I am a believer in Oden, Tor and Frej and in connection with Christmas and Midsumer we have our Blot-days.

My question is, and I am serious, can we Blot-believers have quotas within the church, or otherwise I will feel very surpressed, depressed and humiliated.

What will EU do for us Blot-believers, in scandinavian language the call us Blotare.

Can our women go around naked at our Blot-days while we man only have our funny helmets on?

@ Voyager

....

4) You better get out of your parroting mode and start looking at empirical facts.  When Thatcher took over about twentyfive years ago, Britain's per capita income (in REAL terms, or purchasing power terms, after adjusting for relative price levels) was less than 75% of the levels in France and Germany. Today it is higher than in those countries, in less than 1 generation!  I am sure that there are still lots of serious economic problems in Britain, but everything is relative....both in time and compared with other countries.  And, by the way, virtually all advanced economies have today lower economic growth rates than in the 1960's - that is a long story - so that 'argument' w.r.t. Britain is irrelevant.

5) I see that you have shifted the argument about 'defense spending being more inflationary than other government spending' to " defense spending is always inflationary".  Both assertions are equally silly. 

-- Once more, the inflationary impact of spending depends on the nature of the markets in which it occurs and on the 'supply' response' (which will largerly depend on the relevant 'infrastructure' and on availability of 'idle' resources).  The bulk of defense spending is on wages and salaries.  That has certainly not risen faster than the cost of education and health care services in the US economy in recent years.  You do not seem to make empirical observations, and seem to prefer 'continental' parroting of ideological nonsense.

-- There have been numerous empirically verifiable instances of combinations of deficit spending with falling inflation.  The explanations for these are varied and complex.  It would help if you started learning  about empirically observable 'facts'.  That could only improve the quality of your opinions.  

@ Voyager

1) On the subject of "vituperation" I can still learn a lot from you.  But at least, compared with you, I know much better what I know and what I do not know.  Your assertions are sometimes very confused and confusing.

2) The subject of the interaction between monetary and fiscal policy is indeed a fascinating one.  But we are not going to delve into that here, are we?  Seriously?  And certainly not by reference to Patinkin's books of over half a century ago.  But you seem unaware that you are confused about subjects like monetary sterilisation, capital imports, the "Plaza Accord", the pros and cons of building up foreign exchange reserves (by China and Japan) and...God knows what else.

3) You make complaints about "inflation".  Have you looked at actual inflation statistics (which include housing costs)?  Then you will notice that they peaked in the US in the 1970's under Jimmy Carter, and since then have come down steadily and significantly.  It won't be much different in Britain. So, all your ranting about Reagan, Thatcher and Bush is ....so much baloney!  But, rest assured, I am aware that the central bank does not directly  control the money supply, it only does so indirectly (and mainly via interest rate policy).  The question is are you aware that Reagan, Thatcher, and Bush have almost nothing to do with this!

....

@ pvdh

.......

On some of your specific points:

-- No, foreign 'direct investments' are not the same thing as "money collected on Wall Street".  And, your analogy with the great depression is very wrong. The problem then was NOT the existence of any "trade deficits" (trade deficits which were obviously offset by trade surpluses in other countries). The problem consisted in part in the 'destructive' (cascade of trade-restrictive) reactions of many policymakers in certain countries to these trade deficits.  They have learned that lesson and, we hope, they will not make that mistake again.
 

-- I must say that your references to "incidents in prison" and to "amount of repression" are silly. They reflect one of your personal obsessions, but have nothing to do with the subject of comparing per capita income and employment levels between countries. Income is the measure of what is available to the public for either consumption or saving in a given time period. It is obvious that one has to adjust that for the number of people involved, so that we should use per capita income to compare countries.  And, employment (or unemployment) gives a very broad indication of the economic activity level or 'involvement' of the people of a country. In many ways, employment can also give an indication of the psychological health of the people (because idle hands etc......). It is therefore advisable to look at per capita income and at employment for comparisons between countries, rather than at the ghosts of trade deficits, money supply statistiscs and other diversions that get 'Voyager all confused in his anti-Reagan, anti-Thatcher and anti-Bush rants.

@ pvdh

Since you are a nonvituperative pundit, it is worth commenting on your "catastrophe theory" from mathematics.  I think in economics they refer to that as "chaos theory", of which the opinions of 'Voyager' are frequently a good illustration. 

I am not clear on what your point exactly is.  A trade deficit is not an indication of "chaos" nor "catastrophe".  In national income accounts terms, a trade deficit simply means that a country imports more than it exports of goods and services.  And, if we take the trade deficit in a broader meaning, i.e. the "current account deficit on the balance of payments", then it simply means that the country's residents invest more than they save, beacuse a country's 'balance of payments' always by definition must 'balance', i.e. the current account deficit is always offset by a corresponding capital account surplus and vice versa.    None of this means "catastrophe", nor "chaos".

Whether a trade deficit can be sustained over time, depends on many factors or variables.  And, if it turns out to be not sustainable, then the necessary adjustments can take place in myriad ways, and wil often tend to be induced by exchange rate adjustments.  The US dollar is a floating currency, and its exchange rate will adjust in line with the wishes of countless private and 'public' consumers and 'investors' around the world. 

.......

@ Voyager

....

-- To attach the "neoconservative label" to Margaret Thatcher's structural economic reforms in the 1980's is one of the most silly things ever uttered by a supposedly 'serious' person on this website.

-- Why are you so concerned about the "trade deficit"?  The relevant question is how it is financed? Is it financed by 'direct investments' (real capital imports) or by short-term 'financing'?

If you want to make important comparative economic judgements among countries, better focus on growth in per capita income and on employment statistics!

@ Voyager

It is remarkable how you can keep spouting so much nonsense in a short time.  Do you never stop long enough and think a bit about what you are writing, instead of parroting what you read elsewhere?

While I am not a big fan of "deficit spending", and while there is a lot of valid criticism to be made of current US fiscal policy, you are certainly not making it. 

A few specific points:

-- The US money supply is determinded by the Federal Reserve System.  Neither Reagan nor any of the 'Bushes' had or has any control over that.

-- Related to GDP, the current US public sector deficit and debt level are very similar to those of the larger EU nations, except for Italy (where they are significantly worse).

--  Why should defence spending be more "inflationary" than other forms of government spending?  Any government spending can only be "inflationary" in the short term (before a supply response can occur), because long term inflation requires 'monetary validation' (we are back to the central bank, i.e. the Federal reserve System!).  The inflationary impact of any government spending will depend on the nature of the markets on which it will directly occur.  Under current conditions, additional government spending on education and health care are much better examples of "inflationary impact" than defense spending.  That is neither an argument against them, nor an argument for more defense spending, but you are certainly parroting nonsense.

......

@JordanR: actually it is Germany and France that must follow the United Kingdom's lead economically speaking; Thatcher's Neoconservative reforms have not been undone. I agree that the welfare state should be abolished but not the social safety net (e.g. public healthcare). Indeed, it would be ideal to instill centre-right (economic-only) values but maintain centre-left spending just in case for those who really need it.

@Voyager: Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr., are in fact against the welfare state, in the sense of spending money on healthcare and education. Rather they spent money on defense (SDI, activating the USS Iowa and Missouri) and war (Gulf War I, Gulf War II). They are acting like traditional conservatives - large government spending with conservative social values. They are not spending like classical (or neo) Liberals or Neo-conservatives.

Seems the people of the West need to be newly and truly re-enlightened--since the prior enlightenment has led us down a path of self-destruction.

http://www.realclearreligion.com/the_true_enemy_of_the_west.html

Thanks for bringing up the problem of the Catholic Church priest scandal. I wasn't going to touch it but now since you did...

The overwhelming majority of the victims were adolescent MALES, 14-17 years old, which means that the perps were HOMOSEXUAL. It's no secret that many gay adult men like young males - it's been that way since the Ancient Greeks. Fortunately the new Pope has put restrictions in allowing homosexual men in entering seminaries. The Church in America has been flooded with gay men since the 1960's and now we see the rotten fruit of that liberal policy.

BTW, sexual proclivities toward adolescents is called "ephebophilia" as opposed to "pedophilia" which is an attraction to pre adolescents. One is definitely more egregious than the other.

Let the state ruin the state church, it only strenghtens the independent christian groups.

Maybe they can borrow a few priests from the Catholic Church.  Do they have to like adult men too?

What I find offensive about the "quota" for the office of the clergy is that it completely ignores its spiritual dimension. I don't know about Protestants, but the Catholic priesthood is a calling from God to serve Him in that capacity. One cannot force it to happen. One does not "decide" that one will become a priest. One "hears" a spiritual beckoning. One does not choose, one is chosen.

@ Jordan

Homosexuality as private behavior does indeed not present a threat to the preservation of western liberties. The concerns about it as a societal institution of 'marriage' is a totally different matter.  There you seem rather cavalier in your dismissal of centuries of western history and of the experience of other nonwestern civilisations.  Once more, history does not correspond to an upward slope of ever greater 'progress' (towards some "end of history" of eternal peace), but rather history corresponds to cyclical movements of civilisational rise and decline.  The concerns about "marriage", homosexual or otherwise, have to do with the best-suited institutional arrangements for society to transmit moral virtues (honesty, generosity, courage, etc...), and in that context whether children IN GENERAL deserve - no need - BOTH a mother and a father (figure).  While I do not expect you to agree on this latter point, you should at least be able to recognise that these are valid concerns and that others can see that differently.  This is not a matter of individual preference but rather of societal need for 'survival'.  And when a society declines, for example because of a lack of 'courage' to defend itself, the liberties of its individuals will disappear with it.    

Frank Lee - Fair enough. There is something to be said about political correctness gone crazy. I have always felt that the church has the right to reject homosexuality and gay marriage, but the secular state cannot as gay rights does not deprive others of liberty.

Kaptein Andre, as a Canadian I am in fact a BIG supporter of universal health-care, not just because it is cheaper and more effective than a privatized system, but because it provides a "just society". I also recognize that those in our society who are unable to work should be treated compassionately.

That being said, Canada and America rightly abandoned the extreme Welfare State in the past 10 years and as a result, poverty and drug use DECREASED.

In Europe, the welfare state has no doubt increased the terrorist threat. Immigrants who once integrated into society through work are now completely isolated and dependant on the resentful state. Britain and France must follow Germany's lead and end it welfare policies before the situation gets out of control.

I agree that homosexuality is not a "real" threat to the tenets of Western society: democracy and the free market.

However, as far as social values are concerned, both liberalism and conservatism prevail i.e. centre-right and centre-left. Similarly, the West includes both liberal democracy and social democracy.

While advocated by social democrats, Keynesian economics and the welfare state were in use throughout Western Europe and even in North America.

Canada, f.e., has strongly rejected socialism and its economic policies were closer to the United States than Europe, but had a fully functioning welfare state by 1971, and continues to have one by American standards e.g. public universal healthcare.

Although Keynesianism cannot be the dominant ethos of any government and must rest upon a strong economy, it is not socialism nor is it anti-Western.

I too am puzzled by the hostility to homosexuality on this site.  But Filip's article is making a legitimate point about some very silly demands (for a quota on gay clergy).  And there is something deliciously goofy about bishops and priests who happen to to believe in God but who nevertheless climb to the top of the professional hierarchies of European churches.  I enjoy hearing about all the stupidity in Europe, largly because it usually gets filtered out of news reports about Europe in the U.S., whereas the European media seem to fixate on the oddities of America culture (such as a preachy evangelical who hires a middle-aged male prostitute) and present the oddities as typical of American culture.

What the church does is the church's business.

But one issue I have with this blog is its inability to distinguish between real and fictitious threats to western style liberty-democracy-capitalism.

1. Fundamentalist Islam / Sharia / Jihad = Real threat

2. Socialism / Debt / Welfare state / Stifling taxes = Real threat

3. Dudes having sex with other Dudes and wish to marry = Fictitious threat that has zero impact on our economy or rights and freedoms.

I just don't understand why homosexuality is such a big deal on this blog.

I am tired of the colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, and elitist Capitalism here in the West.

I believe that gay, lesbian, atheist, and non-Christian people should be eligible for joining the clergy of any Christian denomination. However, this liberalism must work both ways:

• There should be a quota for me (of 1) on the board of directors and managment executive of every fortune 500 company, elite social club, religious hierarchy, and hot tub party
• I should be legally entitled to my own religion, with its own holidays, tenets and practices, and definition of discrimation and slander
• I should be allowed to get in free to clubs on ladies' nights and be entitled to all the privileges of the latter because it would be sexist otherwise
• I should be able to belong to the organizations of and speak publicly on Muslims, gays, lesbians, and women, for no one can tell me that I am excluded
• And lastly I should be able to claim the Kaaba as mine, for who says I'm not the next prophet?

As others have remarked, you can't make this stuff up. It is beyond parody.