|
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 used to have all kinds of opinions about you, but nowadays, you mainly disgust me. You just label a group of people as "trouble" without even knowing what specific people they are and accuse them of agenda you don't even know if they have. This kind of dehumanisation of people is really terrible and is at the core of the whole "migration crisis" charade.
Meanwhile, these are people who face persecution by a totalitarian power freak in their country. If we are worth a penny as a civilization, we should automatically accept people like this, regardless of how much we agree with their particular politics, unless they have committed crimes against humanity or something.
|
Asylum seekers are screened and reviewed anyways. If someone is truly dangerous, the German goverment is more than capable of finding it.
|
|
|
Someone wrote earlier in the thread about increasing the pension age as a liberal pro-market policy, but that is actually even worse for unemployment. You can scoff the 35-hour week, but that's also quite helpful, everything that reduces the offer of work on the market, is good against unemployment.
I wanted to respond to this for a bit. This isn't true. It's called the lump of labour fallacy. You're only looking at the supply of employment and not demand. There's not a fixed amount of work. If people work more, the economy grows and so does demand for jobs. Especially in the case of the pension age there's no real argument to lower it to reduce unemployment. The economist explains it well in an article: elderly retire and become reliant on the young to pay for their benefits. Since growth can only come from increased productivity or more workers you can't get richer by retiring earlier.
http://www.economist.com/node/21547263
On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it.
If it goes into productive investments like infrastructure it's productive yes. Most of the tax money goes to welfare payments though.
|
On May 09 2017 02:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:30 Incognoto wrote:Yeah I think I'm starting to understand your point of view. So we have the jet, great, but to what benefit to anyone else but the few people who fly it? Thing is I can say this for almost anything really. Even if I take examples which are good lots of people. I don't use high-end smartphones, watch series on Netflix, care for nice cars, watch movies, go out to eat, watch any sport whatsoever or go on vacation. I've gone to a single ski trip in my entire life and don't intend to do it ever again most likely. To me all those things are the same as biz-jets. Unnecessary. It doesn't benefit me and it probably doesn't really benefit anyone else, they're just amenities. If you dislike biz-jets, then I dislike professional sports. Instead of paying atheletes stupid amounts of money, why don't we end world hunger? Why don't we give everyone proper health coverage? There is nothing rational about amenities, just like there is nothing rational about catering towards a few rich people. However I respect that other people want different things than I do. If there's an industry around supporting the needs of a few rich, that's that. If there's an industry around supporting professional sports (isn't that kind of "a few rich" too?), then that's that. I don't think the government has any business dictating which industries should or should not take place. No one has that business actually, since we live in free societies. It may be inefficient and unfair but hey, it's freedom. :/ On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it. Yeah but the jet fuel that those guys are buying is directly going back into the economy as well, since I am using that money to live. Tax private jets to the point where they are no longer affordable, all you do is kill an industry. I would lose my job and have to do something else. Maybe go work the ramp at Denver International? Ramp workers for airlines get paid shit for a crappier job compared to me, honestly. Private aviation should be made more affordable, not less. But yeah just to throw it out there, I get what you're alluding to. It makes sense on paper but I just don't know how I feel about it for a few reasons. Freedom for people and feasibility are two prime reasons. I wasn’t trying to say that private jets should be taxed to the point where no one owns them. It isn’t a binary state where we tax the rich and suddenly 35 service industries involving the rich go under. That is the case a lot of the wealthy like to make because it is compelling and motivates people like yourself to see it their way. They tie taxing their wealth with you losing your job. But they would also love to have cheaper jet fuel pumped by a robot that can’t vote.
Well I can't vote so... almost there.
I found this, wanted to post ITT: http://i.imgur.com/XxUhGvm.jpg
|
On May 09 2017 03:58 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +Someone wrote earlier in the thread about increasing the pension age as a liberal pro-market policy, but that is actually even worse for unemployment. You can scoff the 35-hour week, but that's also quite helpful, everything that reduces the offer of work on the market, is good against unemployment. I wanted to respond to this for a bit. This isn't true. It's called the lump of labour fallacy. You're only looking at the supply of employment and not demand. There's not a fixed amount of work. If people work more, the economy grows and so does demand for jobs. Especially in the case of the pension age there's no real argument to lower it to reduce unemployment. The economist explains it well in an article: elderly retire and become reliant on the young to pay for their benefits. Since growth can only come from increased productivity or more workers you can't get richer by retiring earlier. http://www.economist.com/node/21547263Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it. If it goes into productive investments like infrastructure it's productive yes. Most of the tax money goes to welfare payments though.
Wellfare payments is like the best economic stimulus there is though. 100 % of it goes back into the economy on a basic level which creates jobs (poor people spend all their money on basic goods and housing and doesnt put them in the bank. It also keeps people out of crime which is incredibly costly to society and extra wellfare for poor families with kids improves their chances of getting through school and not ending up in crime or drugs.
I would not be suprised if giving people basic wellfare was at least as beneficial as renovating airports. Naturelly you want infrastructure investment as well but redistributing money from rich people to the poorest is not just a waste.
|
On May 09 2017 03:58 bardtown wrote:
They evidently aren't...
True that there have been embarrassing situations in the screening processes but the simple reason for that is that we've for the longest time have had privacy standards that are absolutely nuts, for example not being able to screen phones of peope arriving, and so on.
For understandable historical reasons we have been very reluctant to review security policies but that's changing pretty fast and it's necessary too.
|
On May 09 2017 04:17 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 03:58 RvB wrote:Someone wrote earlier in the thread about increasing the pension age as a liberal pro-market policy, but that is actually even worse for unemployment. You can scoff the 35-hour week, but that's also quite helpful, everything that reduces the offer of work on the market, is good against unemployment. I wanted to respond to this for a bit. This isn't true. It's called the lump of labour fallacy. You're only looking at the supply of employment and not demand. There's not a fixed amount of work. If people work more, the economy grows and so does demand for jobs. Especially in the case of the pension age there's no real argument to lower it to reduce unemployment. The economist explains it well in an article: elderly retire and become reliant on the young to pay for their benefits. Since growth can only come from increased productivity or more workers you can't get richer by retiring earlier. http://www.economist.com/node/21547263On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it. If it goes into productive investments like infrastructure it's productive yes. Most of the tax money goes to welfare payments though. Wellfare payments is like the best economic stimulus there is though. 100 % of it goes back into the economy on a basic level which creates jobs (poor people spend all their money on basic goods and housing and doesnt put them in the bank. It also keeps people out of crime which is incredibly costly to society and extra wellfare for poor families with kids improves their chances of getting through school and not ending up in crime or drugs. I would not be suprised if giving people basic wellfare was at least as beneficial as renovating airports. Naturelly you want infrastructure investment as well but redistributing money from rich people to the poorest is not just a waste.
A stimulus is only relevant in economic crises to solve demand issues. Growth in productivity is what makes us richer in the long term.
You're right though that basic welfare is beneficial. Knowing that you won't die in the street if your business fails makes it safer to start one. And, like you said, making sure people / children are properly fed etc. is also obviously beneficial.
I'm pretty sure that most of the welfare states in Europe are far beyond that point though. Spending more money on pensions isn't going to benefit anyone except pensioners.
|
On May 09 2017 04:51 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 04:17 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 09 2017 03:58 RvB wrote:Someone wrote earlier in the thread about increasing the pension age as a liberal pro-market policy, but that is actually even worse for unemployment. You can scoff the 35-hour week, but that's also quite helpful, everything that reduces the offer of work on the market, is good against unemployment. I wanted to respond to this for a bit. This isn't true. It's called the lump of labour fallacy. You're only looking at the supply of employment and not demand. There's not a fixed amount of work. If people work more, the economy grows and so does demand for jobs. Especially in the case of the pension age there's no real argument to lower it to reduce unemployment. The economist explains it well in an article: elderly retire and become reliant on the young to pay for their benefits. Since growth can only come from increased productivity or more workers you can't get richer by retiring earlier. http://www.economist.com/node/21547263On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it. If it goes into productive investments like infrastructure it's productive yes. Most of the tax money goes to welfare payments though. Wellfare payments is like the best economic stimulus there is though. 100 % of it goes back into the economy on a basic level which creates jobs (poor people spend all their money on basic goods and housing and doesnt put them in the bank. It also keeps people out of crime which is incredibly costly to society and extra wellfare for poor families with kids improves their chances of getting through school and not ending up in crime or drugs. I would not be suprised if giving people basic wellfare was at least as beneficial as renovating airports. Naturelly you want infrastructure investment as well but redistributing money from rich people to the poorest is not just a waste. A stimulus is only relevant in economic crises to solve demand issues. Growth in productivity is what makes us richer in the long term. You're right though that basic welfare is beneficial. Knowing that you won't die in the street if your business fails makes it safer to start one. And, like you said, making sure people / children are properly fed etc. is also obviously beneficial. I'm pretty sure that most of the welfare states in Europe are far beyond that point though. Spending more money on pensions isn't going to benefit anyone except pensioners.
The market grows where the demand is. Spending money on pensioners benefits everyone who will once become a pensioner that wants to consume similar goods or services.
|
Money in the bank isn't equivalent to under the mattress, it gets loaned out for investment. Consumption isn't as good for investment because nowadays a lot of it will be imported.
On May 09 2017 05:19 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 04:51 RvB wrote:On May 09 2017 04:17 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 09 2017 03:58 RvB wrote:Someone wrote earlier in the thread about increasing the pension age as a liberal pro-market policy, but that is actually even worse for unemployment. You can scoff the 35-hour week, but that's also quite helpful, everything that reduces the offer of work on the market, is good against unemployment. I wanted to respond to this for a bit. This isn't true. It's called the lump of labour fallacy. You're only looking at the supply of employment and not demand. There's not a fixed amount of work. If people work more, the economy grows and so does demand for jobs. Especially in the case of the pension age there's no real argument to lower it to reduce unemployment. The economist explains it well in an article: elderly retire and become reliant on the young to pay for their benefits. Since growth can only come from increased productivity or more workers you can't get richer by retiring earlier. http://www.economist.com/node/21547263On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it. If it goes into productive investments like infrastructure it's productive yes. Most of the tax money goes to welfare payments though. Wellfare payments is like the best economic stimulus there is though. 100 % of it goes back into the economy on a basic level which creates jobs (poor people spend all their money on basic goods and housing and doesnt put them in the bank. It also keeps people out of crime which is incredibly costly to society and extra wellfare for poor families with kids improves their chances of getting through school and not ending up in crime or drugs. I would not be suprised if giving people basic wellfare was at least as beneficial as renovating airports. Naturelly you want infrastructure investment as well but redistributing money from rich people to the poorest is not just a waste. A stimulus is only relevant in economic crises to solve demand issues. Growth in productivity is what makes us richer in the long term. You're right though that basic welfare is beneficial. Knowing that you won't die in the street if your business fails makes it safer to start one. And, like you said, making sure people / children are properly fed etc. is also obviously beneficial. I'm pretty sure that most of the welfare states in Europe are far beyond that point though. Spending more money on pensions isn't going to benefit anyone except pensioners. The market grows where the demand is. Spending money on pensioners benefits everyone who will once become a pensioner that wants to consume similar goods or services.
Tell that to the Greeks...
|
On May 09 2017 05:19 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 04:51 RvB wrote:On May 09 2017 04:17 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 09 2017 03:58 RvB wrote:Someone wrote earlier in the thread about increasing the pension age as a liberal pro-market policy, but that is actually even worse for unemployment. You can scoff the 35-hour week, but that's also quite helpful, everything that reduces the offer of work on the market, is good against unemployment. I wanted to respond to this for a bit. This isn't true. It's called the lump of labour fallacy. You're only looking at the supply of employment and not demand. There's not a fixed amount of work. If people work more, the economy grows and so does demand for jobs. Especially in the case of the pension age there's no real argument to lower it to reduce unemployment. The economist explains it well in an article: elderly retire and become reliant on the young to pay for their benefits. Since growth can only come from increased productivity or more workers you can't get richer by retiring earlier. http://www.economist.com/node/21547263On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it. If it goes into productive investments like infrastructure it's productive yes. Most of the tax money goes to welfare payments though. Wellfare payments is like the best economic stimulus there is though. 100 % of it goes back into the economy on a basic level which creates jobs (poor people spend all their money on basic goods and housing and doesnt put them in the bank. It also keeps people out of crime which is incredibly costly to society and extra wellfare for poor families with kids improves their chances of getting through school and not ending up in crime or drugs. I would not be suprised if giving people basic wellfare was at least as beneficial as renovating airports. Naturelly you want infrastructure investment as well but redistributing money from rich people to the poorest is not just a waste. A stimulus is only relevant in economic crises to solve demand issues. Growth in productivity is what makes us richer in the long term. You're right though that basic welfare is beneficial. Knowing that you won't die in the street if your business fails makes it safer to start one. And, like you said, making sure people / children are properly fed etc. is also obviously beneficial. I'm pretty sure that most of the welfare states in Europe are far beyond that point though. Spending more money on pensions isn't going to benefit anyone except pensioners. The market grows where the demand is. Spending money on pensioners benefits everyone who will once become a pensioner that wants to consume similar goods or services.
That would mean we could just pay a monthly pension of 20 000 euros to everyone and expect an unprecedented economic boom. Unfortunately that's not how the economy works and like RvB said, if we want sustainable economic growth we have to look at supply and productivity.
|
On May 09 2017 06:46 Norm3 wrote:Money in the bank isn't equivalent to under the mattress, it gets loaned out for investment. Consumption isn't as good for investment because nowadays a lot of it will be imported. Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 05:19 Big J wrote:On May 09 2017 04:51 RvB wrote:On May 09 2017 04:17 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 09 2017 03:58 RvB wrote:Someone wrote earlier in the thread about increasing the pension age as a liberal pro-market policy, but that is actually even worse for unemployment. You can scoff the 35-hour week, but that's also quite helpful, everything that reduces the offer of work on the market, is good against unemployment. I wanted to respond to this for a bit. This isn't true. It's called the lump of labour fallacy. You're only looking at the supply of employment and not demand. There's not a fixed amount of work. If people work more, the economy grows and so does demand for jobs. Especially in the case of the pension age there's no real argument to lower it to reduce unemployment. The economist explains it well in an article: elderly retire and become reliant on the young to pay for their benefits. Since growth can only come from increased productivity or more workers you can't get richer by retiring earlier. http://www.economist.com/node/21547263On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it. If it goes into productive investments like infrastructure it's productive yes. Most of the tax money goes to welfare payments though. Wellfare payments is like the best economic stimulus there is though. 100 % of it goes back into the economy on a basic level which creates jobs (poor people spend all their money on basic goods and housing and doesnt put them in the bank. It also keeps people out of crime which is incredibly costly to society and extra wellfare for poor families with kids improves their chances of getting through school and not ending up in crime or drugs. I would not be suprised if giving people basic wellfare was at least as beneficial as renovating airports. Naturelly you want infrastructure investment as well but redistributing money from rich people to the poorest is not just a waste. A stimulus is only relevant in economic crises to solve demand issues. Growth in productivity is what makes us richer in the long term. You're right though that basic welfare is beneficial. Knowing that you won't die in the street if your business fails makes it safer to start one. And, like you said, making sure people / children are properly fed etc. is also obviously beneficial. I'm pretty sure that most of the welfare states in Europe are far beyond that point though. Spending more money on pensions isn't going to benefit anyone except pensioners. The market grows where the demand is. Spending money on pensioners benefits everyone who will once become a pensioner that wants to consume similar goods or services. Tell that to the Greeks...
Tell what to the Greeks? The Greeks bought German goods, the German economy boomed. It's exactly what I said. It's not my fault that we have a European nationalistic system with free trade and a common currency, that leads to a horribly distorted situation between where the jobs and taxes go and where the consume happens.
Not to mention that nowhere did I suggest to give money to pensioners you don't have, but to redistribute money that is actually there.
On May 09 2017 07:19 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 05:19 Big J wrote:On May 09 2017 04:51 RvB wrote:On May 09 2017 04:17 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 09 2017 03:58 RvB wrote:Someone wrote earlier in the thread about increasing the pension age as a liberal pro-market policy, but that is actually even worse for unemployment. You can scoff the 35-hour week, but that's also quite helpful, everything that reduces the offer of work on the market, is good against unemployment. I wanted to respond to this for a bit. This isn't true. It's called the lump of labour fallacy. You're only looking at the supply of employment and not demand. There's not a fixed amount of work. If people work more, the economy grows and so does demand for jobs. Especially in the case of the pension age there's no real argument to lower it to reduce unemployment. The economist explains it well in an article: elderly retire and become reliant on the young to pay for their benefits. Since growth can only come from increased productivity or more workers you can't get richer by retiring earlier. http://www.economist.com/node/21547263On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it. If it goes into productive investments like infrastructure it's productive yes. Most of the tax money goes to welfare payments though. Wellfare payments is like the best economic stimulus there is though. 100 % of it goes back into the economy on a basic level which creates jobs (poor people spend all their money on basic goods and housing and doesnt put them in the bank. It also keeps people out of crime which is incredibly costly to society and extra wellfare for poor families with kids improves their chances of getting through school and not ending up in crime or drugs. I would not be suprised if giving people basic wellfare was at least as beneficial as renovating airports. Naturelly you want infrastructure investment as well but redistributing money from rich people to the poorest is not just a waste. A stimulus is only relevant in economic crises to solve demand issues. Growth in productivity is what makes us richer in the long term. You're right though that basic welfare is beneficial. Knowing that you won't die in the street if your business fails makes it safer to start one. And, like you said, making sure people / children are properly fed etc. is also obviously beneficial. I'm pretty sure that most of the welfare states in Europe are far beyond that point though. Spending more money on pensions isn't going to benefit anyone except pensioners. The market grows where the demand is. Spending money on pensioners benefits everyone who will once become a pensioner that wants to consume similar goods or services. That would mean we could just pay a monthly pension of 20 000 euros to everyone and expect an unprecedented economic boom. Unfortunately that's not how the economy works and like RvB said, if we want sustainable economic growth we have to look at supply and productivity.
Of course not. Just because you give someone money doesn't mean the goods and services they want exist. But it gives incentives to grow them, if you sustain the payments and thus profitable industries develop around that demand.
Productivity and supply grow where there is profit to be made.
|
On May 09 2017 01:42 mahrgell wrote:
Germany has started to accept asylum seeking soldiers and high tier officials from Turkey now.
Their applications haven't been worked on for a couple of months but recently (after the referendum) the guidelines for the treatment of Turkish citizens have been updated.
Overall there have been about 400 applications by Turkish soldiers, judges and high level public servants due to fear of the recent purges.
There are about 7700 applications for asylum by Turkish citizens in Germany.
Last year about 8% of all applications have been accepted, it is expected that this rate will dramatically increase with the recent events.
Also several other EU countries had stopped to process Turkish applications and some expect those to follow the German example now. (and not because Germany is telling them, but because they prefer to hide behind Germany...)
Yeah,
Now you'll have some ultra religious freak generals who are directly/indirectly responsible for the deaths of 200 people, walking freely in your country without a proper investigation, because if we give them to Turkey, Turkey will be treating them bad and Erdogan is a dictator. 
How nice.
On May 09 2017 02:34 opisska wrote:
I used to have all kinds of opinions about you, but nowadays, you mainly disgust me. You just label a group of people as "trouble" without even knowing what specific people they are and accuse them of agenda you don't even know if they have. This kind of dehumanisation of people is really terrible and is at the core of the whole "migration crisis" charade.
Meanwhile, these are people who face persecution by a totalitarian power freak in their country. If we are worth a penny as a civilization, we should automatically accept people like this, regardless of how much we agree with their particular politics, unless they have committed crimes against humanity or something.
:D
Killing Turks isn't crime against humanity you say ha?
It's not Erdogan vs you guys, it's whole Turkey vs you, because all the other parties united against the Gulenist threat but again, you folks know BETTER than us...
Germany will be hated for being a PKK and Gulenist hive even after Erdogan, and it's all because the two are the Turkey's weak spots.
Do you see any AKP flags in this picture?
+ Show Spoiler +
However, as long as they are away from Turkey, poisoning other willing societies and we can block their influence in TR, that's okay.
As for the judges, they put hundreds of secular military officials in jail for years without proper evidence or with fabricated evidence, even Erdogan opposed those judges and asked for trials without their arrest. They were put in jail for years because GULEN wanted it.
NONE OF THESE HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN YOUR MEDIA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledgehammer_(coup_plan)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32136809
https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/2015/05/07/evidence-gulenist-figure-baransu-presented-in-coup-plot-case-definitely-fabricated
Reports of the alleged plot first surfaced in the liberal Taraf newspaper on 20 January 2010. Journalist Mehmet Baransu said he had been passed documents detailing plans to bomb two Istanbul mosques and accuse Greece of shooting down a Turkish plane over the Aegean Sea.[12][13][14] The plan was to stir up chaos and justify a military coup.
The extensive materials received by Taraf, which were passed to prosecutors, formed the bulk of the prosecution case.
Have you heard about football club Fenerbahce and matchfixing scandal? Same judges, fabricated voice tapes, now Fenerbahce is seeking compensation, their trial is also dropped.
https://www.dailysabah.com/investigations/2017/02/20/tense-start-to-feto-match-fixing-plot-trial
Yıldırım, the long-standing chairman of Istanbul giants Fenerbahçe, argued with Mehmet Baransu, a FETÖ-linked journalist, and Ali Fuat Yılmazer, a former police chief, as they were brought into the courtroom. They are both defendants in the case and are currently in prison.
Yıldırım was jailed five years ago for more than a year after he was accused of running a match-fixing scheme and a criminal gang. He was later acquitted of all charges against him when a new trial found that the judges, prosecutors and police officers who helped in his imprisonment may have had conspired against Fenerbahçe and other teams to serve the interests of FETÖ.
A total of 108 defendants including Gülen, a retired preacher accused of running a worldwide terror cult from his retreat in Pennsylvania in the United States, are accused in the case.
Baransu and Yılmazer are among the 15 people who have been jailed for other crimes while most of the other defendants in the case either remain on the run or have been released pending trial.
As Yıldırım, known for his off-field antics and being a short-tempered executive, entered the courthouse in Istanbul, Baransu, a journalist who leaked the match-fixing inquiry's details, murmured something, and Yıldırım claimed he swore at him.
Other plaintiffs backed Yıldırım and the defendants and plaintiffs hurled insults at each other.
"You deserve the death penalty, you are traitors," Yıldırım said to Baransu. "You conspired against us, you conspired against everyone."
The indictment in the case says İhsan Kalkavan, a businessman and former executive at the Beşiktaş football club, helped FETÖ gain a foothold in Turkish sports. Following a secret meeting of senior FETÖ figures, they had decided to eliminate Yıldırım, a fixture in Turkish sports since the 1990s as head of Fenerbahçe, one of the three major clubs in Turkish football.
Same assholes everywhere, behind the every major trial, same journalists, same judges, same prosecutors, with same apps in their phones.. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-intelligence-unveils-secret-codes-used-before-coup-attempt.aspx?PageID=238&NID=103843&NewsCatID=409
Baransu when asked, with a big smile on his face, he said he found a black suitcase in front of his door one day, and that was his source. That was before his arrest, on a TV show.
I would explain them all but I'm pretty sure you aren't interested because what was it, Erdo is a DICTATOR!
|
Since when do results justify the means?
Erdogan exhibits traits of a fascistic dictator. So you still dispute that?
And as the asylum system is set up to protect people from bring treated unfairly due to political or whatnot affiliation (very much abbreviated here), of course they receive refuge. Don't forget that he apparently wants to reinstitute the death penalty.
|
I love this guy justifications, really helps me.
Imma do the same kind of reasoning, be careful, godwin indahouse.
<insert random pic of third reich meeting with (obv) only nazis flags>
"Do you see any <insert random non-nazi political organization> flags in here ?
No ! People loves Hitler !
Therefore, he is no dictator and he is a great person for our country !"
Well, under that comparison, I hope you acknowledge your arguments to make us believe Erdogan doesn't lean on the dictator side are pretty much garbage.
(sorry fellow German for the example, just the first that came to my mind)
|
On May 09 2017 07:27 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 06:46 Norm3 wrote:Money in the bank isn't equivalent to under the mattress, it gets loaned out for investment. Consumption isn't as good for investment because nowadays a lot of it will be imported. On May 09 2017 05:19 Big J wrote:On May 09 2017 04:51 RvB wrote:On May 09 2017 04:17 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 09 2017 03:58 RvB wrote:Someone wrote earlier in the thread about increasing the pension age as a liberal pro-market policy, but that is actually even worse for unemployment. You can scoff the 35-hour week, but that's also quite helpful, everything that reduces the offer of work on the market, is good against unemployment. I wanted to respond to this for a bit. This isn't true. It's called the lump of labour fallacy. You're only looking at the supply of employment and not demand. There's not a fixed amount of work. If people work more, the economy grows and so does demand for jobs. Especially in the case of the pension age there's no real argument to lower it to reduce unemployment. The economist explains it well in an article: elderly retire and become reliant on the young to pay for their benefits. Since growth can only come from increased productivity or more workers you can't get richer by retiring earlier. http://www.economist.com/node/21547263On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it. If it goes into productive investments like infrastructure it's productive yes. Most of the tax money goes to welfare payments though. Wellfare payments is like the best economic stimulus there is though. 100 % of it goes back into the economy on a basic level which creates jobs (poor people spend all their money on basic goods and housing and doesnt put them in the bank. It also keeps people out of crime which is incredibly costly to society and extra wellfare for poor families with kids improves their chances of getting through school and not ending up in crime or drugs. I would not be suprised if giving people basic wellfare was at least as beneficial as renovating airports. Naturelly you want infrastructure investment as well but redistributing money from rich people to the poorest is not just a waste. A stimulus is only relevant in economic crises to solve demand issues. Growth in productivity is what makes us richer in the long term. You're right though that basic welfare is beneficial. Knowing that you won't die in the street if your business fails makes it safer to start one. And, like you said, making sure people / children are properly fed etc. is also obviously beneficial. I'm pretty sure that most of the welfare states in Europe are far beyond that point though. Spending more money on pensions isn't going to benefit anyone except pensioners. The market grows where the demand is. Spending money on pensioners benefits everyone who will once become a pensioner that wants to consume similar goods or services. Tell that to the Greeks... Tell what to the Greeks? The Greeks bought German goods, the German economy boomed. It's exactly what I said. It's not my fault that we have a European nationalistic system with free trade and a common currency, that leads to a horribly distorted situation between where the jobs and taxes go and where the consume happens. Not to mention that nowhere did I suggest to give money to pensioners you don't have, but to redistribute money that is actually there. Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 07:19 warding wrote:On May 09 2017 05:19 Big J wrote:On May 09 2017 04:51 RvB wrote:On May 09 2017 04:17 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 09 2017 03:58 RvB wrote:Someone wrote earlier in the thread about increasing the pension age as a liberal pro-market policy, but that is actually even worse for unemployment. You can scoff the 35-hour week, but that's also quite helpful, everything that reduces the offer of work on the market, is good against unemployment. I wanted to respond to this for a bit. This isn't true. It's called the lump of labour fallacy. You're only looking at the supply of employment and not demand. There's not a fixed amount of work. If people work more, the economy grows and so does demand for jobs. Especially in the case of the pension age there's no real argument to lower it to reduce unemployment. The economist explains it well in an article: elderly retire and become reliant on the young to pay for their benefits. Since growth can only come from increased productivity or more workers you can't get richer by retiring earlier. http://www.economist.com/node/21547263On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it. If it goes into productive investments like infrastructure it's productive yes. Most of the tax money goes to welfare payments though. Wellfare payments is like the best economic stimulus there is though. 100 % of it goes back into the economy on a basic level which creates jobs (poor people spend all their money on basic goods and housing and doesnt put them in the bank. It also keeps people out of crime which is incredibly costly to society and extra wellfare for poor families with kids improves their chances of getting through school and not ending up in crime or drugs. I would not be suprised if giving people basic wellfare was at least as beneficial as renovating airports. Naturelly you want infrastructure investment as well but redistributing money from rich people to the poorest is not just a waste. A stimulus is only relevant in economic crises to solve demand issues. Growth in productivity is what makes us richer in the long term. You're right though that basic welfare is beneficial. Knowing that you won't die in the street if your business fails makes it safer to start one. And, like you said, making sure people / children are properly fed etc. is also obviously beneficial. I'm pretty sure that most of the welfare states in Europe are far beyond that point though. Spending more money on pensions isn't going to benefit anyone except pensioners. The market grows where the demand is. Spending money on pensioners benefits everyone who will once become a pensioner that wants to consume similar goods or services. That would mean we could just pay a monthly pension of 20 000 euros to everyone and expect an unprecedented economic boom. Unfortunately that's not how the economy works and like RvB said, if we want sustainable economic growth we have to look at supply and productivity. Of course not. Just because you give someone money doesn't mean the goods and services they want exist. But it gives incentives to grow them, if you sustain the payments and thus profitable industries develop around that demand. Productivity and supply grow where there is profit to be made.
That argument would only make sense if it increases aggregate demand which is doubtful. At the end of the day you need to increase productivity to match the increase in demand otherwise you're only creating inflation.
|
On May 09 2017 15:38 SkrollK wrote:
I love this guy justifications, really helps me.
Imma do the same kind of reasoning, be careful, godwin indahouse.
<insert random pic of third reich meeting with (obv) only nazis flags>
"Do you see any <insert random non-nazi political organization> flags in here ?
No ! People loves Hitler !
Therefore, he is no dictator and he is a great person for our country !"
Well, under that comparison, I hope you acknowledge your arguments to make us believe Erdogan doesn't lean on the dictator side are pretty much garbage.
(sorry fellow German for the example, just the first that came to my mind) you do realize that your equivalency is drawn between a possible future and an actual past, right?. your hope for Erdo to be a (bad)dictator and his hope that Erdo will be good for Turkey, are on the same level; mainly, neither happened yet to the extent that would warrant those Hitler equivalencies nor those beliefs depicting Erdo as a Mohamed-like savior for all the turks.
now make no mistake, the Gulenists are international level mobsters and Erdo is a regional baron, but your imagination based projections are nothing more than fantasies with a touch of wishful thinking; calling someone a dictator won't bestow upon him mass murder skill levels.
|
The thing that you clearly did not understand is that I dont "hope" for anything. I merely care about Turkey situation and about what they are doing in their own country.
The only thing I said, is that his argument for stating that Erdogan is no dictator is at best fallacious. Example given, what I stated above.
Please, dont put words in my mouth. I'm enough an adult to state them clearly and without being ambiguous if I want to.
Edit : Ok, let me clear this all up.
The guy (lastpuritain), is trying to make us (in the thread) believe that everyone in Turkey sees Erdogan as a Saviour and a great person, and that us (westerners bad people that does not understand anything about Turk politics cause we are not Turk (in fact, just because we disagree with him)) are depicting him as a dictator and are wrong about this.
His argument (lol) is the following :
“Every Turk loves him and think he is a great man, he is no dictator, see, as a proof, here is a random picture of wtf I want showing lots of people brandishing flags of his political wing so, you see, every Turk loves him you are wrong.”
Which I am merely reporting that, first, his argument is totally contradicted by facts. Last election where Erdogan wanted to increase his power, results were 51.35% yes. THIS IS NOT BY ANY MEANS ALL TURKS. It’s merely half of the Turks that voted, that could be seeing him as a savior for Turkey.
Then, his “proof”, a random picture of a lot of people waving flags. And this is where I entered with the Hitler analogy, but I could have went with Staline, Pinochet, or whatever dictator there ever was I guess, just to say that saying “Since a lot of people are here waving flags, he is no dictator” is complete bullshit and has been proven wrong many times in history.
That doesn’t mean Erdogan is or will be a dictator. But since he is a president, in a democratic country, currently running campaign and trying to advocate and justify the laws where he gains more power, anyone is free to have, at least, some doubts.
|
his argument is that the other side is worse while ignoring or excusing Erdogan's wrongdoings, then he lets the chips fall where they may(a valid argument could be made here that based on the initial presentation, where the chips may fall is ... limited) but that's what you did too: ignore the gulenists while attacking Erdo(your perception of him).
your 'but democracy' argument is not a valid one since democracy is not a one size fits all form of governing. what works for you in your context might not work for others in their context.
so, if your argument is Erdo vs democracy, you're on your own.
|
Why does it even matter, what "the Turks" think? The level of support for Erdogan is irrelevant for the case at hand. If we have reasonable doubts that some people will get a fair trial in their country because of their political stances, we should accept them as political refugees. It's really a no-brainer. If lastpuritan's claims of their crimes are true, we can eventually release them to Turkish justice, but we should first try to check their claim of unfair trial and investigate which claims are possibly fabricated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://im.haberturk.com/2016/08/07/1278173_c8f947cdf0a2280d0d548da0c9f99eaa_640x640.jpg)
