European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 604

On November 29 2016 01:17 LegalLord wrote:
On another note, I do find it kind of interesting how Russia went from "far left paradise" to "far right paradise" since the end of the Soviet Union, despite the fact that it pretty much is exactly as it was back then. We've always communists, strong support for social programs, and a security complex that seems excessive by a Western standard, yet now different parts of it are emphasized in the Westernlands.

On November 29 2016 02:26 LegalLord wrote:
Russian doctrine has always been to work with people who aren't exactly pleasant, as long as they are actually willing to work with Russia. I can tell you that Russians understand perfectly what is wrong with Trump, Farage, Le Pen, and so on. And yet they have some sympathies towards the Russian positions on a lot of issues that are important to them. So Russia gives them some help on their way - money, a place to speak their mind (RT lets a lot of weird people talk on their show about issues they want to talk about), and sometimes as much as a compliment from Putin (as for Trump). Tell me that if you get severely ostracized in your own country, that a few kind words from the leader of a great power wouldn't sway you.

A cynic would call it "useful idiots." I see it more as an alliance of similar goals. Russia supports strange people who support them instead of normal people who actively oppose them. What would you do in a similar scenario, regardless of ideological alignment? Support your enemies, or your sort of wonky potential allies?

On November 29 2016 02:45 LegalLord wrote:

Yes, I'm an actual Russian. I don't live in Russia at the moment (I live in the US) but I do hail from Russia.

Most Russians also don't know English all that well, for what it's worth. And most people who do know English well who are from "Russia" are not of the type who are sympathetic to Russia and Russian interests. Most Russian speakers in the US aren't from Russia in fact - they are from the republics. I am one of the few exceptions in that regard.

On November 29 2016 02:45 LegalLord wrote:

Yes, I'm an actual Russian. I don't live in Russia at the moment (I live in the US) but I do hail from Russia.

Most Russians also don't know English all that well, for what it's worth. And most people who do know English well who are from "Russia" are not of the type who are sympathetic to Russia and Russian interests. Most Russian speakers in the US aren't from Russia in fact - they are from the republics. I am one of the few exceptions in that regard.

On November 29 2016 00:06 Incognoto wrote:


It's called nuclear power. France is already very efficient with its energy, it's quite cheap and CO2 emissions are low. Renewable energy is hardly of primordial importance in France, it's basically the same idiot shit as re-building roads which are already fine. So there goes that.




Lol. This is entirely different from Keynesian policies. That's just holding the super rich (people and companies) accountable. Which is, I entirely agree, absolutely necessary. Naturally what doesn't help is when ministers are responsible for tax evasions themselves. Unfortunately all French politicians are rotten to the core. Would be nice to drain that swamp. At very least, we're agreeing here. However this isn't state intervention in the economy, this is supposed to be normal.




So we should tell Europe to fuck off? Leave Europe? Furthermore, do you think that it is responsible, or a good idea, to gamble on short term economic stimulation, with the losing bet being bankruptcy (like Greece... which didn't go bankrupt while applying austerity measures). Also that debt will have to be repaid in the future. For all your hate on the banksters, you sure are keen to have them tighten their grip on our country.



I'm not really talking about trickle down economy, I'm talking about economic liberties. Economic liberty is normal, sane and healthy. The "rich" pay more taxes than the lower classes, except for of course they don't, they're hiding their money. I'm not talking about the super rich, I'm talking about normal people starting small companies and growing them. The sub-prime crisis an example of the super rich fucking things up but their economic liberty isn't what I'm talking about, they are above the law either way. Banksters (I like the term) are being held more accountable today than before, which is fine.



That's, again, an issue with the richest being above the rules. They aren't playing the same game as you and I. Apple and co are above the law and write off legal fees as normal operation expenses. THAT is an issue, I completely agree. The issue here is not capitalism, the issue is that the richest people and corporations are above the law. If they respected the law then you can have capitalism and it will be the best thing in the world. But they don't and that is your problem. Some guy who invests in his start-up because he has a good idea is not a filthy piece of shit who is looking to exploit slave labor. Doctors and dentists are not hell-spawn. Working and making money is not a sin.



Again, it's not the liberal approach which is the problem here. Liberalism doesn't mean that some people shouldn't follow the law. Companies do hire when they anticipate activity and profit and that is perfectly normal. However what you don't seem to understand is that salaries isn't the problem with companies. Companies have no problems paying big money to people if they're worth the money. However companies do not have the flexibility anymore to lay off people during economic trouble. So they don't hire. That is why CDDs, internships and interim work is so high. Companies don't want to take the risk of hiring people who will end up being liabilities. Nor should they. The first function of a company is to make money, not to employ people.

I do agree that companies should be held accountable to their employees, to an extent. However in France I think it goes too far. You should be able to lay someone off easily without having to pay them a year's worth of salary or going through lengthy administrative procedures. Nor do I think that you should be able to fire someone on a whim and leave them without a job in a day. I think there's a middle ground somewhere to be found.

On November 29 2016 03:13 IgnE wrote:


you shouldn't conflate service industries (dentists and doctors) with "small businesses" selling products. theres a hard cap on income for professionals who sell services. you only have so much time and no one is going to pay you thousands per hour in a market saturated with professionals. its nearly impossible as a professional to make millions per year, for example, unless you own the business and are siphoning money off of new labor blood like law firms do. so when you say, "its not a sin to make money" and run a business, well, it's not so clear. it's impossible to become obscenely wealthy without exploitation and that's just a material fact.

you know if you want to look at "true capitalism," or whatever your utopian liberal dream is here with private industry coming up with new products and services, that analysis was done 150 years ago. Marx's Capital is an analytical description of that perfect, steady state economy that some liberals claim to want. so the starting point should be there, not some vague claims about unleashing human creativity to get real competition. or if you are xmz and casually intimate that cyclic business cycles are not a natural law, at least take schumpeter seriously by providing a real critique. these are not new problems.