EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1112
| 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. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On June 02 2018 01:30 IgnE wrote: pretty soon we'll be hearing about how neoliberalism led to the rapid growth in maoist china LOL yeah | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 02 2018 01:30 IgnE wrote: pretty soon we'll be hearing about how neoliberalism led to the rapid growth in maoist china I'm sure I will see arguments that neoliberals also were responsible for the rise of the Third Reich and Stalin. Their crimes are limitless. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 02 2018 01:23 IgnE wrote: its great to get some graphs showing capitalism from 1880-present globally when talking about neoliberal policies since the 70s in western countries The result of alleviation of global poverty was the result of post 70s globalisation. We didn't see widespread convergence up until then, it's a new phenomenon. The reason people here are upset about this is because it cost some cozy jobs in the Western developed world, which is an odd thing for the left to complain about. I always thought the global proletariat was somewhat important What really upsets the left about neoliberalism is that it actually brought about what they were campaigning for the entire time. Convergence of global standards of living. | ||
|
nojok
France15845 Posts
On June 02 2018 01:36 Plansix wrote: I'm sure I will see arguments that neoliberals also were responsible for the rise of the Third Reich and Stalin. Their crimes are limitless. "At least we're not nazis" is the only argument you have? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 02 2018 01:48 nojok wrote: "At least we're not nazis" is the only argument you have? The political concepts that neoliberalism is based on, free trade, faux pro-labor+pro-buisness, the slowest form of being socially "progressive", did not receive wide spread adoption until after WW2. The joke is they would need to be time travelers. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 02 2018 01:44 Nyxisto wrote: The result of alleviation of global poverty was the result of post 70s globalisation. We didn't see widespread convergence up until then, it's a new phenomenon. The reason people here are upset about this is because it cost some cozy jobs in the Western developed world, which is an odd thing for the left to complain about. I always thought the global proletariat was somewhat important What really upsets the left about neoliberalism is that it actually brought about what they were campaigning for the entire time. Convergence of global standards of living. we're all converging on $50 a day? or you mean europe is converging within the EU? or the bolded assertion in the middle of the essay that global inequality is still high and will remain so for the foreseeable future? if your point is that now some people in southeast asia are making $50 a day instead of $5, then great, I'm glad we could incorporate them into our neoliberal paradise. it's too bad that convergence is an overfit illusion and that the first rule of development is that its always underdevelopment | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
On June 02 2018 00:59 Toadesstern wrote: random unrelated "lol bavaria" thing I just found: 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 Yeah, its pretty bullshit. Wasn't this a pretty major news thing a week or two ago? Even their justification is so completely nonsensical that i don't believe they even buy it themselves. "A cross is totally not a symbol of christianity, it is a symbol of western civilisation!". Even a bishop declared that is utter nonsense. I would be very surprised if this didn't get completely smacked down in Karlsruhe too. Afaik there was a similar decision with regards to crosses in classrooms. But reading into it now, Bavaria (or more specifically the CSU) just didn't give a fuck, and somehow got away with it. So there are still crucifixes in bavarian classrooms, which i find to be completely disgusting. Though i think i only noticed a single one in one classroom during my time as an intern in bavarian schools, so maybe they mostly just faded away after that decision. Still, crosses in government buildings is so completely against the seperation of church and state that i can't see why anyone would believe that to be a good idea. It makes it very clear that non-denominational people need a way better lobby. Non-denominational people are the single largest group with regards to religion in Germany source. (Granted, christianity as a whole is bigger, but both catholics and protestants individually are smaller). Yet we basically don't have any political voice at all. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12177 Posts
But there's more. Not only have the goalposts been moved, the definition of poverty itself has been massaged in a way that serves the poverty reduction narrative. What is considered the threshold for poverty - the "poverty line" - is normally calculated by each nation for itself, and is supposed to reflect what an average human adult needs to subsist. In 1990, Martin Ravallion, an Australian economist at the World Bank, noticed that the poverty lines of a group of the world's poorest countries clustered around $1 per day. On Ravallion's recommendation, the World Bank adopted this as the first-ever International Poverty Line (IPL). But the IPL proved to be somewhat troublesome. Using this threshold, the World Bank announced in its 2000 annual report that "the absolute number of those living on $1 per day or less continues to increase. The worldwide total rose from 1.2 billion in 1987 to 1.5 billion today and, if recent trends persist, will reach 1.9 billion by 2015." This was alarming news, especially because it suggested that the free-market reforms imposed by the World Bank and the IMF on Global South countries during the 1980s and 1990s in the name of "development" were actually making things worse. This amounted to a PR nightmare for the World Bank. Not long after the report was released, however, their story changed dramatically and they announced the exact opposite news: While poverty had been increasing steadily for some two centuries, they said, the introduction of free-market policies had actually reduced the number of impoverished people by 400 million between 1981 and 2001. This new story was possible because the Bank shifted the IPL from the original $1.02 (at 1985 PPP) to $1.08 (at 1993 PPP), which, given inflation, was lower in real terms. With this tiny change - a flick of an economist's wrist - the world was magically getting better, and the Bank's PR problem was instantly averted. This new IPL is the one that the Millennium Campaign chose to adopt. (source) | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On June 02 2018 01:48 nojok wrote: "At least we're not nazis" is the only argument you have? Well, he's a big supporter of the Democrats in the US, after all. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On June 02 2018 02:07 Simberto wrote: Yeah, its pretty bullshit. Wasn't this a pretty major news thing a week or two ago? Even their justification is so completely nonsensical that i don't believe they even buy it themselves. "A cross is totally not a symbol of christianity, it is a symbol of western civilisation!". Even a bishop declared that is utter nonsense. I would be very surprised if this didn't get completely smacked down in Karlsruhe too. Afaik there was a similar decision with regards to crosses in classrooms. But reading into it now, Bavaria (or more specifically the CSU) just didn't give a fuck, and somehow got away with it. So there are still crucifixes in bavarian classrooms, which i find to be completely disgusting. Though i think i only noticed a single one in one classroom during my time as an intern in bavarian schools, so maybe they mostly just faded away after that decision. Still, crosses in government buildings is so completely against the seperation of church and state that i can't see why anyone would believe that to be a good idea. It makes it very clear that non-denominational people need a way better lobby. Non-denominational people are the single largest group with regards to religion in Germany source. (Granted, christianity as a whole is bigger, but both catholics and protestants individually are smaller). Yet we basically don't have any political voice at all. I think there's a difference in where you grow up. Like I said, when I went to school (middle school/highschool and I'm 29 now) I had crosses in all my classrooms and we're talking about a school with 3k pupils and I'm from Hessen, so not even as christian as bavaria. But we're country bumpkins here so whoever was in charge a couple years ago thought nothing about it and it's all fine. I already thought that was disgusting during my schooltime but government buildings is something else. It's not even just neglectfulness, which is what I'd describe my highschool example above as. It's straight up telling schools (?) and government buildings that they HAVE to put up crosses. That's just fucked up | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On June 02 2018 01:44 Nyxisto wrote: The result of alleviation of global poverty was the result of post 70s globalisation. We didn't see widespread convergence up until then, it's a new phenomenon. The reason people here are upset about this is because it cost some cozy jobs in the Western developed world, which is an odd thing for the left to complain about. I always thought the global proletariat was somewhat important What really upsets the left about neoliberalism is that it actually brought about what they were campaigning for the entire time. Convergence of global standards of living. Are you actually working for The Onion? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 02 2018 02:14 Nebuchad wrote: The kind of article that comes naturally as a rebuttal of what Nyxisto posted is something like this. Especially the part about the IPL, which is just beautiful, and for that reason made it to the quote below. (source) The world population almost doubled from the 1980s onward. That's a pretty cheap sleight of hand. The 300 million additional people in poverty obviously still indicate a decline in the total rate of poverty globally. Also raising the amount of dollars needed to exit the statistics only raises the rate of poverty if you don't apply it retroactively. If you do which you should to make a meaningful statement, the rate of poverty still falls. Don't believe me, you can try it out yourself: http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/povDuplicateWB.aspx Even by a dollar standard of five bucks, the total rate of poverty has fallen (about 48% today, about 70% in 1984) | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On June 02 2018 02:18 a_flayer wrote: Well, he's a big supporter of the Democrats in the US, after all. He's a Sanders man, I veto any agression upon him! | ||
|
nojok
France15845 Posts
On June 02 2018 01:44 Nyxisto wrote: The result of alleviation of global poverty was the result of post 70s globalisation. We didn't see widespread convergence up until then, it's a new phenomenon. The reason people here are upset about this is because it cost some cozy jobs in the Western developed world, which is an odd thing for the left to complain about. I always thought the global proletariat was somewhat important What really upsets the left about neoliberalism is that it actually brought about what they were campaigning for the entire time. Convergence of global standards of living. I don't think you can put all of this on neoliberalism, technology has been evolving very fast too and some countries are catching up. Sure neoliberalism accelerated the process but at what cost? We're destroying our planet. You however point a very important aspect of the problem : some people want to be able to buy a fuckton of very cheap products made by people on the other side of the planet while not suffering from their concurrence, it's impossible without some form of slavery. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 02 2018 02:18 a_flayer wrote: Well, he's a big supporter of the Democrats in the US, after all. I love this post so much. I’m registered as “unaffiliated” in my state and never directly donated to the democratic party, only to candidates I supported. This is being a big supporter of the Democratic party, which amounts to existing in the US and not voting for Republicans because they never gave me a reason. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On June 02 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote: I love this post so much. I’m registered as “unaffiliated” in my state and never directly donated to the democratic party, only to candidates I supported. This is being a big supporter of the Democratic party, which amounts to existing in the US and not voting for Republicans because they never gave me a reason. If it makes you feel any better, it was more aimed at the Dems than at you specifically. ;-) | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 02 2018 02:36 a_flayer wrote: If it makes you feel any better, it was more aimed at the Dems than at you specifically. ;-) I live in the area where a lot of the recent third party challengers from the left have risen from. They are nothing to write home about. There is a reason that lackluster party has hung on to power for so long. | ||
| ||
