|
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. |
On May 31 2018 05:00 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +Well, as evidenced by reality, neoliberals have zero problem lifting borders for goods, capital and services; while closing borders for migrants deemed undesirable. I don't think anybody can claim that liberalism on earth is as pure as its platonic ideal, but judging liberals this hashly for not living up to their promises coming from a left-winger is pretty funny. If we'd judge every ideology by their real-world results liberalism does better than pretty much anything else. "no real socialism" is a staple in almost every political discussion about it, have you ever heard anyone talk about 'no real liberalism'? Liberalism howerver flawed is at least measured against its actual outcomes.
The difference is that there is "real neoliberalism" (of course it's not "pure," but it doesn't matter) and some of the governments which apply it have no problem stopping/reducing immigration, which contradicts your initial point.
Edit—and yes, I have actually read many libertarians use the "no real liberalism" rhetoric.
|
In the large scope of things (neo)-liberal governments favour open immigration policies. Be it Germany, or Sweden or the United States or whatever. So do liberal parties and the majority of their members, probably also within En Marche. To take one example, Macron's adoption of a right-wing stance (in the face of public pressure) as an indicator that liberals overall support anti-immigration measures is just not representative. It's simply not true.
No matter where you go, if you ask a liberal person (in the broad sense) if they are defenders of open borders they're likely going to say and vote yes. I don't really no what kind of liberal people you're meeting that are supposed to be systematically opposed to immigration.
|
On May 31 2018 06:00 Nyxisto wrote:
In the large scope of things (neo)-liberal governments favour open immigration policies. Be it Germany, or Sweden or the United States or whatever. So do liberal parties and the majority of their members, probably also within En Marche. To take one example, Macron's adoption of a right-wing stance (in the face of public pressure) as an indicator that liberals overall support anti-immigration measures is just not representative. It's simply not true.
No matter where you go, if you ask a liberal person (in the broad sense) if they are defenders of open borders they're likely going to say and vote yes. I don't really no what kind of liberal people you're meeting that are supposed to be systematically opposed to immigration.
Economically neoliberal ≠ politically/culturally liberal
|
They want the smartest, most entrepreneurial, hardest-working immigrants so that they can put them to work as high-educated labor in their research labs and elsewhere. This will allow western corporations to continue to dominate the world's information sector with patents and such and so we keep the global divide alive and well. That is the neoliberal agenda regarding immigration.
Well, that and the "we must have more kids because the conditions in which we run our own society demands that we continue to have more kids and yet our own population doesn't seem interested" policy that has something to do with economics & pensions and so forth.
|
A little more Friedman on that topic:
+ Show Spoiler +
So in essence his argument is:
Free immigration is great. But when you have a welfare state with minimum income/minimum welfare then you get immigration into the welfare state. Unless you make it illegal for them to come, so they don't register. Then they don't get benefits and can only immigrate into work.
|
On May 31 2018 06:03 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2018 06:00 Nyxisto wrote:
In the large scope of things (neo)-liberal governments favour open immigration policies. Be it Germany, or Sweden or the United States or whatever. So do liberal parties and the majority of their members, probably also within En Marche. To take one example, Macron's adoption of a right-wing stance (in the face of public pressure) as an indicator that liberals overall support anti-immigration measures is just not representative. It's simply not true.
No matter where you go, if you ask a liberal person (in the broad sense) if they are defenders of open borders they're likely going to say and vote yes. I don't really no what kind of liberal people you're meeting that are supposed to be systematically opposed to immigration. Economically neoliberal ≠ politically/culturally liberal
Just to the same degree as being economically socialist doesn't necessarily mean you're not a reactionary. Those people exist, but they're rather untypical. Likewise, someone who believes in economic freedom and individual rights also tends to believe in cultural and political individual rights.
neoliberalism is not special in this regard. Some people hold incoherent economic and political views, many people hold coherent views. Most parties that today represent (neo)liberalism, also represent culturally and political liberal positions. The issue of immigration aside, En Marche is still a culturally liberal party too measured by French standards at least.
|
On May 31 2018 06:00 Nyxisto wrote:
In the large scope of things (neo)-liberal governments favour open immigration policies. Be it Germany, or Sweden or the United States or whatever. So do liberal parties and the majority of their members, probably also within En Marche. To take one example, Macron's adoption of a right-wing stance (in the face of public pressure) as an indicator that liberals overall support anti-immigration measures is just not representative. It's simply not true.
No matter where you go, if you ask a liberal person (in the broad sense) if they are defenders of open borders they're likely going to say and vote yes. I don't really no what kind of liberal people you're meeting that are supposed to be systematically opposed to immigration.
One of the easiest ones is when you're out of a job and you believe the free market is awesome and it's all a big meritocracy. But it can't be that you're out of a job because the market doesn't see your worth, that makes no sense, you're clearly an amazing person. Could it be those immigrants rigging the system by accepting to work under worse conditions than you are willing to? I'm sure it could.
This is a common view. And it's not one that is discouraged because we would much rather you channel that discontent you have against the people who don't matter.
|
On May 31 2018 06:21 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2018 06:03 TheDwf wrote:On May 31 2018 06:00 Nyxisto wrote:
In the large scope of things (neo)-liberal governments favour open immigration policies. Be it Germany, or Sweden or the United States or whatever. So do liberal parties and the majority of their members, probably also within En Marche. To take one example, Macron's adoption of a right-wing stance (in the face of public pressure) as an indicator that liberals overall support anti-immigration measures is just not representative. It's simply not true.
No matter where you go, if you ask a liberal person (in the broad sense) if they are defenders of open borders they're likely going to say and vote yes. I don't really no what kind of liberal people you're meeting that are supposed to be systematically opposed to immigration. Economically neoliberal ≠ politically/culturally liberal Just to the same degree as being economically socialist doesn't necessarily mean you're not a reactionary. Those people exist, but they're rather untypical. Likewise, someone who believes in economic freedom and individual rights also tends to believe in cultural and political individual rights. neoliberalism is not special in this regard. Some people hold incoherent economic and political views, many people hold coherent views. Most parties that today represent (neo)liberalism, also represent culturally and political liberal positions. The issue of immigration aside, En Marche is still a culturally liberal party too measured by French standards at least.
No no, it's not an exception. According to the CEVIPOF studies (big detailed polls about political opinions), in France 65% of those who are economically liberal are not culturally liberal (source in French). Liberal-conservatives are a thing. According to the same source, 63% of the most economically liberal voters chose Fillon, who was certainly not culturally liberal. As for political liberalism, it's supposed to be the basis of our regimes so it's "mainstream," but the rising authoritarian trends a bit everywhere show that it could disappear while the economic neoliberalism remains (plus there were neoliberal dictatures, e.g. under Pinochet).
Macron's cultural/political liberalism was a lie, so it matters little what the empty shell of his start-up party thinks; if it even thinks something. They present themselves as "liberal-progressists" but so far did absolutely nothing to prove it. Even their proclaimed feminism is mostly just words. No legalization of cannabis, no new rights for LGBT people... Where's the cultural liberalism here?
|
The differentiation between economic liberalism and cultural liberalism is bullshit to begin with. There is no half-arsed freedom. Telling a gay person: "You must not love that guy, but hey, you are free to choose your profession." is nothing but an authoritarian optimization towards your very own values, namely capital fetishism. It is not freedom.
|
On May 31 2018 07:31 Big J wrote:
The differentiation between economic liberalism and cultural liberalism is bullshit to begin with. There is no half-arsed freedom. Telling a gay person: "You must not love that guy, but hey, you are free to choose your profession." is nothing but an authoritarian optimization towards your very own values, namely capital fetishism. It is not freedom.
I always think of this image when this conversation comes up
+ Show Spoiler +
I don't have much to offer on the European side so I'm mostly here to observe and wish more of you socialishsts posted in the US Politics thread but I'm one of those people who prefers image/sound so I thought the visualization may help someone.
|
On May 31 2018 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2018 07:31 Big J wrote:
The differentiation between economic liberalism and cultural liberalism is bullshit to begin with. There is no half-arsed freedom. Telling a gay person: "You must not love that guy, but hey, you are free to choose your profession." is nothing but an authoritarian optimization towards your very own values, namely capital fetishism. It is not freedom. I always think of this image when this conversation comes up + Show Spoiler +I don't have much to offer on the European side so I'm mostly here to observe and wish more of you socialishsts posted in the US Politics thread but I'm one of those people who prefers image/sound so I thought the visualization may help someone.
Reasons I love math: You can savely call someone an idiot when they make a blatently illogical statement like the one in the picture.
But instead I have a Führer whose argument against an inheritance tax is to see it "from the perspective of the testator". Maybe I am just bad at necromancy but I just don't get those dead people to tell me their views.
But hey, conservatives are the realists and leftists the dreamers they tell me.
|
Verhofstadt trying his hardest to boost the Italian far-right
|
Italy is struggling because young and working people should be paying unrealistic amounts of debts that old and dead people have caused. There is nothing liberal in austerity once you have acquired debt. The liberal mechanism is not to pass on debts to someone else by abusing state institutions. The liberal mechanism is that when someone dies and hasnt fullfilled his personal contract then it becomes the personal problem of the creditor. As always the selfproclaimed liberals join in into the economic rape of our generation through conservative rule.
|
On May 31 2018 19:17 Big J wrote:
Italy is struggling because young and working people should be paying unrealistic amounts of debts that old and dead people have caused. There is nothing liberal in austerity once you have acquired debt. The liberal mechanism is not to pass on debts to someone else by abusing state institutions. The liberal mechanism is that when someone dies and hasnt fullfilled his personal contract then it becomes the personal problem of the creditor. As always the selfproclaimed liberals join in into the economic rape of our generation through conservative rule.
For obvious reasons that doesn't work for countries (or for corporations). For starters, every day Italians die (and new ones are born). What part of the debt belongs to Italians who die, and should therefore be written off by the creditors? But in general, it's just not how things work. The money wasn't loaned to Giuseppe, it was loaned to Italy, in the expectation that in 20-30-40-50 years, depending on the duration of the loan, that money would be payed back, regardless of whether the money was to pay for Giuseppe's pension and Giuseppe is long dead, or whether it was to build a nice highway between Rome and Milan, that Giuseppe's grandson is happily using.
If you are going to make the comparison between people and countries, you should take into account that a bank simply *does not loan* money to old people without pretty ironclad guarantees that they will repaid if the person dies. So what you actually mean is that Italy should declare bankruptcy, because young Italians should refuse to pay for their grandparents' debts. That is a valid point of view, but hasn't gone very well in countries that have tried. Argentina's corralito is still one of the most obvious examples of unbridled borrowing into telling the IMF to go fuck themselves. The economy crashed and burned, and is still a mess 18 years later (obviously there are other factors as well).
Ranting and railing against free market economies only works if you are willing to pay the price of *not* going along with them. Because whoever Italy's creditors are (for a fairly large part, Italian pension funds, as I explained above) bound to not be very happy when the Italian states tells them to go fuck themselves.
|
Generational debt of any form is the death of a free market anyways. Free markets are based on individuals making the best decision for themselves. Saddling them with the debt of their parents is not a market choice they made and undercuts the foundation of the free market itself.
|
On May 31 2018 19:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2018 19:17 Big J wrote:
Italy is struggling because young and working people should be paying unrealistic amounts of debts that old and dead people have caused. There is nothing liberal in austerity once you have acquired debt. The liberal mechanism is not to pass on debts to someone else by abusing state institutions. The liberal mechanism is that when someone dies and hasnt fullfilled his personal contract then it becomes the personal problem of the creditor. As always the selfproclaimed liberals join in into the economic rape of our generation through conservative rule. For obvious reasons that doesn't work for countries (or for corporations). For starters, every day Italians die (and new ones are born). What part of the debt belongs to Italians who die, and should therefore be written off by the creditors? But in general, it's just not how things work. The money wasn't loaned to Giuseppe, it was loaned to Italy, in the expectation that in 20-30-40-50 years, depending on the duration of the loan, that money would be payed back, regardless of whether the money was to pay for Giuseppe's pension and Giuseppe is long dead, or whether it was to build a nice highway between Rome and Milan, that Giuseppe's grandson is happily using. If you are going to make the comparison between people and countries, you should take into account that a bank simply *does not loan* money to old people without pretty ironclad guarantees that they will repaid if the person dies. So what you actually mean is that Italy should declare bankruptcy, because young Italians should refuse to pay for their grandparents' debts. That is a valid point of view, but hasn't gone very well in countries that have tried. Argentina's corralito is still one of the most obvious examples of unbridled borrowing into telling the IMF to go fuck themselves. The economy crashed and burned, and is still a mess 18 years later (obviously there are other factors as well). Ranting and railing against free market economies only works if you are willing to pay the price of *not* going along with them. Because whoever Italy's creditors are (for a fairly large part, Italian pension funds, as I explained above) bound to not be very happy when the Italian states tells them to go fuck themselves.
Since democracy is one-man/woman-one-vote you offwrite 1/(number of people at the time the contract was created) everytime one dies of every state debt contract.
Of course states and other institutions don't work that way RIGHT NOW. That is why you should clean up their internal rules to work like that. I'm sorry if someone loses out on such a change in contract, but it should have been clear all along that in reality you can't expect to get a return no matter what. That's just the nature of multihuman interaction. Contract rules are there to instituionalize these things, prevent slavery and other unfair and unrealistic contracts. If that right - which in itself is a social contract - leads to impossible demands it is that right that has to be reformed, not the contract that has to be fullfilled.
You could obviously postpone the problem to the next generation, by just making that amount of debt necessary to pay for the interest of current debt without having to take it from taxes. Anymore debt you make should be payed back in a short timeframe, less debt shouldnt be made.
|
On May 31 2018 20:12 Plansix wrote:
Generational debt of any form is the death of a free market anyways. Free markets are based on individuals making the best decision for themselves. Saddling them with the debt of their parents is not a market choice they made and undercuts the foundation of the free market itself.
Then we should probably have thought of that before lending massive amounts of money to countries became a thing. There's a reason Europe has rules about things like annual budgets, and in general worries about national debt. It's precisely *because* countries shouldn't just spend money they don't have and let future generations worry about what that means. And the Italian government thinking they should double down on that policy is beyond stupid. If M5E or Lega are worried about not being able to repay their national debt, they shouldn't just borrow more, they should tell their creditors to go fuck themselves.
E: and as I said above, the creditors are Italian pension funds. So they won't actually do that, as it will wipe out their own economy AND their voter base's pensions in one fell swoop.
|
On May 31 2018 20:13 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2018 19:37 Acrofales wrote:On May 31 2018 19:17 Big J wrote:
Italy is struggling because young and working people should be paying unrealistic amounts of debts that old and dead people have caused. There is nothing liberal in austerity once you have acquired debt. The liberal mechanism is not to pass on debts to someone else by abusing state institutions. The liberal mechanism is that when someone dies and hasnt fullfilled his personal contract then it becomes the personal problem of the creditor. As always the selfproclaimed liberals join in into the economic rape of our generation through conservative rule. For obvious reasons that doesn't work for countries (or for corporations). For starters, every day Italians die (and new ones are born). What part of the debt belongs to Italians who die, and should therefore be written off by the creditors? But in general, it's just not how things work. The money wasn't loaned to Giuseppe, it was loaned to Italy, in the expectation that in 20-30-40-50 years, depending on the duration of the loan, that money would be payed back, regardless of whether the money was to pay for Giuseppe's pension and Giuseppe is long dead, or whether it was to build a nice highway between Rome and Milan, that Giuseppe's grandson is happily using. If you are going to make the comparison between people and countries, you should take into account that a bank simply *does not loan* money to old people without pretty ironclad guarantees that they will repaid if the person dies. So what you actually mean is that Italy should declare bankruptcy, because young Italians should refuse to pay for their grandparents' debts. That is a valid point of view, but hasn't gone very well in countries that have tried. Argentina's corralito is still one of the most obvious examples of unbridled borrowing into telling the IMF to go fuck themselves. The economy crashed and burned, and is still a mess 18 years later (obviously there are other factors as well). Ranting and railing against free market economies only works if you are willing to pay the price of *not* going along with them. Because whoever Italy's creditors are (for a fairly large part, Italian pension funds, as I explained above) bound to not be very happy when the Italian states tells them to go fuck themselves. Since democracy is one-man/woman-one-vote you offwrite 1/(number of people at the time the contract was created) everytime one dies of every state debt contract. Of course states and other institutions don't work that way RIGHT NOW. That is why you should clean up their internal rules to work like that. I'm sorry if someone loses out on such a change in contract, but it should have been clear all along that in reality you can't expect to get a return no matter what. That's just the nature of multihuman interaction. Contract rules are there to instituionalize these things, prevent slavery and other unfair and unrealistic contracts. If that right - which in itself is a social contract - leads to impossible demands it is that right that has to be reformed, not the contract that has to be fullfilled. You could obviously postpone the problem to the next generation, by just making that amount of debt necessary to pay for the interest of current debt without having to take it from taxes. Anymore debt you make should be payed back in a short timeframe, less debt shouldnt be made.
That's fine, and I think whoever lent all those massive amounts of money deserves to get burnt. I don't see a huge debt relief for Greece as a bad thing. And I wouldn't see debt relief for Italy as a bad thing either. If sanitizing the financial situation was actually what Italy wanted. What M5E and Lega were actually proposing was:
We borrowed too much and can't pay it back. So fuck it. Live like there's no tomorrow and borrow more! Tax cuts for everybody! And when shit hits the fan, we'll blame the EU!
|
On May 31 2018 20:13 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2018 19:37 Acrofales wrote:On May 31 2018 19:17 Big J wrote:
Italy is struggling because young and working people should be paying unrealistic amounts of debts that old and dead people have caused. There is nothing liberal in austerity once you have acquired debt. The liberal mechanism is not to pass on debts to someone else by abusing state institutions. The liberal mechanism is that when someone dies and hasnt fullfilled his personal contract then it becomes the personal problem of the creditor. As always the selfproclaimed liberals join in into the economic rape of our generation through conservative rule. For obvious reasons that doesn't work for countries (or for corporations). For starters, every day Italians die (and new ones are born). What part of the debt belongs to Italians who die, and should therefore be written off by the creditors? But in general, it's just not how things work. The money wasn't loaned to Giuseppe, it was loaned to Italy, in the expectation that in 20-30-40-50 years, depending on the duration of the loan, that money would be payed back, regardless of whether the money was to pay for Giuseppe's pension and Giuseppe is long dead, or whether it was to build a nice highway between Rome and Milan, that Giuseppe's grandson is happily using. If you are going to make the comparison between people and countries, you should take into account that a bank simply *does not loan* money to old people without pretty ironclad guarantees that they will repaid if the person dies. So what you actually mean is that Italy should declare bankruptcy, because young Italians should refuse to pay for their grandparents' debts. That is a valid point of view, but hasn't gone very well in countries that have tried. Argentina's corralito is still one of the most obvious examples of unbridled borrowing into telling the IMF to go fuck themselves. The economy crashed and burned, and is still a mess 18 years later (obviously there are other factors as well). Ranting and railing against free market economies only works if you are willing to pay the price of *not* going along with them. Because whoever Italy's creditors are (for a fairly large part, Italian pension funds, as I explained above) bound to not be very happy when the Italian states tells them to go fuck themselves. Since democracy is one-man/woman-one-vote you offwrite 1/(number of people at the time the contract was created) everytime one dies of every state debt contract. Of course states and other institutions don't work that way RIGHT NOW. That is why you should clean up their internal rules to work like that. I'm sorry if someone loses out on such a change in contract, but it should have been clear all along that in reality you can't expect to get a return no matter what. That's just the nature of multihuman interaction. Contract rules are there to instituionalize these things, prevent slavery and other unfair and unrealistic contracts. If that right - which in itself is a social contract - leads to impossible demands it is that right that has to be reformed, not the contract that has to be fullfilled. You could obviously postpone the problem to the next generation, by just making that amount of debt necessary to pay for the interest of current debt without having to take it from taxes. Anymore debt you make should be payed back in a short timeframe, less debt shouldnt be made.
sounds implementable;
some notes:
nobody is going to lend you money long term without charging a higher interest to account for those losses in the debt contract.
it sounds like you're favoring simply not accruing debt in the first place. just add a balanced budget rule or some such to prevent accumulating any debt at all.
it's not unreasonable for the debt to be paid by generations not yet born IF the debt was incurred for projects with long term benefits that help those people. Like some infrastructure projects. The problem is that too many nations use debt to pay for current welfare spending.
|
It actually makes good sense in a terrible kind of way. The country can borrow more and more on the euro, then you blame the euro and default on your debts to move to a new currency. The bonds can be sold off to the ECB everytime you claim a crisis, just to make it seem like it's the EU's fault. Basically free money for the government to pay for pensions. But it's unlikely you can so freely borrow money again for your new national currency to pay for your inflated pensions, so now you don't have an option except to inflate away its worth, but by that time, you've personally enriched yourself and it's not your problem anymore. That appears to be M5E and Lega's fiscal policy anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/no26os51tbsy.jpg)
