That didn't stop people rushing out to get Irish/scottish passports, it didn't stop the UK's credit rating from dropping 2 levels. The mere fact that it's now a real possibility requires an economy to react to it, because if you don't react to it, someone else will beat you to it. Speculation is a *huge* part of an economy. Stability and reliability can temper that, and that's what the UK just lost because of the Brexit vote.

I said myself that capitalism fueled innovation. And I was very explicit about the time period, so you are the one blurring things. The Enlightenment certainly came about centuries ago, and the associated scientific revolution was necessary - but not sufficient - for the improvements in living conditions that got globalized recently.

To say capitalism is millenia old is ridiculous. Banking / lending in some form is old indeed. But finance =/= capitalism. Now I also mentioned globalization, not just capitalism, and you seem to have elided that. The 50 year timescale of India and China, etc getting huge economic growth is mainly due to globalization. The Western World getting huge economic growth from industrialization is what is more directly caused by capitalism. Earlier Renaissance capitalism was incipient, and due to the dynamics of government heading towards absolutism in parallel with the enlightenment it took another century or so for the kind of liberalization that defines modern capitalism.

This is all pretty much established so I have no idea what you are trying to get at. Or rather, it seems liek the usual capitalism = greed propaganda.

Thanks for resorting to personal insult so quickly. Makes it easier for me to say I had indeed already noticed your nationalist tendencies, and that you were likely what I call the Russia Today audience.

For the readers' benefit, I will point out:
1 - that the dynamic I presented is not incompatible with the one you are pointing out. However in the broad historical perspective the power of guns always ends on top. You need only look at 20th century history to realize this is still true in modern times, despite the common attempt you exemplify to cherry pick exceptional examples and assert them as being the universal truth.
2 - that you are the one conflating capitalism and centralized banking, and if you were to reread what I wrote you would find no such conflation. I hope you will at least feel some shame - and believe me - when I tell you that of course I agree that capitalism is fundamentally a decentralization of economic authority. To be more precise, it is a dis-intermediation, where the power of capital gets somewhat disconnected from state power at least for transactional activities / investments. How we get from there - if we get from there - to fully democratic economies where the monetary controls likewise get removed from national powers is uncharted territory though.
3 - that you are trying to have your cake, and eat it. It's pretty rich of you to now get on this horse of capitalism == democractic decentralization and strawman me as being implicitly on the side of elite oligarchies, when a while ago you were asking for capital controls due to economic war. You can have national control of the economy or people control of the economy. Choose.

PS: Kindly evangelize on the democratic and moral underpinnings of capitalism and how it differs from centralized banking with the previous poster I replied to. I can assure you being the pro capitalist voice in these fora is mostly lonely, and despite your nationalist sympathies and rudeness I'll appreciate the help - for the common good. :P

If Germany don't want to give aid for free and is forced to, then that is discrimination. If Germany is single out and forced to give aid instead of EU as a whole, that's discrimination too. Why do you think Brexit happened? One of the driving factor is force to donate for Free. And yes a time will come when Germany economy is overwhelm and they cannot give aid anymore.

As for proof
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crickhowell-welsh-town-moves-offshore-to-avoid-tax-on-local-business-a6728971.html
https://www.aeaweb.org/research/how-much-tax-revenue-are-we-losing-offshore
https://www.scenesofreason.com/tax-avoidance/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20560359
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/double-irish-deception-how-google-apple-facebook-avoid-paying-taxes/

Of course it seems natural to take from those who have. Nowadays it is widely accepted to discriminate against the rich, the white, the men. Without considering it is moral to do so or the bad side effect.
If we apply this logic, people who have two healthy kidney must give one for free to those with kidney failure. People who have a house should share it with the homeless. Doctors / Engineers who earn a few times the salary of the waiter should share their salary. Now where are we heading with that mentality?

Correct it will be difficult to move the real estate. If we employ estate tax they can hardly avoid that. But we have to be careful if we tax that too high. Real estate owners feel it is no longer profitable and will shift away from real estate and there nothing to tax. We can only tax the real estate heavily when we are desperate enough to cannibalize the estate industry.

If we employ too high a tax that companies find it is more profitable overseas, it will of course fail. What did I call for high tax on companies? What I am saying is, instead of employing a high tax that companies have nothing in return, let the companies exchange their wealth for goods / service / assets. They will get something in return. Their wealth does not go poof as tax, but converted into something else that still hold value. They will be able to sell that if they no longer want to do business in the country. And when they put a certain amount of money to the local market, our local business will benefit. And of course there must be a balance between too heavy handed and scare away investors. Some country offer to throw in permanent residence and some other benefits.

The whole idea is keeping the money / resource in the country and make it go around instead of letting the money / resource escape the country and fewer money / resource can be spread out between the people.

China also a method of keeping money in. By employing a high import tax on goods except raw material and necessity like food. And giving benefits to exports. That way if a company want to maximize profit, instead of producing goods in overseas and importing it to China to sell, they import raw material, set up factories in China to produce these goods. More money / resource is poured in China and less go out, while creating more job opportunity for the people.

It will work for the short term, what stopping the rich from giving up their citizenship and go to greener pastures?
The US tried that and a record numbers of citizens are renouncing US citizenship.
http://blogs.voanews.com/all-about-america/2016/05/09/record-numbers-of-americans-ditch-us-passports/

What you do here is saying that nurses educated in Finnland should rather stay in the country? It's not their fault, that the education was for free. In other countries you have to pay for that. And I would even say it's absolutely their right to seek a fortune somewhere else where conditions are better and better salaries are paid. Do you want to force them to stay in their country instead? Also, what about Estonian nurses for Finnland then which would sound like the optimal solution.

The boundaries of this labour game are artificially drawn at national borders. For example within the USA or within Finnland or any other country people would find it crazy if residents couldn't move freely and choose their working place freely (actually in China you cannot move freely and that sucks probably). But just have a look at a very small country like Slovakia or Slovenia or any other small country with say less than 5 million inhabitants. If you would confine the people there to their national territories you quickly deprive them of opportunities. It all becomes a very small prison quite fast.

You say you don't feel very close to Southern Europeans which I totally can understand but please also understand I feel more far away from some Germans than from many Non-Germans. Culturally I'm sure I find like-minded people almost everywhere in the world, however depending on the location sometimes more and sometimes less. Important is that we don't really contradict each other here, only emphasize different aspects.

So what we have is a mixture. Globalization (and if only as marriages between people of different nations) has softened the borders between past time solid nations and while they have melted, they are still there. My guess is, that the future is unclear but we will probably not go back and if by chance Europe gets separated again (especially movement of labour wise) it will be for the worse of all of us.

I'm convinced nationalism is dead and within a couple of decades we will have something new but I have absolutely no clue what it could be. So I guess it's absolutely natural to fear it.

No, what I am saying is that it is bad for Finnish economy (educating nurses which then go to work abroad, even though they'd have lots of work available also in Finland).

I didn't say anything whether or not they have a right to do what they do. If this became an acute problem, I dunno, the education wouldn't be free anymore but you'd get e.g. tax reductions etc. for your big student loan later on if you pay your taxes to Finland, or something like that.

I am unsure if Estonian nurses come to work that much to Finland, it seems to be more about e.g. Estonian construction workers. This has been actually good to Estonian economy because at least earlier Estonia had higher unemployment so being able to work in Finland (while still living in Estonia) was very good for them.

Sometimes there has been discussion about e.g. importing more Philippinian nurses to Finland. To me that would generally also sound bad for Philippines, albeit I don't know about their education system. What evens it out though is that immigrants from Asian countries tend to send quite a lot of money to their home country, which helps that local economy.

Maybe so, but that is not really a problem caused by the (bigger) countries that are doing better. Quite often the problem in those countries is not necessarily their size, but the education system, corruption etc. After all, the Nordic countries are not much bigger than that.

I don't buy the argument that richer countries automatically owes it to poorer countries to help them out, from here to eternity, especially if the citizens of the richer country have no say to e.g. the politics and economy of the poorer country, like ousting their corrupt leaders and public servants. I personally see that at least in the democracies the citizens are first and foremost responsible on how their country is run and how it is doing.

Maybe with North Korea etc. I'm ready to give the citizens a break, why they just don't revolt and change their leaders etc. It would cost many of their lives as they are at the gunpoint. Still, now that I think about it, how come such a system came to be in North Korea? Who and why allowed it, or were the North Koreans always so weak and powerless to get the leaders they deserve, even hundreds of years ago? Maybe Wikipedia knows...

Your first two paragraphs were incoherent attempts at dodging my point, which was that there was no reliable way to prove identity before the modern era besides face-to-face contact and people often took advantage of that. But your last one:
Anonymous accusations of harassment aren't taken seriously! Ones with names and faces, those are taken much more seriously now where before they were often dismissed. For example, if I was to post 'X harassed me' and not post dates, times, details, etc no one would care one bit. Only if I posted the details would it be enforceable. As for GOG users being anonymous - yeah, to a certain extent, and no, I don't think anyone official would take this forum seriously. Why do you think anyone would? We're real people having a discussion and all, but everything posted here is useless for any real purpose outside of sharing a hobby.

Anonymous death and rape threats are a whole different ball of wax than in-person harassment reporting, and YET still not taken seriously! No police will act on them (even when the laws say they should), etc. People are trying to get harassment campaigns taken seriously and to teach young guys (because it's almost always young guys - young women do fake social media stuff more afaik) that threatening to kill or rape someone isn't OK. There is pushback on this idea that death and rape threats are bad, which is kind of unbelievable until you remember that we live in a society where a raped middle-schooler got told she was asking for it because of her slutty clothing.

TL;DR
You were the one who brought up 'anonymous users' as a huge danger to...something. You were incredibly unclear on what, exactly, you were objecting to earlier. I pointed out that anonymous users are not taken seriously anywhere. You replied with some random stuff, implied that I think GOG posts are taken seriously (lol no) and than got angry about people trying to put a stop to online harassment. That argument is demonstrably invalid, because no one official takes online harassment seriously, and newspapers only when they can spin it into a sensational story.

Back on topic, have the various British parties indicated their stance on labor movement agreements post-EU? I imagine that's got to be the biggest concern for individuals at this point.
1) Even if extinction is on the horizon, there's no reason to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Also, breaking news: People can multi-task.

2) Extinction is not in the near future by any reasonable predictions. Massive changes and suffering? Yeah, if the timeline is a couple centuries. But we kind of passed the point of no return on that one, so we're just going to have to adapt to whatever comes our way. I'd like to have a society worth saving.

3) Historically, war is the traditional solution to a problem of limited resources. We may have a chance of averting that this time if we can convince everyone, worldwide, particularly India, to stop having so many babies, but progress on that has been limited. Believing that we can make any change that will avoid both war and famine is, at this point, highly unrealistic.

4) Also, China has a heavily single-male population, a shaky economy and a firm cultural belief in their innate superiority, so we may be doomed to war anyway just from that.

TL;DR You need a better understanding of current and historical sociology and weather patterns.

I'm simply stating facts that should be axioms at this point in time. We *have* to put war behind us and adopt sustainable economies or we'll soon go the way of the dinosaurs. In case you've forgotten, the dinosaurs died out because they failed to adapt, and humans are proving to be remarkably similar. We're stuck in a rut so large that we may well not be able to climb out of it before it's too late. We haven't got a clue how much more damage the food chain can sustain before it collapses, and if it does we're finished, and all the other evolved life forms as well, sadly. We may already be past the point of no return, yet we can't even manage to lessen our destructive impact, much less stop it.

Forgot to answer on that one. You definitely should read the book if you haven't yet. I like him too but an opinion piece even of a genius can easily be wrong. Books are better, research papers even more so and a number of books or publications of many distinguished guys are the best.

I actually agree with putting some blame on the Euro and I think while it is only a currency and as such quite innocent, it was poorly supported by a fiscal union. In the first years after the introduction in 2002-08 there should have been much more strict debt reduction efforts in southern Europe (Italy and Greece running deficits even during the boom years which is totally anti Keynesian) and in the same way Germany should have insisted on cutting expenses after 2008 but surely not on increasing taxes (which it did to) and it should have increased its own expenses much more which was also anti Keynesian. All in all everybody got it wrong. Blaming only one country, when all the time all countries decided together and acted together all the time - seems a bit oversimplifying.

The Euro helped to create some big imbalances, however now we are stuck with it. And I wonder if going back is any viable option at all? Or is going forward the only possible option and sooner or later a fiscal union will have to come of those countries already having the Euro? I don't know. The US also has a common currency or Russia or China or India and still you'll find big economic differences in all of these countries and none of them blames the currency for economic problems. Common currencies also have advantages, the Euro is quite stable and very solvent, easy to convert.

Let's see what happens, although I guess we are stuck in some sub-optimal solution and won't easily get out of it and this is hardly the fault of Germany alone but everyone, really everyone can have a part of the blame to be fair.

In the coming weeks (few months) the final Brexit deal will be made. Finally, some decisions have to be made and the empty phrases of the politicians will be over. Staying in the customs union or not (currently rather looks like not), which kind of Irish border (hard or soft or something in the middle), future access for example of financial services from the UK. Meanwhile UK Parliament tries to have a say too (as rightly they should in a representative democracy) and former Brexit leaders try to get a permanent residence permit in EU countries. I'm quite confident that there will be a deal at the end. Even the divorce bill is settled (and the number of 100 billion discussed last year in the British media was indeed just a fake number as are so many things) and UK seems to be OK with it.

That means that in about 9 months it's over. The EU flag will be pulled down in Westminster and it's good bye and maybe in 10 years there can be another vote. That also means that there is little time if you think about working and living in the UK (as rest of EU citizen) or working and living in the rest of EU (as UK citizen). Time is short and plans must be made immediately. In one year, the road for that will be much harder and that is actually the true cost of Brexit. So everyone interested in that should hurry up.

I'm surprised that it's so simple in the end. Breaking off of the EU is manageable, economically and politically. Try that in other large countries like Russia, China, India, US, .. and you'll see what you get. It doesn't really seem to pay off economically, UK economy grows only very slowly, the 350 million pounds a week never materialized (and how can they being a big lie) and it's austerity instead. And those fancy working and living elsewhere are really the losers of the whole thing, but otherwise Article 50 gives the members a huge right and they can exercise it at moderate costs as demonstrated hereby. Surely, having your own currency helps a lot there, so breaking away example for Italy or Greece would have been much more difficult, but probably doable too in the end.

Now the question is if it also pays off politically. What will happen to the UK? Will it be governed by people like Boris Johnson who can say whatever they like and still keep his job? Will they have fun negotiating trade deals with Trump? Or throwing themselves in the arms of Russia and China? We will see.