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 March 03 2021 19:22 Big J wrote: Any decision made on the base of personal gain is a fundamental violation of the democratic principle, that the will of the people has to be executed.
When a high ranking government official, such as a president, chancellor, prime minister or minister is found guilty of corruption in their time of serving the people, they should be shot. Democracy cannot accept undemocratic representatives, or it is not a democracy to begin with. The threat to democracy from such behaviour is way to fundamental to let biological waste like Sarkozy live on (assuming that the allegations themselves have been found true).
I think people are underestimating how much of a slippery slope these things are. Quite often what's in the interest of people or at least common democratic practice is corrupting.
Like the company you're trying to get to build a factory in your area to provide jobs happens to fit the target profile of your party and just might throw in a bunch of deal sweeteners for amiable relationships. Or the guy you're helping in your party might just come in handy when you need party members to vote on a law you created. Or the lobbyists that are in favor of less taxes for companies over a certain size happen to come from successful companies and are highly educated and as such people who are likely to be specialists in their area and hopefully able to give valuable input when it comes to designing the laws for the sector. You have a bunch of great plans for the betterment of everyone but to implement them you need to get voted first.
Naturally the law is the border where punishment is (supposed to be) dealt, but political business always entails corruption and that ignores that in some southern states you need to bribe most state servants for them to do their job even at the basic level.
Good to see that Sarkozy is held responsible though.
I do not concur in your premise that political leadership (or any form of leadership) can reasonably contribute to personal satisfaction of needs. If we would be talking about base democracy this would be different, but an executing official such as a president cannot make a better decision where a factory should go then what a market provides. So no, corruption is not the solution to put leaders on the right path. It rather increases the problem of failing markets when on top of market decisions leaning towards inheritance/capital gains over production/consumption there is a political layer influenced by the same rich class.
So what is your solution if try to get voted for governor and your region has a high unemployment rate?
Keynesian economics is pretty standard, it's tried and proven. I agree that it's problematic in terms of undermining competition, which is the fundamental driving force behind capitalism, but politicians are competing between who can give good conditions to companies, so not participating in that race just means your region isn't appealing and won't be a major production center.
It's like with armies, the moment one nation has one every nation needs one. They are bad for humanity as a whole, but you can't really continue to exist without one.
In my opinion the solution are strong anti-trust laws and more independent choices of lobbyists for political committees to guarantee that the laws are beneficial for small companies too. But in a world where Ireland would rather take 0.005% corporate tax from apple than get the 15 billion apple basically stole with their permission because of the other benefits apple provides and where Amazon has enough income to surpass most nation's gdp and over a million workers it's easy to see why politicians think that these might help solve major problems of their unemployment rate and production.
Actual Keynesian economics is my solution. However, that is not what you describe. Keynesian economics is about giving power/money to the demand side, so to strengthen worker and consumer interest organizations, giving them high amounts of financial security (e.g. unemployment income, minimum wages) and creating demand through government consumption alltogether. The theory then suggests, that the consumers and workers will dictate, what is being produced as the companys have to compete in the best interest of the buyers.
What you describe is the polar opposite: Giving the supplier side a good/cheap enviroment. This is being done under the assumption that supplier competition amongst each other will lead to good products and cheap prices. I know that nowadays anything the state does economically is being thrown around as "Keynesian economics" opposed to laisze-faire "neoliberalism" (which actually isn't intended to be laisze-faire, which is why it was called "neo"liberalism in opposition to the classic liberalism of the 18th century). However, one of those things is the exact thing that Keynes and Roosevelt fought against historically.
Today is election day for the tweede kamer (house of representatives / house of commons) in The Netherlands. The tweede kamer elects our executive and writes new laws. There are a total of 150 seats. We have a system of proportional representation without any electoral treshhold so any party which gets enough votes for one seat is in. As you might expect our parliament is extremely fractured
In the picture is an average of multiple polls. The grey bars are the amount of seats at the last election. The numbers are the margin of error. So for example the VVD is polling at 35 seats with a margin of error of between 34 and 36 seats.
VVD: liberal conservatives. They're the party of the current (and most likely next) prime minister Mark Rutte PVV: Far right party from Geert Wilders CDA: Christen Democrats D66: Social liberals GL: Greens SP: far left party PvdA: Social Democrats CU: christian left party. Socially conservative and left on economic issues PvdD: partij voor de dieren which translates as party for animals. Not sure what more than animal welfare they stand for honestly. 50plus: party for the elderly Denk: party for immigrants. Mostly Muslim immigrants SGP: very conservative Christian party. Kind of like the religious wing on the republican party FvD: another far right party. Have had numerous racism scandals and are against any corona rules BBB: no idea, maybe someone else from the Netherlands knows? Bij1: new Communist party. They advocate a plan economy. Ja21: yet another far right party. They split from FvD after one of their scandals. Volt: new pan European party. They're social liberals as well.
I voted for D66. I'm economically to the right of them but I can't stand the conservatism on social issues of the VVD anymore. D66 is progressive on social issues but still believes in the market economy so it's acceptable for me.
I am asking because here in Germany, currently the greens seem to increase their vote share over the last election pretty much everywhere. Meanwhile in the Netherlands, there is a huge drop?
I don't know their exact relation - haven't been in touch with him forever, but I am 100% confident Jesse Klaver is in some reasonably close relation to Liquid`Oaral (Chris Klaver).
On March 17 2021 22:56 Simberto wrote: What is going on with your greens?
I am asking because here in Germany, currently the greens seem to increase their vote share over the last election pretty much everywhere. Meanwhile in the Netherlands, there is a huge drop?
Probably a couple of reasons. Last election the PvdA lost 29 seats and GL profited from that as an alternative on the left. They became the biggest left party in parliament. This time around the PvdA has recovered some although the left in general has never polled as low as they have now since ww2. In addition they have a lot of competition. Their climate plans aren't really much more ambitious than D66, PvdA or SP so they're having trouble to differentiate. That coupled with a very weak electoral campaign is imo why they're in a losing position.
Been a while since I checked the Netherlands, last I saw people thought that Baudet was going to be the major threat from the far right, I see that he's plunged back and Wilders is still the main dude out there.
On March 18 2021 03:42 Nebuchad wrote: Been a while since I checked the Netherlands, last I saw people thought that Baudet was going to be the major threat from the far right, I see that he's plunged back and Wilders is still the main dude out there.
Baudet went full conspiracy theorist about corona and people made fun of him. He also had a very public fight with the less insane #2 of his party. Between those two things his image of the smart, well-spoken and reasonable option on the (far) right evaporated... and nobody beats Wilders in the ranting and raving department.
This is the result (in parliamentary seats) of the Dutch elections. The liberal parties both won seats (VVD +2, D66 +4). The old left parties lost yet again (SP -5, PvdA +0, Groenlinks -6) and are at their smallest since I can remember. They also did much worse than the polls (SP-3, PvdA -4, Groenlinks -3). The far right did well. While the PVV lost 3 seats, Ja21 got into parliament with 3 seats and FvD (Baudet's party) won 6 seats. FvD went from 2 to 8 seats probably because they're the only party against all covid19 rules and got a lot of votes that way. Quite a few newcomers as well with Volt (+4) Ja21 (+3) BBB (+1) and Bij1 (+1).
In The Netherlands you need 76 seats for a majority in the tweede kamer. So a new coalition will have to be formed. It'll probably be VVD + D66 + two other parties. Some possibilities are VVD + D66 + GL + PvdA, VVD + D66 + CDA + CU (what we have now) or VVD + D66 + CDA + Ja21. With this many parties there are a lot of different options though and there's a lot of uncertainty. Generally coalition negotiations are pretty long (but not as long as Belgium thanfully) so it can take months before we have a new government.
This is the result (in parliamentary seats) of the Dutch elections. The liberal parties both won seats (VVD +2, D66 +4). The old left parties lost yet again (SP -5, PvdA +0, Groenlinks -6) and are at their smallest since I can remember. They also did much worse than the polls (SP-3, PvdA -4, Groenlinks -3). The far right did well. While the PVV lost 3 seats, Ja21 got into parliament with 3 seats and FvD (Baudet's party) won 6 seats. FvD went from 2 to 8 seats probably because they're the only party against all covid19 rules and got a lot of votes that way. Quite a few newcomers as well with Volt (+4) Ja21 (+3) BBB (+1) and Bij1 (+1).
In The Netherlands you need 76 seats for a majority in the tweede kamer. So a new coalition will have to be formed. It'll probably be VVD + D66 + two other parties. Some possibilities are VVD + D66 + GL + PvdA, VVD + D66 + CDA + CU (what we have now) or VVD + D66 + CDA + Ja21. With this many parties there are a lot of different options though and there's a lot of uncertainty. Generally coalition negotiations are pretty long (but not as long as Belgium thanfully) so it can take months before we have a new government.
I'm very glad Volt did well. They could easily even make it into the government as most of their high priority ideas are complementary to D66 and not too offensive to VVD.
I don't really get why Rutte is looking at Ja21. They aren't any better than Wilders or Baudet, just smaller. And perhaps more focused on just being against immigration rather than having a fully fleshed out platform. But there's basically no way I see D66 and Ja21 in a coalition together. Maybe it's some kinda negotiation tactic to diminish D66's power?
This is the result (in parliamentary seats) of the Dutch elections. The liberal parties both won seats (VVD +2, D66 +4). The old left parties lost yet again (SP -5, PvdA +0, Groenlinks -6) and are at their smallest since I can remember. They also did much worse than the polls (SP-3, PvdA -4, Groenlinks -3). The far right did well. While the PVV lost 3 seats, Ja21 got into parliament with 3 seats and FvD (Baudet's party) won 6 seats. FvD went from 2 to 8 seats probably because they're the only party against all covid19 rules and got a lot of votes that way. Quite a few newcomers as well with Volt (+4) Ja21 (+3) BBB (+1) and Bij1 (+1).
In The Netherlands you need 76 seats for a majority in the tweede kamer. So a new coalition will have to be formed. It'll probably be VVD + D66 + two other parties. Some possibilities are VVD + D66 + GL + PvdA, VVD + D66 + CDA + CU (what we have now) or VVD + D66 + CDA + Ja21. With this many parties there are a lot of different options though and there's a lot of uncertainty. Generally coalition negotiations are pretty long (but not as long as Belgium thanfully) so it can take months before we have a new government.
I'm very glad Volt did well. They could easily even make it into the government as most of their high priority ideas are complementary to D66 and not too offensive to VVD.
I don't really get why Rutte is looking at Ja21. They aren't any better than Wilders or Baudet, just smaller. And perhaps more focused on just being against immigration rather than having a fully fleshed out platform. But there's basically no way I see D66 and Ja21 in a coalition together. Maybe it's some kinda negotiation tactic to diminish D66's power?
Its probably a large part of keeping options open but I believe the main draw of ja21 is their Senate (Eerste Kamer) seats. Because a new cabinet obviously wants a majority in both chambers.
On March 24 2021 07:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Some potentially very bad news for Europe. The Suez Canal is blocked due to a Mega container ship having run aground.
It is still stuck. Pulling international help to get it unstuck as well. It is just a matter of time for removing it as I understand it. Though will cost a lot every day it is stuck, suddenly 20 boats will want to dock at the same time. Causing permanent extra delays on top of the stoppage at this time.
On March 24 2021 07:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Some potentially very bad news for Europe. The Suez Canal is blocked due to a Mega container ship having run aground.
It is still stuck. Pulling international help to get it unstuck as well. It is just a matter of time for removing it as I understand it. Though will cost a lot every day it is stuck, suddenly 20 boats will want to dock at the same time. Causing permanent extra delays on top of the stoppage at this time.
Both of you are ignoring the most important detail of the story
On March 24 2021 07:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Some potentially very bad news for Europe. The Suez Canal is blocked due to a Mega container ship having run aground.
It is still stuck. Pulling international help to get it unstuck as well. It is just a matter of time for removing it as I understand it. Though will cost a lot every day it is stuck, suddenly 20 boats will want to dock at the same time. Causing permanent extra delays on top of the stoppage at this time.
Sure, it's a matter of time, but they're warning now that it may take weeks. That's a LOT of delay in an industry that costs a few million per hour to keep each ship running.
BBC is reporting $400 million an hour in disruption/delayed goods. That is a mind-blowing number. If it takes two weeks to clear, that adds up to somewhere around Australia's entire covid stimulus package. That's nuts. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56533250
Surprisingly few people seem to know about it over here yet. They will soon.
I'm also surprised it hasn't happened before, honestly. Seems like a disaster waiting to happen in a lot of ways.
It's crazy that this is such an issue with how inevitable the problem is. A tiny looking excavator being the only thing they can use due to anything heavier being unable to use the sandy shoreline. They will have to get military grade heavy lift choppers to take the containers off the thing.
Why haven't terrorists done this before? Just ram a container ship into the beach and scuttle the thing.
I recall tv show called "Rubicon" in which there was a plot to sink oil tanker in Galvaston Bay in order to damage US economy (spill oil everywhere and block waterway). So people defienietly thought of things like that. As to real world terrorists they often lack brains and/or resources. I also think real world terrorists prefere to attack civilian targets which gets them a lot of publicity. Attacking infrastucture is more of a thing for state actors.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/oOSj6I5.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/oCFg2Fi.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/p0fnsTn.jpg)
