European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1082
Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
| ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11352 Posts
On April 24 2018 18:08 Dapper_Cad wrote: I think Switzerland's small population very much does play into it's stability. It's what makes successful tax havens and resource based autocracies work: lots of cash / low pop = wealthy pop. Tax havens -once they make the natural move from simply being tax havens to "secrecy jurisdictions"- steal money from other countries and, because your population is so small the people making the real dough can afford to spread it around enough that the locals feel wealthy compared with neighbouring countries. As a Brit, I'd like to offer my Swiss brethren a tax-haven-economy-soaked-in-the-blood-and-poverty-of-the-most-vulnerable-people-in-the-world HIGH FIVE. With luck the masters of Britain will exterminate 90% of the British population so as to stop the whining so we can truly become a "Switzerland off the coast of France". Your resentment is sound. Now you just have to apply it to the people actually doing the cheating and we're all set. | ||
Velr
Switzerland10416 Posts
On April 24 2018 18:08 Dapper_Cad wrote: I think Switzerland's small population very much does play into it's stability. It's what makes successful tax havens and resource based autocracies work: lots of cash / low pop = wealthy pop. Tax havens -once they make the natural move from simply being tax havens to "secrecy jurisdictions"- steal money from other countries and, because your population is so small the people making the real dough can afford to spread it around enough that the locals feel wealthy compared with neighbouring countries. As a Brit, I'd like to offer my Swiss brethren a tax-haven-economy-soaked-in-the-blood-and-poverty-of-the-most-vulnerable-people-in-the-world HIGH FIVE. With luck the masters of Britain will exterminate 90% of the British population so as to stop the whining so we can truly become a "Switzerland off the coast of France". Switzerlands economy is pretty similar to Germanies when you take a closer look. Banks/Insurances are a bit more than 10% of our GDP while construction/producing stuff sits close to 20%. The success is not based on being a tax haven. You might also want to take a look at jersey and other channel Islands. Its also worth noting that the same laws about hiding money work in switzerland itself too, yet enough people seem to pay their taxes anyway. Btw: With Brexit you obviously have taken the first step to become "Switzerland off the coast of France". Just don't forget to also rebuild your industry while your at it. | ||
Godwrath
Spain10091 Posts
On April 24 2018 18:09 SoSexy wrote: Only found links in Spanish: https://www.eldiario.es/tenerifeahora/tribunales/Jacinto-Siverio-justicia-Espana-entrare_0_760474915.html What do you want to know exactly ? National headlines i am not sure because i am from Tenerife and i already knew about it. | ||
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
On April 24 2018 19:47 Godwrath wrote: What do you want to know exactly ? National headlines i am not sure because i am from Tenerife and i already knew about it. Your opinion on the matter and I was also curios about the popular jury, I thought Spain had a system like Italy where there is no popular jury* (I mean like US one)? | ||
Godwrath
Spain10091 Posts
On April 24 2018 19:56 SoSexy wrote: Your opinion on the matter and I was also curios about the popular jury, I thought Spain had a system like Italy where there is no popular jury* (I mean like US one)? The reasoning is that he could had used other means rather than killing the man, that's why legally it's a homicide (not to confuse with murder). And that's why his sentence was 2.5 years rather than 10 or more. Personally i think he should be completely free of charges except illicit weapon, and I hope he gets indulted (which is very likely due to his age). He is going to appeal if i am not mistaken. Popular jury is used way less often, but it exists in Spain for specifically 7 type of cases, and this one fell into one of them. I also don't like popular jury, but looking at Jacinto's case, it has very little to do with the sentence. Sorry for the very broken english, but i don't have the time to fix it right now. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17186 Posts
On April 24 2018 19:47 Godwrath wrote: What do you want to know exactly ? National headlines i am not sure because i am from Tenerife and i already knew about it. It wasn't a headline here in Catalunya. I'm sure the papers reported on it, but not in any way beyond a minor report in the "internal affairs" section. But that isn't a completely fair reflection either, because news here is almost entirely occupied with Catalan politics, the courtcases against the politicians, the politicians in exile and anything else related to the question of how the fuck Catalunya is supposed to be governed. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On April 22 2018 04:11 Nyxisto wrote: 1. The tragedy of the commons can be criticised when certain conditions don't apply, for example when a resource is renewable (think drinking out of a river that is practically limitless), but it is certainly true in cases of limited, depleting resources. And many scenarios where we talk about resource usage fall into that category. The articles don't really make a convincing point why that isn't supposed to be true. You can either privatize or regulate the commons. The counter-example of 'communal organisation' to protect the commons is simply a case of the latter on a local scale. When communities protect the commons, they do it by socially, or culturally ostracizing individuals that violate community trust. A little more romantic than state regulation, but basically the parochial version of the same mechanism. 2. In functioning democracies representatives are responsible for the decisions they make and have to face their constituents, it's always flawed of course but still mostly true in many developed democratic countries. If you cut people's benefits you're going to get the feedback at the next election, and it usually isn't very nice which is why groups like pensioners are almost always courted by politicians. Direct democracy only holds people responsible when the effects of your vote affect you personally. This might be true in a municipality where direct democracy isn't much of a problem, but it doesn't work on a scale of large countries. If some xenophobe votes on a headscarf ban that affects Muslims that live three states away, how is that person held accountable? Why is he even supposed to have that right? 3. Not all racism is the result of 'small minorities manipulating majorities'. That's conspiratory like thinking that's even itself the root of vile racist theories. It's the underlying logic of "the manipulative Jews destroy the clean and moral fabric of our communities". It's an extremely dangerous idea honestly. And the rise of true egalitarian democracy in the 20st century has in fact, for the most part, ended colonialism. I'd not characterise 19th century societies, without women's suffrage as extremely democratic 4. Categorical rights and democracy are at odds. If I have a constitutional right, the majority can't infringe on it. Some fundamental individual liberties might easily fall prey to mass hysteria. Privacy and civil rights for example in the face of terrorist threats. In fact the idea of universal human rights is at odds with decision making. If something is a fundamental human right, no body of citizens, no matter how numerous, is supposed to be able to take it from me. 1. Regardless of whether the "tragedy of commons" is real or not, I don't understand why you mention it since "democracy" isn't a finite resource to begin with? 2. Regardless of the system, whoever takes the decision is responsible. Discriminations can be outlawed by the Constitution, so I don't understand your "headscarf ban" example. 3. Cut the "conspirationism" crap please, I'm talking about the rhetoric of far-right demagogues like Trump or Orban, who use xenophobia/racism to hide the fact that they're corrupt oligarchs themselves, and similar cases of people from the ruling class manipulating masses with scapegoats. 4. I don't understand why you constantly make this opposition. Even with more direct forms of democracy, you can (and should) perfectly define an incompressible minimal threshold of rights and liberties. Direct democracy does not mean that people can decide to torture you if they gather 51% of the votes... | ||
Acrofales
Spain17186 Posts
On April 24 2018 22:23 TheDwf wrote: 1. Regardless of whether the "tragedy of commons" is real or not, I don't understand why you mention it since "democracy" isn't a finite resource to begin with? 2. Regardless of the system, whoever takes the decision is responsible. Discriminations can be outlawed by the Constitution, so I don't understand your "headscarf ban" example. 3. Cut the "conspirationism" crap please, I'm talking about the rhetoric of far-right demagogues like Trump or Orban, who use xenophobia/racism to hide the fact that they're corrupt oligarchs themselves, and similar cases of people from the ruling class manipulating masses with scapegoats. 4. I don't understand why you constantly make this opposition. Even with more direct forms of democracy, you can (and should) perfectly define an incompressible minimal threshold of rights and liberties. Direct democracy does not mean that people can decide to torture you if they gather 51% of the votes... The tragedy of the commons applies to democracy because the government is in charge of administering many finite resources. I don't think tragedy of the commons is the best way of describing the problem of administering these unfairly: it is more a problem of the tyranny of the majority, something that is better touched upon in point numbers 2 amd 4, which you don't really deal with adequately. What if the majority doesn't decide to torture you. They just decide that you have to sit in the back of the bus, because the front of the bus is reserved for *whatever majority group successfully lobbied for votes*. You state the constitution should limit the power of the majority, but who writes up the constitution, and how does it get changed, and why is this not subject to the very same direct democracy system that you are advocating? The tyranny of the majority is a real problem, and one of the things representative democracy, separation of powers, and various other institutional structures are designed to alleviate. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 24 2018 22:36 Acrofales wrote: The tragedy of the commons applies to democracy because the government is in charge of administering many finite resources. I don't think tragedy of the commons is the best way of describing the problem of administering these unfairly: it is more a problem of the tyranny of the majority, something that is better touched upon in point numbers 2 amd 4, which you don't really deal with adequately. What if the majority doesn't decide to torture you. They just decide that you have to sit in the back of the bus, because the front of the bus is reserved for *whatever majority group successfully lobbied for votes*. You state the constitution should limit the power of the majority, but who writes up the constitution, and how does it get changed, and why is this not subject to the very same direct democracy system that you are advocating? The tyranny of the majority is a real problem, and one of the things representative democracy, separation of powers, and various other institutional structures are designed to alleviate. Which design features of representation deal with the described problems? There is not a single feature in the election process that would make certain that this can't happen. Instead what you make sure with a purely representation based system is that actual power will always be with a political minority. If I have to choose between tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority it is the former I choose. The former will run out much faster of scapegoats before they have to blame themselves. | ||
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On April 24 2018 22:36 Acrofales wrote: The tragedy of the commons applies to democracy because the government is in charge of administering many finite resources. OK in this sense What if the majority doesn't decide to torture you. They just decide that you have to sit in the back of the bus, because the front of the bus is reserved for *whatever majority group successfully lobbied for votes*. You state the constitution should limit the power of the majority, but who writes up the constitution, and how does it get changed, and why is this not subject to the very same direct democracy system that you are advocating? People elect a Constituent assembly to write the Constitution, based on lists which hopefully cover the whole spectrum of options; the Assembly works, with a public debate, hearing of constitutional experts, etc., with the general goal to get a large consensus; and then you submit the result to a referendum. The new Constitution includes the procedures to (try to) change the Constitution. The use of a Constituent assembly is forced because millions of people cannot possibly debate and write all together (past some threshold, numbers force mandates; same as some matters require "centralized" decisions). I totally agree with the idea that there should be limitations to the powers of any collective body, but I don't understand why "representative democracy" would be an inherent shield to abuse? Historically there are many counter-examples: the example of racial segregation that you mention happened under a representative regime. Same for the French and British colonialism. Even the separation of powers is necessary but not sufficient: the South-African State had a rule of law, yet apartheid was a thing. As for the "tyranny of the majority," to me in many cases—many, not all—it is the product of a disguised "tyranny of a [ruling/owning] minority". But I admit that the question is valid in some cases, for instance "traditionalist" societies where sectarian religious mentalities dominate. | ||
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On April 24 2018 19:36 Velr wrote: Switzerlands economy is pretty similar to Germanies when you take a closer look. Banks/Insurances are a bit more than 10% of our GDP while construction/producing stuff sits close to 20%. The success is not based on being a tax haven. You might also want to take a look at jersey and other channel Islands. Its also worth noting that the same laws about hiding money work in switzerland itself too, yet enough people seem to pay their taxes anyway. Btw: With Brexit you obviously have taken the first step to become "Switzerland off the coast of France". Just don't forget to also rebuild your industry while your at it. Having financial services as 10% of your GDP is absolutely huge, 1 in every 80 humans living in Switzerland is employed in the sector. I'd be surprised if there was anything comparable in the world outside of other secrecy jurisdictions. Swiss wealth is built on other people's wars and the fact that they've managed to make more money out of the same people their financial services industry caters to by selling watches and other high end goods only really emphasises the point. Yes, as I implied in my post, it's the same in British Crown dependencies and overseas territories (Though more extreme with less industry and population) : Jersey, Guernsey, The isle of Man, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands and to an extent London itself - the centre of the spider's web. I'm afraid that "building up our industries" simply isn't an option for the rest of Britain unfortunately as we can't support 65 million people on financial services and rich people toys. Which was my point, size does matter. Though the point made earlier that America uses size as a cover for their jingoistic "exceptionalism" was well made. If size matters you need to say why: I have. There are other reasons for Swiss success but ignoring the economy in any national story invites Nationalist story building utterly divorced from reality because, as with individuals, it's easier on the brain to ignore our own luck and criminality and focus on fluff "We're democratically minded / we're hard workers / it's our wonderful laws" etc. On April 24 2018 19:05 Nebuchad wrote: Your resentment is sound. Now you just have to apply it to the people actually doing the cheating and we're all set. So take issue with the thief but not the fence? I'm not sure that makes any sense. If it makes you feel better I also don't like the tax evaders, drug dealers, arms dealers, terrorists and myriad other gangsters, murderers and thieves that avail themselves of British and Swiss financial secrecy either. | ||
Silvanel
Poland4601 Posts
On April 24 2018 18:08 Dapper_Cad wrote: Yes, as I implied in my post, it's the same in British Crown dependencies and overseas territories (Though more extreme with less industry and population) : Jersey, Guernsey, The isle of Man, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands and to an extent London itself - the centre of the spider's web. [..] And also Gibraltar. | ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11352 Posts
On April 25 2018 00:31 Dapper_Cad wrote: So take issue with the thief but not the fence? I'm not sure that makes any sense. You can do the thief and the fence if you're so inclined. Just don't forget the thief, cause he's not really going to run out of fences after you get us down. | ||
Velr
Switzerland10416 Posts
I don't even disagree in principle, I just take offense to the notion that Switzerland is mainly built on being a tax oasis and money laundeting paradise because thats just not true or at least not any more than for many, many other countries and britain with its territories also being a prime offender. 10% of gdp coming from all banking + insurance also doesn't seem that freakishly high to me, especially when many people make it sound like its 50% or some truely outlandish number. Whenever possible I voted against all this stuff, much of the crtiticism is just very hypocritical and thats why I am so defensive on the matter. | ||
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On April 25 2018 00:53 Nebuchad wrote: You can do the thief and the fence if you're so inclined. Just don't forget the thief, cause he's not really going to run out of fences after you get us down. Hey man, this is a global system, Britain is right down there in the dirt with Switzerland, fixing it means a rather large rejig of the world economy. There are no quick fixes, no single jurisdiction to "take down"... but I'm a big fan of "country by country reporting" as a start. Let public indignation at where corporations economic activity actually occurs vs. where they pay their tax start us in the right direction. There's a ton more that would need to be done of course. While that's not happening I'm a fan of talking about it. It might avoid insanity like the conversation here around the poisoning in Salisbury. "PUTIN IS A MONSTER!" Is not very helpful. "London has been washing Billions for Russian gangsters for 20 years and so sometimes we're going to get gangsterism." points towards things we can actually do about it, rather than ratcheting up boogey man politics on the way to WW3. | ||
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On April 25 2018 02:20 Velr wrote: I mainly find it funny that these accusation come from a Brit. A nation that built itself on exploiting colonies. I don't even disagree in principle, I just take offense to the notion that Switzerland is mainly built on being a tax oasis and money laundeting paradise because thats just not true or at least not any more than for many, many other countries and britain with its territories also being a prime offender. Yes, yes and yes. And getting defensive is a reasonable response. In all honesty I nearly made a crack about cuckoo clocks, then decided it might not be great if I was looking to persuade someone rather than just amuse myself. If it helps I can do it with us too: It's not genocide if you're drinking tea with your little finger up in the air. What's the difference between English food and dutch clogs? You can eat dutch clogs. Remain subservient and procreate. etc. etc. | ||
Velr
Switzerland10416 Posts
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States21791 Posts
Like from games such as overwatch, fifa 18 and fortnite? Is this getting discussed somewhere? | ||
| ||