|
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 December 05 2016 09:29 LegalLord wrote: I lose track of who is the PM of Italy because they just keep changing so often. They're cycling through them as fas as late Roman emperors.
Oh, it's not that bad. Some of those Roman emperors were crazy dudes who were all about the money and the orgies. At least there's none of that anymore.
|
You must have missed Berlusconi
|
On December 05 2016 09:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Then why is everyone panicked about the EU then?
Not because Italy might leave, but because their banks (or the 3rd biggest bank in particular) are already in trouble, and they already have huge debt, and the uncertainty that may come with re-elections might make them collapse.
And that is obviously bad news for the EU. Fingers crossed they keep their shit together.
|
On December 05 2016 07:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 07:09 RvB wrote:On December 05 2016 06:43 Nyxisto wrote:On December 05 2016 06:15 RvB wrote:On December 05 2016 05:21 Yoav wrote:On December 05 2016 03:56 Incognoto wrote:On December 05 2016 03:52 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:31 Noizhende wrote: btw we have the first green party president in the world now i think.
Not sure that's a good thing. Given their general semi-fringe status they aren't very standardized but in general, the Greens in every country always strike me as the epitome of the things that people dislike about leftists. In a way they are "the bad kind of liberals." What kind of liberals are you talking about? The European kind which is right wing, or the American kind which is left wing? Serious question. Honestly, I see "liberal" as becoming more and more of a defined concept shared across the Atlantic. In the US, you increasingly have a threefold division: reactionaries (Tea Party, alt-Right, whatever you want to call that), liberals (everything from Mitt Romney to Cory Booker), and "Progressives" (Warren, Sanders, etc.) Europe has basically the same categories, though their term "Socialist" is equivalent to the American "Progressive" (which actually makes good historical sense) and calling the reactionaries "Far Right" or something like that. Not that this clarity is a good thing exactly... last time the West was divided up in this way, we fought a series of bloody wars--and one Cold One--to resolve the matter. Though not well enough, I'm afraid. Not at all. While liberals on both sides of the Atlantic share some things in common there are too many things where they're on opposite sides of the spectrum. The difference is especially large in what is considered the appropriate role of government (government is a force for good vs a necessary evil). Someone like Hillary Clinton would never be considerd a liberal (although no socialist either). It's quite accurate. Liberal is becoming a broader term in the sense of "post war liberal international order" which is pretty much under attack from both fringes of the political spectrum. Hillary Clinton could easily pass as a liberal in any country that has also embraced third way social democracy. That's not Liberalism. Liberalism is a particular political ideology focused on liberty. If you want a word that describes the post war liberal world order that's fine but it's not liberalism. Hillary Clinton is not a liberal with her statist and anti trade views. What anti-trade views? She was quite pro-trade until the country took a decidedly anti-trade position on the issue and she flipped her position. Flip flop or not she clearly was against TPP in her election programme. Even if its just for electoral reasons she took an anti trade stance.
I think the panic about this referendum is way overblown. This is not some anti EU vote. I would've voted no if I were Italian and I'm pretty pro EU.
|
On December 05 2016 16:30 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 07:17 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 07:09 RvB wrote:On December 05 2016 06:43 Nyxisto wrote:On December 05 2016 06:15 RvB wrote:On December 05 2016 05:21 Yoav wrote:On December 05 2016 03:56 Incognoto wrote:On December 05 2016 03:52 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:31 Noizhende wrote: btw we have the first green party president in the world now i think.
Not sure that's a good thing. Given their general semi-fringe status they aren't very standardized but in general, the Greens in every country always strike me as the epitome of the things that people dislike about leftists. In a way they are "the bad kind of liberals." What kind of liberals are you talking about? The European kind which is right wing, or the American kind which is left wing? Serious question. Honestly, I see "liberal" as becoming more and more of a defined concept shared across the Atlantic. In the US, you increasingly have a threefold division: reactionaries (Tea Party, alt-Right, whatever you want to call that), liberals (everything from Mitt Romney to Cory Booker), and "Progressives" (Warren, Sanders, etc.) Europe has basically the same categories, though their term "Socialist" is equivalent to the American "Progressive" (which actually makes good historical sense) and calling the reactionaries "Far Right" or something like that. Not that this clarity is a good thing exactly... last time the West was divided up in this way, we fought a series of bloody wars--and one Cold One--to resolve the matter. Though not well enough, I'm afraid. Not at all. While liberals on both sides of the Atlantic share some things in common there are too many things where they're on opposite sides of the spectrum. The difference is especially large in what is considered the appropriate role of government (government is a force for good vs a necessary evil). Someone like Hillary Clinton would never be considerd a liberal (although no socialist either). It's quite accurate. Liberal is becoming a broader term in the sense of "post war liberal international order" which is pretty much under attack from both fringes of the political spectrum. Hillary Clinton could easily pass as a liberal in any country that has also embraced third way social democracy. That's not Liberalism. Liberalism is a particular political ideology focused on liberty. If you want a word that describes the post war liberal world order that's fine but it's not liberalism. Hillary Clinton is not a liberal with her statist and anti trade views. What anti-trade views? She was quite pro-trade until the country took a decidedly anti-trade position on the issue and she flipped her position. Flip flop or not she clearly was against TPP in her election programme. Even if its just for electoral reasons she took an anti trade stance. I think the panic about this referendum is way overblown. This is not some anti EU vote. I would've voted no if I were Italian and I'm pretty pro EU. Italy does seem to need constitutional reforms quite desperately. I wouldn't dismiss the proposal outright, although that guaranteed majority in parliament for the governing party seems extremely undemocratic. Granted, I haven't looked much at the proposal and don't know the details. I might be understanding it wrong, and it's more like the way most European countries choose their government (thus curbing the power of the president rather than of the parliament).
|
As far as I remember it being explained to me the Italian parlaiment has a crazy amount of ministers and this referendum would have simplified some of the power structure. However it has literally nothing to do with the EU, more centralising power which I can understand why they would vote against. There aren't eurosceptics on these forums there are just anti-EU people taking every negative political movement globally to add crede to some fantasised total collapse. Oh and in particular to justify the UKs brilliant recent decision.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Of all the flashpoints for a wider scale EU collapse, I'd rate Italy as one of the most likely due to a combination of size and financial instability. Italy is too big to bury like Greece and if things go downhill there then the EU is going to be in even more serious trouble.
|
Even reading this thread and using google, I can't understand Italy's referendum was about. I see TheDwf saying "good" but since I don't know if he's being ironic or not, this doesn't help.
Can someone explain in their words what the referendum was about? They don't want something. What don't they want? A stronger government?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It's a pretty convoluted referendum about reforming the legislature and centralizing power that turned into a means to get rid of Renzi when he promised to resign if he lost.
Kind of an odd gambit but that's basically what it was. Of all the odd referenda in recent times this is certainly one of the most bizarre ones.
|
Bad news for Italy. The reform was not perfect, but it was a step in the right direction to allow for more effective and stable governance.
On December 05 2016 08:35 SoSexy wrote:Sorry guys, I promised I would give you insight but ended up watching it live with my parents. Anyways, Italian PM just announced his resignation. Current coverage is: YES 40,5 NO 59,5 And just to look cool: Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 01:30 SoSexy wrote: Hey there, I can provide impressions for the referendum if you want.
The voting will close at 23 CEST. I think we will start to have some results around midnight/one o clock.
I'm posting my predictions just to quote me later and look cool if I got it right: The No will win ranging from 52% to 58%. So not only was your prediction pretty much what everyone else was predicting, but you apparently got it wrong since the No is currently at 59,11%. Congrats, I guess?
|
On December 04 2016 09:02 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 21:16 RvB wrote:On December 03 2016 08:09 TheDwf wrote:On December 03 2016 06:37 RvB wrote:On December 03 2016 06:10 Sent. wrote:On December 03 2016 04:54 Incognoto wrote: We should all retire at 55 years, just like EDF and SNCF! So great working for the state, you're so much more privileged and you're also not private-sector liberal scum.
Life expectancy is longer than before? No problem, the young will pay! 35 hours / week? God please no, let's work less and create less wealth. That will for sure make France great again! Early retirment ages in public sector tend to be bullshit but if I understood correctly Fillon wants to raise the retirement age for everyone (why would you say that before the election btw? sounds reckless) which is bad for blue collar workers since usually human bodies age faster than human minds. People who work in services probably want to work longer but expecting physical workers with no education to work till 65 is uh... problematic. Raising the retirement age will force them to change their jobs to something less profitable unless you'll legally force their employers to keep such flawed workers which is also bad because A) they aren't as productive as younger people and B) younger people can't get their jobs. My country raised the retirement age to 65 recently and that was one of the main reasons why the party responsible for that change lost the elections. If you do that (or promise to do that) don't be surprised when the poorest will tell you to fuck off and cast their vote for Le Pen, Trump or Kaczyński. Yet most countries have a retirement age of 65. Why are they able to make it work but not France or Poland? The question isn't “why wouldn't it work here”. It's a social choice, there is no economic law set in stone somewhere demanding that retirement is to be taken at 65 for all countries. I don't see a problem with older people taking a job where they're less productive. They can take a pay cut in line with their reduced productivity. There's nothing wrong with that. They've already had their most expensive phase in life.
A lower retirement age for women than for men is stupid. Most women live longer and should actually have a higher retirement age. Women have smaller pensions on average because they are paid less and suffer from part-time work and discontinuities more than men. In France, the average pension of a woman is only 58% of the average pension of a man (the gap is a bit smaller for recent generations, but it's still quite large). Rising their legal retirement age would be absolutely ridiculous given how unfair the current situation already is. The situation isn't unfair. Women work less so they get less. In that way pensions work exactly how they should. If you think that it's a problem that women get paid less and work more part time then try to fix that. Trying to fix it via changing the pension system is a bandaid and a terrible one at that. Fun fact: In The Netherlands young women (under 30) make more than young men. This is actually explained by the fact that they're better educated so I think it's fine. Dutch source though. In the long term the wage gap (and in extension the pension gap) will most likely fix itself. www.cbs.nl Key word being “long term”. As Keynes said, “in the long run we are all dead”. It's not even a joke here, the WEF recently calculated that given the current rhythm, equal pay for men and women would be reached in... 2186. Don't know how reliable this calculation is, but at any rate patriarchy isn't going to disappear any time soon. In the meantime I don't see how using “bandaids” so that pensions for retired women aren't atrociously small(er) is “terrible”. You're probably not an aged woman facing the perspective of a shitty pension because of life, so I guess it helps in being indifferent to the issue. This is the problem with liberal thinking, it considers society in an abstract way and individuals in a vacuum, so it misses actual power balances and basic realities. If women work less, it's not (necessarily) because they want it, it's because an oppressive social structure cornered them into depreciated jobs with worse conditions (depreciated for no other reason than “because they're mostly feminized professions”). Thus it makes no sense to hide behind the “but the pension system works like this, rules are rules” precisely because its very functioning reproduces and even amplifies that injustice, which has to be compensated in one way or another. I haven't seen the calculation so I can't really comment extensively but the WEF looks at a worldwide perspective while we're just living in the west.
Only a fraction of the gender pay gap is due to discrimination in the EU and the US.
Some women are paid less than men for doing the same job. This factor only explains a small part of the gender pay gap, due to the effectiveness of the European Union and national legislation.
Specifically, variables have been developed to represent career interruption among workers with specific gender, age, and number of children. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. Yet a part of that 5 - 7% wage gap can also be explained by other factors such as a inferior negotiating skills or a preference for benefits not in wages. The rest is due to individual choice. Some of that is due to culture but saying that an oppressive social structure corners them into making choices leaves out all individual choice and responsibility. It's also leaving out the fact that working part time has some huge benefits not expressed in money like spending time with your children. No shit some women choose to trade work and money for that.
The biggest problem with a lower retirement age for women is that it does nothing to reduce this perceived injustice. A pension is always lower than the wages you received. So when you retire earlier you're only reducing life time earnings making the problem worse instead of better. The way life insurance usually works is that the amount of money you get is based on the amount of premium you paid and the expected time you receive the life insurance. What you're doing by lowering the retirement age is both reducing the amount of premiums you paid in and increasing the expected time the life insurance will have to pay you. You're increasing costs by 2 ways. In the end you'll receive less money yearly. web.archive.org ec.europa.eu
|
Just in case anyone is interested in the Austrian political map.
|
I'm confused. Green is the green party aka the guy who won. Blue is the far right? I have never been to Austria so am completely ignorant but are the green areas the most densely populated? o_o By a very large margin? That map can't be right!?
|
On December 05 2016 19:58 kwizach wrote:Bad news for Italy. The reform was not perfect, but it was a step in the right direction to allow for more effective and stable governance. Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 08:35 SoSexy wrote:Sorry guys, I promised I would give you insight but ended up watching it live with my parents. Anyways, Italian PM just announced his resignation. Current coverage is: YES 40,5 NO 59,5 And just to look cool: On December 05 2016 01:30 SoSexy wrote: Hey there, I can provide impressions for the referendum if you want.
The voting will close at 23 CEST. I think we will start to have some results around midnight/one o clock.
I'm posting my predictions just to quote me later and look cool if I got it right: The No will win ranging from 52% to 58%. So not only was your prediction pretty much what everyone else was predicting, but you apparently got it wrong since the No is currently at 59,11%. Congrats, I guess? 
It was definetely not what everyone else was predicting - at least not the majority of the italian press. If I were off by 1% in every prediction I do in my life? I'd happily accept that. The outcome was way more volatile than what people abroad perceived.
Now, today Renzi will go to the president of the republic and resign. A new PM will be appointed. I will tell you my prediction: Padoan (minister of economy) or Grasso (president of the Senate). I elaborated it yesterday night at 2.00 am, now it's shared by many. Especially because Padoan canceled all the meetings he had today in Bruxelles.
|
On December 05 2016 20:45 MyTHicaL wrote: I'm confused. Green is the green party aka the guy who won. Blue is the far right? I have never been to Austria so am completely ignorant but are the green areas the most densely populated? o_o By a very large margin? That map can't be right!? Well, if big cities are in green, it's perfectly possible. Did you see the same map for Clinton vs Trump in the USA? Mostly red, yet Clinton leads in the popular vote.
|
On December 05 2016 20:45 MyTHicaL wrote: I'm confused. Green is the green party aka the guy who won. Blue is the far right? I have never been to Austria so am completely ignorant but are the green areas the most densely populated? o_o By a very large margin? That map can't be right!?
Vienna, Salzburg, Innsbruck and Graz are all green. Insofar as I remember from geography those are the top 4 cities. In case they're not, Linz, Klagenfurt and Bregenz are also green, and so is Eisenstadt (had never heard of that city before, but it is written in big bold letters).
Basically, every city with big bold letters is green on that map.
And that ties into something I just don't understand in general. I understand the countryside is socially conservative due to demographics. That seems to be a general thing, whether you're in China, Brazil, the US or anywhere in Europe. But Hofer isn't a social conservative. He's all about limiting immigrants. But immigration problems are primarily CITY problems. Immigrants don't go to some farming town in the middle of the Alps. So how come right wing politicians always have their main power bases in rural areas?
|
On December 05 2016 20:45 MyTHicaL wrote: I'm confused. Green is the green party aka the guy who won. Blue is the far right? I have never been to Austria so am completely ignorant but are the green areas the most densely populated? o_o By a very large margin? That map can't be right!?
Yeah, it's the big cities. Van der Bellen won in Vienna (=Wien, upper right), Graz, Linz, Salzburg, Innsbruck all with 60-64%, which are the 5 largest cities. In general he won all nine state capitals. He even won many (most?) rural district capitals, so basically the more densely populated, the higher he won.
On December 05 2016 20:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 20:45 MyTHicaL wrote: I'm confused. Green is the green party aka the guy who won. Blue is the far right? I have never been to Austria so am completely ignorant but are the green areas the most densely populated? o_o By a very large margin? That map can't be right!? Vienna, Salzburg, Innsbruck and Graz are all green. Insofar as I remember from geography those are the top 4 cities. In case they're not, Linz, Klagenfurt and Bregenz are also green, and so is Eisenstadt (had never heard of that city before, but it is written in big bold letters).
Yeah, those are eight of the nine state capitals. In order from biggest to smallest they should be: Vienna, Graz, Linz, Innsbruck, Salzburg, Klagenfurt, Sankt Pölten, Bregenz and Eisenstadt.
|
On December 05 2016 20:46 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 19:58 kwizach wrote:Bad news for Italy. The reform was not perfect, but it was a step in the right direction to allow for more effective and stable governance. On December 05 2016 08:35 SoSexy wrote:Sorry guys, I promised I would give you insight but ended up watching it live with my parents. Anyways, Italian PM just announced his resignation. Current coverage is: YES 40,5 NO 59,5 And just to look cool: On December 05 2016 01:30 SoSexy wrote: Hey there, I can provide impressions for the referendum if you want.
The voting will close at 23 CEST. I think we will start to have some results around midnight/one o clock.
I'm posting my predictions just to quote me later and look cool if I got it right: The No will win ranging from 52% to 58%. So not only was your prediction pretty much what everyone else was predicting, but you apparently got it wrong since the No is currently at 59,11%. Congrats, I guess?  It was definetely not what everyone else was predicting - at least not the majority of the italian press. If I were off by 1% in every prediction I do in my life? I'd happily accept that. The outcome was way more volatile than what people abroad perceived. Now, today Renzi will go to the president of the republic and resign. A new PM will be appointed. I will tell you my prediction: Padoan (minister of economy) or Grasso (president of the Senate). I elaborated it yesterday night at 2.00 am, now it's shared by many. Especially because Padoan canceled all the meetings he had today in Bruxelles. All of the latest polls showed the No would most likely win. Renzi's last hope was high turnout in areas favorable to him and undecided voters swinging his way, but it was much more likely that the No would win it.
|
On December 05 2016 20:53 Acrofales wrote: And that ties into something I just don't understand in general. I understand the countryside is socially conservative due to demographics. That seems to be a general thing, whether you're in China, Brazil, the US or anywhere in Europe. But Hofer isn't a social conservative. He's all about limiting immigrants. But immigration problems are primarily CITY problems. Immigrants don't go to some farming town in the middle of the Alps. So how come right wing politicians always have their main power bases in rural areas?
I guess if there was a simple answer we'd know, but here are my 2cents: They are winning with the older generations, emphasizing traditions and pointing out "how it used to be". People who are left behind in urbanization processes (which has a lot to do with the centers of higher education and new technologies/industries) are more prone to vote for such people. Immigration and crime are just some very easily exploitable phenomenons, because the truth is that there is no "solution", so you can always point out how everyone is "failing". It's not just about immigration, it's about changing industries, changing family portraits and feeling left behind and a different culture.
On the other hand, the people who are flexible, who are higher educated and who are younger and therefore do not have a nostalgic memory of "the good old times" are conglomerated more and more in the cities. That's also where globalization jobs go, so pro-EU, pro-globalism, liberalism (in all forms) is much easier to propagate because their advantages are directly visible.
Additionally, young, lower-educated man which are easy to radicalize, often with a migration past, like people of the Balkans are one of their main target groups. Funny enough, this is one of their exact arguments of failed immigration politics, overproportionally many young man - and they are not imo, that is a problem - are coming. But since people do not decide based on logics, since people hate the right-winged immigrants and only the right-winged politicians offer radical solutions, they vote for them.
|
A more telling map (for the first runoff election which has been invalidated), can be found here: http://zurpolitik.com/2016/05/23/hat-osterreich-gewahlt-eine-karte-nach-bevolkerungsgrose-bpw16/ Also it should be noted that presenting an austrian map simply with such colors as in "who won which district" does not make much sense, as the is no electoral commitee as in the USA. Essentially, the difference between, say, a 60-40 district and a 51-49 district is much more important than the difference between a 51-49 and a 49-51 district. Yet in those maps, the former a both colored the same, but the latter are not. Yes im nitpicking once more, sorry about that.
|
|
|
|