EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1209
| 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. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
On November 26 2018 23:25 Plansix wrote: Seems like another trial balloon so see how other nations will respond.. The end goal has always been to take all of Ukraine. I won’t be when Russia pushes into the rest of the country to “keep the peace” at some point in the next couple of years. At times this looks like optimism to me. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 27 2018 02:38 Dav1oN wrote: I wish it could be the same optimistic to me. I’m sorry for the uncertainty you live in. The only solace that I have been able to find is that no one can see the end of uncertain times, so it may be closer than we believe. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9252 Posts
According to a new study, seven-in-ten Americans said the relationship between the two countries was good, while 73 percent in Germany said the relationship was bad. That’s a big jump on the German side from 2017, when 56 percent said the relationship was bad. The study, carried out by Pew Research Center in the U.S. and by Körber-Stiftung in Germany, also found major differences when it comes to cooperation between the two sides. Seventy percent of Americans said the U.S. should cooperate more with Germany, but only 41 percent of Germans said Germany should cooperate more with the U.S. And here is something moderately surprising: When it comes to working with others, respondents in both countries backed greater cooperation with France, the United Kingdom and China. But there was a split over Russia: 58 percent of Americans wanted to cooperate less with Moscow, while 69 percent of Germans wanted more cooperation. If that's a result from Germany, I'm afraid to ask about the countries west and south of Rhine. The surveys were conducted in September, but I doubt the recent events had a significant impact on German or American opinions. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Just talk foreign politics with Germans 50+, they will claim all sorts of shit about wanting a balance between the US and Russia. It absolutely doesnt matter what that balance is, just giving into both sides demands is what they want. Why do you believe right-wing Russian puppets like the AfD or the FPÖ are so popular in Germany and Austria? Even the fucking German TheLeft-party cant get their head out of Putins arse (with most of their electorate being old Eastern German "we want the GDR back" dudes that they are keeping from voting for AfD with that). | ||
|
pmh
1366 Posts
The positive image many Europeans still had about the usa is gone,its worse then during bush. . | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21964 Posts
On November 28 2018 00:49 Sent. wrote: The Russia question depends on lot on how it was asked and what responders thought they were asked.Here is something not surprising: Americans and Germans can’t agree on state of their relationship And here is something moderately surprising: If that's a result from Germany, I'm afraid to ask about the countries west and south of Rhine. The surveys were conducted in September, but I doubt the recent events had a significant impact on German or American opinions. I would welcome more cooperation with Russia, but not while Russia works against its neighbors and the West. (to put it mildly) Would this survey put me down as in support of cooperation? | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9252 Posts
I still think it's indefensible more Germans want to increase their cooperation with a deceitful, murderous, expansionist kleptocracy than with a country whose president posts mean words on twitter. On November 28 2018 01:15 Gorsameth wrote: I would welcome more cooperation with Russia, but not while Russia works against its neighbors and the West. (to put it mildly) This attitude can be applied just as well to the US. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On November 28 2018 01:45 Sent. wrote: There is a link to that survey in the article I linked. The question was "Please tell me if the U.S./Germany should cooperate more or less with ... ", so maybe you can partially blame the result on the lack of "neutral" choice, but then the numbers won't add up to 100. I still think it's indefensible more Germans want to increase their cooperation with a deceitful, murderous, expansionist kleptocracy than with a country whose president posts mean words on twitter. This attitude can be applied just as well to the US. If on a scale on 0->100 the current cooperation between Germany and the US is 80 and between Germany and Russia it is a 10, and the Germans want those values to to be 70 and 20, those results make perfectly sense. And pretty much that is the most common opinion in Germany. I doubt many are calling for "cooperate more with Russia than you do with the US". | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9252 Posts
| ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
Macron's technocratic speech Tuesday satisfied pretty much no one. He claimed that he undersood the protests, but gave no concrete answer, announcing instead that there will be a 3 months consultation (he mostly spoke about the energy plans for next decades; the speech was already scheduled, it wasn't done specifically to answer the yellow vests). Too late, too little. After this speech, some polls this week showed an increased support (about +5 points) and sympathy for the movement, with between 75 and 85% of polled people approving it (including 50% of the people who voted Macron in the first round). 80% of the polled people think the government should cancel the next tax rises on fuel in January. The yellow vests are starting to better organize themselves. A small part of the movement nominated a few delegates, but since the “election” was only done on Facebook their legitimacy is questioned by those who didn't participate in the vote (as of now, they are apparently trying to organize themselves region by region). The government accepted to meet some of these delegates, without much result so far. Some lists of demands are being sent here and there to the government and MPs. They are far larger than just fuel taxes; they question the whole tax system, institutions (there is a general critic of the non-representativity of representative democracy in the movement), etc. The demands that I have read are heterogeneous, some are inspired by right-wing thought, others are left-wing. This reflects the contradictory nature of the movement. But I would say that the end of austerity (even if it's not formulated this way), social measures to help people in difficulty and “more democracy” are the most common themes. Fractures are appearing within the majority; some want to freeze the tax rises scheduled in January to give a signal that the executive is really listening to the people (so far, the Prime minister announced that there would be no increase in the minimum wage in January…). The macronist party is somewhat an empty shell and has no real militant force, so they are naked in front of the popular storm; most MPs are mere vassals of Macron and newbies with little to no political culture, they are not at all tailored to handle a full-blown conflict. The Macronie lacks relays across the country since they have almost no local representatives. No one can “hold the ground” to “shield” the government. I think Macron is in zugzwang; this situation in chess where you have to play, but whatever you do can only worsen your position. If he does nothing, the situation could quickly become out of control. If he gives in, his term is over (personally I think it's already the case), all the big reforms he still wants to do (pensions, public function, etc.) will be impossible to implement. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18132 Posts
On December 01 2018 04:36 TheDwf wrote: I think Macron is in zugzwang; this situation in chess where you have to play, but whatever you do can only worsen your position. If he does nothing, the situation could quickly become out of control. If he gives in, his term is over (personally I think it's already the case), all the big reforms he still wants to do (pensions, public function, etc.) will be impossible to implement. How very pan-European for you as a French guy to needlessly mix a German word into your text  Other than that I don't have much to say. Seems like a difficult political situation. Macron hasn't looked very deft at maneuvering, and these situations just keep cropping up. But France seems to be bumbling along, following the same neo-liberal policies that are driving most of Europe right now, so I don't know if it matters in the long run. | ||
|
arbiter_md
Moldova1219 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On December 02 2018 01:07 arbiter_md wrote: Unfortunately if France fails to increase the tax for pollution, I don't see any other country being able to do it without some kind of dictatorship. Poor people, they disagree to increase the tax for the right to kill. I still hope there's a large minority there who agree to the increase in tax. No, this tax rise is rejected at 80% because it is both useless and unfair. Useless because car use is forced for millions of people, as society was unfortunately built around cars (ergo rising prices won't decrease a forced consumption); and unfair because it hits the poorest households much more than the wealthiest ones... yet the latter ones are those who pollute the most. Macron's policy is not ecological at all (quite on the contrary...), pretty much everyone understood that the so-called "ecological reason" was just a pretext. In reality this tax rise compensates the tax cuts of the super-rich and companies. It's even written black on white in the official documents sent to the European Commission. People have no problem with ecology, but it cannot be so blatantly antisocial and unfair. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6257 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 02 2018 01:07 arbiter_md wrote: Unfortunately if France fails to increase the tax for pollution, I don't see any other country being able to do it without some kind of dictatorship. Poor people, they disagree to increase the tax for the right to kill. I still hope there's a large minority there who agree to the increase in tax. If you draw a 1-sample (or some few sample) from a population, i.e. a dictatorship, your chances of drawing one that is for a certain measure is the same as asking everyone's opinion. So you would have to specifically create that dictatorship on the basis of anti-pollution.... which unlike a dictatorship created for the sake of beingrich and in power is not probable to stay in control for long. That is the reason why a dictatorship is never a good solution for anything, even if on paper it sounds like "it would be so much easier". It's not. It's quite the opposite. It is easier to form a majority opinion, than to get a lucky minority draw from your population AND dedicate resources to keeping that draw in power against the majority opinion. + Show Spoiler + And that doesn't even deal with the core problem of central planning, which is the vast information deficit that single planners are dealing with, to both, create efficient solutions without relying on everyone's expertize and formulating goals that are actually catering to the needs of the people Also, these taxes are not hitting the right people. We have a clear property system. The ones that own the means of production are those that pollute, not the consumers. Those are the ones that have to be directly taxed for their production, not the consumers. In the case of car owners that might be achieved through a fuel tax because the fuel only pollutes once the car owner uses it, but for most forms of consumptions it is not. Most things that you buy don't pollute anything anymore, their creating is the thing that has polluted the earth. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On December 02 2018 02:11 RvB wrote: A fuel tax is definitely ecological regardless of his other policies. It's a way to include the costs of the negative externalities caused by fuel such as it's environmental impact. Sure it's regressive but so are many other policies to improve the environment. There's always a trade off. In addition it's easy to solve the regressive nature of the policy by reducing taxes which Macron is doing. Those who pollute the most should contribute the most; fair and simple. Those who pollute the most are the biggest companies (and it's very concentrated) and the wealthiest households. Macron gave them massive tax cuts, then increases the taxes on a forced consumption of the modest households. It cannot be socially accepted. | ||
| ||
