|
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 September 28 2016 21:27 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:21 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:19 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:16 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:13 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:12 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense. But then this experiment is pointless, isn't it? I assume salary will be adjusted for UBI (one way or the other, think inflation) once all get it. 2k participants don't seem to have enough impact for this. How is the experiment pointless if the point is to get a feel for the kinds of behavior that a UBI promotes? Because atleast one point that would influence people's behaviour, namely the additional compensation they would receive for working, is not adjusted accordingly? or are these 2k people randomly selected from the unemployed? The entire point of the UBI, so long as it's divorced from Milton Friedman-esque nonsense, is to provide individuals with the baseline resources needed to pursue their own employment goals without the stricture of necessity. That recipients could receive additional income from employment while also receiving UBI doesn't conflict with that in any way. The employment decisions will likely be a data-gathering focal point. nice technobabble, but that doesn't address the point i am trying to make. am i not comprehensible? You are not, at least not to me. Have you read the article I linked above? It's really unecessary to explain what UBI is when it's all in there.
alright, then I'll try to make a simplified example:
Say an employee gets 1000$/month now.
Then, UBI is introduced and (s)he now gets 400$ UBI. I then would expect the money (s)he would receive from the employer to drop to 600$. If this doesn't happen I would expect inflation to take away the short term surplus.
This is ofc only going to happen if everyone receives UBI. When just 2k people receive it, it's more like a lottery where you don't have to buy a ticket.
|
Zurich15361 Posts
On September 28 2016 21:35 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:27 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 21:21 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:19 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:16 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:13 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:12 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures".
This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense. But then this experiment is pointless, isn't it? I assume salary will be adjusted for UBI (one way or the other, think inflation) once all get it. 2k participants don't seem to have enough impact for this. How is the experiment pointless if the point is to get a feel for the kinds of behavior that a UBI promotes? Because atleast one point that would influence people's behaviour, namely the additional compensation they would receive for working, is not adjusted accordingly? or are these 2k people randomly selected from the unemployed? The entire point of the UBI, so long as it's divorced from Milton Friedman-esque nonsense, is to provide individuals with the baseline resources needed to pursue their own employment goals without the stricture of necessity. That recipients could receive additional income from employment while also receiving UBI doesn't conflict with that in any way. The employment decisions will likely be a data-gathering focal point. nice technobabble, but that doesn't address the point i am trying to make. am i not comprehensible? You are not, at least not to me. Have you read the article I linked above? It's really unecessary to explain what UBI is when it's all in there. alright, then I'll try to make a simplified example: Say an employee gets 1000$/month now. Then, UBI is introduced and (s)he now gets 400$ UBI. I then would expect the money (s)he would receive from the employer to drop to 600$. If this doesn't happen I would expect inflation to take away the short term surplus. This is ofc only going to happen if everyone receives UBI. If just 2k people receive it, it's more like a lottery where you don't have to buy a ticket.
That's really not how it's (supposed to) work. UBI is unconditional, and paid out on top of any other income.
Here, the first sentence from WP on the topic:
A basic income (also called unconditional basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income or universal demogrant[2]) is a form of social security[3] in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
EDIT: It should be said that for the Finnish pilot project the 2000 people will be randomly selected from current welfare recipients, so the situation you are describing (someone on regular income now receiving UBI on top) won't be happening at the start.
If however, some of those 2000 will find employement during the pilot phase they will indeed get to keep any additional income on top of the UBI payout - which is the entire point of basic income.
|
Predicting the outcome is as good as impossible, hence the need for trials. On the one hand, you'd expect the need for a minimum wage to disappear. People could afford to accept a lower wage in order to do work they actually wanted to do. On the other hand, people could demand higher wages to do work they do not want to do. A trial of a few thousand people will help to establish how certain dynamics will play out, but rolling it out nationally will produce very different results again.
|
On September 28 2016 21:33 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:I wish EU can somehow affect on local polititians, cause they're also corrupted as previous pro-russian currency infuence, prices much higher, salaries remains the same, taxes higher, our president meanwhile build around 10 new candy shops in my city and russian military forces not far away from eastern borders don't get me wrong, I love my country but I hate ppl ruling it to ashes 
It's a process, you don't change from corrupt mess to norway in one day
|
Can they find a job and receive this benefits ? Or will they stop receiving it ?
nvm : read it. It can be interesting to see what obstacles they will find.
|
On September 28 2016 21:39 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:35 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:27 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 21:21 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:19 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:16 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:13 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:12 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense. But then this experiment is pointless, isn't it? I assume salary will be adjusted for UBI (one way or the other, think inflation) once all get it. 2k participants don't seem to have enough impact for this. How is the experiment pointless if the point is to get a feel for the kinds of behavior that a UBI promotes? Because atleast one point that would influence people's behaviour, namely the additional compensation they would receive for working, is not adjusted accordingly? or are these 2k people randomly selected from the unemployed? The entire point of the UBI, so long as it's divorced from Milton Friedman-esque nonsense, is to provide individuals with the baseline resources needed to pursue their own employment goals without the stricture of necessity. That recipients could receive additional income from employment while also receiving UBI doesn't conflict with that in any way. The employment decisions will likely be a data-gathering focal point. nice technobabble, but that doesn't address the point i am trying to make. am i not comprehensible? You are not, at least not to me. Have you read the article I linked above? It's really unecessary to explain what UBI is when it's all in there. alright, then I'll try to make a simplified example: Say an employee gets 1000$/month now. Then, UBI is introduced and (s)he now gets 400$ UBI. I then would expect the money (s)he would receive from the employer to drop to 600$. If this doesn't happen I would expect inflation to take away the short term surplus. This is ofc only going to happen if everyone receives UBI. If just 2k people receive it, it's more like a lottery where you don't have to buy a ticket. That's really not how it's (supposed to) work. UBI is unconditional, and paid out on top of any other income. Here, the first sentence from WP on the topic: Show nested quote +A basic income (also called unconditional basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income or universal demogrant[2]) is a form of social security[3] in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
well but you can't expect such a big shift in compensation schemes to not have any impact on the real buying power of people, can you?
|
On September 28 2016 21:46 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:33 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:I wish EU can somehow affect on local polititians, cause they're also corrupted as previous pro-russian currency infuence, prices much higher, salaries remains the same, taxes higher, our president meanwhile build around 10 new candy shops in my city and russian military forces not far away from eastern borders don't get me wrong, I love my country but I hate ppl ruling it to ashes It's a process, you don't change from corrupt mess to norway in one day
Painfull process, and probably can't be affected from inside without any additional damage
|
On September 28 2016 21:19 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:16 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:13 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:12 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense. But then this experiment is pointless, isn't it? I assume salary will be adjusted for UBI (one way or the other, think inflation) once all get it. 2k participants don't seem to have enough impact for this. How is the experiment pointless if the point is to get a feel for the kinds of behavior that a UBI promotes? Because atleast one point that would influence people's behaviour, namely the additional compensation they would receive for working, is not adjusted accordingly? or are these 2k people randomly selected from the unemployed? The entire point of the UBI, so long as it's divorced from Milton Friedman-esque nonsense, is to provide individuals with the baseline resources needed to pursue their own employment goals without the stricture of necessity. That recipients could receive additional income from employment while also receiving UBI doesn't conflict with that in any way. The employment decisions will likely be a data-gathering focal point.
Friedman's negative income tax is also supposed to be high enough to fulfill basic necessities but also include an incentive to work. Why do you think it's nonsense?
|
On September 28 2016 21:51 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:46 Sent. wrote:On September 28 2016 21:33 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:I wish EU can somehow affect on local polititians, cause they're also corrupted as previous pro-russian currency infuence, prices much higher, salaries remains the same, taxes higher, our president meanwhile build around 10 new candy shops in my city and russian military forces not far away from eastern borders don't get me wrong, I love my country but I hate ppl ruling it to ashes It's a process, you don't change from corrupt mess to norway in one day Painfull process, and probably can't be affected from inside without any additional damage
I dont think corruption can be fought by anything but the people of that country. Its not like some other country will invade yours to stop corruption or anything. Other countries simply dont care (the leaders anyways). They just want trade deals, military cooperation and somebody to back them up in global political debates. They dont care which person is ruling your country as long as that person agrees with them.
|
On September 28 2016 21:59 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:19 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:16 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:13 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:12 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense. But then this experiment is pointless, isn't it? I assume salary will be adjusted for UBI (one way or the other, think inflation) once all get it. 2k participants don't seem to have enough impact for this. How is the experiment pointless if the point is to get a feel for the kinds of behavior that a UBI promotes? Because atleast one point that would influence people's behaviour, namely the additional compensation they would receive for working, is not adjusted accordingly? or are these 2k people randomly selected from the unemployed? The entire point of the UBI, so long as it's divorced from Milton Friedman-esque nonsense, is to provide individuals with the baseline resources needed to pursue their own employment goals without the stricture of necessity. That recipients could receive additional income from employment while also receiving UBI doesn't conflict with that in any way. The employment decisions will likely be a data-gathering focal point. Friedman's negative income tax is also supposed to be high enough to fulfill basic necessities but also include an incentive to work. Why do you think it's nonsense?
Because it comes alongside massive cuts to infrastructure/taxation that would render the benefits of the negative income tax superfluous. Though I used the phrase earlier in a different context, Friedman-esque welfare programs are the ultimate bait and switch.
|
On September 28 2016 22:03 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:51 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On September 28 2016 21:46 Sent. wrote:On September 28 2016 21:33 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:I wish EU can somehow affect on local polititians, cause they're also corrupted as previous pro-russian currency infuence, prices much higher, salaries remains the same, taxes higher, our president meanwhile build around 10 new candy shops in my city and russian military forces not far away from eastern borders don't get me wrong, I love my country but I hate ppl ruling it to ashes It's a process, you don't change from corrupt mess to norway in one day Painfull process, and probably can't be affected from inside without any additional damage I dont think corruption can be fought by anything but the people of that country. Its not like some other country will invade yours to stop corruption or anything. Other countries simply dont care (the leaders anyways). They just want trade deals, military cooperation and somebody to back them up in global political debates. They dont care which person is ruling your country as long as that person agrees with them.
ye, I think we have to deal with our role, some lands inbetween EU and Russia
and it was not about invading, all the financial credits given to Ukraine seems like already divided and stolen, citizens never felt em
|
A Dutch-led team of international investigators has concluded that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which crashed in July 2014, was shot down by a Russian Buk missile that had been transferred into rebel-held eastern Ukraine.
After the shooting, the surface-to-air missile launcher was transferred back to Russia.
The crash of MH17 killed all 298 people aboard. The preliminary results of the international criminal investigation were announced on Wednesday in the Netherlands. Investigators said they were confident about the type of weapon used and where it was fired from — but that the investigation into who exactly was responsible for the missile launch will take more time.
There are more than 100 suspects, investigators say. The next phase of the investigation will involve interviewing suspects and tracing the chain of command within the separatists in Ukraine, to identify who gave the order to fire the missile.
An earlier investigation by the Dutch Safety Board had already concluded that the crash was the result of a missile launched from a region in Ukraine controlled by Russian-backed separatists. Earlier this year, a report from a group of volunteer citizen journalists had implicated Russia in the missile launch.
Russia has repeatedly denied sending military equipment and personnel across the border into Ukraine. Moscow has previously suggested that MH17 might have been shot down by another plane.
Now Russia maintains that if the plane were brought down by a surface-to-air missile, it must have been fired from somewhere other than the rebel-held areas identified by investigators, Reuters reports. The Kremlin said, before the Wednesday report's findings were announced, that it has new radio-location data that shows the missile couldn't have been fired from rebel territory.
The report from the Joint Investigation Team, which consisted of investigators from the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Malaysia and Ukraine, used forensic data, witness accounts and intercepted phone calls to determine the weapon used and the location of the missile launch.
Source
|
On September 28 2016 22:10 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 22:03 RoomOfMush wrote:On September 28 2016 21:51 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On September 28 2016 21:46 Sent. wrote:On September 28 2016 21:33 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:I wish EU can somehow affect on local polititians, cause they're also corrupted as previous pro-russian currency infuence, prices much higher, salaries remains the same, taxes higher, our president meanwhile build around 10 new candy shops in my city and russian military forces not far away from eastern borders don't get me wrong, I love my country but I hate ppl ruling it to ashes It's a process, you don't change from corrupt mess to norway in one day Painfull process, and probably can't be affected from inside without any additional damage I dont think corruption can be fought by anything but the people of that country. Its not like some other country will invade yours to stop corruption or anything. Other countries simply dont care (the leaders anyways). They just want trade deals, military cooperation and somebody to back them up in global political debates. They dont care which person is ruling your country as long as that person agrees with them. ye, I think we have to deal with our role, some lands inbetween EU and Russia and it was not about invading, all the financial credits given to Ukraine seems like already divided and stolen, citizens never felt em
But what are other countries supposed to do? Watch everything the politicians do with their money? That would be controversial as fuck.
|
On September 28 2016 23:02 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 22:10 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On September 28 2016 22:03 RoomOfMush wrote:On September 28 2016 21:51 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On September 28 2016 21:46 Sent. wrote:On September 28 2016 21:33 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:I wish EU can somehow affect on local polititians, cause they're also corrupted as previous pro-russian currency infuence, prices much higher, salaries remains the same, taxes higher, our president meanwhile build around 10 new candy shops in my city and russian military forces not far away from eastern borders don't get me wrong, I love my country but I hate ppl ruling it to ashes It's a process, you don't change from corrupt mess to norway in one day Painfull process, and probably can't be affected from inside without any additional damage I dont think corruption can be fought by anything but the people of that country. Its not like some other country will invade yours to stop corruption or anything. Other countries simply dont care (the leaders anyways). They just want trade deals, military cooperation and somebody to back them up in global political debates. They dont care which person is ruling your country as long as that person agrees with them. ye, I think we have to deal with our role, some lands inbetween EU and Russia and it was not about invading, all the financial credits given to Ukraine seems like already divided and stolen, citizens never felt em But what are other countries supposed to do? Watch everything the politicians do with their money? That would be controversial as fuck.
Give politicians less power, make governments smaller.
|
On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense.
This was the part I was missing. Thank you. I'm sceptical based on the clientele I meet through work (but they are a selected sub-group of the unemployed) that it's really going to work, but should be interesting.
|
I too am skeptical of the viability of UBI - among other things, it seems to run at least somewhat contrary to economic incentives as I learned them - but I'm interested in seeing if, in a live test, it would work out reasonably well.
|
On September 28 2016 23:42 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense. This was the part I was missing. Thank you. I'm sceptical based on the clientele I meet through work (but they are a selected sub-group of the unemployed) that it's really going to work, but should be interesting.
Do you find the current system effective? In the UK we have plenty of people who successfully abuse the benefits system. And if they are eventually forced into work it tends to be in the least productive roles possible. More a punishment than actually adding to the workforce.
I think it will be fascinating to see how the ideological root of UBI translates into reality. Will people exploit it to live in slovenly subsistence, or will they embrace their newfound freedom from jobsearching pressures and redirect efforts into things they care about? If they do, their productivity is likely to be much higher than if they're forced into some artificial internship just for the sake of it.
|
One main benefit would also be... You could scrap like half, if not more, the workforce of the social security agencies. BIG MONEY could be safed.
I doubt it will work, but i sure wish for it to work.
|
On September 28 2016 23:28 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 23:02 RoomOfMush wrote:On September 28 2016 22:10 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On September 28 2016 22:03 RoomOfMush wrote:On September 28 2016 21:51 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On September 28 2016 21:46 Sent. wrote:On September 28 2016 21:33 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:I wish EU can somehow affect on local polititians, cause they're also corrupted as previous pro-russian currency infuence, prices much higher, salaries remains the same, taxes higher, our president meanwhile build around 10 new candy shops in my city and russian military forces not far away from eastern borders don't get me wrong, I love my country but I hate ppl ruling it to ashes It's a process, you don't change from corrupt mess to norway in one day Painfull process, and probably can't be affected from inside without any additional damage I dont think corruption can be fought by anything but the people of that country. Its not like some other country will invade yours to stop corruption or anything. Other countries simply dont care (the leaders anyways). They just want trade deals, military cooperation and somebody to back them up in global political debates. They dont care which person is ruling your country as long as that person agrees with them. ye, I think we have to deal with our role, some lands inbetween EU and Russia and it was not about invading, all the financial credits given to Ukraine seems like already divided and stolen, citizens never felt em But what are other countries supposed to do? Watch everything the politicians do with their money? That would be controversial as fuck. Give politicians less power, make governments smaller.
if it could be a button to turn it on
the whole situation around is contraversial tho :D
|
On September 28 2016 23:28 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 23:02 RoomOfMush wrote:On September 28 2016 22:10 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On September 28 2016 22:03 RoomOfMush wrote:On September 28 2016 21:51 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On September 28 2016 21:46 Sent. wrote:On September 28 2016 21:33 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:I wish EU can somehow affect on local polititians, cause they're also corrupted as previous pro-russian currency infuence, prices much higher, salaries remains the same, taxes higher, our president meanwhile build around 10 new candy shops in my city and russian military forces not far away from eastern borders don't get me wrong, I love my country but I hate ppl ruling it to ashes It's a process, you don't change from corrupt mess to norway in one day Painfull process, and probably can't be affected from inside without any additional damage I dont think corruption can be fought by anything but the people of that country. Its not like some other country will invade yours to stop corruption or anything. Other countries simply dont care (the leaders anyways). They just want trade deals, military cooperation and somebody to back them up in global political debates. They dont care which person is ruling your country as long as that person agrees with them. ye, I think we have to deal with our role, some lands inbetween EU and Russia and it was not about invading, all the financial credits given to Ukraine seems like already divided and stolen, citizens never felt em But what are other countries supposed to do? Watch everything the politicians do with their money? That would be controversial as fuck. Give politicians less power, make governments smaller.
Yeah right, cause its better to have corrupt businesses instead of corrupt politicians. Just giving things a different name is not going to solve any problems.
There is people who fight to gain power, and once they obtained their power they use it to keep power. And then there is people who complain the bad guys have all the power but they dont do much to change it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
