3 ms·

It’s all trade offs, though. The US has vast problems with identity theft, fraud, and perverse privacy violations, because there is no regulation in that area.

by 9dev 1y ago

It’s all trade offs, though. The US has vast problems with identity theft, fraud, and perverse privacy violations, because there is no regulation in that area. The market will only care about profits, and not the humans on whose backs these profits are materialised. There must be something in between these extremes on the spectrum.

DeathArrow 1y ago
>There must be something in between these extremes on the spectrum. That's for sure. We should take what was proved it works and adjust it to our conditions.
rapsey 1y ago
You can take examples of working systems and adapt what works and discard what doesn't. Europe has spent decades and trillions on programs that do not work and produce nothing but word documents. With no sign of anyone acknowledging the poor results of these programs. Since I can't post on this thread anymore I will edit. I am talking about what this thread is about. Misguided and poorly designed industrial development programs that Europe has wasted trillions on with nothing to show for it. Not criticising every aspect of the EU.
- 9dev 1y ago
  Now that’s just hyperbole, and factually wrong, too. The EU has managed amazingly much over its existence. After WW II, it managed to keep peace, establish the worlds largest single market, enabled free trade, allowed citizens to move, live, and even work in any member state; it implemented regulation that makes food, drinks, and products some of the safest to consume and use on earth; it devised standards that are globally adhered to; it funds art, research, and urban development across all member states (as the Brits painfully realised); it distributes wealth in Europe, making the union stronger overall; and that’s just a small sample. There’s lots of things in dire need for improvement for sure, but downright dismissing the EU as having achieved nothing is just spite and not helpful. That attitude got the Americans where they are now, and I sure don’t want to go there.
  - barry-cotter 1y ago
    > The EU has managed amazingly much over its existence. After WW II, it managed to keep peace You misspelled NATO.
    - 9dev 1y ago
      No, I didn’t. The EU contributed a lot to a stable Europe after the war, and having tight diplomatic relations and economic bonds was paramount to avoid conflicts within Europe.
      - barry-cotter 1y ago
        > having tight diplomatic relations and economic bonds was paramount to avoid conflicts within Europe. The diplomatic and economic bonds between the belligerents of WW1 and WW2 were very close indeed before war broke out. The post WW2 peace in Western Europe was a function of the fact that NATO did its job “Keep the Russians out, the French in and the Germans down.” If tight economic and other links prevented war there would still bebe a country called Yugoslavia. You need either actual broad based buy in or an imperial power willing to stop people who would like to go to war from doing so. NATO keeps Bosnia-Herzegovina from collapsing and as soon as they stop it’s done. No doubt there are other obvious examples in Europe, and it’s not as if anyone thinks NATO means much without the US.

by 9dev 1y ago

DeathArrow 1y ago

>There must be something in between these extremes on the spectrum. That's for sure. We should take what was proved it works and adjust it to our conditions.

rapsey 1y ago

You can take examples of working systems and adapt what works and discard what doesn't. Europe has spent decades and trillions on programs that do not work and produce nothing but word documents. With no sign of anyone acknowledging the poor results of these programs. Since I can't post on this thread anymore I will edit. I am talking about what this thread is about. Misguided and poorly designed industrial development programs that Europe has wasted trillions on with nothing to show for it. Not criticising every aspect of the EU.

9dev 1y ago
Now that’s just hyperbole, and factually wrong, too. The EU has managed amazingly much over its existence. After WW II, it managed to keep peace, establish the worlds largest single market, enabled free trade, allowed citizens to move, live, and even work in any member state; it implemented regulation that makes food, drinks, and products some of the safest to consume and use on earth; it devised standards that are globally adhered to; it funds art, research, and urban development across all member states (as the Brits painfully realised); it distributes wealth in Europe, making the union stronger overall; and that’s just a small sample. There’s lots of things in dire need for improvement for sure, but downright dismissing the EU as having achieved nothing is just spite and not helpful. That attitude got the Americans where they are now, and I sure don’t want to go there.
- barry-cotter 1y ago
  > The EU has managed amazingly much over its existence. After WW II, it managed to keep peace You misspelled NATO.
  - 9dev 1y ago
    No, I didn’t. The EU contributed a lot to a stable Europe after the war, and having tight diplomatic relations and economic bonds was paramount to avoid conflicts within Europe.
    - barry-cotter 1y ago
      > having tight diplomatic relations and economic bonds was paramount to avoid conflicts within Europe. The diplomatic and economic bonds between the belligerents of WW1 and WW2 were very close indeed before war broke out. The post WW2 peace in Western Europe was a function of the fact that NATO did its job “Keep the Russians out, the French in and the Germans down.” If tight economic and other links prevented war there would still bebe a country called Yugoslavia. You need either actual broad based buy in or an imperial power willing to stop people who would like to go to war from doing so. NATO keeps Bosnia-Herzegovina from collapsing and as soon as they stop it’s done. No doubt there are other obvious examples in Europe, and it’s not as if anyone thinks NATO means much without the US.