Brexit

You can sit on your high horse all you want and loathe my presence in this country because I took fair advantage of the law.

I have such a  good view from my high horse, but hang on a minute; are you the person who is just a girlfriend of an EEA citizen, not a spouse.?

Found a good job in Munich to apply for, so maybe its time to start hedging the bets rather than waiting around to see if this government can get its act together (unlikely).

If you are, then this won’t work. Germany will not let you live in their country if you are only a girlfriend of an EEA citizen as that is not EU law.. You would either have to be a spouse of an EEA citizen to live in Germany on “free movement”, or have to use German Immigration rules to be able to live and work there.

If you are looking for jobs in other EEA countries and need to use the EU Free Movement to be able to live there, you will have to find an EEA country who, like the UK, will allow you in to their country. Try looking at EEA countries who allow partner family visas under their own immigration rules and see if they will allow a girlfriend of an EEA citizen under Free Movement.

However, if you are only a girlfriend and not a spouse, the UK would have only let you in as an EU “Extended Family Member” and you do not have the same rights as somebody who is married to an EEA citizen.

but Im not the one who will be sitting in a cold drafty shitbox in the near and long term future.

The “EU” is only 28 (soon 27?) of the 44 countries in the continent of Europe.

The World has about 200 countries.

The Commonwealth countries have double the countries the “EU” has. 


Most British citizens living abroad, don’t choose to live in the EEA countries. They use the immigration rules of a country, to move to that country; something that can still be done with EEA countries after a Brexit. All western countries offer visas to the workers with the skills they need.

I have such a  good view from my high horse, but hang on a minute; are you the person who is just a girlfriend of an EEA citizen, not a spouse.?

Always gets personal with some people.

It’s also part of the QE strategy that is the center of liberal economics. The conservative philosophy is let them fail.

In this case it seemed the conservatives were unwilling to hold to their philosophy and much happier about accepting public money to cover their loses.  In the UK, the conservative philosophy is that profits should be private but losses should be spread equally. 

In this case it seemed the conservatives were unwilling to hold to their philosophy and much happier about accepting public money to cover their loses.  In the UK, the conservative philosophy is that profits should be private but losses should be spread equally.

Investment bankers aren’t more conservative than liberal or vice versa. CEOs & board members included.

Any business facing bankruptcy with their industry in tatters around them will take whatever the govt or anyone else will give to save themselves.

It’s treasury & the fed, and central banks around the world following their lead, who pushed QE. In certain ways it worked. It certainly slowed the fall and stopped it short of where it would have gone, and brought it back quicker. But it was close run with the risk if it failed being catastrophic, and that risk has gone on till basically now when they’ve started to bring up rates.

By the way, the US govt at least made billions upon billions on the pay back of those bailout loans. The fed has done even better and will continue for a generation as they unload assets bought cheap to prop up the market. Buy low, sell high is after all how people get rich.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Investment bankers aren’t more conservative than liberal or vice versa. CEOs & board members included.

Any business facing bankruptcy with their industry in tatters around them will take whatever the govt or anyone else will give to save themselves.

The point though is that all these things you mention are after the fact. Knowing they will not be prosecuted, and in fact will be given a blank cheque, is not a deterrent. It is an invitation.

The point though is that all these things you mention are after the fact. Knowing they will not be prosecuted, and in fact will be given a blank cheque, is not a deterrent. It is an invitation.

That’s the criticism of QE and Keynesian economics generally.

The Austrian model is free markets are Darwinian. They must be allowed to punish extremely risky behavior and kill off the weak so the better, stronger, faster, more innovative, and properly balanced risk tolerant will rise to the top and compete with each other.

If you’re trying to say you believe in the Austrian school of economic thought, but want to be compassionate on social issues... welcome to George W. Bush’s compassionate conservative world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should consider deeper ideas. When you speak of a free market, you talk of fairy tales. Santa Claus.

No such thing exists.

It certainly does, unless you’re applying some highly specific definition that you made up for yourself.

If govt doesn’t fix prices, then they’re set by the market. If govt doesn’t fix output, then it’s set by the market. Anytime anything is able to freely float to meet supply & demand, that’s the free market. Just because things are regulated or interfered in doesn’t mean it isn’t a free market. The point of most regulation should be to prevent the things that keep the free market from functioning - stuff like antitrust or insider trading. And some of it is to prevent free rider problems, like pollution. But those things don’t stop it being a free market. Done right, they make it more free. When done wrong, that’s the regulation that needs to be eliminated.

Anytime anything is able to freely float to meet supply & demand, that’s the free market.

If you open a cafe, society has provided you with a handy, paved surface on which your customers can get to you. A police force and army to keep foreign raiders and criminals from taking your supplies. And a means by which you can predictably enforce ownership and contract. You are supplied with an educated work force. And a means by which you can get rid of your wastes without killing your customers.

If you open a cafe, society has provided you with a handy, paved surface on which your customers can get to you. A police force and army to keep foreign raiders and criminals from taking your supplies. And a means by which you can predictably enforce ownership and contract. You are supplied with an educated work force. And a means by which you can get rid of your wastes without killing your customers.

Cafes don’t get to use the public right of way without either paying or if the local govt specifically authorizes it in an effort to grab further tax dollars.

Police, military, etc are basic govt services that people pay taxes for. Having a society doesn’t in any way interfere with the function of a free market.

Though let’s be honest, it’s an extreme tertiary purpose of the military to defend against direct attack. The primary purpose is to force other countries to comply with trade situations that favor the more powerful country.

The owner of that cafe pays taxes for all those services just like consumers pay them to create the environment in which that cafe can exists because they want it to exist. That cafe then pays an additional and very significant company tax before being taxed again on what the owner takes home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk