I wouldn’t mind switching to a society that is built on altruism. My point is that the EU is not an inherent benevolent government. These regulations will be abused and I believe that there would be less abuse if we spent the resources on infrastructure that allows the consumers to make better decisions.
the EU should create infrastructure that allows consumers to compare products objectively
forms of market failure. Because that is how it works out in the real world
I think that it is better to improve the markets and minimize the market failures instead of trying to regulate everything.
Everything has to be checked by institutions if consumers are kept ignorant whereas competent consumers do that work for free.
Yes, and that’s why competition is needed so that the ‘as much rent as possible’ is minimized. I am not arguing against a helpful society. We don’t exchange goods for compassion but for money so we need competition.
Regulatory capture. It already exists in the housing market, medical equipment, medical drugs, etc. There, things are more expensive than necessary.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
The shift in responsibility to the EU is not free. Of course, it costs some taxes to run the institutions that enforce the regulations. But who is supervising those institutions? That would be up to the citizens, instead of comparing products directly.
Are citizens going to do that? Have citizens checked the sourcing of the covid vaccines?
That feels like a move on the slippery slope from a market economy to a planning economy.
The objective is honorable, but better value should come from customer choices, not from regulations.
Instead of making those rules and establishing institutions that enforce them, the EU should create infrastructure that allows consumers to compare products objectively. Add the opportunity to finance more expensive but also more durable products easily and there is no need to suffocate everything in regulations.
I should add that this recreates the limited housing markets for consumer goods. This is going to make life more expensive despite each rule being very reasonable. The promise of the EU were free markets, but the opposite is happening.
British newspapers regularly reported how stupid the EU is. Unlike other countries, they made sure that the population was on the edge of EU acceptance. Everybody pretening that Brexit was just stupidity allows the EU to avoid the debate about whatever was the major political difference that led to the separation.
This could just mean that Milosevic was bombed for other reasons.
When you start hiring less intelligent people who can’t help but actually believe the propaganda.
This is a thing to be judged in decades. It was GB’s policy to never allow for a united power on the continent. Britain’s retreat from the EU implies that they are sure of European decline or fear the domination by Brussels even more.
Because it’s for blueing your load.
Who controls that army? Backroom deals like the election of von der Leyen?
The EU is not fully democratic. It would be foolish to create the army before the ‘true union’.
Well, I don’t understand how a helmet can be so tightly coupled to a plane. There could be less cameras or less radar systems, but that can’t limit the helmet to show whatever the sensors track.
Of course it could limit the helmet somehow, but that’s what I want to understand.
The planes are designed to carry several tons of bombs. For sure there must be some space to store some CPUs and memory.
If the helmet is such a key feature then it’s worth developing a European version. The good thing about a helmet is that it’s easy to replace, unlike other parts of the plane. So the Gripen can be bought right now, and then suppliers can deliver helmets. Have an open market for them with a public specification of the interfaces and thus a thriving European helmet industry.
Why can’t the helmet be used in the Gripen?
Thanks. This leaves me with follow up questions:
If the plane is used for defence, is visibility that important?
Sensor fusion is a software feature. Why can’t it be replicated in other aircrafts easily?
Could you explain why, please?
You have to destroy something when you ‘fight against this destruction’. But you can’t fight abstract things, not even Fascism or imbalance.
Yes, people are easier to unite against something. The famous outside attacker. But how to fight fascism if it promises to fulfill what people want? People have to see that democracy is better. Maybe fight corruption, so that democracy can be at its best?
deleted by creator
Fight hunger, fight drug addiction, fight the destruction of the European values. This doesn’t work. Those are not targets. If you want to destroy something then you have to pinpoint a target that can be destroyed. “Destruction of the European values” is not a target.
However, do you really want to destroy something or don’t you rather want to build something?
It doesn’t come with the thrill of fear, but uniting people to build something is more sustainable.
In any case, take a close look and check if the oasis is not already burning or even spreading fire all over the world.
If you choose construction, make sure that the values you are going to implement are consistent and operational. Progressive means nothing but promising everybody that the world will develop according to the progess they envision. That won’t happen. There can only be one direction.
My personal opinion is that Pluralism makes it difficult to unite people. People follow their leaders. If the idea would be enough, this post would explode, there would be discussions until people agreed on what to do and then do it. In a pluralist society you have to convince all leaders, and they have to agree to get active at the same time.
So start with finding the leaders and let them convince their communities.
That’s a good argument but doesn’t fit the situation. The bad buying decisions can be corrected with market mechanisms. Allow people to finance the products over the entire expected lifetime. Then high quality goods are cheaper and people will choose them.
Some people speculated that Britain left the EU because they believe in markets whereas many EU countries don’t. This could be one of many decisions that put the EU onto a different trajectory. We will see in 20 years if the EU can stay on top of its regulations.