farmers that feared losing their subsidy.

 

[chalupa]

Subsidies are stupid.

 

[Fero]

Spraying milk and cowshit over politician's cars isn't.

 

[Frood]

Subsidies are stupid.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Fero]

Don't know about that. Without EU subsidies, European farmers would go bankrupt within a decade to be replaced by Asians and shit.

Europe first, you conservative liberal assholes.

 

[chalupa]

If you can't take the heat, get out of the rice farm.

 

[Ciaran]

Yeah, and Ireland is known as a culinary Mecca for sure.

And your incessant "bragging" that you know more about us than we know about you is like a fanboy going up to his favorite actor and bragging that he knows more about the actor than the actor does about the inconsequential little person.

??? Don't get so ratty. I'm not talking about you or anybody in this debate. I'm talking about the average trailer trash american who is simply more ignorant than his European equivalent.

There's a difference?

Poor cover up.

Subsidies are stupid.

Disagree. As Fero mentioned, the farming subsidies have been great. In addition, the forestry subsidies have also been great. Subsidies can create growth and new markets. Mostly they can create good environmental working conditions which help the earth where capitalistic fucks couldn't give two fucks. Rather than allowing people chop down all the forests for profit, EU created subsidies where Irish farmers who give up a portion of their land to grow forestry get rewards for both doing it and also receive money for the potential money they would have earned on the land now covered in trees. System worked.

 

[chalupa]

Let me rephrase: subsidies are stupid.


When the population is made up of benevolent actors, subsidies can work. However, what you will find, even in your Irish paradise, is that the lowly, ma and pa farm family might benefit a little, but some conglomerate will pull together capital, invest it in buying up farms, and then collect the subsidy disproportionately from what it was intended to provide.

In theory they are great, but so is mainlining heroin.

 

[Frood]

In theory they are great, but so is mainlining heroin.

In theory they don't even work. Subsidies are a very inefficient way to promote production. Look at cotton in the United States. American cotton farmers cannot compete with the international cotton market without subsidies. They lobby, and get those subsidies. Those subsidies ONLY help the cotton farmer. If there were no subsidies, the american people would still be able to get the cotton from the foreign producers who drove the prices so low that the americans needed subsidies in the first place, and all the money that's spent on those subsidies is essentially being wasted, as is the time of the farmer who's doing something inefficient with his time. If they eliminated the subsidy, all that money could go somewhere where it's more useful, like converting to the metric system . The cotton farmer would fail, and be forced to do something for which he actually has a competitive advantage, instead of sucking on the teat of the government. Not to mention all the money that gets wasted by lobbying FOR the subsidy in the first place...

 

[Ciaran]

some conglomerate will pull together capital, invest it in buying up farms, and then collect the subsidy disproportionately from what it was intended to provide.

It has been regulated well enough for that not to happen. Now, maybe it doesn't work in Capitalism Land of the Free but you underestimate the Irish people's relationship with their land.

Please read John B. Keane's 'The Field' for further education.



edit- of course, I am only arguing for this specific example which proves that subsidies work when the merit is worthy

 

[chalupa]

It has been regulated well enough for that not to happen. Now, maybe it doesn't work in Capitalism Land of the Free but you underestimate the Irish people's relationship with their land.

Please read John B. Keane's 'The Field' for further education.



edit- of course, I am only arguing for this specific example which proves that subsidies work when the merit is worthy

Ay, there's the rub of it. The propensity of humans is to take things that are well-intentioned and noble, and completely fuck them up past all usefulness.

 

[Nocturnal]

I got 13 out of 13 right because.

Funnily enough, if there was a similar US questionnaire, the Europeans would do better on average than the US would on our quiz.

That's because we are less ignorant.

I'd bet my net worth that on average Europeans are just as stupid as Americans. No doubt that average Euro knows way more about global politics, but that is a result of living in tiny nations surrounded by enemies, trading partners, and allies. Also as Matt said, if policy shifts in Italy nobody here gives a shit because it has literally zero effect on us, vs a US shift could impact Italy directly.

 

[Nocturnal]

In theory they don't even work. Subsidies are a very inefficient way to promote production. Look at cotton in the United States. American cotton farmers cannot compete with the international cotton market without subsidies. They lobby, and get those subsidies. Those subsidies ONLY help the cotton farmer. If there were no subsidies, the american people would still be able to get the cotton from the foreign producers who drove the prices so low that the americans needed subsidies in the first place, and all the money that's spent on those subsidies is essentially being wasted, as is the time of the farmer who's doing something inefficient with his time. If they eliminated the subsidy, all that money could go somewhere where it's more useful, like converting to the metric system . The cotton farmer would fail, and be forced to do something for which he actually has a competitive advantage, instead of sucking on the teat of the government. Not to mention all the money that gets wasted by lobbying FOR the subsidy in the first place...

Not always. If the goal of the subsidy is to establish a critical industry or maintain one (i.e. the steel industry for defense purposes or to create a market for electric cars) then they can be an important tool of economic planning. Anybody doubting this just needs to look at many of the Asian nations that owe their prosperity to a dedicated push to build up heavy industry.

Just because subsidies are often used poorly, such as in the US sugar industry, that doesn't mean they are always bad.

 

[Frood]

Not always. If the goal of the subsidy is to establish a critical industry or maintain one (i.e. the steel industry for defense purposes or to create a market for electric cars) then they can be an important tool of economic planning. Anybody doubting this just needs to look at many of the Asian nations that owe their prosperity to a dedicated push to build up heavy industry.

Just because subsidies are often used poorly, such as in the US sugar industry, that doesn't mean they are always bad.

Fair point. the infant industry argument does have some weoght behind it, but its definitely a double edged sword. Once established it's very hard to get those subsidies taken away even if they aren't needed anymore.