|
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 August 07 2025 00:03 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2025 05:34 WombaT wrote:On August 06 2025 03:18 RvB wrote:On August 04 2025 23:42 WombaT wrote:On August 02 2025 21:41 Doublemint wrote:Confusion and anger in Switzerland - hit by highest tariffs in EuropeImogen Foulkes
Geneva correspondent, BBC News
39%? For Switzerland, this is a huge shock, and worse than the worst-case scenario – these are the highest tariffs in Europe.
Globally, the fourth highest, behind only Syria, Laos, and Myanmar, (although if President Trump follows through on his 50% tariff threat then Brazil will jump to the top of the list).
It's the one story dominating the news and the airwaves on Friday. One newspaper, Blick, described it as the country's biggest defeat since French victory in the battle of Marignano in 1515.
Just weeks ago, Switzerland's government was exuding confidence.
In May, a Swiss facilitated meeting between the US and China in Geneva, aimed at preventing a trade war between the two economic superpowers, allowed Switzerland's president Karin Keller-Sutter to grab a meeting with US trade secretary Scott Bessent.
She came out smiling. She had been told, she said, that Switzerland was likely to be second on the list after the United Kingdom to strike a trade deal with Washington. 10%, she hinted, was the tempting tariff offer, far lower than the 31% Donald Trump had unveiled for Switzerland on his 'liberation day' in April.
Now, those illusions are shattered. Just hours before the August first deadline, one last telephone call between Ms Keller-Sutter and President Trump yielded nothing. Hours later came the news that the tariffs would not be 31% as originally threatened, but a punitive 39%.
Why? Some Swiss politicians are already arguing that Switzerland's negotiating tactics were not up to scratch – but some say too tough, others say too obsequious. The reality may be more straightforward: Trump was keen to make big deals, and Switzerland just isn't that big. It's not even clear how many discussions the Swiss trade negotiators were able to have with their US counterparts.
The sticking point, the Swiss government says now, is the trade deficit it has with the US.
Trump sees trade deficits - when a country sells more to the US than it buys - as inherently a problem for the US, although this is a view not widely shared by economists. He believes tariffs can help protect the US manufacturing sector, which for decades has lost jobs to companies overseas.
The Swiss trade deficit with the US was $47.4 billion in 2024, though if service industries are included, which Trump conveniently ignored, the deficit shrinks to $22 billion. Switzerland sells more (primarily in pharmaceuticals, gold jewellery, watches and machine tools) to the US than it buys. messing with good relations one "deal" at a time. ‘Trump sees trade deficits - when a country sells more to the US than it buys - as inherently a problem for the US, although this is a view not widely shared by economists.’ I mean there’s your problem right there. It’s completely asinine fucking nonsense. It doesn’t even factor in the sectors that may contribute to such a deficit. If deficit exists, tariffs are a good idea. If we had a hypothetical nation which had some miracle resource that only existed there, and ran a trade surplus with the States they’d be tariffed too. It’s so, so profoundly stupid, I’d feel contempt if this was the government of some banana republic. This is the United States, an absolute powerhouse full of very smart people, plenty of whom reside on these hallowed boards, fuck me how is this your governmental representation? Politicians disregarding expert advice is a big problem but not unique to Trump. It's selective outrage. For instance, the biggest impediments to trade in the EU are by far internal non-tariff barriers. They're estimated to be equivalent to a 44% tariff on goods and 110% on services. Do you feel the same contempt for European politicians? That hypothetical also does not work. The tariffs increase the price of the resource. The price increase is an incentive to find substitutes reducing demand in the long run. Tariffs don't work because there's an imbalance between domestic savings and investment. US savings are not sufficient to meet the demand for capital. Foreign capital inflows bridge the gap. That allows the US to consume more than it produces. Tariffs don't significantly impact the imbalance. I’m not innately against tariffs or other such mechanisms, nor do I think the EU get everything right in that domain. Trump, or whoever’s advising him’s approach is just particularly braindead. The point I was trying to make is that brainless economic policy is widespread. I guess it just bothers me that Trump's tariffs are (with good reason) criticized while nobody cares about much worse policy at home. Many of the most vocal critics will at the same time advocate for things like rent control. I'm talking in general here not about you in particular. I don't know your views well enough for that. Show nested quote +On August 06 2025 07:03 Jankisa wrote:I read both the Economist article and the IMF publication it used as a source, which had another report from IMF as a source which did not go into any details as to how they reached those numbers. From what I know about running a business in EU, these numbers are absolutely ludicrous and make absolutely no sense. As an EU citizen who uses services from other EU countries and companies abroad, as well as a person who occasionally buys shit from other countries, I would love for someone to explain where did the 44 % and 110 % come out of, because it those figures were true European countries would all be completely unlivable and the cost of running a business and generally being alive would be insane compared to most of the places in the world. Maybe they are counting VAT in it, but even then, that's 25 % at the most per country, how did they get to 110 % on services? My Microsoft licenses don't cost me more then double the amount they do a business in the US or Australia, who don't have these barriers, so what gives there? There's more detail in note 1. It says that the percentages are an upper bound. Something the Economist does not mention. That's a lesson to always check the original source so my bad. Non tariff barriers are a broad category. It includes things like infrastructure, export quotas, export subsidies, price controls, licensing requirements. Some of these make sense like safety regulations. Even these can be reduced by treating the regulatory regime in a foreign country as equivalent to your own though. VAT is not a non tariff barrier. It's usually reverse charged so the seller invoices without VAT and the buyer pays the VAT in his own country. Non tariff barriers are very high in certain sectors of the single market. Financial Services for instance are still mostly fragmented along national borders. I'm not sure why you think those high numbers would make European countries unlivable. High tariffs do not necessarily increase the price of the good or service by the same amount for the consumer. Let's say that hypothetically I'm able to sell tomatoes to Croatia for 10 euro a kilo excluding non tariff barriers. Non tariff barriers equivalent to a 44% tariff would raise the price to 14.4 euros. If my Croatian competitor can sell them for 12 euros a kilo instead, then the cost for a kilo of tomatoes is 12 euros for the Croatian consumer. And then there are also things like substitutes. The consumer might buy cucumbers instead of tomatoes if the price is too high. Ideally the non tariff barriers would be 0. I'd then sell the tomatoes for 10 euros and the Croatian farmer would switch to other produce where he has the comparative advantage. The US does have non tariff barriers between states. They're much lower though. That's a reason why the US has much larger capital markets. It leads to less fragmentation and larger capital markets. Australia is not a good comparison. It has a population similar to a medium sized country in the EU. Your example does not take into account different sectors and products/services. Non tariff barriers can be very low for your Microsoft license but very high for a different sector. Try to get a mortgage from a Dutch bank. It's not possible.
Again, I haven't really seen where you are seeing these non tariff barriers. You counted a bunch of things that aren't it and gave an example on how the very high tariffs would work, but where are they, Eurozone countries have very few.
I happen to have an account in a Dutch bank and after living there (Amsterdam) a year and getting my permanent contract I was absolutely able to get a morgage with ABN Amro. I decided against it but there were no barriers for me as an EU citizen an resident with a permanent contract in NL.
|
Northern Ireland25805 Posts
On August 05 2025 04:26 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2025 01:00 Jankisa wrote:
The longer all of this goes on and the longer I pay attention to how news perculates to most people, I think the biggest reason for Trump's second term is tech oligarchy jumping on board.
I have a friend, basically completely apolitical, doesn't really pay attention to news past the occasional headline. We had one of our wine cellar sessions and we got to talk about American politics.
There were 2 more friends there, one is a big NBA fan and huge into movies, spends quite a bit of time on Youtube.
The 3rd one is a guy who I talk about these things a lot, he's much more informed, down to being able to tell you what each of Trump's impeachments was about.
We got to talk about tariffs and the instability in the world, everyone agreed it was crazy, and the 2nd friend said he would have voted for Trump if he was American in November, but now that he sees it in action he regrets thinking like that.
We went over why he would have voted for him in November, and it was mostly "Kamala was crazy, did you see her laugh, she wanted to make everyone Trans, make children Transition etc.". I can't say I was super suprised because I uspected this buddy went down the youtube rabbithole of "I hate Disney because of new Star Wars, then I hate it because they are making the little mermaid black, why is Acolyte full of women and lesbians" and shit like that.
The third guy, well, he said he agrees that what Trump is doing now is pretty crazy but he'd still vote for him because of undisclosed reasons. I didn't want to push no to ruin everyone's evening, but I do know that most of where this guy gets his news is Facebook.
He is also very against funding Ukraine because "USA started that war and did a pouch in Euromaidan" and a bunch of other shit like that.
These networks are extremely good at getting you into an echo chamber and never letting you out.
And these are Croatian guys, I can't even imagine how much of this shit is hitting our American counterparts who are even more online and exposed to this shit from all over.
That's another reason why I'm a pessimist, now that Trump has his grubby little paws all over the USA propaganda machine, supercharged by Palantir, tech companies and AI, I don't think he'll ever be deposed through elections, and that leaves the world in a big pickle. Sadly, I have a friend, that is going even more crazy and I do not be know where he gets all the bullshit from, but is started with him bring a loner, his dad died, then corona and we lost contact with him for a while. When we started seeing him again he was fun crazy, he kept making remarks about maybe true pseudo economist stuff, like if someone had watched too many investment bros. But always with a laugh. We started to hang out less cause it became tiresome, good friends we are. Yesterday we met again and after the board game day he started to bombard me with insane stuff. Words transforming into numbers, dissecting numbers into sub groups, looking for those subgroups in like law books like the German BGB and then using the laws to go to the next jump of logic. In-between again and again pure Incel bullshit and casually bringing in "the Jews" and speaking about what is someone supposed to do about it. It's so insane, it's no shock to know that he is unemployed now and called his mother, she is scared what happened to him. At this point I don't even know what toxic online bullshit got to him, maybe this is all starting and ending in his brain even. But our society is definitely growing more and more of these isolated people that just break by how empty our world can feel... Worst thing is, I am probably the last person that might be able to pull him back from this and I have no fucking clue how to do that, no time due to a newborn and after checking the Internet habe found zero institutions that care about this if the person having the issue is not coming forward. Really sad day.
That sounds super sad indeed, had that experience myself.
Based on the bolded specifically, it sounds to me like there’s a genuine mental health issue there, not merely one falling down a rabbit hole of bad ideas.
Something I have more experience of than I’d like to possess, but that jumped out specifically
Anyway don’t wanna detail the thread too much, but do feel free to PM me!
|
On August 07 2025 06:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2025 00:03 RvB wrote:On August 06 2025 05:34 WombaT wrote:On August 06 2025 03:18 RvB wrote:On August 04 2025 23:42 WombaT wrote:On August 02 2025 21:41 Doublemint wrote:Confusion and anger in Switzerland - hit by highest tariffs in EuropeImogen Foulkes
Geneva correspondent, BBC News
39%? For Switzerland, this is a huge shock, and worse than the worst-case scenario – these are the highest tariffs in Europe.
Globally, the fourth highest, behind only Syria, Laos, and Myanmar, (although if President Trump follows through on his 50% tariff threat then Brazil will jump to the top of the list).
It's the one story dominating the news and the airwaves on Friday. One newspaper, Blick, described it as the country's biggest defeat since French victory in the battle of Marignano in 1515.
Just weeks ago, Switzerland's government was exuding confidence.
In May, a Swiss facilitated meeting between the US and China in Geneva, aimed at preventing a trade war between the two economic superpowers, allowed Switzerland's president Karin Keller-Sutter to grab a meeting with US trade secretary Scott Bessent.
She came out smiling. She had been told, she said, that Switzerland was likely to be second on the list after the United Kingdom to strike a trade deal with Washington. 10%, she hinted, was the tempting tariff offer, far lower than the 31% Donald Trump had unveiled for Switzerland on his 'liberation day' in April.
Now, those illusions are shattered. Just hours before the August first deadline, one last telephone call between Ms Keller-Sutter and President Trump yielded nothing. Hours later came the news that the tariffs would not be 31% as originally threatened, but a punitive 39%.
Why? Some Swiss politicians are already arguing that Switzerland's negotiating tactics were not up to scratch – but some say too tough, others say too obsequious. The reality may be more straightforward: Trump was keen to make big deals, and Switzerland just isn't that big. It's not even clear how many discussions the Swiss trade negotiators were able to have with their US counterparts.
The sticking point, the Swiss government says now, is the trade deficit it has with the US.
Trump sees trade deficits - when a country sells more to the US than it buys - as inherently a problem for the US, although this is a view not widely shared by economists. He believes tariffs can help protect the US manufacturing sector, which for decades has lost jobs to companies overseas.
The Swiss trade deficit with the US was $47.4 billion in 2024, though if service industries are included, which Trump conveniently ignored, the deficit shrinks to $22 billion. Switzerland sells more (primarily in pharmaceuticals, gold jewellery, watches and machine tools) to the US than it buys. messing with good relations one "deal" at a time. ‘Trump sees trade deficits - when a country sells more to the US than it buys - as inherently a problem for the US, although this is a view not widely shared by economists.’ I mean there’s your problem right there. It’s completely asinine fucking nonsense. It doesn’t even factor in the sectors that may contribute to such a deficit. If deficit exists, tariffs are a good idea. If we had a hypothetical nation which had some miracle resource that only existed there, and ran a trade surplus with the States they’d be tariffed too. It’s so, so profoundly stupid, I’d feel contempt if this was the government of some banana republic. This is the United States, an absolute powerhouse full of very smart people, plenty of whom reside on these hallowed boards, fuck me how is this your governmental representation? Politicians disregarding expert advice is a big problem but not unique to Trump. It's selective outrage. For instance, the biggest impediments to trade in the EU are by far internal non-tariff barriers. They're estimated to be equivalent to a 44% tariff on goods and 110% on services. Do you feel the same contempt for European politicians? That hypothetical also does not work. The tariffs increase the price of the resource. The price increase is an incentive to find substitutes reducing demand in the long run. Tariffs don't work because there's an imbalance between domestic savings and investment. US savings are not sufficient to meet the demand for capital. Foreign capital inflows bridge the gap. That allows the US to consume more than it produces. Tariffs don't significantly impact the imbalance. I’m not innately against tariffs or other such mechanisms, nor do I think the EU get everything right in that domain. Trump, or whoever’s advising him’s approach is just particularly braindead. The point I was trying to make is that brainless economic policy is widespread. I guess it just bothers me that Trump's tariffs are (with good reason) criticized while nobody cares about much worse policy at home. Many of the most vocal critics will at the same time advocate for things like rent control. I'm talking in general here not about you in particular. I don't know your views well enough for that. On August 06 2025 07:03 Jankisa wrote:I read both the Economist article and the IMF publication it used as a source, which had another report from IMF as a source which did not go into any details as to how they reached those numbers. From what I know about running a business in EU, these numbers are absolutely ludicrous and make absolutely no sense. As an EU citizen who uses services from other EU countries and companies abroad, as well as a person who occasionally buys shit from other countries, I would love for someone to explain where did the 44 % and 110 % come out of, because it those figures were true European countries would all be completely unlivable and the cost of running a business and generally being alive would be insane compared to most of the places in the world. Maybe they are counting VAT in it, but even then, that's 25 % at the most per country, how did they get to 110 % on services? My Microsoft licenses don't cost me more then double the amount they do a business in the US or Australia, who don't have these barriers, so what gives there? There's more detail in note 1. It says that the percentages are an upper bound. Something the Economist does not mention. That's a lesson to always check the original source so my bad. Non tariff barriers are a broad category. It includes things like infrastructure, export quotas, export subsidies, price controls, licensing requirements. Some of these make sense like safety regulations. Even these can be reduced by treating the regulatory regime in a foreign country as equivalent to your own though. VAT is not a non tariff barrier. It's usually reverse charged so the seller invoices without VAT and the buyer pays the VAT in his own country. Non tariff barriers are very high in certain sectors of the single market. Financial Services for instance are still mostly fragmented along national borders. I'm not sure why you think those high numbers would make European countries unlivable. High tariffs do not necessarily increase the price of the good or service by the same amount for the consumer. Let's say that hypothetically I'm able to sell tomatoes to Croatia for 10 euro a kilo excluding non tariff barriers. Non tariff barriers equivalent to a 44% tariff would raise the price to 14.4 euros. If my Croatian competitor can sell them for 12 euros a kilo instead, then the cost for a kilo of tomatoes is 12 euros for the Croatian consumer. And then there are also things like substitutes. The consumer might buy cucumbers instead of tomatoes if the price is too high. Ideally the non tariff barriers would be 0. I'd then sell the tomatoes for 10 euros and the Croatian farmer would switch to other produce where he has the comparative advantage. The US does have non tariff barriers between states. They're much lower though. That's a reason why the US has much larger capital markets. It leads to less fragmentation and larger capital markets. Australia is not a good comparison. It has a population similar to a medium sized country in the EU. Your example does not take into account different sectors and products/services. Non tariff barriers can be very low for your Microsoft license but very high for a different sector. Try to get a mortgage from a Dutch bank. It's not possible. Rent control is a bad policy. I agree. But rent out of control is worse. More complete housing reform is needed, but without that, rent control is better than nothing.
Rent control only makes rents go more out of control. It's worse than nothing.
On August 07 2025 07:40 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2025 00:03 RvB wrote:On August 06 2025 05:34 WombaT wrote:On August 06 2025 03:18 RvB wrote:On August 04 2025 23:42 WombaT wrote:On August 02 2025 21:41 Doublemint wrote:Confusion and anger in Switzerland - hit by highest tariffs in EuropeImogen Foulkes
Geneva correspondent, BBC News
39%? For Switzerland, this is a huge shock, and worse than the worst-case scenario – these are the highest tariffs in Europe.
Globally, the fourth highest, behind only Syria, Laos, and Myanmar, (although if President Trump follows through on his 50% tariff threat then Brazil will jump to the top of the list).
It's the one story dominating the news and the airwaves on Friday. One newspaper, Blick, described it as the country's biggest defeat since French victory in the battle of Marignano in 1515.
Just weeks ago, Switzerland's government was exuding confidence.
In May, a Swiss facilitated meeting between the US and China in Geneva, aimed at preventing a trade war between the two economic superpowers, allowed Switzerland's president Karin Keller-Sutter to grab a meeting with US trade secretary Scott Bessent.
She came out smiling. She had been told, she said, that Switzerland was likely to be second on the list after the United Kingdom to strike a trade deal with Washington. 10%, she hinted, was the tempting tariff offer, far lower than the 31% Donald Trump had unveiled for Switzerland on his 'liberation day' in April.
Now, those illusions are shattered. Just hours before the August first deadline, one last telephone call between Ms Keller-Sutter and President Trump yielded nothing. Hours later came the news that the tariffs would not be 31% as originally threatened, but a punitive 39%.
Why? Some Swiss politicians are already arguing that Switzerland's negotiating tactics were not up to scratch – but some say too tough, others say too obsequious. The reality may be more straightforward: Trump was keen to make big deals, and Switzerland just isn't that big. It's not even clear how many discussions the Swiss trade negotiators were able to have with their US counterparts.
The sticking point, the Swiss government says now, is the trade deficit it has with the US.
Trump sees trade deficits - when a country sells more to the US than it buys - as inherently a problem for the US, although this is a view not widely shared by economists. He believes tariffs can help protect the US manufacturing sector, which for decades has lost jobs to companies overseas.
The Swiss trade deficit with the US was $47.4 billion in 2024, though if service industries are included, which Trump conveniently ignored, the deficit shrinks to $22 billion. Switzerland sells more (primarily in pharmaceuticals, gold jewellery, watches and machine tools) to the US than it buys. messing with good relations one "deal" at a time. ‘Trump sees trade deficits - when a country sells more to the US than it buys - as inherently a problem for the US, although this is a view not widely shared by economists.’ I mean there’s your problem right there. It’s completely asinine fucking nonsense. It doesn’t even factor in the sectors that may contribute to such a deficit. If deficit exists, tariffs are a good idea. If we had a hypothetical nation which had some miracle resource that only existed there, and ran a trade surplus with the States they’d be tariffed too. It’s so, so profoundly stupid, I’d feel contempt if this was the government of some banana republic. This is the United States, an absolute powerhouse full of very smart people, plenty of whom reside on these hallowed boards, fuck me how is this your governmental representation? Politicians disregarding expert advice is a big problem but not unique to Trump. It's selective outrage. For instance, the biggest impediments to trade in the EU are by far internal non-tariff barriers. They're estimated to be equivalent to a 44% tariff on goods and 110% on services. Do you feel the same contempt for European politicians? That hypothetical also does not work. The tariffs increase the price of the resource. The price increase is an incentive to find substitutes reducing demand in the long run. Tariffs don't work because there's an imbalance between domestic savings and investment. US savings are not sufficient to meet the demand for capital. Foreign capital inflows bridge the gap. That allows the US to consume more than it produces. Tariffs don't significantly impact the imbalance. I’m not innately against tariffs or other such mechanisms, nor do I think the EU get everything right in that domain. Trump, or whoever’s advising him’s approach is just particularly braindead. The point I was trying to make is that brainless economic policy is widespread. I guess it just bothers me that Trump's tariffs are (with good reason) criticized while nobody cares about much worse policy at home. Many of the most vocal critics will at the same time advocate for things like rent control. I'm talking in general here not about you in particular. I don't know your views well enough for that. On August 06 2025 07:03 Jankisa wrote:I read both the Economist article and the IMF publication it used as a source, which had another report from IMF as a source which did not go into any details as to how they reached those numbers. From what I know about running a business in EU, these numbers are absolutely ludicrous and make absolutely no sense. As an EU citizen who uses services from other EU countries and companies abroad, as well as a person who occasionally buys shit from other countries, I would love for someone to explain where did the 44 % and 110 % come out of, because it those figures were true European countries would all be completely unlivable and the cost of running a business and generally being alive would be insane compared to most of the places in the world. Maybe they are counting VAT in it, but even then, that's 25 % at the most per country, how did they get to 110 % on services? My Microsoft licenses don't cost me more then double the amount they do a business in the US or Australia, who don't have these barriers, so what gives there? There's more detail in note 1. It says that the percentages are an upper bound. Something the Economist does not mention. That's a lesson to always check the original source so my bad. Non tariff barriers are a broad category. It includes things like infrastructure, export quotas, export subsidies, price controls, licensing requirements. Some of these make sense like safety regulations. Even these can be reduced by treating the regulatory regime in a foreign country as equivalent to your own though. VAT is not a non tariff barrier. It's usually reverse charged so the seller invoices without VAT and the buyer pays the VAT in his own country. Non tariff barriers are very high in certain sectors of the single market. Financial Services for instance are still mostly fragmented along national borders. I'm not sure why you think those high numbers would make European countries unlivable. High tariffs do not necessarily increase the price of the good or service by the same amount for the consumer. Let's say that hypothetically I'm able to sell tomatoes to Croatia for 10 euro a kilo excluding non tariff barriers. Non tariff barriers equivalent to a 44% tariff would raise the price to 14.4 euros. If my Croatian competitor can sell them for 12 euros a kilo instead, then the cost for a kilo of tomatoes is 12 euros for the Croatian consumer. And then there are also things like substitutes. The consumer might buy cucumbers instead of tomatoes if the price is too high. Ideally the non tariff barriers would be 0. I'd then sell the tomatoes for 10 euros and the Croatian farmer would switch to other produce where he has the comparative advantage. The US does have non tariff barriers between states. They're much lower though. That's a reason why the US has much larger capital markets. It leads to less fragmentation and larger capital markets. Australia is not a good comparison. It has a population similar to a medium sized country in the EU. Your example does not take into account different sectors and products/services. Non tariff barriers can be very low for your Microsoft license but very high for a different sector. Try to get a mortgage from a Dutch bank. It's not possible. Again, I haven't really seen where you are seeing these non tariff barriers. You counted a bunch of things that aren't it and gave an example on how the very high tariffs would work, but where are they, Eurozone countries have very few. I happen to have an account in a Dutch bank and after living there (Amsterdam) a year and getting my permanent contract I was absolutely able to get a morgage with ABN Amro. I decided against it but there were no barriers for me as an EU citizen an resident with a permanent contract in NL.
Non tariff barriers are about trade between countries. That you can move to NL and then get a Dutch mortgage on a house in the Netherlands tells you nothing. You can't get the same mortgage on a Croatian house.
Draghi's report has multiple examples of significant non tariff barriers. Some of them in regards to capital markets:
First, the EU lacks a single securities market
regulator and a single rulebook for all aspects of trading and there is still high variation in supervisory practices and
interpretations of regulations. Second, the post-trade environment for clearing and settlement in Europe is far less unified than in the US. Third, despite the recent progress made on withholding tax, tax and insolvency regimes across Member States remain substantially unaligned.
Another example is France's unwillingness to connect Iberia to the European energy grid
|
It's almost never in the news but it seems the ongoing protests in Serbia against corruption got really bad the last couple of days. 😞
Tragic but impressive to keep up the pressure for so long when most countries just seem to accept corrupt governments these days.
|
Looks like Serbia might have its own color revolution. Pretty ironic considering how many Serbs are pro-Russian and have been repeating the Kremlin talking points about Western meddling.
That aside, I hope the EU grows a spine and sanctions the hell out of the Serbian regime. The police brutality is comparable to that in Georgia and things are still escalating.
|
On August 15 2025 23:15 maybenexttime wrote:
Looks like Serbia might have its own color revolution. Pretty ironic considering how many Serbs are pro-Russian and have been repeating the Kremlin talking points about Western meddling.
That aside, I hope the EU grows a spine and sanctions the hell out of the Serbian regime. The police brutality is comparable to that in Georgia and things are still escalating.
From what I've seen it's not really the same thing politically, people are just really pissed about corruption.
I also don't really know anything about their government except they seem to be assholes. Some sources say they are pro-Eu, some pro-Russia. I guess firmly in it for themselves?
But I agree, at least some kind of response to this level of violence would be nice to see. I guess the "western meddling" might be why we don't see anything because it would just add fuel to the fire. But when police are chasing down and keep beating the shit of unconscious protestors maybe it's time start ignoring the optics.
|
The exact proximate cause of the protests is different, but in all cases the chain of events was generally the same: an authoritarian government screws over the people -> people start protesting -> the police/government thugs brutally suppress the protests -> the protesters get more aggressive -> more police brutality, etc.
|
So it seems we have large protests in Serbia again. Any hope that the nation is shifting or is it just the well educated elite that has problems with the status quo?
|
On September 06 2025 18:55 Yurie wrote:
So it seems we have large protests in Serbia again. Any hope that the nation is shifting or is it just the well educated elite that has problems with the status quo?
Dunno, 100% of my exposure to serbians is zeo. Who doesn't seem like a person who shifts, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
