EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1221
| 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. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9297 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10142 Posts
On January 13 2019 02:08 xM(Z wrote: the last part to everyone but the first part might be to my assumptions only: EE = Eastern EU? Eurozone is described in many ways so it is confusing, to be honest. If I read Big J post I don't know if he is talking about Eastern Europe, the eastern Europe that isn't in the European Union, or the eastern Europe that does not have the euro. If I had to guess I would bet he is talking about countries which are not tied to the EU in a monetary fashion in eastern Europe, so yeah eastern EU. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
This is going to be huge in my opinion, in particular because with the UK leaving it will be very hard for Germany to find alliances with veto powers. Even with Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland on board German interests could not veto + Show Spoiler + The selection is pretty much just all "Northern" states, due to the close economic ties to Germany The big states of the "Southern" bloc - France, Spain, Italy - would have veto power if they act together. + Show Spoiler + This is generally a German problem of the Brexit in other questions, where there are already qualified majority votes. Without its close UK ally in question of taxes and trade, the bloc of countries strongly integrated into the German economy like the Netherlands, Finland and Austria won't have a veto power anymore. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2395 Posts
On January 13 2019 00:43 Big J wrote: SE is part of the Euro. EE is not. That's the difference why one growths economically and the other one is in endless recession. This is silly. Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia and Slovenia are part of the Euro and are doing fine - coincidentally, that is also the list of the most developed EE countries (bar Czechia maybe). SE's slow economic growth has nothing to do with the Euro, or the EU for that matter, and everything to do with not having great political and economic institutions and a having a lack of competitive industries. | ||
|
Poegim
Poland278 Posts
Died today. Pretty sure it will impact election this year. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On January 15 2019 04:06 Poegim wrote: Not sure its good place for it but, why not. Polish mayor (Gdansk city) stabbed 2 days ago on biggest polish charity event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTqg31mXXHE Died today. Pretty sure it will impact election this year. Is that the guy who stabbed him walking triumphantly around the stage unmolested? | ||
|
Poegim
Poland278 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ughdumbpeople
1 Post
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
"Freedom is always also the freedom of those who think differently." | ||
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
On January 11 2019 23:25 Nyxisto wrote: This is a fiction. Global inequality is falling, Western European inequality has been stable for the last say, thirty years and is at low levels in general. Eastern Europe might have technically gotten more unequal but only because it is ten times better off and has started to generate wealth, A small gif to illustrate the transformation + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/5ilfborucep11.gif) Maybe Americans can make the case that 'neoliberalism' has affected them particularly negatively, but barely anyone else. The current populism has nothing to do with economics, and in so far as it has (most job losses occur not to globalisation, but to automation) is entirely unaddressed by populist revolt. Not true: Inequality has been on the rise across the globe for several decades. Some countries have reduced the numbers of people living in extreme poverty. But economic gaps have continued to grow as the very richest amass unprecedented levels of wealth. Among industrial nations, the United States is by far the most top-heavy, with much greater shares of national wealth and income going to the richest 1 percent than any other country. ... Since 1980, the share of national income going to the richest 1 percent has increased rapidly in North America (defined here as the United States and Canada), China, India, and Russia and more moderately in Europe. World Inequality Lab researchers note that this period coincides with the rollback in these countries and regions of various post-World War II policies aimed at narrowing economic divides. By contrast, they point out, countries and regions that did not experience a post-war egalitarian regime, such as the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and Brazil, have had relatively stable, but extremely high levels of inequality. https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/ | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On January 12 2019 20:10 Gorsameth wrote: Italy's political system was screwed up well before refugees came prominently into the picture, see Berlusconi. relevant: On January 12 2019 22:09 Silvanel wrote: This year we will have parlimentary elctions in Poland, PiS will most likely win again but hopefully they wont have absolute majority and will need to go in coaltion with someone. That will be better to everyone. Those guys are pretty terrifying. Poland's been feeling on the verge of diving headfirst into religiously driven totalitarianism for a while now. I knew a Polish film maker a while back who worked on some documentaries about the politics over there, and it's frightening the way they talk about a whole raft of issues. And of course there's the old red flag of state media. Despite their passionate hatred of Russia they look a lot like a less competent version of Putin's Russian state right now.. | ||
zatic
Zurich15365 Posts
On January 15 2019 18:02 tomatriedes wrote: Not true: ... https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/ Not that it's surprising, but none of the figures on that site deal with global inequality, much less the development of global inequality. It says right there at the top that the following is about how much the richest few own, not how global inequality has changed. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On January 15 2019 18:02 tomatriedes wrote: Not true: ... https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/ This is a disingenuous data-point. Focusing on the share of income going to the 1% within an individual country is meaningless. First off, this says nothing about the composition of income within the rest of the population, and more importantly, rising inequality in countries that build up wealth is not a problem. Inequality between nations has converged, and continues to converge. A country in which everyone is poor and has nothing is perfectly equal. If China was more equal 40 years ago than it is now the simple reason was that it was absolutely destitute. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On January 16 2019 05:35 Ghostcom wrote: Why is rising inequality in countries building up wealth not an issue? The only case I can see this to be true is if everyone have enough money to simply be hoarding which I frankly do not think is the situation many - if any - countries (maybe Luxembourg or another similarly small country with a large out-of-country workforce?). If you have a country with close to no wealth and you assume that people keep at least some portion of their newly accrued wealth, and that some people generate more wealth than others, then inequality is going to increase by definition. A perfectly poor country is perfectly equal. A moderately wealthy country is not, but simply because some people engage in more productive ventures than others. Some people getting richer faster than others isn't a big deal at all, and there is no way to prevent it that doesn't end in disaster, and no obvious reason why this is bad in and of itself. | ||
| ||
