EPTOn February 21 2017 05:06 LegalLord wrote:
Russia's envoy to the UN just died of a heart attack in New York.
Russia's envoy to the UN just died of a heart attack in New York.
Here is hoping it really was a heart attack.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 674
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22051 Posts
Here is hoping it really was a heart attack. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On February 21 2017 07:50 Gorsameth wrote: Here is hoping it really was a heart attack. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1974 Posts
The far-right xenophobic movements are incredibly strong in the USA, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, where very few refugees have been taken in compared to the Nordic countries and central Europe (source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911 ). Trump, Le Pen, Salvini, and Wilders are considerably stronger and more supported than their corresponding party leaders Petry, Åkesson, etc. That's because the welfare states in the former four countries have been handily hampered by neoliberal (some might say 'social Darwinist') economic policies for the past two-three decades, whereas ironically countries like Germany and Sweden have sustained or increased their welfare state despite a greater influx of refugees. This strongly points to Muslims being a scapegoat for a frustrated and impoverished electorate. | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
On February 22 2017 00:23 LightSpectra wrote: Sorry to go back to the Muslim argument, but I just want to point out one thing. The far-right xenophobic movements are incredibly strong in the USA, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, where very few refugees have been taken in compared to the Nordic countries and central Europe (source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911 ). Trump, Le Pen, Salvini, and Wilders are considerably stronger and more supported than their corresponding party leaders Petry, Åkesson, etc. That's because the welfare states in the former four countries have been handily hampered by neoliberal (some might say 'social Darwinist') economic policies for the past two-three decades, whereas ironically countries like Germany and Sweden have sustained or increased their welfare state despite a greater influx of refugees. This strongly points to Muslims being a scapegoat for a frustrated and impoverished electorate. I dispute the claim that for the past decades, we have increased our welfare state here in germany. The Hartz-reforms in the early 2000's have greatly reduced the benefits in particular of (medium-to-long-duration) unemployed people. Since then all changes are mostly give-and-take stuff. Maybe it is still better here when compared to many of the other countries you mentioned, and this might be what really matters. I dont know. But I dont think there has been a relevant increase in the welfare state in germany ever since I started caring about politics. Any other opinions? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18845 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10834 Posts
Muslims are scapegoats, people that don't have many "foreigners" around them because they live in rural (not necessarily poor) areas are prooven to be more anti-immigrant. Not that the policy at the moment is good, but the people screaming about it don't even deal with it. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On February 22 2017 00:23 LightSpectra wrote: Sorry to go back to the Muslim argument, but I just want to point out one thing. The far-right xenophobic movements are incredibly strong in the USA, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, where very few refugees have been taken in compared to the Nordic countries and central Europe (source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911 ). Trump, Le Pen, Salvini, and Wilders are considerably stronger and more supported than their corresponding party leaders Petry, Åkesson, etc. That's because the welfare states in the former four countries have been handily hampered by neoliberal (some might say 'social Darwinist') economic policies for the past two-three decades, whereas ironically countries like Germany and Sweden have sustained or increased their welfare state despite a greater influx of refugees. This strongly points to Muslims being a scapegoat for a frustrated and impoverished electorate. That has been my perception as well. I don't know what the specific cause of the economic problems is, but looking at the few statistics I've seen regarding this, I've had a hard time pinning that on immigrants or refugees. I doubt that it matters who lives in a country, as long as there's work for them and they pay fair taxes on decent wages, etc. I've chosen to blame the banks, multinationals, lobbyists and a government obedient to those entities. Some people blame the EU that's being dominated by Germany, but I'm inclined to think that's another externalized scapegoat. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6261 Posts
On February 22 2017 00:23 LightSpectra wrote: Sorry to go back to the Muslim argument, but I just want to point out one thing. The far-right xenophobic movements are incredibly strong in the USA, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, where very few refugees have been taken in compared to the Nordic countries and central Europe (source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911 ). Trump, Le Pen, Salvini, and Wilders are considerably stronger and more supported than their corresponding party leaders Petry, Åkesson, etc. That's because the welfare states in the former four countries have been handily hampered by neoliberal (some might say 'social Darwinist') economic policies for the past two-three decades, whereas ironically countries like Germany and Sweden have sustained or increased their welfare state despite a greater influx of refugees. This strongly points to Muslims being a scapegoat for a frustrated and impoverished electorate. The government in France spends more as percentage of GDP than Sweden does (56,1% vs 51.2%). Both Italy and The Ntherlands are very close to Sweden (49.8%) and higher than Germany (45,4%). I don't see how the evidence supports your view. Even the US government still spends 40% of GDP. Our welfare state is still massive and almost as big as Sweden's. Dutch welfare spending is still more than €150 billion a year (75 billion for healthcare and 78 billion for social security), that's more than half our government spending. The Nordic countries have also (Sweden in particular) greatly liberalised since the 1980's. The third way policies of Sweden in the 80s have been dropped a long time ago due to their failure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/prinsjesdag/inhoud/miljoenennota-rijksbegroting-en-troonrede/huishoudboekje | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1974 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On February 22 2017 01:41 farvacola wrote: One needn't assign an absolute value to the terms being used; even if Germany's welfare system hasn't "increased" in the sense that it hasn't grown beyond prior levels of coverage, it has maintained pace with its population at a far better rate than the US or France. The US welfare reforms of the 90s, to contrast, gutted coverage across the board and gave states a ton of discretion when it comes to reimbursements and eligibility requirements, whereas Germany allows for relatively little differentiation among its states iirc? Yes, there's a so called "Länderfinanzausgleich" (state equalisation payment) that's supposed to close the gap between good and bad performing states somewhat, and there has of course been lots of federal investment into the ex East German states since reunification which without a doubt has prevented some larger social problems. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On February 22 2017 00:23 LightSpectra wrote: Sorry to go back to the Muslim argument, but I just want to point out one thing. The far-right xenophobic movements are incredibly strong in the USA, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, where very few refugees have been taken in compared to the Nordic countries and central Europe (source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911 ). Trump, Le Pen, Salvini, and Wilders are considerably stronger and more supported than their corresponding party leaders Petry, Åkesson, etc. That's because the welfare states in the former four countries have been handily hampered by neoliberal (some might say 'social Darwinist') economic policies for the past two-three decades, whereas ironically countries like Germany and Sweden have sustained or increased their welfare state despite a greater influx of refugees. This strongly points to Muslims being a scapegoat for a frustrated and impoverished electorate. The rise of PEDIGA and AfD in Germany and anti-immigration parties in Sweden kind of refutes your claim though. Increasing opposition to muslim immigration has become quite a commonplace thing in the EU, aggravated by the fact that both mainstream political parties both on the left and right, and muslim groups incessantly hammer on what makes them different from the others instead of what unites them. Le Pen has been going strong in France for well over a decade, and so has Wilders. Both have a talent for making sure the spotlight is always on them. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1974 Posts
The FN was actually incredibly weak in France until somewhat recently. Marine really cleaned up the party's reputation a lot, now they're polling in the 30% ranges instead of the 10% range that was common when her father was in charge. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
I still don't understand how Wilders can collect any significant amounts of votes though, the man is disgusting. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6261 Posts
On February 22 2017 02:30 LightSpectra wrote: "Percentage of GDP" is a meaningless measure. What counts are the actual benefits that the middle- and lower-class get. By that metric France and the Netherlands are a lot worse off than Germany and Sweden. Do you have any evidence for this? The Netherlands is highly progessive with a top tax rate of 52%, wealth tax, property tax etc. Our income inequality hasn't budget for a ages now. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
If you start living like a poor student, but without the public transport ticket that comes with it. I had to live on that while being unemployed for 3 months last year and you're basically restricted to existing, i.e. food and drink. Mabye once in the movies or half a seat in the theatre per month. If you're lucky your favourite sports activity is for free or your club has cheap rates, otherwise you're fucked. Imagine paying 10% of your monthly income for public transport... If your washing machine breaks or you need new shoes, you better find a good used pair (which is fine and possible imo but only if by choice). It is better than nothing, no fucking doubt about that. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
Poland’s foreign minister said disputed changes made to the Constitutional Tribunal had strengthened rule of law. This was in response to recommendations made by the European Commission in December to restore checks and balances “This case is closed,” Witold Waszczykowski told Radio 3 on February 21. The government’s response was “a courtesy” to show “we’re in dialog” with the commission, he said. As reported by Bloomberg, if the European Commission is not satisfied with Poland’s answers, it has the right to use Article 7 of the bloc’s treaty to potentially seek sanctions including the suspension of voting rights. “The current political argument around the Constitutional Tribunal can’t be the basis of claiming that the rule of law is threatened in Poland,” the government in Warsaw said in the February 20 response. Strengthening the rule of law, including building “a stable basis for the functioning of the Constitutional Tribunal is the government’s most important goal,” it said. The Commission confirmed it had received the Polish response and would study it. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On February 22 2017 03:52 Nyxisto wrote: I still don't understand how Wilders can collect any significant amounts of votes though, the man is disgusting. Can you point me to things he has done to make you feel this way? I'm also curious to hear about where Le Pen has overstepped the mark if anyone has examples (her specifically, not her father or party). | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
Mélenchon is a boss ;o. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1974 Posts
On February 22 2017 03:56 RvB wrote: Do you have any evidence for this? The Netherlands is highly progessive with a top tax rate of 52%, wealth tax, property tax etc. Our income inequality hasn't budget for a ages now. Income equality isn't the issue here. The issue is whether the middle- and lower-classes are worse off now than they were about two decades ago. In the Netherlands, unemployment shot up during 2013-2014. It's going back down now but looking at polling data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Dutch_general_election,_2017 2013-14 is precisely when Geert Wilders' party started to reach alarming levels in the polls. I think if the ruling party had another 2 years, Wilders would drop back down. It's unfortunate that he's still riding the crest of populist dissatisfaction on the election year. On February 22 2017 21:44 bardtown wrote: Can you point me to things he has done to make you feel this way? I'm also curious to hear about where Le Pen has overstepped the mark if anyone has examples (her specifically, not her father or party). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/06/dutch-far-right-leader-geert-wilders-tweets-a-fake-image-of-a-rival-with-a-shariah-for-the-netherlands-sign/ | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On February 22 2017 01:41 farvacola wrote: One needn't assign an absolute value to the terms being used; even if Germany's welfare system hasn't "increased" in the sense that it hasn't grown beyond prior levels of coverage, it has maintained pace with its population at a far better rate than the US or France. The US welfare reforms of the 90s, to contrast, gutted coverage across the board and gave states a ton of discretion when it comes to reimbursements and eligibility requirements, whereas Germany allows for relatively little differentiation among its states iirc? How do you know that? You're right, but why do you know this? | ||
| ||
