"Accused" the US of? No, the US has admitted it repeatedly on record that it has engaged in overthrow of democratically elected leaders and funded terrorists.
In contrast there is no proof or record of the Norwegian state funding terrorists. Trying to be an impartial mediator in a peace process does not make us a terrorist supporter. Your whole accusation is absurd. It is a lame trick to distract from all the failings of the US and Ronald Reagan in particular. Instead of discussing all the crimes Reagan was invovled in we are debating your "fake news."
Highly ironic how you project on me your own failings. You think I just google random stuff when I argue. Now why do you assume that? Perhaps because that is how you make your own flimsy arguments?
No, I didn't randomly google Reaganomics and find Paul Krugman. I have been a reader of Paul Krugman for years. He is a Noble Laurate in Economics. Not some random opinion writer in NYTimes. I linked you an article I read in the past.
It is very puzzling that you claim to be an economics professional, and live in the belief that we have somehow discussed economics? You conclude somebody doesn't know economics because they don't believe in Reagonomics.... okay... I guess you can count quite a large number of economics professors as ignorant of Economics then.
How does Julia discount anytihng about my economics knowledge? Last Julia conference I attend talks presenting the new Macro Economic model by the New York Federal reserve, simulating the economy using heterogenous agents rather than the classic static equilibrium models. A very good idea IMHO as it will help kill a lot of the nonsense ideas on economics among conservatives.
Nobel winner in economics Thomas J. Sargent, is in fact a big fan of Julia and believes the next economic models will have to be built using Julia. He does in fact teach his Quantative Economics using Julia.
You claims I have attempt to teach you about economics.... really? What concept I have tried to teach you? suppy and demand? marginal utility? comparative advantage? Information assymetry in the market? game theory?
No Sasha, I haven't tried teaching you shit. I have simply said Reagonomics didn't work, and I am by no means alone in thinking that.
Yeah... I choose to learn English. What does that have to do with anything?
The point I was making went entirely over your head. You go around lecturing me and thinking you are so open minded and I am living in a bubble. I am simply pointing out the fact that as a citizen of a small country I am used to dealing with lots of different cultures, languages and countries. I am not in a bubble. Now I don't know you, but you are not acting very different from countless other Americans I have met over the years who have barely been outside their own state, yet think they are some kind of expert about how the whole world works.
Lookup international comparisons of knowledge and self-esteem. American aduldts are among the most ignorant, but beat everybody else in self confidence. Maybe you should be aware of this before holding yourself in such high esteem, and have such low regard for others.
So I explained to you why people move to the US, and rather than have an counter argument you simple repeat yourself. Wow, what an unbeatable argument. In particular your snarky NYT opinion remark really sealed the deal.
Very few Europeans move to the US. More Europeans move internally in Europe, and far more people move from the outside to Europe.
Nor do you have a counter argument to the simple fac that English is the most widely spoken second language. Thus naturally anyone considering moving will opt for an English speaking country. Doesn't matter how great Norway is. Very few people would want to move to a country to learn a language only 5 million people speak. But despite that Norway is a very popular destination for immigrants.
Since you are supposedly an economist you should be familiar with concepts such as productivity per hour worked. German productivity is higher than American. Meaning every hour a German produce more value than an American.
So why did you get lower pay? Because as with many other Europeans we don't work till we drop. We actually enjoy life. We actually have rights in the work place. America is like get paid 30% more put work 50% more... yeah great deal.
Secon important reason is that wages are more compressed. The top wages are lower. Why? Because we don't pay our lower classes shit like in the US.
I am sorry that you got paid 30% less, but maybe that allowed the people serving you in the restaurants, cleaning your office and picking your garbage a better salary.
Yeah I know I would likely have made more in the US. But I would have had much shorter vacations, longer days, poor job security and lots of social ills to deal with: Active shooter drills, high crime rates, anti-vaxxer madness, and one crazy conspiracy theory after the other.
I would not have mind spending a few years in the US working. Why? Because I think the US is better? No, because as any human being doing something different and having variation is fun. And I don't hate the US. There are lots of things I love about the US.
I just don't think it is the best country ever. It just has different pros and cons from other countries. Trying to make a pissing contest about which country gets most immigrants, is just such a classic example of childish American attitude.
Btw, shaping a country and being good are two very different things. Reagan most certainly did shape American society. But not for the better IMHO. His deregulations crashed the economy just like conservative deregulations in many other countries did elsewhere at that time. But that didn't matter. The Chicago boys had spell bound everybody.
If you are a real economist with real argument you would have been able to show how similar policies as Reagonomics in multiple other countries produced positive results. Of course you will not attempt this, because it would just expose the bancruptcy of your argument.
