Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
You suggestion (on compensation) kind of reminds me of debates here and elsewhere on (potential) Pareto efficiency. The (counter)argument goes like this: yes, it might be true the losers from a particular policy could be compensated and there would still be something left for the winners, but the compensation is never going to happen/never has happened. As I see it, a definite anti-free-trade slant of ET is directly linked to this argument.

Now, it is very funny to find someone seriously proposing a compensation scheme in a case where potential losses are much larger than even a long unemployment spell for a Barby maker whose job has moved to China. Do you really believe anyone would think about compensating the losers, especially the losers who fought under "Hitler of our times" and thus deserve everything they've got?

I don't really understand your argument in the first paragraph. Majority of ethnic cleansing has been accomplished already, and Mitrovica could be lazily dealt with once the international community declares victory and leaves. Of course serious politicians would not contemplate war-like events now - they are simply not needed.

by Sargon on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 07:16:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think there is a bit of a difference between a worker who loses a job as a result of a policy when others are available and somebody who is fleeing in fear of their lives as a result of an international policy.

However, we are getting into the realms of strange hypotheticals where we end up with what the meaning of "is" is.

My position in this situation was clearly stated.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 07:24:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series