European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1155
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. | ||
Longshank
1648 Posts
| ||
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
Velr
Switzerland10419 Posts
| ||
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
| ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On July 08 2018 04:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You don't really learn do you? Again, how much personal power are you assuming here. Theresa May is the PM of UK, but her power is such that she can't organise a piss-up at a brewery. How much power does he have in the national party? A more definite question would be what his political views are, and what he wishes politicians in power would acheive, which is a far simpler and more reality adhering question if you are genuinely interested in his poltical views. Yet, the president of the US can do so much more. I can see your point, but each country is sovereign, so examples don't help. | ||
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
On July 08 2018 04:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You don't really learn do you? Again, how much personal power are you assuming here. Theresa May is the PM of UK, but her power is such that she can't organise a piss-up at a brewery. How much power does he have in the national party? A more definite question would be what his political views are, and what he wishes politicians in power would acheive, which is a far simpler and more reality adhering question if you are genuinely interested in his poltical views. Maybe you need to learn...to read my post, because it is worded very clearly. In fact I didn't even mention the word 'power' in my post. Also, I don't think you can decide for me which are the best questions if I'm interested in his political view. But thanks for the attempt. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 08 2018 00:40 SoSexy wrote: I'll rephrase, since you like to play: Big J, if tomorrow you were the Chancellor of Austria, within the current system, with a large majority that would allow you to pass any law, what would your first actions be? Genuinly curious. I would give the national statistics institute the order to create a map of Austrian land-value. Based on that map I would fade in land-value taxes and start to decrease income taxes. Additionally I completely fade out VAT and fade in a VAT-like CO2-tax on goods and services. Reasons: The business models our states have these days can be compared with Netflix giving away a limited amount of accounts for free and those can be freely traded or rented and then Netflix is collecting money for trading/renting accounts or for producing movies. That obviously leads to the absurd situation that the account owners get the services for free and even can make money of it, the movie producers have to pay Netflix, regardless of the degree they use Netflix services and the renters/buyers have to pay for Netflix and the account owners. The (limited) account prices on the secondary market would then extremely inflate if everybody had to watch movies and there was no competition. + Show Spoiler + Netflix = state (limited) Netflix accounts = property ownership (in particular land) Neflix services = state services "having to watch movies" = physically existing on land no competition = impossibility to found a new state trading/renting taxes = VAT production taxes = income tax It is long overdue to change the business model of our states, so that they tax the capital owners instead of punishing people for trading their work, goods and services - unless they have a negative impact on others (eniromental taxes). You cannot let capital prices and the private tax mechanisms (like rents and dividends) as well as the state taxes on production and consume inflate infinitely and expect a healthy competition that provides economic growth in the longrun. That system is forced to collapse economically or socially eventually. From the public mostly unnoticed tricks like making money cheaper and flooding people that own capital with ever cheaper credits won't work forever. | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On July 08 2018 20:56 Big J wrote: I would give the national statistics institute the order to create a map of Austrian land-value. Based on that map I would fade in land-value taxes and start to decrease income taxes. Additionally I completely fade out VAT and fade in a VAT-like CO2-tax on goods and services. Given all the complaints about neoliberalism that's a very neoliberal tax plan | ||
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced. In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them. I think there's probably plenty of Eastern Europeans who feel threatened by Russia and would gladly take a job in the military if it meant a proper income for their families in an increasingly unequal economy. Western Europe should fund them and replace all American troops and equipment to build an effective unified military force. Its long overdue that the American military departed from Europe. Maybe we can get the US/NATO to stop this too: KATHY KELLY: Well, one person from the Wardak province, when I was last in Afghanistan, said—when I asked, “Well, how is your family? This is an area where the strikes are so heavy”. He said, “We can’t find space to bury the dead. There have been so many bombings.” | ||
Sent.
Poland8969 Posts
On July 09 2018 05:54 a_flayer wrote: We should get Germany to use its surpluses to essentially fund a military build-up made up from people in Eastern European countries. We can use that military strength to give Ecuador options when the United States pulls shit like this: I think there's probably plenty of Eastern Europeans who feel threatened by Russia and would gladly take a job in the military if it meant a proper income for their families in an increasingly unequal economy. Western Europe should fund them and replace all American troops and equipment to build an effective unified military force. Its long overdue that the American military departed from Europe. Maybe we can get the US/NATO to stop this too: How would you motivate Germans to fund a military capable of challenging the American one on western hemisphere? Why do they need to recruit soldiers from the East, can't they use their own manpower? Why is it necessary to kick the American military out of Europe? | ||
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
Germany/Western Europe will be motivated from a desire to keep the EU together --- it's not just that, but also simply the fact they contribute the most financial thingiemagicks to the EU so anything that the European Union democratically decides to do will effectively be funded by the Germans/Western Europe. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this because it is so obvious considering the reality of the political systems we find ourselves in. So many words. We don't always have to put our fine-tuned sonic breathing on manual, do we? My opinions on why we should ask them to leave vary from "because their young people are needed to build up their own nation" to an epic string of curse words and profanity. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 09 2018 05:29 Nyxisto wrote: Given all the complaints about neoliberalism that's a very neoliberal tax plan No, a neoliberal plan on housing prices would sound like this: I would privatize the national statistics institute and then pay double the amount on the free market to a provider with no experience and quality assurance on such a job to get a map of Austrian land-value*. That map must be withheld from the public, because ordinary people are bad and envious and can't deal with information. Based on that map I would then use some nationalist speech that "our country" is "way behind" in land-value and that leftist regulation politics have stifled growth of land-value and now future generations have to suffer**. To catch up I will make it easier for landlords to get rid of tenants and create a national trust that funds real estate projects. Climate change is also a huge issue that I will tackle in the near future. *land-value in this scenario is not based on the actual prices the buyers in a region are paying currently, but instead on some rating mechanism of private real estate traders. Credits can obviously be discounted from the value, because it makes total sense that the value of a thing differs if the money was acquired through a private market transaction with a bank or private market transactions without a bank like work. ** It goes without saying that more value is good for everyone! Why else would it say "more"? A rising tide lifts all boats! | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 09 2018 07:40 Big J wrote: No, a neoliberal plan on housing prices would sound like this: I would privatize the national statistics institute and then pay double the amount on the free market to a provider with no experience and quality assurance on such a job to get a map of Austrian land-value*. That map must be withheld from the public, because ordinary people are bad and envious and can't deal with information. Based on that map I would then use some nationalist speech that "our country" is "way behind" in land-value and that leftist regulation politics have stifled growth of land-value and now future generations have to suffer**. To catch up I will make it easier for landlords to get rid of tenants and create a national trust that funds real estate projects. Climate change is also a huge issue that I will tackle in the near future. *land-value in this scenario is not based on the actual prices the buyers in a region are paying currently, but instead on some rating mechanism of private real estate traders. Credits can obviously be discounted from the value, because it makes total sense that the value of a thing differs if the money was acquired through a private market transaction with a bank or private market transactions without a bank like work. ** It goes without saying that more value is good for everyone! Why else would it say "more"? A rising tide lifts all boats! that sounds more like a caricature of neo-liberal stances rather than a genuine and reasonable attempt to look at the issue and admit that every faction/stance has people that will misuse it. | ||
Simberto
Germany11033 Posts
On July 09 2018 07:19 a_flayer wrote: I already said why Eastern Europe. You've got plenty of rough-edged nationalistic young people who would sign up for a chance to fight Russia, especially if they're being paid well to be prepared. Hopefully they will never have to, but you'd be hard-pressed to find those kinda people amongst us meek pansexual Westerners. They're certainly there, but far fewer. Germany/Western Europe will be motivated from a desire to keep the EU together --- it's not just that, but also simply the fact they contribute the most financial thingiemagicks to the EU so anything that the European Union democratically decides to do will effectively be funded by the Germans/Western Europe. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this because it is so obvious considering the reality of the political systems we find ourselves in. So many words. We don't always have to put our fine-tuned sonic breathing on manual, do we? My opinions on why we should ask them to leave vary from "because their young people are needed to build up their own nation" to an epic string of curse words and profanity. I have utterly no interest in a european military taking the role of the US as a world police. Europe needs a military exactly strong enough to defend itself against outside aggression, plus a bit of additional leeway to discourage that aggression from taking place. Since the only military really threatening europe is russia, the european military only needs to be strong enough to discourage russia from trying any shit. Which it is. | ||
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
So the obvious compromise is as I posted it. Replace the American troops with European ones. It is only logical for our own security and stability, but also from a moral standpoint. Giving Ecuador another option would be a less evil role than the one we currently play. Right now Europe is effectively subservient to that American role in the world. We're in Afghanistan with the Americans. Recently Macron agreed to ignore the United Nations and bombed a sovereign nation with the Americans. It'd be nice if we could detach Bordaux's mouth of Garonne from Florida in that regard. We wouldn't "take on America's role" as long as we maintain a high level of openness and democracy and don't allow our political institutions to become infested with old narcissistic jingoistic millionaire filth as what happened in Washington DC. See, now you got me cursing again. In the words of Chung In Moon: SEOUL, South Korea—A top adviser to South Korea’s president says he would eventually like to see the U.S.–South Korea alliance end. In language that sounded almost Trump-like, Chung In Moon, a special adviser to President Moon Jae In for foreign affairs and national security, said in an interview that alliances in general are a “very unnatural state of international relations” and said that, “for me, the best thing is to really get rid of alliance.” In the meantime, he says, he “strongly” supports “the continued presence of American forces” in Korea, despite hoping for an arrangement that he thinks would better serve his nation’s interests. Source | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On July 09 2018 07:40 Big J wrote: No, a neoliberal plan on housing prices would sound like this: I would privatize the national statistics institute and then pay double the amount on the free market to a provider with no experience and quality assurance on such a job to get a map of Austrian land-value*. That map must be withheld from the public, because ordinary people are bad and envious and can't deal with information. Based on that map I would then use some nationalist speech that "our country" is "way behind" in land-value and that leftist regulation politics have stifled growth of land-value and now future generations have to suffer**. To catch up I will make it easier for landlords to get rid of tenants and create a national trust that funds real estate projects. Climate change is also a huge issue that I will tackle in the near future. You should probably try to get into the habit of steelmanning rather than strawmanning an opposing position because this is a description in such bad faith that it isn't just not representative of liberal intellectuals or advocates but it doesn't even do liberal politicians in the actual world justice. Nobody is actually trying to privatize a statistics bureau randomly or preventing citizens from obtaining information. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 09 2018 09:36 Nyxisto wrote: You should probably try to get into the habit of steelmanning rather than strawmanning an opposing position because this is a description in such bad faith that it isn't just not representative of liberal intellectuals or advocates but it doesn't even do liberal politicians in the actual world justice. Nobody is actually trying to privatize a statistics bureau randomly or preventing citizens from obtaining information. Are we talking liberals/liberterians now? The context was those politicians that some people like to critizise under the tag "neoliberal". If you give me a definition of (neo-)liberal I am happy to serve. My personal one, the one I demand these things under, is the pure one, which is to serve the freedom of the individual. Most people who call themselves liberals though would add all sorts of other goals too, like the protection of property, the subscription to collectivist economic growth or nationalist collectivist liability for debt. In my eyes they are the socialists, but if they define that as liberalism and me a socialist I am completely OK with calling their liberalism bullshit instead and subscribing to socialism. It's just names for definitions, nothing more. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 08 2018 04:12 sc-darkness wrote: Yet, the president of the US can do so much more. I can see your point, but each country is sovereign, so examples don't help. On July 08 2018 08:51 SoSexy wrote: Maybe you need to learn...to read my post, because it is worded very clearly. In fact I didn't even mention the word 'power' in my post. Also, I don't think you can decide for me which are the best questions if I'm interested in his political view. But thanks for the attempt. Context matters. The position matters. When you phrase a question like a low quality rag would ask as a celebrity instead of a serious question, then serious answers wouldn't prevail. For instance Donald Trump would love to implement a giant, can be seen from space, wall across the Mexican border for the sake of media PR, but monetory policies seem to be preventing that as well as general control over Republicans. He would love to have a muslim ban, but constituional courts have thrown it back till it is less obvious. perhaps for instance I would want a complete reform of education. Austria is not a dictatorship. If it was soviet union in 1950, China today, Italy today, the degree in which the actions which can be taken are all substantially different, depending both the degree of the general population would give support as well as the support of the underlying people in power with that position that you see as leader. The fact that neither of you can see a more complex version of the world than simply a leadership position, excluding political, legislative and the general system that has to worked with in the framework of the country even when asked to just belies the supremely simplistic view you have and inability to improve yourself in understanding. For instnace, for Big J desire for tax reform, it can be seen as either impossible, or overly restricted depending on what those assumptions are. My view would be that as chancellor," in the current system" there would be vested interest groups as well as general public misinformation that would prevent such a radical changing of tax collection. Those who own homes would be in revolt not knowing that the reform may make them richer; those who have all to gain my be against it on purely "moral" grounds, and large corporations may be against it for various reasons and would use the influence of money to make ssure that such reforms would never take place by the manipulations of politicians other than Big J. As can be seen from Big J, he has to assume general political suppport that may not exist, as well as being limited by the general budgetery needs of his country, but those are merely assumptions that he has placed himself under. | ||
Sent.
Poland8969 Posts
The United States is spending far more on NATO than any other Country. This is not fair, nor is it acceptable. While these countries have been increasing their contributions since I took office, they must do much more. Germany is at 1%, the U.S. is at 4%, and NATO benefits Europe far more than it does the U.S. By some accounts, the U.S. is paying for 90% of NATO, with many countries nowhere close to their 2% commitment. On top of this the European Union has a Trade Surplus of $151 Million with the U.S., with big Trade Barriers on U.S. goods. NO! Maybe Tusk will reply with something as good as "Looking at the latest decisions of President Trump, someone could even think: With friends like that, who needs enemies?”, which he said after Trump quit the Iran deal. | ||
| ||