|
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 29 2015 19:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2015 11:26 LegalLord wrote:
Interesting to see how strongly some people feel on the topic of inheritance taxes.
Unfortunately, it's not really a matter that's as black and white as we'd like to think it is. Taxes are by necessity a hit to the economic well-being of individuals (hopefully justified by what the government does with the money, but this is often not the case), and people always come up with interesting ways not to pay them, if need be. Generally, and opinions that boil down to "just do XXX and the world's problems will suddenly solve themselves" tend to be quite short-sighted and ineffective. Working out a proper tax code is unfortunately a matter that is not so easy that we could come up with a solution here.
Personally, I believe that extremely high tax rates are more punitive and confiscatory than beneficial. And I think that any taxes that are confiscatory rather than economic in nature are idiotic. Too many people here are arguing that "we should take from the rich because inheritance is unfair" rather than considering whether or not it would actually be good for the economy as a whole. No one is talking like an inheritance tax would " solve the worlds problems". its being argued it would be a way for the state to get some income to help fun the welfare state. Secondly no one is talking about punitive level of taxes either. I don't even think anyone is talking about how high an inheritance tax should be, just that the basic principle is a good idea. Yes, make taxes high enough and they become very oppressive but that is not even being discussed here.
Most places with inheritance tax has the high/oppressive rates you are talking about avoiding, so you seem to not understand the current state of things. That, plus those taxes collect only a pittance, because people only die once.
|
On August 30 2015 01:39 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2015 00:01 MoltkeWarding wrote:On August 29 2015 22:20 maybenexttime wrote:On August 29 2015 09:20 KwarK wrote:
The flood is not, in absolute terms, a huge number of people. Europe is a big place. Also it's difficult to stop them, Europe has long borders and a lot of internal mobility. Also a lot of the immigration people complain about is from within Europe. Although there is a lot of anti immigration feeling in places it's often directed more at fellow Europeans (such as Romanians for example) than it is against other groups. I think the main reason why anti-immigration rhetoric is not directed at people from outside of Europe is because of fear of being called "racist". Everyone is racist. Mouths must pretend otherwise by denying their own attributes while amplifying those of others, but the very cattiness with which our public snipers aim their words is among the things fermenting a society of self-deceit and hypocrisy. Honest people will sometimes exaggerate their racism simply in order to deny the lie that they are not. In a society which is tragically both reverential and honest like Germany, the benevolent racism which I often get from acquaintances is both a recommendation and an impeachment for the quality of their minds. Germans know the world better than most other nations, because of their attraction to exotic places. A love of exoticism necessarily emphasises contrasts rather than similarities, whereas the orderliness of their minds subordinates daily facts to those hypnotic impressions. When in my daily life a German verbally connects my positive qualities with my race, I feel an intense mixture of admiration and condescension for the mind which draws such conclusions. On one hand, understanding differences is more impressive than understanding similarities, and the mind which preoccupies itself with the former rather than the latter is by nature the stronger. On the other hand, his hypotheses are wrong as a matter of fact. What he attributes to my race has nothing to do with my race. That is the problem with categorical thinking: observational patterns congeal into laws, and are pressed into the service of a "social science" which is surreal. Eastern Europeans are a different quality, because the political socialism they enjoyed for 40 years protected them from the mental socialism which overtook the West during that time. It is not that they are more offensive, it is that their behaviour is less regulated by the fear of causing offense. Thus when someone from the Ukraine or Russia targets me with their malevolent racism they are never personally malevolent. In my experience therefore, the shots of our public snipers miss the mark of truth. Contrary to popular fiction, "Racists" do not hate people for belonging to a certain race. What really happens is they assign race as the common denominator of people whom they are inclined to hate anyway. just wanted to ask if: - the bolded part, is based on on-line experience or in-life experience?. for what its worth, i could confirm it if it's based on-line experience.
I can't speak for what you call "malevolent racism," but it is true that Romania was involved in helping the Nazis to attack Ukraine and Russia in WWII. That doesn't exactly earn you too many pity points among Ukrainians or Russians. Whether or not you think that ill will for something that happened slightly more than half a century ago, by a different population of Romanians, is justified, is another matter.
|
just wanted to ask if: - the bolded part, is based on on-line experience or in-life experience?
Experience IRL; the East has few luxuries in comparison with the West, but one thing they do enjoy is the freedom to say what they really think.
Regarding the observation that Nation A hates Nation B for political or historical reasons, I will say that this kind of conversation happens between people such as you or myself, and therefore has a tangible effect on the fate of the world.
However, people who turn themselves voluntarily into political animals exaggerate the strength of political instincts, and therefore of their own importance to the enlightenment of the world at large. Most people in the marketplace treat other people in accord with the manners and habits drawn from the accumulations of experience and character. Most Poles and Russians will spend an afternoon together without the word Katyn ever being mentioned.
Anyway, normal people find it impolite to talk about politics, and even I want to run out of the room whenever anything political enters the air. That is the strange thing about tl.net. On the internet morals and manners are warped, and one sometimes feels like a priest entering a bordello.
|
On August 30 2015 02:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2015 01:39 xM(Z wrote:On August 30 2015 00:01 MoltkeWarding wrote:On August 29 2015 22:20 maybenexttime wrote:On August 29 2015 09:20 KwarK wrote:
The flood is not, in absolute terms, a huge number of people. Europe is a big place. Also it's difficult to stop them, Europe has long borders and a lot of internal mobility. Also a lot of the immigration people complain about is from within Europe. Although there is a lot of anti immigration feeling in places it's often directed more at fellow Europeans (such as Romanians for example) than it is against other groups. I think the main reason why anti-immigration rhetoric is not directed at people from outside of Europe is because of fear of being called "racist". Everyone is racist. Mouths must pretend otherwise by denying their own attributes while amplifying those of others, but the very cattiness with which our public snipers aim their words is among the things fermenting a society of self-deceit and hypocrisy. Honest people will sometimes exaggerate their racism simply in order to deny the lie that they are not. In a society which is tragically both reverential and honest like Germany, the benevolent racism which I often get from acquaintances is both a recommendation and an impeachment for the quality of their minds. Germans know the world better than most other nations, because of their attraction to exotic places. A love of exoticism necessarily emphasises contrasts rather than similarities, whereas the orderliness of their minds subordinates daily facts to those hypnotic impressions. When in my daily life a German verbally connects my positive qualities with my race, I feel an intense mixture of admiration and condescension for the mind which draws such conclusions. On one hand, understanding differences is more impressive than understanding similarities, and the mind which preoccupies itself with the former rather than the latter is by nature the stronger. On the other hand, his hypotheses are wrong as a matter of fact. What he attributes to my race has nothing to do with my race. That is the problem with categorical thinking: observational patterns congeal into laws, and are pressed into the service of a "social science" which is surreal. Eastern Europeans are a different quality, because the political socialism they enjoyed for 40 years protected them from the mental socialism which overtook the West during that time. It is not that they are more offensive, it is that their behaviour is less regulated by the fear of causing offense. Thus when someone from the Ukraine or Russia targets me with their malevolent racism they are never personally malevolent. In my experience therefore, the shots of our public snipers miss the mark of truth. Contrary to popular fiction, "Racists" do not hate people for belonging to a certain race. What really happens is they assign race as the common denominator of people whom they are inclined to hate anyway. just wanted to ask if: - the bolded part, is based on on-line experience or in-life experience?. for what its worth, i could confirm it if it's based on-line experience. I can't speak for what you call "malevolent racism," but it is true that Romania was involved in helping the Nazis to attack Ukraine and Russia in WWII. That doesn't exactly earn you too many pity points among Ukrainians or Russians. Whether or not you think that ill will for something that happened slightly more than half a century ago, by a different population of Romanians, is justified, is another matter.
i've no idea how to take that, not only because my father was ukrainian but even if i were to speak from my mother side(romanian) i don't get the pity points. i'm not trying to score any...
i asked because i considered myself eastern-european. it followed from:
Eastern Europeans are a different quality, because the political socialism they enjoyed for 40 years protected them from the mental socialism which overtook the West during that time.
i know about the ww2 stuff but i didn't take this personally ...
|
On August 30 2015 03:13 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2015 02:02 LegalLord wrote:On August 30 2015 01:39 xM(Z wrote:On August 30 2015 00:01 MoltkeWarding wrote:On August 29 2015 22:20 maybenexttime wrote:On August 29 2015 09:20 KwarK wrote:
The flood is not, in absolute terms, a huge number of people. Europe is a big place. Also it's difficult to stop them, Europe has long borders and a lot of internal mobility. Also a lot of the immigration people complain about is from within Europe. Although there is a lot of anti immigration feeling in places it's often directed more at fellow Europeans (such as Romanians for example) than it is against other groups. I think the main reason why anti-immigration rhetoric is not directed at people from outside of Europe is because of fear of being called "racist". Everyone is racist. Mouths must pretend otherwise by denying their own attributes while amplifying those of others, but the very cattiness with which our public snipers aim their words is among the things fermenting a society of self-deceit and hypocrisy. Honest people will sometimes exaggerate their racism simply in order to deny the lie that they are not. In a society which is tragically both reverential and honest like Germany, the benevolent racism which I often get from acquaintances is both a recommendation and an impeachment for the quality of their minds. Germans know the world better than most other nations, because of their attraction to exotic places. A love of exoticism necessarily emphasises contrasts rather than similarities, whereas the orderliness of their minds subordinates daily facts to those hypnotic impressions. When in my daily life a German verbally connects my positive qualities with my race, I feel an intense mixture of admiration and condescension for the mind which draws such conclusions. On one hand, understanding differences is more impressive than understanding similarities, and the mind which preoccupies itself with the former rather than the latter is by nature the stronger. On the other hand, his hypotheses are wrong as a matter of fact. What he attributes to my race has nothing to do with my race. That is the problem with categorical thinking: observational patterns congeal into laws, and are pressed into the service of a "social science" which is surreal. Eastern Europeans are a different quality, because the political socialism they enjoyed for 40 years protected them from the mental socialism which overtook the West during that time. It is not that they are more offensive, it is that their behaviour is less regulated by the fear of causing offense. Thus when someone from the Ukraine or Russia targets me with their malevolent racism they are never personally malevolent. In my experience therefore, the shots of our public snipers miss the mark of truth. Contrary to popular fiction, "Racists" do not hate people for belonging to a certain race. What really happens is they assign race as the common denominator of people whom they are inclined to hate anyway. just wanted to ask if: - the bolded part, is based on on-line experience or in-life experience?. for what its worth, i could confirm it if it's based on-line experience. I can't speak for what you call "malevolent racism," but it is true that Romania was involved in helping the Nazis to attack Ukraine and Russia in WWII. That doesn't exactly earn you too many pity points among Ukrainians or Russians. Whether or not you think that ill will for something that happened slightly more than half a century ago, by a different population of Romanians, is justified, is another matter. i've no idea how to take that, not only because my father was ukrainian but even if i were to speak from my mother side(romanian) i don't get the pity points. i'm not trying to score any... i asked because i considered myself eastern-european. it followed from: Show nested quote +Eastern Europeans are a different quality, because the political socialism they enjoyed for 40 years protected them from the mental socialism which overtook the West during that time. i know about the ww2 stuff but i didn't take this personally ...
Take it as a fact of history that, among other reasons, may explain why someone might not be too fond of Romanians.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not too sure what the general public thinks of Romania or Romanians in Russia and Ukraine, since things have changed a lot in the recent past. But there might be reasons why people would hold a grudge against your country.
|
On August 30 2015 03:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2015 03:13 xM(Z wrote:On August 30 2015 02:02 LegalLord wrote:On August 30 2015 01:39 xM(Z wrote:On August 30 2015 00:01 MoltkeWarding wrote:On August 29 2015 22:20 maybenexttime wrote:On August 29 2015 09:20 KwarK wrote:
The flood is not, in absolute terms, a huge number of people. Europe is a big place. Also it's difficult to stop them, Europe has long borders and a lot of internal mobility. Also a lot of the immigration people complain about is from within Europe. Although there is a lot of anti immigration feeling in places it's often directed more at fellow Europeans (such as Romanians for example) than it is against other groups. I think the main reason why anti-immigration rhetoric is not directed at people from outside of Europe is because of fear of being called "racist". Everyone is racist. Mouths must pretend otherwise by denying their own attributes while amplifying those of others, but the very cattiness with which our public snipers aim their words is among the things fermenting a society of self-deceit and hypocrisy. Honest people will sometimes exaggerate their racism simply in order to deny the lie that they are not. In a society which is tragically both reverential and honest like Germany, the benevolent racism which I often get from acquaintances is both a recommendation and an impeachment for the quality of their minds. Germans know the world better than most other nations, because of their attraction to exotic places. A love of exoticism necessarily emphasises contrasts rather than similarities, whereas the orderliness of their minds subordinates daily facts to those hypnotic impressions. When in my daily life a German verbally connects my positive qualities with my race, I feel an intense mixture of admiration and condescension for the mind which draws such conclusions. On one hand, understanding differences is more impressive than understanding similarities, and the mind which preoccupies itself with the former rather than the latter is by nature the stronger. On the other hand, his hypotheses are wrong as a matter of fact. What he attributes to my race has nothing to do with my race. That is the problem with categorical thinking: observational patterns congeal into laws, and are pressed into the service of a "social science" which is surreal. Eastern Europeans are a different quality, because the political socialism they enjoyed for 40 years protected them from the mental socialism which overtook the West during that time. It is not that they are more offensive, it is that their behaviour is less regulated by the fear of causing offense. Thus when someone from the Ukraine or Russia targets me with their malevolent racism they are never personally malevolent. In my experience therefore, the shots of our public snipers miss the mark of truth. Contrary to popular fiction, "Racists" do not hate people for belonging to a certain race. What really happens is they assign race as the common denominator of people whom they are inclined to hate anyway. just wanted to ask if: - the bolded part, is based on on-line experience or in-life experience?. for what its worth, i could confirm it if it's based on-line experience. I can't speak for what you call "malevolent racism," but it is true that Romania was involved in helping the Nazis to attack Ukraine and Russia in WWII. That doesn't exactly earn you too many pity points among Ukrainians or Russians. Whether or not you think that ill will for something that happened slightly more than half a century ago, by a different population of Romanians, is justified, is another matter. i've no idea how to take that, not only because my father was ukrainian but even if i were to speak from my mother side(romanian) i don't get the pity points. i'm not trying to score any... i asked because i considered myself eastern-european. it followed from: Eastern Europeans are a different quality, because the political socialism they enjoyed for 40 years protected them from the mental socialism which overtook the West during that time. i know about the ww2 stuff but i didn't take this personally ... Take it as a fact of history that, among other reasons, may explain why someone might not be too fond of Romanians. To be perfectly honest, I'm not too sure what the general public thinks of Romania or Romanians in Russia and Ukraine, since things have changed a lot in the recent past. But there might be reasons why people would hold a grudge against your country.
still, what you're saying only makes sens if you're from Ukraine or Russia and hate romanians; because no one was talking about hating romanians until you came about. (Kwark was probably talking about romanian gypsies(?) since that was made into a huge deal by some british documentary vis-a-vis working visas for UK).
i know Hungary wants Transylvania, Bulgaria Dobruja and that we killed russians in Crimea but i still don't know why you started pointing fingers.
what's your bone to pick here?.
Edit: i know some people hate romanians but you know, that's their problem.
|
Varoufakis is questioned by academics in The Atlantic:
Q: You often implied that what went on in your meetings with the troika was economics only on the surface. Deep down, it was a political game being played.
A: If only some economics were to surface in our meetings with the troika, I would be happy! None did.
Even when economic variables were discussed, there was never any economic analysis. I would try to have an economic discussion suggesting that this rule ought to be amended because, for example, the 3.5 percent primary target for 2018 would depress growth today, boost the debt-to-GDP ratio immediately and make it impossible to achieve the said target by 2018.
Such basic economic arguments were treated like insults. Once I was accused of “lecturing” them on macroeconomics.
|
Not too fond of listening to the guy. He comes off as rather disgruntled and he just says stuff for attention.
|
On August 30 2015 13:08 LegalLord wrote:
Not too fond of listening to the guy. He comes off as rather disgruntled and he just says stuff for attention.
That's b/c clearly no Greek pol saw the obvious offramps 2007-2015, so they all have 0 credibility.
|
On August 30 2015 13:08 LegalLord wrote:
Not too fond of listening to the guy. He comes off as rather disgruntled and he just says stuff for attention.
I think rather too much attention was paid to the man by the media and his opponents, which in the end was really just a distraction from the far more important policy issues at stake, and the messages he was trying to communicate. And I get the sense that is something Varoufakis would agree with.
I also get the sense that Varoufakis is obviously an academic and not a natural politician and somewhat oblivious to the image he was projecting and how his message was communicated. It's kind of amusing to read how, as a professor of economics, he was trying to have an academic debate with these politicians who obviously had no interest in doing so, and also quite obviously, not a very strong grasp of economics either. They just seemed to be talking on completely different levels past each other.
It seems that the role of finance minister and politician was as ill-fitting to Varoufakis as a suit and tie was to his preferred leather trenchcoat.
|
Varoufakis is a very important persona in the european political field. You dislike him just because you disagree with his words - much like I dislike Schauble, the distinction being that Schauble is actually in power while Varoufakis represent a dominated camp. But, from a democratic perspective, he says and do things that many people in europe agree with, and in this regard he is important.
|
On August 30 2015 13:55 Evil_Sheep wrote:
It seems that the role of finance minister and politician was as ill-fitting to Varoufakis as a suit and tie was to his preferred leather trenchcoat.
That could very well be it, since it seems like the other parties involved just don't want to talk to him because he doesn't do a good job of being diplomatic.
Nevertheless, it's clear now that Greece has done a rather poor job of managing the crisis and secured itself a deal that was under worse terms than the one they were originally offered. Varoufakis seems to have said a lot of "if people listened to me, things would have been better" since he was removed from office. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but that does come off as a wee bit disgruntled in my eyes. Admittedly his ideas are not too bad, but since he was an important player in handling the Greek crisis, he goes down with the sinking ship that is Greek credibility in this entire affair. And I have a hard time believing that he is free of blame for how things turned out.
On August 30 2015 19:31 WhiteDog wrote:
Varoufakis is a very important persona in the european political field. You dislike him just because you disagree with his words - much like I dislike Schauble, the distinction being that Schauble is actually in power while Varoufakis represent a dominated camp. But, from a democratic perspective, he says and do things that many people in europe agree with, and in this regard he is important.
For the most part, I don't really agree with how Germany has handled itself in regards to the credit crisis. The Tsipras government has handled itself terribly through it all though, and his resignation/new election is just another in a long string of idiocies that plague the Greek government. That alone makes Germany's suspicions about whether or not Greece can be trusted more reasonable.
|
On August 30 2015 19:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2015 13:55 Evil_Sheep wrote:
It seems that the role of finance minister and politician was as ill-fitting to Varoufakis as a suit and tie was to his preferred leather trenchcoat. That could very well be it, since it seems like the other parties involved just don't want to talk to him because he doesn't do a good job of being diplomatic. Nevertheless, it's clear now that Greece has done a rather poor job of managing the crisis and secured itself a deal that was under worse terms than the one they were originally offered. Varoufakis seems to have said a lot of "if people listened to me, things would have been better" since he was removed from office. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but that does come off as a wee bit disgruntled in my eyes. Admittedly his ideas are not too bad, but since he was an important player in handling the Greek crisis, he goes down with the sinking ship that is Greek credibility in this entire affair. And I have a hard time believing that he is free of blame for how things turned out. Show nested quote +On August 30 2015 19:31 WhiteDog wrote:
Varoufakis is a very important persona in the european political field. You dislike him just because you disagree with his words - much like I dislike Schauble, the distinction being that Schauble is actually in power while Varoufakis represent a dominated camp. But, from a democratic perspective, he says and do things that many people in europe agree with, and in this regard he is important. For the most part, I don't really agree with how Germany has handled itself in regards to the credit crisis. The Tsipras government has handled itself terribly through it all though, and his resignation/new election is just another in a long string of idiocies that plague the Greek government. That alone makes Germany's suspicions about whether or not Greece can be trusted more reasonable.
I agree entirely with you. Germany has a bad role, whatever it does it is bad - they can either play for their camp but create a huge resentment from the southern european country, or play in the interest of the southern europe, at the expense of their currently dominant position.
The Greek government just proved what everything know already, that power corrompt - Tsipras is now a politician. It doesn't change the fact that they were right and that the european institutions are dragging europe down.
|
On August 30 2015 19:31 WhiteDog wrote:
Varoufakis is a very important persona in the european political field. You dislike him just because you disagree with his words - much like I dislike Schauble, the distinction being that Schauble is actually in power while Varoufakis represent a dominated camp. But, from a democratic perspective, he says and do things that many people in europe agree with, and in this regard he is important.
I don't really see how Varoufakis is in any way important. Before he became Greece's Financial Minister earlier this year, the only people who had heard of him were probably either Greeks or left-wing economists advocating a small subset of economic policies. If anything, he used his tenure chiefly as a means of personal promotion. If anything, Varoufakis' case showed what happens when academics have to exchange their ivory tower for the political arena. There are very few academics who actually prevail in politics because while academia is (largely) about facts and research, politics is mainly about finding a balance between contrasting interests.
|
On August 30 2015 22:55 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2015 19:31 WhiteDog wrote:
Varoufakis is a very important persona in the european political field. You dislike him just because you disagree with his words - much like I dislike Schauble, the distinction being that Schauble is actually in power while Varoufakis represent a dominated camp. But, from a democratic perspective, he says and do things that many people in europe agree with, and in this regard he is important. I don't really see how Varoufakis is in any way important. Before he became Greece's Financial Minister earlier this year, the only people who had heard of him were probably either Greeks or left-wing economists advocating a small subset of economic policies. If anything, he used his tenure chiefly as a means of personal promotion. I'm not saying his ideas are bad, but advocating a European fiscal union with fiscal transfers to the weaker countries pretty much comes across as begging for free money if those ideas come from a finance minister of a state that goes bankrupt about once every generation. I am actually in favour of the ide
Again, the only answer you have is that you disagree with him. You can, it's your right - if you ask me you have all the right in the world to be dead wrong about politics  (i'm joking of course, no one is wrong or right about politics as you pointed out).
But it's not the problem right now, the question is who politically represent any opposition to the current european policies. Varoufakis is one of the few, and as such is valuable.
|
On August 30 2015 13:55 Evil_Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2015 13:08 LegalLord wrote:
Not too fond of listening to the guy. He comes off as rather disgruntled and he just says stuff for attention. I think rather too much attention was paid to the man by the media and his opponents, which in the end was really just a distraction from the far more important policy issues at stake, and the messages he was trying to communicate. And I get the sense that is something Varoufakis would agree with. I also get the sense that Varoufakis is obviously an academic and not a natural politician and somewhat oblivious to the image he was projecting and how his message was communicated. It's kind of amusing to read how, as a professor of economics, he was trying to have an academic debate with these politicians who obviously had no interest in doing so, and also quite obviously, not a very strong grasp of economics either. They just seemed to be talking on completely different levels past each other. It seems that the role of finance minister and politician was as ill-fitting to Varoufakis as a suit and tie was to his preferred leather trenchcoat.
I wonder if they simply had no economic discussion or if they had some and disagreed while Varoufakis kept saying he was right. I haven't seen anyone but Varoufakis make the claim that nobody except him wanted the discussion.
|
On August 30 2015 23:23 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2015 22:55 maartendq wrote:On August 30 2015 19:31 WhiteDog wrote:
Varoufakis is a very important persona in the european political field. You dislike him just because you disagree with his words - much like I dislike Schauble, the distinction being that Schauble is actually in power while Varoufakis represent a dominated camp. But, from a democratic perspective, he says and do things that many people in europe agree with, and in this regard he is important. I don't really see how Varoufakis is in any way important. Before he became Greece's Financial Minister earlier this year, the only people who had heard of him were probably either Greeks or left-wing economists advocating a small subset of economic policies. If anything, he used his tenure chiefly as a means of personal promotion. I'm not saying his ideas are bad, but advocating a European fiscal union with fiscal transfers to the weaker countries pretty much comes across as begging for free money if those ideas come from a finance minister of a state that goes bankrupt about once every generation. I am actually in favour of the ide Again, the only answer you have is that you disagree with him. You can, it's your right - if you ask me you have all the right in the world to be dead wrong about politics But it's not the problem right now, the question is who politically represent any opposition to the current european policies. Varoufakis is one of the few, and as such is valuable.
In what way am I dead wrong about politics?
The opposition to the current european policies comes mainly from South Europe, and is largely populist. It is big on anger and light on realistic solutions, unless you consider a return to a Europe of chauvinistic protectionist nation-states (i.e. a regression to pre-WW2 Europe) a good idea.
|
On August 31 2015 00:08 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2015 23:23 WhiteDog wrote:On August 30 2015 22:55 maartendq wrote:On August 30 2015 19:31 WhiteDog wrote:
Varoufakis is a very important persona in the european political field. You dislike him just because you disagree with his words - much like I dislike Schauble, the distinction being that Schauble is actually in power while Varoufakis represent a dominated camp. But, from a democratic perspective, he says and do things that many people in europe agree with, and in this regard he is important. I don't really see how Varoufakis is in any way important. Before he became Greece's Financial Minister earlier this year, the only people who had heard of him were probably either Greeks or left-wing economists advocating a small subset of economic policies. If anything, he used his tenure chiefly as a means of personal promotion. I'm not saying his ideas are bad, but advocating a European fiscal union with fiscal transfers to the weaker countries pretty much comes across as begging for free money if those ideas come from a finance minister of a state that goes bankrupt about once every generation. I am actually in favour of the ide Again, the only answer you have is that you disagree with him. You can, it's your right - if you ask me you have all the right in the world to be dead wrong about politics But it's not the problem right now, the question is who politically represent any opposition to the current european policies. Varoufakis is one of the few, and as such is valuable. In what way am I dead wrong about politics? The opposition to the current european policies comes mainly from South Europe, and is largely populist. It is big on anger and light on realistic solutions, unless you consider a return to a Europe of chauvinistic protectionist nation-states (i.e. a regression to pre-WW2 Europe) a good idea.
I dislike your use of the word populist. Populist was actually a positive adjective in the XIXth century, now it is always tainted and branded as a bad thing. What's wrong about a policy that respect the will of the people ? What's wrong about a policy that defend the interests of the weakest ?
And I was joking about the wrong, as you said, politics is about conflicting interest : there is no right or wrong, the political game being closer to a "war of gods" to quote Weber.
|
Populists don't defend the interests of the weakest but the interest of the disenfranchised mob, which usually is the white nationalist working class. The weakest people in Europe right now are refugees and I don't see a lot of populist parties defending them. That's even true of the 'new left' who have somehow come full circle and now seem to be convinced that women going to work is a capitalist plot to enlarge the workforce and embrace right-wing theories like "ethnic pluralism".
|
On August 31 2015 01:11 Nyxisto wrote:
Populists don't defend the interests of the weakest but the interest of the disenfranchised mob, which usually is the white nationalist working class. The weakest people in Europe right now are refugees and I don't see a lot of populist parties defending them. That's even true of the 'new left' who have somehow come full circle and now seem to be convinced that women going to work is a capitalist plot to enlarge the workforce and embrace right-wing theories like "ethnic pluralism".
So Varoufakis defend the interest of the white nationalist working class ? Explain me how. You're conflating two topic, syriza had in its program a plan to give the greek citizenship to refugees (which they actually did in part when they got in power).
Don't conflate populism and nationalism. Merkel and Shauble are more nationalist than Varoufakis.
PS : did you actually pulled out a "the syrian and iraqis refugees are poorer than the greeks" ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
