|
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. |
I don't see what's so rude about stating that a given position is "quite naive"? Happens all the time in political discussions as far as I'm concerned.
|
I'd say that post from Zlefin was done in irony, yet I know it's absolutely not.
|
Rajoy was overthrown. Out of the 350 députés: 180 votes for, 169 against, 1 abstention. Pedro Sanchez from the PSOE replaces him.
|
On June 01 2018 15:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2018 07:53 zlefin wrote:On June 01 2018 07:08 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2018 06:13 zlefin wrote:On June 01 2018 04:10 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2018 03:54 zlefin wrote:On June 01 2018 03:01 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2018 02:30 sc-darkness wrote:On June 01 2018 02:14 TheDwf wrote:On June 01 2018 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Populists dont get votes because they are correct, they are getting it because people want to believe the fairy-tale that the situation can be turned around in 1-2 years by simply doing X.
They don't want to be told they have to make sacrifices to fix the mistakes of the past, no matter how true it might be. People who live in fairy tales are those who think that endless austerity and "structural adjustement" can be the only political horizon for another decade. Neoliberal populists like Macron just lie as much when they state that their holy combo of "lifting market rigidities" and "reducing public spending" + Show Spoiler +only for social spending of course; when it comes to military spending or tax cuts/exemptions for m/billionaires and multinationals, oddly enough there is always "magic money" will fix the situation, except they're not seen as such (demagogues) since they're ideologically, economically and politically the dominant power. This "we have to make sacrifices" rhetoric... Why should we pay for the banksters? (~30% of the French public debt is directly linked to the 2008 crisis.) Why should we pay for idiots who deregulated financial markets because the optimal allocation of capital + self-regulating markets blablabla? Why should we pay because billionaires looted us by hiding their money in fiscal heavens? Why should we pay to subsidize companies' profits, isn't the Holy Market supposed to be taking care of that? My generation was barely born when Maastricht was voted, why should we "make sacrifices" for the next X decades to honor a failed contract ("the eurozone will bring prosperity and growth") made by previous generations? I doubt a left wing person would understand, but austerity is a necessary evil when economy is messed up. It's very similar to being overweight and trying to lose weight. You have to cut your food (money) to reach your goal. It's difficult but there's no magical solution. The question is if cuts should be a lot at once or gradual over a long time. Not if there should be any. Behave like a responsible adult not like a spoiled kid. Of course, your better option is to vote for the better candidate who will bring better economy but sometimes people are too dumb and there's nothing you can do. In that case I'd like to see the people who argue for austerity because of its necessity also be in favor of tax increases, especially the progressive kind that will impact the rich more. Typically in the political sphere they will argue at the same time for spending cuts and tax cuts; that tells a different picture from the one you're offering. In your analogy, the guy is cutting his food because he's overweight, so he eats less, but at the same time he's also like "You know, I'm probably doing too much sports. I'm going to do less sports instead." some of us do argue for the tax increases and austerity. but you can't expect politicians to kill their careers for sound policy; when ti's ultimately up to the voters. Voters choose bad fiscal policy, so that's what we get. politicians present the arguments that people want to hear to justify their own wants. if you want people who's job is to come up with sensible, rigorous policy then you'll need something other than democracy that's not yet been developed. Are you saying that they're in favor of doing it, but can't because the plebs is too dumb to see the logic in that and would vote them out of office? I find that to be extremely convenient: all of those things that could impact the rich, we can't do them; the things that impact the poor, we can do them no problem...? That's far from the simplest explanation for this result: maybe they're just working for some rich people who want to pay less taxes and aren't really impacted when there are spending cuts thanks to their wealth, so they logically ask for the latter to obtain the former, under the guise of it being a necessity because there's a crisis. I do appreciate how far we've gotten when compared with darkness' original assertions though, that is something. that's not what I'm saying. what i'm saying is: they're politicians, they're wholly amoral. (amoral not immoral). they'll support whatever policies people support/get them elected, regardless of what those policies are. they don't care whether something is bad policy or not. they care whether it will help them get elected/reelected. as long as any blowback from a failed policy is far enough away that it won't hurt them personally, or they can diffuse blame sufficiently that it won't hurt their chances, it's not a problem. they support those policies bad fiscal policies because that's what the voters, in aggregate, do in fact support (even if they don't consciously realize it). democracy is based on the collective will of the voters, as expressed by their votes. this includes the aggregate effects of known cognitive biases. like the bias that favors money now over money later to a sizeable degree. human cognition and decisionmaking isn't rational, i'ts heavily based on emotion. and so it is with people's voting behavior. and of course to some extent politicians also use these biases to aim their promises; they make promises in ways that exploit these biases to further their own odds of succeeding at elections, either intentionally, or simply through systems processes leading them to act that way because they learn it works best in practice. indeed one of the goals of some among the rich is to encourage/manipulate the votin gpublic at large to agree with unsound policies that favor the rich. I like this post because it manages to be quite naive in the middle of expressing a rather cynical (but often accurate) view of politicians. Naive because reelection isn't a goal in itself, what those amoral politicians are after is the benefits that they hope to draw from reelection. Presumably they aren't masochists, they expect to get something positive out of that reelection process. There are plenty of other positive things that they could get though, so there comes a balancing act: maybe this action is slightly bad for my chances of reelection, but maybe I'm benefitting from it massively in some other ways. What would an amoral politician do when faced with this choice? If he is logical in any way, he would take the risk. That's one way that you could be influenced to go against the will of your electorate while still being an amoral dude, but here's another: ideology. Maybe you have a vision in your head of what your country should be. Now that vision shouldn't be too far from what the people want because they elected you, but perhaps you... lied to get elected. This has been known to happen. For example, you could run in France as a centrist, then get elected and do a bunch of neoliberal stuff while from time to time having some discourses in which you talk about doing leftist things. Ideology is another incentive that you could have to do stuff that isn't based on your electorate, all the while remaining an amoral politician out there for his own profit. Another puzzling element is that you seem to treat electorate opinion like this massive wall that you run into, and then that's it. Public opinion can be influenced. It's pretty easy to do, actually. It is modified and changed by a process called: conditioning. wow, how rude of you to call it naive. if you don't want to be civil, don't post; or at least don't reply to me with such rudeness. there was no need to add such a line to your post. I demand an apology. I don't know what to do here.
choose whether or not to apologize. if yes, then issue an apology. if not, then deny you did anything wrong.
|
On June 01 2018 19:04 bo1b wrote:
I'd say that post from Zlefin was done in irony, yet I know it's absolutely not.
Now I'm shocked....
|
|
|
The most delicate of flowers.
|
2774 Posts
|
The European Union complained to the World Trade Organization about China’s technology-transfer practices in a surprise move that adds to U.S. political pressure on Beijing.
On the same day it filed a WTO complaint over U.S. metal tariffs, the EU turned to the global trade arbiter to challenge Chinese intellectual-property legislation that forces European companies going to China to grant ownership or usage rights to local entities. China already faces the threat of U.S. duties on as much as $150 billion of Chinese goods sold in the American market as a result of alleged IP theft.
“We are challenging today both the U.S. and China at the WTO and it demonstrates that we are not choosing any sides,” EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told reporters on Friday in Brussels. “We stand for the multilateral system, for rules-based global trade.”
The EU complaints against China and the U.S. highlight political cross currents that are buffeting the global trade order and shaking up traditional alliances.
National Security
The case against Washington over metal-import levies that President Donald Trump has justified on national-security grounds puts Europe in the camp of China, which complained to the WTO right after the U.S. imposed the measures on March 23. The EU followed suit after losing an exemption and, in a separate move, intends to hit U.S. goods with a retaliatory tariff as soon as June 20.
“It is pure protectionism,” Malmstrom said. “European steel and aluminum exports to the U.S. cannot be seen as threat to their internal security.”
The technology-transfer case against Beijing runs parallel to the Trump administration’s use of part of a 1974 U.S. trade law -- section 301 -- to press China to address IP-related concerns such as trade-secret theft, online piracy and forced technology transfer.
It is in that context that the U.S. has started a WTO case against China and been th
reatening duties on a range of Chinese goods. Beijing has responded with a WTO complaint of its own.
www.bloomberg.com
After more than a year of trying to make nice, Justin Trudeau finally looks fed up with Donald Trump.
Canada had pushed for an exemption from Trump’s tariffs -- thinking, now naively, there’d be a perk to being a neighbor, ally and largest buyer of U.S. goods. Trudeau had bitten his tongue through skirmishes over airplanes, lumber and North American Free Trade Agreement talks.
That all changed Thursday when Canada, along with Mexico and the European Union, lost exemptions to the U.S. metal tariffs.
Trudeau tore into the Trump administration, if only by the standards of stereotypical Canadian politeness. He fired back with tariffs on U.S. exports of everything from whisky to motorboats to orange juice. He said the legal basis of tariffs -- U.S. national security -- was an affront to Canadian soldiers who died fighting alongside Americans in numerous global battles.
“Let me be clear: These tariffs are totally unacceptable,” a visibly frustrated Trudeau told reporters in Ottawa, calling the measures inconceivable and deplorable. “This is not about the American people. We have to believe that at some point their common sense will prevail, but we see no sign of that in this action today."
It’s a tone change for the “sunny ways” Trudeau. Canada is a close U.S. military ally and the top U.S. export market, more than the U.K., Japan and Germany combined. It sells the U.S. more steel and aluminum than anyone else, in part because of deeply integrated auto and defense sectors. Trudeau cracked down on Chinese steel imports for Trump, and U.S. data show that it has a trade surplus with Canada. None of it mattered.
Nafta Fallout
Underscoring his frustration, Trudeau offered a rare glimpse into high-level talks with Trump’s administration to update the North American Free Trade Agreement, which the president regularly threatens to tears up.
Trudeau said he and Trump were planning to meet this week because a Nafta deal was in reach.
“There was the broad lines of a decent win-win-win deal on the table that I thought required that final deal-making moment,” he said. Then Vice President Mike Pence called and said Trudeau could only see Trump if he agreed to a U.S. demand for a Nafta sunset clause. Trudeau refused and the meeting never happened.
Trump on Thursday night offered a fresh warning to Trudeau that any renegotiated trade agreement must be “a fair deal.”
“The United States has been taken advantage of for many decades on trade," the president said in a statement released by the White House. "Those days are over. Earlier today, this message was conveyed to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada: The United States will agree to a fair deal, or there will be no deal at all." Around the same time, Trump tweeted: “FAIR TRADE!”
Earlier in the day, Trudeau’s foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, called the retaliatory tariffs “the strongest trade action Canada has taken in the post-war era.” The finance minister, Bill Morneau, said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was going to get an earful at the Group of Seven finance ministers’ meeting that began Thursday in Whistler, British Columbia. “I don’t want to kid you, we will need to talk about this first and foremost,” he said. Trudeau’s defense minister, a former soldier, also teed off: “I find it quite insulting, especially for somebody like myself who served alongside the U.S.,” Harjit Sajjan said.
Trudeau, a regular advocate of free trade and multilateralism, placed the blame squarely at Trump’s feet. “Today’s decision belongs entirely to the U.S. administration. That was their choice,” he said. “The Trump administration simply doesn’t understand its measures will hurt Americans,” he said.
“We will continue to make arguments based on logic and common sense and hope that eventually they will prevail against an administration that doesn’t always align itself around those principles.”
www.bloomberg.com
First article is about Europe going to the WTO against both the US and China. Second is Canada finally being fed up by Trump. Looks like Trumps idiotic foreign policy is finally catching up to him and literally everyone is uniting against him. The man is eroding decades long alliances for nothing.
|
On June 01 2018 15:39 IgnE wrote:Good faith maybe, but ignorant. Neoliberalism is the apocatastasis of class power, the return of class privilege and the shoring up of technocratic governance. As David Harvey says, the neoliberals are more Leninist than the Leninists, funding think-tanks and dominating traditional media as the intellectual vanguard, leading culture to the overwhelming conclusion that there is no alternative.
Class power is defined by being exploitative. One class extracts value from another class. Clearly the neoliberal model isn't just an abuse of power in that sense, because the goals and also results to actually grow economic opportunities are real. If some technocratic governor wants to introduce a UBI or loosen housing restrictions it's obviously not just a plot to enrich themselves but to genuinely improve the lives of as many people as possible.
Also, when has there ever been a leading ideology without an intellectual vanguard, dominance in media or culture? I don't really see the point here, is the accuse simply that neoliberals apparently are good at wielding power? How could there be any dominant ideology that would not assert itself intellectually or culturally at the same time?
|
random unrelated "lol bavaria" thing I just found:
German Muslims accuse Bavaria of double standards over crucifix order
BERLIN (Reuters) - Muslim groups in Germany accused the Bavarian government of double standards on Friday as a new order requiring government buildings in the mainly Catholic southern region to display a crucifix went into effect.
[...]
All government offices and departments in Germany’s wealthiest and most conservative state are obliged to hang a cross in their entrance area under the new rules. Schools, museums, and theatres will be recommended to place one.
source:www.reuters.com
how do you even get away with that in... such a shame.
I still remember middle/highschool days when my politics teacher joked about how our local school is doing something illegal because we had a cross hanging in classrooms. I'm not from bavaria but we're still somewhat religious here I guess, so it was always a "small random school doing something weird" that made me laugh a bit.
But bavaria does bavaria things I guess... enforcing christianity in government buildings... that's on another level
|
On June 02 2018 00:50 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2018 15:39 IgnE wrote:Good faith maybe, but ignorant. Neoliberalism is the apocatastasis of class power, the return of class privilege and the shoring up of technocratic governance. As David Harvey says, the neoliberals are more Leninist than the Leninists, funding think-tanks and dominating traditional media as the intellectual vanguard, leading culture to the overwhelming conclusion that there is no alternative. Class power is defined by being exploitative. One class extracts value from another class. Clearly the neoliberal model isn't just an abuse of power in that sense, because the goals and also results to actually grow economic opportunities are real. If some technocratic governor wants to introduce a UBI or loosen housing restrictions it's obviously not just a plot to enrich themselves but to genuinely improve the lives of as many people as possible. Also, when has there ever been a leading ideology without an intellectual vanguard, dominance in media or culture? I don't really see the point here, is the accuse simply that neoliberals apparently are good at wielding power? How could there be any dominant ideology that would not assert itself intellectually or culturally at the same time?
1) the economic opportunities (outside germany at least) are going only to the top 10% i shouldnt have to reproduce the graphs again that weve all seen by now
2) in the 60s at the height of soviet power there appeared to be alternatives still, now capitalist realism has fully occupied the horizon of thought
|
On June 02 2018 00:50 Nyxisto wrote:
Also, when has there ever been a leading ideology without an intellectual vanguard, dominance in media or culture? I don't really see the point here, is the accuse simply that neoliberals apparently are good at wielding power? How could there be any dominant ideology that would not assert itself intellectually or culturally at the same time?
It's in part because of this that people who are fighting back are considered anti-semites, racists, nazis, conspiracy theorists, extremists, etc. Because they don't have the intellectual memes to back up their perspectives, but still accurately sense that something is wrong in society. But make no mistake, the anti-neoliberal movement is growing - and with it, its intellectual capacity will grow as well - and soon we will seize the memes necessary to topple the regimes.
|
On June 02 2018 01:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 00:50 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2018 15:39 IgnE wrote:Good faith maybe, but ignorant. Neoliberalism is the apocatastasis of class power, the return of class privilege and the shoring up of technocratic governance. As David Harvey says, the neoliberals are more Leninist than the Leninists, funding think-tanks and dominating traditional media as the intellectual vanguard, leading culture to the overwhelming conclusion that there is no alternative. Class power is defined by being exploitative. One class extracts value from another class. Clearly the neoliberal model isn't just an abuse of power in that sense, because the goals and also results to actually grow economic opportunities are real. If some technocratic governor wants to introduce a UBI or loosen housing restrictions it's obviously not just a plot to enrich themselves but to genuinely improve the lives of as many people as possible. Also, when has there ever been a leading ideology without an intellectual vanguard, dominance in media or culture? I don't really see the point here, is the accuse simply that neoliberals apparently are good at wielding power? How could there be any dominant ideology that would not assert itself intellectually or culturally at the same time? 1) the economic opportunities (outside germany at least) are going only to the top 10% i shouldnt have to reproduce the graphs again that weve all seen by now
I don't know what graphs those are supposed to be but we are, and that's a fact, experiencing the greatest global fall in economic inequality in human history. (pretty novel phenomenon as well)
And that's why neoliberalism is dominant. Because lifting a billion Asian people out of poverty is kind of a big feat. There's simply no other ideology around that functions globally.
|
On June 02 2018 01:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 00:50 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2018 15:39 IgnE wrote:Good faith maybe, but ignorant. Neoliberalism is the apocatastasis of class power, the return of class privilege and the shoring up of technocratic governance. As David Harvey says, the neoliberals are more Leninist than the Leninists, funding think-tanks and dominating traditional media as the intellectual vanguard, leading culture to the overwhelming conclusion that there is no alternative. Class power is defined by being exploitative. One class extracts value from another class. Clearly the neoliberal model isn't just an abuse of power in that sense, because the goals and also results to actually grow economic opportunities are real. If some technocratic governor wants to introduce a UBI or loosen housing restrictions it's obviously not just a plot to enrich themselves but to genuinely improve the lives of as many people as possible. Also, when has there ever been a leading ideology without an intellectual vanguard, dominance in media or culture? I don't really see the point here, is the accuse simply that neoliberals apparently are good at wielding power? How could there be any dominant ideology that would not assert itself intellectually or culturally at the same time? 1) the economic opportunities (outside germany at least) are going only to the top 10% i shouldnt have to reproduce the graphs again that weve all seen by now 2) in the 60s at the height of soviet power there appeared to be alternatives still, now capitalist realism has fully occupied the horizon of thought
Reproduce the graphs for Europe specifically please. When you make a claim I'd like you to support it so I (or someone else) is able to critique / respond to them.
|
On June 02 2018 01:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 01:05 IgnE wrote:On June 02 2018 00:50 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2018 15:39 IgnE wrote:Good faith maybe, but ignorant. Neoliberalism is the apocatastasis of class power, the return of class privilege and the shoring up of technocratic governance. As David Harvey says, the neoliberals are more Leninist than the Leninists, funding think-tanks and dominating traditional media as the intellectual vanguard, leading culture to the overwhelming conclusion that there is no alternative. Class power is defined by being exploitative. One class extracts value from another class. Clearly the neoliberal model isn't just an abuse of power in that sense, because the goals and also results to actually grow economic opportunities are real. If some technocratic governor wants to introduce a UBI or loosen housing restrictions it's obviously not just a plot to enrich themselves but to genuinely improve the lives of as many people as possible. Also, when has there ever been a leading ideology without an intellectual vanguard, dominance in media or culture? I don't really see the point here, is the accuse simply that neoliberals apparently are good at wielding power? How could there be any dominant ideology that would not assert itself intellectually or culturally at the same time? 1) the economic opportunities (outside germany at least) are going only to the top 10% i shouldnt have to reproduce the graphs again that weve all seen by now I don't know what graphs those are supposed to be but we are, and that's a fact, experiencing the greatest global fall in economic inequality in human history. (pretty novel phenomenon as well) And that's why neoliberalism is dominant. Because lifting a billion Asian people out of poverty is kind of a big feat. There's simply no other ideology around that functions globally.
Neoliberalism has absolutely nothing to do with "lifting a billion of Asian people out of poverty," Jesus how can you write things like that...
|
On June 02 2018 01:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 01:05 IgnE wrote:On June 02 2018 00:50 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2018 15:39 IgnE wrote:Good faith maybe, but ignorant. Neoliberalism is the apocatastasis of class power, the return of class privilege and the shoring up of technocratic governance. As David Harvey says, the neoliberals are more Leninist than the Leninists, funding think-tanks and dominating traditional media as the intellectual vanguard, leading culture to the overwhelming conclusion that there is no alternative. Class power is defined by being exploitative. One class extracts value from another class. Clearly the neoliberal model isn't just an abuse of power in that sense, because the goals and also results to actually grow economic opportunities are real. If some technocratic governor wants to introduce a UBI or loosen housing restrictions it's obviously not just a plot to enrich themselves but to genuinely improve the lives of as many people as possible. Also, when has there ever been a leading ideology without an intellectual vanguard, dominance in media or culture? I don't really see the point here, is the accuse simply that neoliberals apparently are good at wielding power? How could there be any dominant ideology that would not assert itself intellectually or culturally at the same time? 1) the economic opportunities (outside germany at least) are going only to the top 10% i shouldnt have to reproduce the graphs again that weve all seen by now I don't know what graphs those are supposed to be but we are, and that's a fact, experiencing the greatest global fall in economic inequality in human history. (pretty novel phenomenon as well) And that's why neoliberalism is dominant. Because lifting a billion Asian people out of poverty is kind of a big feat. There's simply no other ideology around that functions globally.
its great to get some graphs showing capitalism from 1880-present globally when talking about neoliberal policies since the 70s in western countries
|
On June 02 2018 01:20 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 01:15 Nyxisto wrote:On June 02 2018 01:05 IgnE wrote:On June 02 2018 00:50 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2018 15:39 IgnE wrote:Good faith maybe, but ignorant. Neoliberalism is the apocatastasis of class power, the return of class privilege and the shoring up of technocratic governance. As David Harvey says, the neoliberals are more Leninist than the Leninists, funding think-tanks and dominating traditional media as the intellectual vanguard, leading culture to the overwhelming conclusion that there is no alternative. Class power is defined by being exploitative. One class extracts value from another class. Clearly the neoliberal model isn't just an abuse of power in that sense, because the goals and also results to actually grow economic opportunities are real. If some technocratic governor wants to introduce a UBI or loosen housing restrictions it's obviously not just a plot to enrich themselves but to genuinely improve the lives of as many people as possible. Also, when has there ever been a leading ideology without an intellectual vanguard, dominance in media or culture? I don't really see the point here, is the accuse simply that neoliberals apparently are good at wielding power? How could there be any dominant ideology that would not assert itself intellectually or culturally at the same time? 1) the economic opportunities (outside germany at least) are going only to the top 10% i shouldnt have to reproduce the graphs again that weve all seen by now I don't know what graphs those are supposed to be but we are, and that's a fact, experiencing the greatest global fall in economic inequality in human history. (pretty novel phenomenon as well) And that's why neoliberalism is dominant. Because lifting a billion Asian people out of poverty is kind of a big feat. There's simply no other ideology around that functions globally. Neoliberalism has absolutely nothing to do with "lifting a billion of Asian people out of poverty," Jesus how can you write things like that...
The neoliberal concept is that free trade to prevents war. And through trade and interaction, countries will hopefully adopt each-others positive qualities. It isn't a perfect plan and has a bunch of flaws, but it is has a reasonable track record for preventing more large scale wars than it starts.
|
Nothing neoliberal about that concept, aside from any potential corporate post-colonial exploitation that takes place as a result of the circumstances that enable such trade.
|
On June 02 2018 01:17 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 01:05 IgnE wrote:On June 02 2018 00:50 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2018 15:39 IgnE wrote:Good faith maybe, but ignorant. Neoliberalism is the apocatastasis of class power, the return of class privilege and the shoring up of technocratic governance. As David Harvey says, the neoliberals are more Leninist than the Leninists, funding think-tanks and dominating traditional media as the intellectual vanguard, leading culture to the overwhelming conclusion that there is no alternative. Class power is defined by being exploitative. One class extracts value from another class. Clearly the neoliberal model isn't just an abuse of power in that sense, because the goals and also results to actually grow economic opportunities are real. If some technocratic governor wants to introduce a UBI or loosen housing restrictions it's obviously not just a plot to enrich themselves but to genuinely improve the lives of as many people as possible. Also, when has there ever been a leading ideology without an intellectual vanguard, dominance in media or culture? I don't really see the point here, is the accuse simply that neoliberals apparently are good at wielding power? How could there be any dominant ideology that would not assert itself intellectually or culturally at the same time? 1) the economic opportunities (outside germany at least) are going only to the top 10% i shouldnt have to reproduce the graphs again that weve all seen by now 2) in the 60s at the height of soviet power there appeared to be alternatives still, now capitalist realism has fully occupied the horizon of thought Reproduce the graphs for Europe specifically please. When you make a claim I'd like you to support it so I (or someone else) is able to critique / respond to them.
are you punting on the US question? do you think european (non)growth looks different than the graphs in the US? id have to do it later, but im wondering what your intuition is on this
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
