You remember the one where Ritchie said that it was anti-democratic to, well, in his words:
That is the aim of the December 2011 agreement on the future economic management of Europe which effectively bans deficit funding even though this is the only known and proven mechanism for ending recessions. In effect the neoliberal leadership of Europe is as a result seeking to end democratic choice and the role of government in the management of the economy henceforth – guaranteed by international law that will over-write local choice. The only option that will legally be offered to electorates henceforth will be a right wing one. No other option will be allowed, by law.
So I pointed out in the comments that:
They’re banning structural deficits, not cyclical ones. Keynesian demand management is still an option.
And was told that:
They’re banning cyclical deficits too – read what it says
They’re limited to 3% – an impossible and utterly unachievable goal since deficits are the legacy of other economic actions beyond government control but for which government will be punished if it happens – reinforcing counter cyclical behaviour and deliberately designed to ensure the risk of running a deficit is too high to take
To which I pointed out that:
Greater than 3% will be allowable if a majority vote to allow it.
They’ve not banned it at all, they’ve put a constraint on it.
To get the answer that:
And as you well know – that means it’s banned
All you’re doing is supporting the conceit
And the removal of democratic powers
Which si all I would expect of you – since you’re fundamentally opposed to political freedom
At which point I said that:
Governments voting on something is the removal of democratic powers and political freedom?
Which brought the response:
Now I thought you guys thought the EU undemocratic?
Not now, apparently.
Why the change of heart?
But you miss the point – is passing a law to deny the electorate choice democratic?
To which I said:
“But you miss the point – is passing a law to deny the electorate choice democratic?”
Like passing “legally binding” targets for CO2 reduction?
Which ends with:
Which undoubtedly do not bind as this is meant to
But as ever you nitpick as the certain pedant you are – picking an issue to argue on where the legislation is based on unambiguous science (global warming) to object to and yet supporting legislation based on the faux social science of neoliberalism – which is undoubtedly false
You really do have a knack for backing the wrong horses, don’t you?
Which is why normal blog policy on your comments will now resume
So, I\’m banned again. For, I guess, pointing out that law binding governments is just fine when Ritchie agrees with the binding and not just fine when he doesn\’t.And what\’s wrong with being a pedant when it\’s political control over our lives that is being discussed?
Anyway, it\’s pendant you fool.