|
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. |
I don't understand 90% of what Melanchon is saying, but damn, it sounds good to me 
|
On April 21 2017 21:57 TheDwf wrote:
There is no liberty when you're slave to material necessities.
While this sentence is in vacuum agreeable, you really have to look at the historical context here. I am honestly not aware of details of his positions, but from what I have found on him, he is a kind of a mix of good things (welfare, healthcare, legislative changes, pro-immigration) and bad populism (anti-EU, anti-NATO). However this rhetoric he shows here is dangerously similar to hardcore communism and this motto of yours I quoted is sort of a flagship for where does this thinking go wrong.
I am all for progressive taxation (ironically though, you probably need the EU to feasibly implement them, or the rich will just leave), extended welfare and in general imposing a high level of wealth sharing. But this has to be very carefully balanced with personal liberties. It has to be always understood that "material necessities" are relative and your enslavement to them is highly influenced by how much you are willing to label as necessary, whereas personal freedoms are of fundamental importance and once they are taken away from you by force, you are out of options. Moreover, as we have learned the hard way, once the freedoms are taken from people, it takes a very long time to build back to a society where those can be reinstated.
Freedom of speech may not feed your children, but what is even the point of bringing children to a non-free world? I am not saying Melenchon is gonna install a totality, it doesn't really look like that, I am merely suggesting that this is not such a pro-people rhetoric as it might seem.
|
People are talking about Keynesianism as if France were in a recession. I don't get it.
If indeed there is a demand problem in the French economy then the obvious policy is reducing consumption or income taxes. Who are the candidates advocating that?
|
On April 21 2017 21:57 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 21:11 Ppjack wrote:On April 21 2017 20:51 TheDwf wrote:On April 21 2017 20:18 Ppjack wrote:On April 21 2017 20:10 TheDwf wrote:On April 21 2017 09:06 Ppjack wrote:On April 21 2017 08:58 Danglars wrote:On April 21 2017 06:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 21 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:On April 21 2017 05:25 TheDwf wrote:
[quote]
Fairly sure people are blasé now, not a week goes by without hearing about terrorist attacks here or abroad in some way, one dead isn't enough to trigger significant moves at this point. I hope nothing happens on the voting day though, don't know what would be done then... The interchange between aspects of "terrorist attacks are so rare, why care about something that you stand an insignificant chance of dying from?" and "people are blasé now, not a week goes by without hearing about terrorist attacks here or abroad in some way" is one aspect of divided opinion. Too rare and not rare enough. deaths in traffic are just like that? I don't know anybody who worries particularly about dying in a car accident, yet even in Norway, a country with 5 million inhabitants and one of the lowest rates of fatal car accidents in the world, experience a couple per week. Obviously terrorist attacks are different in the sense that traffic accidents are considered an unfortunate and inevitable consequence of the massive advantage of being able to quickly travel places by car, while it's much harder to find the positive side of terrorist attacks. But even for something that takes 100+ times as many lives as terrorist attacks, it's still a) something you stand an insignificant chance of dying from and b) something you don't care about when it happens. You'll still hear about a massive car crash killing 60 people, but nobody really cares if two people died. And if every survivor of car accidents with fatalities got out and yelled "Allahu Ackbar," maybe I'd be here, agreeing with you about these crazy people who think terrorism and traffic aren't just two rare occurances. We weren't talking about Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, now the Champs-Elysées gunman as recent and deadly events fifteen years ago. You wouldn't be able to remember the last time someone got into a car and plowed down bystanders in Nice. We're talking about three high-profile attacks in two years and a handful of smaller ones. Intent and connection matters, even if we delve into darker depths like preventability. I have a sneaking suspicion if radical Christian terrorists killed over eighty people by car, shot a hundred in Paris, and a dozen in a satirist newsroom, we wouldn't be so quickly leaping to car accident and bathtub analogies. The response is essentially the second confirmation, in the same way we talk about murders different from accidental deaths and hijackings different than airline crashes, but islamic terrorism must be a "something" characterized by raw body count per year like cars. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue; these verbal sleights of hand are paid to acknowledge the fear and weakness. Since death kills more people than terrorism, maybe we should consider stop giving birth to any children in the future. That's a vain rhetoric. Terrorism causes a threat to vivre-ensemble. It just affect the cohesion of any society and should be tackled at its roots. One dead is equally atrocious as 100 deads. We should not be worried about the numbers but about what makes a small proportion of individuals from a particular group or movement act like that. Concerning french politics, Mélenchon vs Le Pen in the second round would be a nightmare. The first one is not fuelled with hatred, but still would lead to a fracturation of the society as surely as Le Pen would, and would cause France to bankrupt and EU to collapse as surely as his female counterpart (pretty much the same economical program). Macron, Hamon and Fillon are the only reasonnable choices and still offer a distinct approach economically and socially, but that at least is not total fantasy. Funny. Literally 50% of the French debt was done while Fillon was governing, including 600 billions when he was Prime minister, yet a basic keynesian program would cause France to bankrupt. Electing a corrupt, lying crook who's now even more rejected/hated than Le Pen and wants a “blitzkrieg” to destroy our social model is a “reasonable choice”. You TINA folks are really a never-ending source of joy. You cannot in the current european system conduct a keynasian policy, while others are still conducting reforms in order to cut their public deficit. And that's the whole point of pragmatism. If you have a monetary union but not an fiscal union, as i mean a harmonized budgetary policy, you have to somewhat not play with fire and go blindly in the spending direction. Hence why he wants social/fiscal harmonization, and the end of concerted austerity. Also even the IMF, hardly known for its “utopian socialist” views, recommends that some countries rise their spending. We all have the ecological transition to do/complete, so it's an opportunity to spend. You can negotiate with investors, not with the planet. Or we can keep going with ““reasonable”” neoliberal policies and wait for the EU to implode, it's already on a good track. None of the spending is “blind,” unlike the current subventions for big business which end up in useless dividends (Macron's “reasonable” policies...). He wants to spend 10 billions on accessibility for disabled persons. Is it blind? 50 billions on renewable energies. Is it blind? Thermal renovation to decrease energy usage, is it blind? That is why more Europe is the solution. But more Europe would come for a political willness. What is obviously stucked in this time of doubt. Exiting the EU because it does not answer the immediate window of opportunity of someone ideology is dangerous. Resoring faith, reworking the link between Europe and its citizens, and the trust betweens states is what every citizen should work on. We have seen the flaws of the EU. It is not because it is flawed that we must leave it. It is because it is flawed that we must better cooperate together to make it work better. In that sense Mélenchon knows he won't achieve fiscal federalism next year. So he knows if he wants to conduct any heavily protectionnist plus keynesian policy he must be freed of the Union. You can have progressive ideas (revenu universel, ethic taxation, ecological sustainabilty, ...) and still lead realistic policies, like Hamon. You don't have to join the bolivarian union to make it work. Mélenchon is in that sense dangerous to any liberal democracy. Liberal as in freedom of indivudals, not as in deregulated jungle market. LOL. Media propaganda works so well, no wonder why billionaires all buy newspapers; best ideological investment ever. Fillon and Macron want to dismantle workers' rights bypassing the Parliament, with no debate, but naturally this is no threat to “liberal democracy”: only, what was the word for it? Ah yes, pragmatism... Mélenchon got the best rating from Amnesty International when it comes to fundamental liberties. Fillon and Macron want permanent state of emergency (520+ days as of now, with of course little to no result). Threats to liberal democracy? They signed contracts with authoritarian/dictatorial regimes—Egypt, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia... and now they lecture Mélenchon about some random point of his program? Oh the irony... Fillon's program would result in recession and hundreds of thousands of extra unemployed persons. Macron's plan is to multiply precarious workers with low wages who self-exploit with a terrible status (Uber drivers are his model). Poverty and inequalities will rise or skyrocket with them. If you speak French you should listen to Mélenchon's speech about liberty in Toulouse. Beautiful refutation of those abstract, ethereal conceptions of liberty. + Show Spoiler [Translation] +Enough with bombastic words about liberty if, after that, you don't precise what you mean exactly with this word and how you will achieve it. (...) To all of you who lecture us, I ask you: what is the liberty of the 100 000 families whose water is cut because they cannot pay the bill?
What is the liberty of the 600 000 families whose electricity or gas is cut?
What is the liberty of the one who sleeps and dies in the street?
What is the liberty of the one in a wheeling chair when buildings are not accessible, whereas we have the means to make everything accessible?
What is the liberty of the families and children affected by autism when no public school can welcome them, and when parents are offered the abomination of the exile of their children?
What is the liberty to choose one's physician when one lives in a medical desert?
What is the liberty of the worker threatened with layoff if he doesn't accept to work on Sundays?
What is the liberty of those who endure the labour bill, which now applies and results in one labor law per company?
What is the liberty of the dozen of trade unionists condemned and jailed while they only defended the common good?
What was the liberty of the Conti [name of a company (Continental) in which a famous social conflict happened], when they were asked to be paid less, to work more, and yet when they did it their factory was still shut down afterwards, illegally, and their trade unionists were persecuted?
What is the liberty of the woman who rises alone her children, juggling with her work schedule?
What is the liberty of the Uber driver who has no sick leave rights?
What is the liberty of the small boss against his ordering customer?
What is the liberty of this people, who said several times NO to your austeritarian European treaties, and to whom you still forcibly imposed them? There is no liberty when you're slave to material necessities.
I'll go in the order of the blacked text to answer your points. As for your last sentence, i share the previous expressed opinion by oppiska. I still respect your philosophical point of view, though i don't share it.
- If you are refering to 49:3, i don't see how this is bad. You know that the regional elections have almost always elected a parliament that does not give the government the majority to conduct his policies. Especially when it comes to reforms. In order to not be in a dictatorship of the parliament, that would lead to a particracy and paralyze any governance, socialists made it possible to bypass it on certain matters by the article 49:3
It is implied that the government is backed by his majority and in that sense not a lack of democracy. If the government would come to vote anything, at any time, witouth backup, they'd be immidiately empeched.
That is just a tool to avoid blocage on important reforms. It has been used in any government in the 5th republic and allows the winner of the elections to conduct reforms, that would otherwise be blocked every time by the opposition. And most of the time for pure electoral agenda of course.
- Amnesty, that i respect, don't predjudge on the feasability of any program. Just on the end and not the means. If i'd say i want everyone to be happy, rich, prosperous and free; i'd probably get the highest rating from them.
I said previously that I don't hate Mélenchon, and respect him. I just find it misleading to think that his ideas are not tainted of populism.
- I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that Fillon's program would be desastrous, or that Hamon want an "uberized" society where every worker would work only when companies need them, with no social rights nor status. That is just straight misinformed.
Altough i respect your fight for a more equal and inclusive society and economy, i don't think leading the people into a revolution of any kind is the way to go.
Changing our way to behave is, individually and by citizen initiative and education. That it'd be for the way to buy, to eat, to entertain ourselves or else.
|
On April 21 2017 20:09 bardtown wrote:
However, I think it is important to understand that a platform like Twitter, Facebook or Youtube is so universal that it is practically infrastructure, and also that governments are putting a huge amount of pressure on these companies. The right, as well as people who criticise immigration, are definitely more penalised on these platforms, I would say. Same applies to universities which should be completely open.
Universities *are* open. What a lot of people miss is the fact that a lot of these ideas that have been shunned have already been gone over. They are old news and have had very convincing arguments made against them, numerous times, to completion. We used to have outdated views of chemistry, physics, biology, maths and many other topics. We've refined since then. Archaic ideas perpetuated by the right had their place at one point. Then we moved forward.
|
On April 21 2017 23:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 20:09 bardtown wrote:
However, I think it is important to understand that a platform like Twitter, Facebook or Youtube is so universal that it is practically infrastructure, and also that governments are putting a huge amount of pressure on these companies. The right, as well as people who criticise immigration, are definitely more penalised on these platforms, I would say. Same applies to universities which should be completely open. Universities *are* open. What a lot of people miss is the fact that a lot of these ideas that have been shunned have already been gone over. They are old news and have had very convincing arguments made against them, numerous times, to completion. We used to have outdated views of chemistry, physics, biology, maths and many other topics. We've refined since then. Archaic ideas perpetuated by the right had their place at one point. Then we moved forward.
This is what leftists actually believe. And it's why you have Trump enjoy.
|
On April 21 2017 23:46 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 23:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 20:09 bardtown wrote:
However, I think it is important to understand that a platform like Twitter, Facebook or Youtube is so universal that it is practically infrastructure, and also that governments are putting a huge amount of pressure on these companies. The right, as well as people who criticise immigration, are definitely more penalised on these platforms, I would say. Same applies to universities which should be completely open. Universities *are* open. What a lot of people miss is the fact that a lot of these ideas that have been shunned have already been gone over. They are old news and have had very convincing arguments made against them, numerous times, to completion. We used to have outdated views of chemistry, physics, biology, maths and many other topics. We've refined since then. Archaic ideas perpetuated by the right had their place at one point. Then we moved forward. This is what leftists actually believe. And it's why you have Trump enjoy.
Are you disputing the idea that a lot of right-wing ideas have been discussed at length throughout history and that decisions were made to abandon them? This post feels more like sticking your tongue out than actual participation. Want to try again?
|
Not letting people speak at universities, if they aren't proven criminals/hate speechers, is just wrong. Wanna protest them? Don't attend.
Radicall leftists truely have it way easier to speak at universities or anywhere in general.
|
On April 21 2017 23:57 Velr wrote:
Not letting people speak at universities, if they aren't proven criminals/hate speechers, is just wrong. Wanna protest them? Don't attend.
Radicall leftists truely have it way easier to speak at universities or anywhere in general.
No doubt about that. But college professors are not advocating for violent silencing of speakers. I subscribe to a lot of leftist ideas, but I'd never consider even protesting someone speaking.
|
On April 21 2017 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 23:46 bardtown wrote:On April 21 2017 23:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 20:09 bardtown wrote:
However, I think it is important to understand that a platform like Twitter, Facebook or Youtube is so universal that it is practically infrastructure, and also that governments are putting a huge amount of pressure on these companies. The right, as well as people who criticise immigration, are definitely more penalised on these platforms, I would say. Same applies to universities which should be completely open. Universities *are* open. What a lot of people miss is the fact that a lot of these ideas that have been shunned have already been gone over. They are old news and have had very convincing arguments made against them, numerous times, to completion. We used to have outdated views of chemistry, physics, biology, maths and many other topics. We've refined since then. Archaic ideas perpetuated by the right had their place at one point. Then we moved forward. This is what leftists actually believe. And it's why you have Trump enjoy. Are you disputing the idea that a lot of right-wing ideas have been discussed at length throughout history and that decisions were made to abandon them? This post feels more like sticking your tongue out than actual participation. Want to try again?
Because your point of view is absolutely laughable, and I know from experience that interacting with people like you yields nothing of worth. If anything has been discussed at length, and tested in practice, in recent history - it's communism. Some hundred million deaths later, it's still prevalent and widely discussed at universities. Try to point out basic numbers relating to the 'wage gap' however, and your event will be shut down.
|
On April 22 2017 00:04 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 23:46 bardtown wrote:On April 21 2017 23:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 20:09 bardtown wrote:
However, I think it is important to understand that a platform like Twitter, Facebook or Youtube is so universal that it is practically infrastructure, and also that governments are putting a huge amount of pressure on these companies. The right, as well as people who criticise immigration, are definitely more penalised on these platforms, I would say. Same applies to universities which should be completely open. Universities *are* open. What a lot of people miss is the fact that a lot of these ideas that have been shunned have already been gone over. They are old news and have had very convincing arguments made against them, numerous times, to completion. We used to have outdated views of chemistry, physics, biology, maths and many other topics. We've refined since then. Archaic ideas perpetuated by the right had their place at one point. Then we moved forward. This is what leftists actually believe. And it's why you have Trump enjoy. Are you disputing the idea that a lot of right-wing ideas have been discussed at length throughout history and that decisions were made to abandon them? This post feels more like sticking your tongue out than actual participation. Want to try again? Because your point of view is absolutely laughable, and I know from experience that interacting with people like you yields nothing of worth. If anything has been discussed at length, and tested in practice, in recent history - it's communism. Some hundred million deaths later, it's still prevalent and widely discussed at universities. Try to point out basic numbers relating to the 'wage gap' however, and your event will be shut down.
So your version of contributing to a conversation is saying someone's ideas are laughable and then equating leftist ideas with communism? Is this your first time discussing complex ideas on the internet? Wage gap? What are you even trying to say here?
|
On April 22 2017 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 00:04 bardtown wrote:On April 21 2017 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 23:46 bardtown wrote:On April 21 2017 23:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 20:09 bardtown wrote:
However, I think it is important to understand that a platform like Twitter, Facebook or Youtube is so universal that it is practically infrastructure, and also that governments are putting a huge amount of pressure on these companies. The right, as well as people who criticise immigration, are definitely more penalised on these platforms, I would say. Same applies to universities which should be completely open. Universities *are* open. What a lot of people miss is the fact that a lot of these ideas that have been shunned have already been gone over. They are old news and have had very convincing arguments made against them, numerous times, to completion. We used to have outdated views of chemistry, physics, biology, maths and many other topics. We've refined since then. Archaic ideas perpetuated by the right had their place at one point. Then we moved forward. This is what leftists actually believe. And it's why you have Trump enjoy. Are you disputing the idea that a lot of right-wing ideas have been discussed at length throughout history and that decisions were made to abandon them? This post feels more like sticking your tongue out than actual participation. Want to try again? Because your point of view is absolutely laughable, and I know from experience that interacting with people like you yields nothing of worth. If anything has been discussed at length, and tested in practice, in recent history - it's communism. Some hundred million deaths later, it's still prevalent and widely discussed at universities. Try to point out basic numbers relating to the 'wage gap' however, and your event will be shut down. So your version of contributing to a conversation is saying someone's ideas are laughable and then equating leftist ideas with communism? Is this your first time discussing complex ideas on the internet? Wage gap? What are you even trying to say here?
When did I equate leftist ideas to communism? Communism is an extreme left position, though. What I am explaining to you is that the worst ideas in the world are still actively discussed on university campuses. There is no reason to shut down right wing conversations that people on the right want to have. Any university that does that is selling out its values.
|
On April 21 2017 20:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 20:27 Ppjack wrote:
Btw i had to google TINA. I am impressed once again that you come directly to this conclusion and try to categorize me. I don't vote Fillon, neither am I ultra liberal. I just make a case for common sense. An economic program, and thus economic policies, must be sustainable. That their orientation is liberal or socialist tainted is another question.
You cannot rule with utopia. Or you can, but history showed you multiple times what could be the cost of it. I am not jumping in this train. Fillon's program is certainly not more sustainable than Hamon's or Macron's. It just happens to target the poor and immigrants. As a PM, he hasn't done particularly well with the question of the debt. In fact he has basically doubled it. Most serious analysts agree that France has a problem of demand, not of supply. Even the IMF says so. The LR and in a certain extent the socialists have believed for two decades that supply side economics would save us, and made one present after another to corporations, while those same corporations in fact complain they have nobody to sell their shit too. When on top of that, your program will make people even less likely to buy anything because you hammer them by destroying social security and lowering social minimas, you are the one driving us to a wall. Hollande (and actually Macron) big economics move has been the "pact de responsabilité", which has poored hundred of millions into reducing taxation on businesses and hoping that those would start hiring. Well they haven't, and that money has been lost. You don't hire if there is no demand. I'm not saying that we should throw money by the window and go full Melenchon. But right wing economic programs can be completely unrealistic when they miss what the problem is and propose to just keep pooring money in a private sector that is starved by low demand while making sure the later doesn't ever get better (actually gets much worse in the case of Fillon). I don't buy Melenchon's program, but in a way it's probably more realistic than Fillon's. Of the four serious contendents is the most delusional candidate on economics, by very far.
No that's not what the IMF is saying at all. This is what the IMF says on unemployment:
Structural unemployment in France has long been elevated, and appears to have edged up further since the crisis. This reflects both demand and supply factors, including: high labor taxes, wage stickiness, a growing skill gap, hysteresis effects from the crisis years, a lengthy period of elevated economic uncertainty, inactivity traps created by the unemployment and welfare benefit systems, and demographic factors that have pushed up the labor force.
http://worksim.lip6.fr/cr16228.pdf
And this on the economy in general
Despite the cyclical recovery, structural rigidities and slower productivity growth across advanced countries weigh on medium-term prospects. Apart from regulations in the services sector and the high tax burden, a key obstacle to growth remains the labor market, where structural unemployment is projected to remain high in the absence of additional reforms.
The government has continued to advance important reforms to help create the conditions for improved economic performance. These include most notably thereduction in taxes under thePacte de Responsabilité et de Solidarité and the Crédit d'Impôt pour la Compétitivité et l'Emploi (CICE) and the competition-enhancing structural reforms under the Macron law.
Directors supported the government’s expenditure based fiscal consolidation strategy, which aims to secure medium term sustainability while limiting the short term drag on aggregate demand. They noted, however, that structural fiscal adjustment is slowing and that more ambitious efforts to keep government spending flat in real terms would help achieve medium term fiscal targets and a durable reduction in public debt.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2016/pr16333.htm
I see a lot of things in favour of supply side reforms here. I don't know where you got your information from but it's incomplete at best.
On April 21 2017 22:41 warding wrote:
People are talking about Keynesianism as if France were in a recession. I don't get it.
If indeed there is a demand problem in the French economy then the obvious policy is reducing consumption or income taxes. Who are the candidates advocating that?
Indeed. If they were actually following Keynesian they would be in favour of reducing deficits instead of increasing them with increased growth. They're walking right into the same trap that brought us into the debt crisis. Increasing deficits and government expenditure, reducing the fiscal cushion that is available and then when the next crisis hits there is no actual room for Keynesian stimulus. We've seen the effects of a fiscal stimulus while being loaded with debt in 2009 and it led right into the euro crisis.
|
On April 22 2017 00:09 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 22 2017 00:04 bardtown wrote:On April 21 2017 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 23:46 bardtown wrote:On April 21 2017 23:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 20:09 bardtown wrote:
However, I think it is important to understand that a platform like Twitter, Facebook or Youtube is so universal that it is practically infrastructure, and also that governments are putting a huge amount of pressure on these companies. The right, as well as people who criticise immigration, are definitely more penalised on these platforms, I would say. Same applies to universities which should be completely open. Universities *are* open. What a lot of people miss is the fact that a lot of these ideas that have been shunned have already been gone over. They are old news and have had very convincing arguments made against them, numerous times, to completion. We used to have outdated views of chemistry, physics, biology, maths and many other topics. We've refined since then. Archaic ideas perpetuated by the right had their place at one point. Then we moved forward. This is what leftists actually believe. And it's why you have Trump enjoy. Are you disputing the idea that a lot of right-wing ideas have been discussed at length throughout history and that decisions were made to abandon them? This post feels more like sticking your tongue out than actual participation. Want to try again? Because your point of view is absolutely laughable, and I know from experience that interacting with people like you yields nothing of worth. If anything has been discussed at length, and tested in practice, in recent history - it's communism. Some hundred million deaths later, it's still prevalent and widely discussed at universities. Try to point out basic numbers relating to the 'wage gap' however, and your event will be shut down. So your version of contributing to a conversation is saying someone's ideas are laughable and then equating leftist ideas with communism? Is this your first time discussing complex ideas on the internet? Wage gap? What are you even trying to say here? When did I equate leftist ideas to communism? Communism is an extreme left position, though. What I am explaining to you is that the worst ideas in the world are still actively discussed on university campuses. There is no reason to shut down right wing conversations that people on the right want to have. Any university that does that is selling out its values.
If you're talking about ANTIFA, you won't see any disagreement from me. I doubt any left-leaning posters here support ANTIFA at all. ANTIFA is seriously bad and causes a lot of violence wherever they go. I am not saying it is right to cancel ring-wing speakers. No one is saying it is appropriate to shut down right-wing speakers. I will say that whenever ANTIFA is involved, it is worthwhile to make sure they are not involved.
I honestly don't know what the ring thing for Berkeley to do is. When large groups are going to attempt to inspire violence to their fullest ability, you've kinda got your hands tied. I am not going to pretend I understand the legality associated with trying to get campus police to get rid of ANTIFA. I'm just assuming you're talking about ANTIFA-muddied protests. Is that what you mean, or is there something else?
|
On April 22 2017 00:09 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 20:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 21 2017 20:27 Ppjack wrote:
Btw i had to google TINA. I am impressed once again that you come directly to this conclusion and try to categorize me. I don't vote Fillon, neither am I ultra liberal. I just make a case for common sense. An economic program, and thus economic policies, must be sustainable. That their orientation is liberal or socialist tainted is another question.
You cannot rule with utopia. Or you can, but history showed you multiple times what could be the cost of it. I am not jumping in this train. Fillon's program is certainly not more sustainable than Hamon's or Macron's. It just happens to target the poor and immigrants. As a PM, he hasn't done particularly well with the question of the debt. In fact he has basically doubled it. Most serious analysts agree that France has a problem of demand, not of supply. Even the IMF says so. The LR and in a certain extent the socialists have believed for two decades that supply side economics would save us, and made one present after another to corporations, while those same corporations in fact complain they have nobody to sell their shit too. When on top of that, your program will make people even less likely to buy anything because you hammer them by destroying social security and lowering social minimas, you are the one driving us to a wall. Hollande (and actually Macron) big economics move has been the "pact de responsabilité", which has poored hundred of millions into reducing taxation on businesses and hoping that those would start hiring. Well they haven't, and that money has been lost. You don't hire if there is no demand. I'm not saying that we should throw money by the window and go full Melenchon. But right wing economic programs can be completely unrealistic when they miss what the problem is and propose to just keep pooring money in a private sector that is starved by low demand while making sure the later doesn't ever get better (actually gets much worse in the case of Fillon). I don't buy Melenchon's program, but in a way it's probably more realistic than Fillon's. Of the four serious contendents is the most delusional candidate on economics, by very far. No that's not what the IMF is saying at all. This is what the IMF says on unemployment: Show nested quote +Structural unemployment in France has long been elevated, and appears to have edged up further since the crisis. This reflects both demand and supply factors, including: high labor taxes, wage stickiness, a growing skill gap, hysteresis effects from the crisis years, a lengthy period of elevated economic uncertainty, inactivity traps created by the unemployment and welfare benefit systems, and demographic factors that have pushed up the labor force. http://worksim.lip6.fr/cr16228.pdfAnd this on the economy in general Show nested quote +Despite the cyclical recovery, structural rigidities and slower productivity growth across advanced countries weigh on medium-term prospects. Apart from regulations in the services sector and the high tax burden, a key obstacle to growth remains the labor market, where structural unemployment is projected to remain high in the absence of additional reforms. Show nested quote +The government has continued to advance important reforms to help create the conditions for improved economic performance. These include most notably thereduction in taxes under thePacte de Responsabilité et de Solidarité and the Crédit d'Impôt pour la Compétitivité et l'Emploi (CICE) and the competition-enhancing structural reforms under the Macron law. Show nested quote +Directors supported the government’s expenditure based fiscal consolidation strategy, which aims to secure medium term sustainability while limiting the short term drag on aggregate demand. They noted, however, that structural fiscal adjustment is slowing and that more ambitious efforts to keep government spending flat in real terms would help achieve medium term fiscal targets and a durable reduction in public debt. http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2016/pr16333.htmI see a lot of things in favour of supply side reforms here. I don't know where you got your information from but it's incomplete at best. Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 22:41 warding wrote:
People are talking about Keynesianism as if France were in a recession. I don't get it.
If indeed there is a demand problem in the French economy then the obvious policy is reducing consumption or income taxes. Who are the candidates advocating that? Indeed. If they were actually following Keynesian they would be in favour of reducing deficits instead of increasing them with increased growth. They're walking right into the same trap that brought us into the debt crisis. Increasing deficits and government expenditure, reducing the fiscal cushion that is available and then when the next crisis hits there is no actual room for Keynesian stimulus. We've seen the effects of a fiscal stimulus while being loaded with debt in 2009 and it led right into the euro crisis.
You might want to give credit to the three (Hamon, Macron, Fillon) candidates that aknowledge that reducing public deficit (though they differ on the means) is the absolute priority.
|
On April 22 2017 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 00:09 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 22 2017 00:04 bardtown wrote:On April 21 2017 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 23:46 bardtown wrote:On April 21 2017 23:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 20:09 bardtown wrote:
However, I think it is important to understand that a platform like Twitter, Facebook or Youtube is so universal that it is practically infrastructure, and also that governments are putting a huge amount of pressure on these companies. The right, as well as people who criticise immigration, are definitely more penalised on these platforms, I would say. Same applies to universities which should be completely open. Universities *are* open. What a lot of people miss is the fact that a lot of these ideas that have been shunned have already been gone over. They are old news and have had very convincing arguments made against them, numerous times, to completion. We used to have outdated views of chemistry, physics, biology, maths and many other topics. We've refined since then. Archaic ideas perpetuated by the right had their place at one point. Then we moved forward. This is what leftists actually believe. And it's why you have Trump enjoy. Are you disputing the idea that a lot of right-wing ideas have been discussed at length throughout history and that decisions were made to abandon them? This post feels more like sticking your tongue out than actual participation. Want to try again? Because your point of view is absolutely laughable, and I know from experience that interacting with people like you yields nothing of worth. If anything has been discussed at length, and tested in practice, in recent history - it's communism. Some hundred million deaths later, it's still prevalent and widely discussed at universities. Try to point out basic numbers relating to the 'wage gap' however, and your event will be shut down. So your version of contributing to a conversation is saying someone's ideas are laughable and then equating leftist ideas with communism? Is this your first time discussing complex ideas on the internet? Wage gap? What are you even trying to say here? When did I equate leftist ideas to communism? Communism is an extreme left position, though. What I am explaining to you is that the worst ideas in the world are still actively discussed on university campuses. There is no reason to shut down right wing conversations that people on the right want to have. Any university that does that is selling out its values. If you're talking about ANTIFA, you won't see any disagreement from me. I doubt any left-leaning posters here support ANTIFA at all. ANTIFA is seriously bad and causes a lot of violence wherever they go. I am not saying it is right to cancel ring-wing speakers. No one is saying it is appropriate to shut down right-wing speakers. I will say that whenever ANTIFA is involved, it is worthwhile to make sure they are not involved. I honestly don't know what the ring thing for Berkeley to do is. When large groups are going to attempt to inspire violence to their fullest ability, you've kinda got your hands tied. I am not going to pretend I understand the legality associated with trying to get campus police to get rid of ANTIFA. I'm just assuming you're talking about ANTIFA-muddied protests. Is that what you mean, or is there something else?
I'm not talking about Berkeley; at least, not specifically. This is the European thread after all. Antifa are the extreme end of a general trend, though. All sorts of speakers have been shut down at universities across the UK (and the US, Canada, Australia, etc) because left wing students don't like their views. Look up the Warren Farrell protest and then watch him speak and see if you can find any justification for their actions. Protest has become a means for shutting down legitimate and reasonable conversation, and it is creating a backlash. People didn't hold 'free speech rallies' before because they didn't feel that their free speech was under threat until recently.
|
On April 22 2017 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 00:09 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 22 2017 00:04 bardtown wrote:On April 21 2017 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 23:46 bardtown wrote:On April 21 2017 23:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 20:09 bardtown wrote:
However, I think it is important to understand that a platform like Twitter, Facebook or Youtube is so universal that it is practically infrastructure, and also that governments are putting a huge amount of pressure on these companies. The right, as well as people who criticise immigration, are definitely more penalised on these platforms, I would say. Same applies to universities which should be completely open. Universities *are* open. What a lot of people miss is the fact that a lot of these ideas that have been shunned have already been gone over. They are old news and have had very convincing arguments made against them, numerous times, to completion. We used to have outdated views of chemistry, physics, biology, maths and many other topics. We've refined since then. Archaic ideas perpetuated by the right had their place at one point. Then we moved forward. This is what leftists actually believe. And it's why you have Trump enjoy. Are you disputing the idea that a lot of right-wing ideas have been discussed at length throughout history and that decisions were made to abandon them? This post feels more like sticking your tongue out than actual participation. Want to try again? Because your point of view is absolutely laughable, and I know from experience that interacting with people like you yields nothing of worth. If anything has been discussed at length, and tested in practice, in recent history - it's communism. Some hundred million deaths later, it's still prevalent and widely discussed at universities. Try to point out basic numbers relating to the 'wage gap' however, and your event will be shut down. So your version of contributing to a conversation is saying someone's ideas are laughable and then equating leftist ideas with communism? Is this your first time discussing complex ideas on the internet? Wage gap? What are you even trying to say here? When did I equate leftist ideas to communism? Communism is an extreme left position, though. What I am explaining to you is that the worst ideas in the world are still actively discussed on university campuses. There is no reason to shut down right wing conversations that people on the right want to have. Any university that does that is selling out its values. If you're talking about ANTIFA, you won't see any disagreement from me. I doubt any left-leaning posters here support ANTIFA at all. ANTIFA is seriously bad and causes a lot of violence wherever they go. I am not saying it is right to cancel ring-wing speakers. No one is saying it is appropriate to shut down right-wing speakers. I will say that whenever ANTIFA is involved, it is worthwhile to make sure they are not involved. I honestly don't know what the ring thing for Berkeley to do is. When large groups are going to attempt to inspire violence to their fullest ability, you've kinda got your hands tied. I am not going to pretend I understand the legality associated with trying to get campus police to get rid of ANTIFA. I'm just assuming you're talking about ANTIFA-muddied protests. Is that what you mean, or is there something else?
You don't have to go that far. Here, conservatives or controversial figures that were invited by either the university either by student groups for a conferences and debates, have seen these events cancelled because of heavy protestations on the campus. That's the activity of few active groups, but backed by a lot of leftist students. There is in some universities an attitude that is against any form of debate and dismiss any other idea than theirs, so-called "progressive" and thought to be more noble.
In these universities, the Shanghai ratings have decreased from year to year. It's barely in the top 150 anymore.
|
On April 22 2017 00:23 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:On April 22 2017 00:09 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 22 2017 00:04 bardtown wrote:On April 21 2017 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 23:46 bardtown wrote:On April 21 2017 23:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2017 20:09 bardtown wrote:
However, I think it is important to understand that a platform like Twitter, Facebook or Youtube is so universal that it is practically infrastructure, and also that governments are putting a huge amount of pressure on these companies. The right, as well as people who criticise immigration, are definitely more penalised on these platforms, I would say. Same applies to universities which should be completely open. Universities *are* open. What a lot of people miss is the fact that a lot of these ideas that have been shunned have already been gone over. They are old news and have had very convincing arguments made against them, numerous times, to completion. We used to have outdated views of chemistry, physics, biology, maths and many other topics. We've refined since then. Archaic ideas perpetuated by the right had their place at one point. Then we moved forward. This is what leftists actually believe. And it's why you have Trump enjoy. Are you disputing the idea that a lot of right-wing ideas have been discussed at length throughout history and that decisions were made to abandon them? This post feels more like sticking your tongue out than actual participation. Want to try again? Because your point of view is absolutely laughable, and I know from experience that interacting with people like you yields nothing of worth. If anything has been discussed at length, and tested in practice, in recent history - it's communism. Some hundred million deaths later, it's still prevalent and widely discussed at universities. Try to point out basic numbers relating to the 'wage gap' however, and your event will be shut down. So your version of contributing to a conversation is saying someone's ideas are laughable and then equating leftist ideas with communism? Is this your first time discussing complex ideas on the internet? Wage gap? What are you even trying to say here? When did I equate leftist ideas to communism? Communism is an extreme left position, though. What I am explaining to you is that the worst ideas in the world are still actively discussed on university campuses. There is no reason to shut down right wing conversations that people on the right want to have. Any university that does that is selling out its values. If you're talking about ANTIFA, you won't see any disagreement from me. I doubt any left-leaning posters here support ANTIFA at all. ANTIFA is seriously bad and causes a lot of violence wherever they go. I am not saying it is right to cancel ring-wing speakers. No one is saying it is appropriate to shut down right-wing speakers. I will say that whenever ANTIFA is involved, it is worthwhile to make sure they are not involved. I honestly don't know what the ring thing for Berkeley to do is. When large groups are going to attempt to inspire violence to their fullest ability, you've kinda got your hands tied. I am not going to pretend I understand the legality associated with trying to get campus police to get rid of ANTIFA. I'm just assuming you're talking about ANTIFA-muddied protests. Is that what you mean, or is there something else? I'm not talking about Berkeley; at least, not specifically. This is the European thread after all. Antifa are the extreme end of a general trend, though. All sorts of speakers have been shut down at universities across the UK (and the US, Canada, Australia, etc) because left wing students don't like their views. Look up the Warren Farrell protest and then watch him speak and see if you can find any justification for their actions. Protest has become a means for shutting down legitimate and reasonable conversation, and it is creating a backlash. People didn't hold 'free speech rallies' before because they didn't feel that their free speech was under threat until recently.
Couldn't agree more. And events in recent years just proved that this is a trend.
|
Also a problem is, its "cheaper" for universities to not have debates. It doesn't have to be about leftist university elites, plain economics are enough.
|
Universities aren't really places where every troll can show up and have a debate, they're not really egalitarian like that. Left or right I don't really care, but these university culture wars have never produced anything reasonable and they also happen to exclude a large part of the population who aren't part of the uni system anyway.
Also apparently the bvb bombing guy wanted to short the bvb stock. I guess we can add the Mammon to the list of dangerous deities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
