|
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 October 24 2015 04:01 Nyxisto wrote:
Can someone explain to me what's going on in Poland? They've been doing really well over the last decade, much better than most other European countries. Why are they steering away from centrists towards populists?
Elections are on Sunday so you can't be sure we're steering towards "populists" yet. Experts say it's impossible to make predictions now and situation changes every day. For example nobody heard about Partia Razem one week ago but after their leader had a brilliant performance in a big TV debate they jumped from 0 to 3-6% in polls (5% or higher gets in). Our prime minister was terrible in that and other debates so their support diminishes every day, similarly to recent presidential elections. But it doesn't mean we're getting more radical, one of the new opposition parties (Nowoczesna, ~8% in polls) has a very liberal program, similar to the one PO offered us 8 years ago.
Poles are tired of the current ruling party (PO) and they want change, no matter what kind of change it's going to be. PO uses the same PR tricks they used when they won elections 8 years ago and they don't realize those aren't going to work again. They're also shit at presenting their political program (or it's just bad, I can't tell) so they focused on a negative campaign. I mean stuff like "vote for us or POPULISTS will win!", "don't vote for smaller parties because ONLY WE can stop PiS!". I have adblock disabled on teamliquid and sometimes I can see their campaign ads. They literally say "if you'll stay at home PiS will win elections" and that's it. Like, how is that supposed to encourage me to vote for them? I'd rather pack my stuff and fly to UK.
PO ruled for 8 years because they gave us stability and positive opinions in German newspapers ("see? The West likes us") but they failed at convincing us that they have a long-term vision of our country. David Cameron (PiS also mentions Viktor Orban but that guy is more controversial) is often used as an example of a leader with a plan and currently our goverment doesn't have anyone like this. Especially after Donald Tusk decided to quit being our prime minister and take that stupid job of a president of European Council.
About the populism, I think the term was used so often in recent campaigns that people stopped caring about it. It's like racism or sexism accusations, if everyone is bad then nobody is bad and you don't have to feel ashamed of having different political views anymore. The relation between PiS (25-35% now) and PO is similar to the one between Republicans and Democrats, the first one is more conservative while the other is more liberal but generally they're pretty much the same. I disagree with calling them populist and I doubt the real populists will get more than 15% in the elections.
Nyxisto, only one party is openly anti-immigrant and they shouldn't get more than 10%. Other parties just want more caution in accepting refugees plus they feel like they can gain some points from criticizing the alleged servilism of our goverment in European politics.
|
On October 24 2015 06:18 Sent. wrote:
About the populism, I think the term was used so often in recent campaigns that people stopped caring about it. It's like racism or sexism accusations, if everyone is bad then nobody is bad and you don't have to feel ashamed of having different political views anymore. The relation between PiS (25-35% now) and PO is similar to the one between Republicans and Democrats, the first one is more conservative while the other is more liberal but generally they're pretty much the same. I disagree with calling them populist and I doubt the real populists will get more than 15% in the elections.
Dont forget that populism is about hopes and fears of the population. The term itself brings us back before what we call today democracy ( Senatus Populusque Romanus aka patricians vs plebeians). So yes we're "all" populist because there is no more established nobility. It's basically saying what people want to hear that slowly became a slur as political leader tend to never do what they speak about. I think the greek version, demagogue, is considered as more pejorative(?). But that can be applies to a lot of words, like if you speak too much about society, you'll be called a communist and if you speak too much about state, it'll be fascist or even reverse.
As we're barely able to grasp what's it means to be a society, we try to find simple solutions to identify ourself (nationalism or racism), both of them are social constructs. Nations or "ethnicities" rise, change and fall. The next step, being able to understand that we're all human ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12493913 ) on the same world is going to be a hard one because economic powers cannot profit from that.
The rise of "populists" is more about, as you mentionned it, the lack of long-term vision, nightmare of 99% of top political leaders, and the economic pressure which has drastically increased over the last 3 decades because, even if URSS was not communist, the idea that they represented is horrible for economic powers. If you have power and wealth, you dont want to share it^^. And the UE, limited to an economic union, helped a lot to ensure that economic growth profits only to the richest like NAFTA did.
I always find it funny when people think one leader is going to save them, it's an old political latin trick but it makes me think about the lotr quote " One [man] to rule them all, One [man] to find them, One [man] to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"
|
So, just heard Sweden is expecting double their previous refugee intake this year.Now 190,000 in a country with a population of 10 million, all needing to be housed and cared for.
I know that the anti immigration party is now leading the polls in Sweden but surely even the leftists now see that this will not end well? Having a generous welfare system and an open door immigration policy is a recipe for disaster and will lead to certain economic and societal collapse.
|
Not even 2%, you're going to be ok...
What's going on in Portugal ?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html
This sounds a bit biased, but certainly there is something wrong going on...
|
Germany will be fucked, though.
If this goes on, there will be a Muslim party in the Bundestag by 2020.
The BKA have release reports that suggest that Christian refugees need to be separated from Muslims because of immediate physical danger. Imagine the religious zeal it takes to flee from a Muslim dictatorship only to attack Christian refugees for their religious beliefs.
|
On October 24 2015 19:10 DickMcFanny wrote:
Germany will be fucked, though.
If this goes on, there will be a Muslim party in the Bundestag by 2020.
The BKA have release reports that suggest that Christian refugees need to be separated from Muslims because of immediate physical danger. Imagine the religious zeal it takes to flee from a Muslim dictatorship only to attack Christian refugees for their religious beliefs.
Haha in Houelbecq last book "Soumission" (Submission), the muslim party is governing France. Fairly speaking, by continuously opposing groups and religions, people are forcing muslim into having their own representative, but they will never govern anything. Don't fear that much...
On October 24 2015 18:11 corumjhaelen wrote:
Not even 2%, you're going to be ok...
What's going on in Portugal ?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html
This sounds a bit biased, but certainly there is something wrong going on...
This just prove what we already know : the euro is more important than our democracy in the eyes of the people that govern us. The situation is exactly like the situation described by Polanyi in his Great Transformation : the countries of Europe back then preferred saving the gold exchange standard than their economy and their people, leading to the world war.
|
On October 24 2015 18:11 corumjhaelen wrote:
Not even 2%, you're going to be ok...
from where do you get this magical ratio of native vs immigrants?. on what is it based?. is there a study or something?. can you give a link to it?
|
Once again, 1-5% of a very large number is a very large number. Comparing the influx of people from a single event to the people that currently inhabit an entire nation is misguided and dangerously naive.
|
On October 25 2015 00:44 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2015 18:11 corumjhaelen wrote:
Not even 2%, you're going to be ok... from where do you get this magical ratio of native vs immigrants?. on what is it based?. is there a study or something?. can you give a link to it?
well 200k of 10 million = 2%. If the refugees would be evenly distributed it probably would be less than 1% per country.
Also I think it was Piketty who pointed out that population growth simply is one of the biggest drivers of economic growth and that constantly growing and thus younger populations tend to have fairer distribution of wealth, with demographically old nations like Italy and Japan doing especially bad.
I don't really think it makes sense to call these numbers "dangerous", they've been the norm for most of the 20th century. The over-aged societies we had for the last 30 years are the ones that should trouble us.
|
On October 25 2015 01:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2015 00:44 xM(Z wrote:On October 24 2015 18:11 corumjhaelen wrote:
Not even 2%, you're going to be ok... from where do you get this magical ratio of native vs immigrants?. on what is it based?. is there a study or something?. can you give a link to it? well 200k of 10 million = 2%. If the refugees would be evenly distributed it probably would be less than 1% per country. Also I think it was Piketty who pointed out that population growth simply is one of the biggest drivers of economic growth and that constantly growing and thus younger populations tend to have fairer distribution of wealth, with demographically old nations like Italy and Japan doing especially bad. I don't really think it makes sense to call these numbers "dangerous", they've been the norm for most of the 20th century. The over-aged societies we had for the last 30 years are the ones that should trouble us.
He actually take away the demographic effect on growth to evaluate the real growth in the capital in the XXIth century. Sure, a demographic increase usually create more ressources, but it doesn't mean anything : yeah china has more GDP than France, being more means you create more wealth. It does not mean you live better (quite the opposite in regard to chinese vs french...). Creating more wealth as a stock is irrelevant, what matter is the way it is distributed and if the increase in wealth is greater than the increase in demography.
Just because Germany is overaged doesn't mean it's the case for all europe. In France, Portugal, Greece, the youth unemployment is at its highest : maybe getting those people a job should be priority over believing some other people will create jobs. Seriously, the pro refugee argument are so weak I'm amazed.
|
On October 25 2015 01:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2015 00:44 xM(Z wrote:On October 24 2015 18:11 corumjhaelen wrote:
Not even 2%, you're going to be ok... from where do you get this magical ratio of native vs immigrants?. on what is it based?. is there a study or something?. can you give a link to it? well 200k of 10 million = 2%. If the refugees would be evenly distributed it probably would be less than 1% per country. Also I think it was Piketty who pointed out that population growth simply is one of the biggest drivers of economic growth and that constantly growing and thus younger populations tend to have fairer distribution of wealth, with demographically old nations like Italy and Japan doing especially bad. I don't really think it makes sense to call these numbers "dangerous", they've been the norm for most of the 20th century. The over-aged societies we had for the last 30 years are the ones that should trouble us.
what does less than 1% per country mean, non-mathematically speaking. how does it relates to integration, assimilation, or the ability to care/provide for them and such, as far as nations go?.
|
I think we should require integration but I don't think we should require assimilation. People need to learn the language, they need to respect laws, but they don't need to give up their customs or their religion. Europe promotes secularism, not laïcité or atheism. The money is the least of the problems I think, but we'd definitely need more social housing and government programs.
On October 25 2015 01:49 WhiteDog wrote:
Just because Germany is overaged doesn't mean it's the case for all europe. In France, Portugal, Greece, the youth unemployment is at its highest : maybe getting those people a job should be priority over believing some other people will create jobs. Seriously, the pro refugee argument are so weak I'm amazed.
They have these things while they have heavy emigration at the same time. If I follow your argument that would mean that labour is becoming more scarce and thus wages should go up. But it's simply not happening in reality, while countries with high immigration like Canada or Sweden have excellent labour conditions.
And I wasn't just talking about GDP in general. Immigration/population growth seems to rise GDP/capita, too. Younger countries are attractive to investors. Companies and capital will not move to countries that suffer from brain-drain and lack of consumption. Germany and Japan suffer from this exact same thing, net capital exports and lack of investment for decades. And this is a problem for all of Europe. Greece is one of the 'oldest' nations, too.
|
On October 25 2015 02:05 Nyxisto wrote:I think we should require integration but I don't think we should require assimilation. People need to learn the language, they need to respect laws, but they don't need to give up their customs or their religion. Europe promotes secularism, not laïcité or atheism. The money is the least of the problems I think, but we'd definitely need more social housing and government programs. Show nested quote +On October 25 2015 01:49 WhiteDog wrote:
Just because Germany is overaged doesn't mean it's the case for all europe. In France, Portugal, Greece, the youth unemployment is at its highest : maybe getting those people a job should be priority over believing some other people will create jobs. Seriously, the pro refugee argument are so weak I'm amazed. They have these things while they have heavy emigration at the same time. If I follow your argument that would mean that labour is becoming more scarce and thus wages should go up. But it's simply not happening in reality, while countries with high immigration like Canada or Sweden have excellent labour conditions. And I wasn't just talking about GDP in general. Immigration/population growth seems to rise GDP/capita, too. Younger countries are attractive to investors. Companies and capital will not move to countries that suffer from brain-drain and lack of consumption. Germany and Japan suffer from this exact same thing, net capital exports and lack of investment for decades.
You're seriously arguing with somebody else, I never made the arguments you seem to respond to. Canada has an extremly strict immigration policy (they recruit in specific fields).... Sweden well for many economists it is in a crisis (and it has its own currency).
And no it does not rise GDP per capita. GDP per capita increase when the working class is either more efficient or the capital is more efficient (or both). All you're arguments seems to comes down to "believing" : more people will come, and IF GOD EXIST it will create wealth. Please explain me how France demography does not create a bigger growth than germany then ? Why is Lebanon not having the highest growth of the century since it accepted so many refugees ? In fact it is growing less since the syria civil war.
|
France actually is more productive than Germany, and actually did grow reasonably fast especially during the end of the 90's and early 2000s. After the financial crisis it's a different story but I wouldn't exactly attribute this to immigration. Also Lebanon has now one million refugees. That's 25% of their population. You can't seriously compare this to what we've been talking about. Also why is Sweden in an economic crisis?
|
On October 25 2015 01:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2015 00:44 xM(Z wrote:On October 24 2015 18:11 corumjhaelen wrote:
Not even 2%, you're going to be ok... from where do you get this magical ratio of native vs immigrants?. on what is it based?. is there a study or something?. can you give a link to it? well 200k of 10 million = 2%. If the refugees would be evenly distributed it probably would be less than 1% per country. Also I think it was Piketty who pointed out that population growth simply is one of the biggest drivers of economic growth and that constantly growing and thus younger populations tend to have fairer distribution of wealth, with demographically old nations like Italy and Japan doing especially bad. I don't really think it makes sense to call these numbers "dangerous", they've been the norm for most of the 20th century. The over-aged societies we had for the last 30 years are the ones that should trouble us.
200k in a country that already had massive problems with housing before all of this.
|
On October 25 2015 02:22 Nyxisto wrote:
France actually is more productive than Germany, and actually did grow reasonably fast especially during the end of the 90's and early 2000s. After the financial crisis it's a different story but I wouldn't exactly attribute this to immigration. Also Lebanon has now one million refugees. That's 25% of their population. You can't seriously compare this to what we've been talking about. Also why is Sweden in an economic crisis?
In addition the refugees in Lebanon aren't allowed to work so they can't contribute economically. The comparison between Lebanon and refugees in Europe is ridiculous.
|
On October 25 2015 02:22 Klowney wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2015 01:23 Nyxisto wrote:On October 25 2015 00:44 xM(Z wrote:On October 24 2015 18:11 corumjhaelen wrote:
Not even 2%, you're going to be ok... from where do you get this magical ratio of native vs immigrants?. on what is it based?. is there a study or something?. can you give a link to it? well 200k of 10 million = 2%. If the refugees would be evenly distributed it probably would be less than 1% per country. Also I think it was Piketty who pointed out that population growth simply is one of the biggest drivers of economic growth and that constantly growing and thus younger populations tend to have fairer distribution of wealth, with demographically old nations like Italy and Japan doing especially bad. I don't really think it makes sense to call these numbers "dangerous", they've been the norm for most of the 20th century. The over-aged societies we had for the last 30 years are the ones that should trouble us. 200k in a country that already had massive problems with housing before all of this.
Exactly, Lebanon isn't promising to give all refugees social housing and welfare benefits.
The way some people are commentating they think this is the first batch of immigrants into Sweden? What is Malmo, 75% muslim now?
How about this.Back in July some folks did a gay pride march through a muslim area of Stockholm, and the left protested this gay pride parade, calling it "racist".The left protesting a gay pride parade = you cannot make this shit up.It's just so freaking bizarre over there these days...
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sweden-gay-march-through-mainly-muslim-area-stockholm-called-provocative-by-anti-racist-1513240
A march through a predominantly Muslim area of Stockholm, Sweden, by gay activists has passed relatively peacefully, though the marchers were greatly outnumbered by anti-racists who said the march was "provocative."
|
@Nyxisto - you did not answer my question. people(and you) started throwing around numbers regarding the ratio of natives vs immigrants. where did that number came from?. whats is the golden ratio?. based on what it was calculated?.
if you're talking purely about <X> nr. of natives should take care of <X>nr. of migrants just because, then give 4.5mill syrians to Ethiopia because it has 90mill people.
problem solved.
|
I really hope other countries looks at Sweden and learns what not to do with immigration.
|
On October 25 2015 02:54 xM(Z wrote:
@Nyxisto - you did not answer my question. people(and you) started throwing around numbers regarding the ratio of natives vs immigrants. where did that number came from?. whats is the golden ratio?. based on what it was calculated?.
I'm confused. Where did I get what number from? we know roughly how huge the influx of refugees and immigration is. We know how many citizens we have. That's enough information to calculate a percentage.
There is no certain 'golden ratio', but one good idea would be to have at least so much immigration that the ratio of workforce and retired population at least stays the same because else we're going to get into social trouble. In Germany, if I remember correctly, it was about half a million immigrants per year until 2050.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
