|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 14 2017 00:02 Artisreal wrote:
@sharkie
Does the Marshall plan mean anything to you?
If yes then you might know one factor of why you're wrong and totally off the mark with your remarks regarding the strong and resilient European populace being able to rebuild the continent.
If not you have some reading to do.
So the solution would be to fix those countries in the south so they get the same chance, no?
Why does no one care about fixing the problems where they came from?
|
On November 14 2017 00:52 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 00:02 Artisreal wrote:
@sharkie
Does the Marshall plan mean anything to you?
If yes then you might know one factor of why you're wrong and totally off the mark with your remarks regarding the strong and resilient European populace being able to rebuild the continent.
If not you have some reading to do. So the solution would be to fix those countries in the south so they get the same chance, no? Why does no one care about fixing the problems where they came from?
As you appear to be drawn to easy and simplified answers I will give you one:
Because that would cost money.
|
On November 14 2017 00:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 20:28 Big J wrote:
The problem is that there is a huge discreptancy between the image in many migrants heads and reality. If you are past 15 and you don't have a decent education you are not going to make it in Europe. Add to that a language barrier and they end up with hardly any chances given our high-tech economical structure.
They suffer the same problems any uneducated person here suffers from, just that we are trying to keep their numbers low through education. The opportunity for an illiterate migrant “past 15” in Europe is far closer to “mak[ing] it” than in most source countries for economic migrants in sub-Saharan Africa.
Given enough socialist mechanics you are right. Take away all the state financed matters of integration, employment, worker/unemployed empowerment. The problem is that this is very costly, and our tax systems are built to drain the working people, not the benefitors of the system. Add to that the idiotic, rampant mentality of liberalism for the sake of collectivist goals, that is best represented by that 'lazy'-comment of sharkie, i.e. the notion that for some reason in a free society we have some moral obligations towards increasing some collectivist economic numbers, that in reality only benefit a few owners. And voila, you have normal workers running towards fascist and conservative parties. Because under these conditions where both, the state and the state-protected capitalists fuck the hard-working people, they are going to be the ones to pay for unqualified migration.
|
@sharkie
You know who doesn't care at all about the condition in exactly these countries?
The very same right wing parties/people that want to send the people back into an active warzone.
But i would love watching the shitstorm the right wing parties/people would create if goverments would start a really big multibillion program to "solve" africa.
|
On November 14 2017 00:52 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 00:02 Artisreal wrote:
@sharkie
Does the Marshall plan mean anything to you?
If yes then you might know one factor of why you're wrong and totally off the mark with your remarks regarding the strong and resilient European populace being able to rebuild the continent.
If not you have some reading to do. So the solution would be to fix those countries in the south so they get the same chance, no? Why does no one care about fixing the problems where they came from?
Because that would mean less advantages for developed countries and their multinational companies
|
2774 Posts
On November 14 2017 00:02 Artisreal wrote:
@sharkie
Does the Marshall plan mean anything to you?
If yes then you might know one factor of why you're wrong and totally off the mark with your remarks regarding the strong and resilient European populace being able to rebuild the continent.
If not you have some reading to do.
Not all countries were "able" to accept the Marshall plan money 
But yes, Europe was rebuilt with outside help, that's for sure.
|
On November 14 2017 00:52 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 00:02 Artisreal wrote:
@sharkie
Does the Marshall plan mean anything to you?
If yes then you might know one factor of why you're wrong and totally off the mark with your remarks regarding the strong and resilient European populace being able to rebuild the continent.
If not you have some reading to do. So the solution would be to fix those countries in the south so they get the same chance, no? Why does no one care about fixing the problems where they came from?
If you mean Africa, we send a lot of development aid there already but the large scale infrastructure changes needed are not something you can really do through development aid. And the local governments aren't really into becoming some form of EU colony.
The EU sends a lot of money to its 'weaker' member nations to help build up infrastructure. The problem is the governments, and corruption, misusing those funds at times.
We could be better about it by assuming tighter control of how the money is spend to best help the population where its actually needed but boy do people get touchy when you take the conversation there.
|
On November 14 2017 00:54 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 00:52 sharkie wrote:On November 14 2017 00:02 Artisreal wrote:
@sharkie
Does the Marshall plan mean anything to you?
If yes then you might know one factor of why you're wrong and totally off the mark with your remarks regarding the strong and resilient European populace being able to rebuild the continent.
If not you have some reading to do. So the solution would be to fix those countries in the south so they get the same chance, no? Why does no one care about fixing the problems where they came from? As you appear to be drawn to easy and simplified answers I will give you one: Because that would cost money.
I think the real answer would be: you don't make money with that.
The top guys of all these "helping organisations" like Caritas earn shitload of money by "helping people". Have you ever worked for one? They are very well fed managers who face no scrutiny ever.
On November 14 2017 00:56 Velr wrote:
@sharkie
You know who doesn't care at all about the condition in exactly these countries?
The very same right wing parties/people that want to send the people back into an active warzone.
But i would love watching the shitstorm the right wing parties/people would create if goverments would start a really big multibillion program to "solve" africa.
If you think I support right win parties you are mistaken. I am just saying that I understand people getting fed up with all that.
|
Is the ongoing discussion about “Rather than helping refugees, let’s fix the areas they come from so they won’t come here”?
|
On November 14 2017 01:45 Plansix wrote:
Is the ongoing discussion about “Rather than helping refugees, let’s fix the areas they come from so they won’t come here”?
Yeah, and we have reached the point where we have typical conservative "let's just do it, but hey, no state-involvement, let's just bitch about private organisations doing it in a way I don't want it to be done: The market way of being the most competitive at raising money. Which is obviously bad for reasons of double standards. People who work there should just magically be skillwise competitive, work hard and earn less for reasons of me demanding them to do so."
|
Norway28714 Posts
That has been an ongoing discussion for a couple years. At least in Norway though, the main 'let's fix the areas they come from' party was also the main 'let's give less foreign aid' party, and the 'let's invite refugees here, we can take care of them' parties were also the 'let's give more foreign aid' parties.
|
On November 14 2017 01:56 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 01:45 Plansix wrote:
Is the ongoing discussion about “Rather than helping refugees, let’s fix the areas they come from so they won’t come here”? Yeah, and we have reached the point where we have typical conservative "let's just do it, but hey, no state-involvement, let's just bitch about private organisations doing it in a way I don't want it to be done: The market way of being the most competitive at raising money. Which is obviously bad for reasons of double standards. People who work there should just magically be skillwise competitive, work hard and earn less for reasons of me demanding them to do so."
Why no state-involvement? You need state involvement to fix those countries. But state involvement in the West means kissing their asses when they are down there and cashing in nice gifts
|
On November 14 2017 01:56 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 01:45 Plansix wrote:
Is the ongoing discussion about “Rather than helping refugees, let’s fix the areas they come from so they won’t come here”? Yeah, and we have reached the point where we have typical conservative "let's just do it, but hey, no state-involvement, let's just bitch about private organisations doing it in a way I don't want it to be done: The market way of being the most competitive at raising money. Which is obviously bad for reasons of double standards. People who work there should just magically be skillwise competitive, work hard and earn less for reasons of me demanding them to do so."
Of course, because the Marshall Plan was all about capitalism and market drivers. The invisible chain and all that. Fixing the problems of other nations must be super easy. Way easier than just helping refugees.
|
Just helping refugees is shortterm thinking. I hope you realise that?
|
Suggesting that the West fix the problems in the places generating refugees without an accompanying commitment to long-term, non-parastic aid is shortterm thinking as well.
|
On November 14 2017 02:09 farvacola wrote:
Suggesting that the West fix the problems in the places generating refugees without an accompanying commitment to long-term, non-parastic aid is shortterm thinking as well.
well I have never seen anyone suggest longterm planning in any way? It's always just the discussion about pro/contra refugees.
We seem to live in a black and white world. It's either or, no more middle grounds.
|
No, it is long term thinking. There is no other solution beyond helping those who seek it. What are you going to do, invade Syria, take over the entire country and spend the next 20 years rebuilding it and chasing out Russian, Iran and Saudi influence? How are you going to force the non-Syrian nations to improve in the manner you want? Take them over? What is this long term plan and where will the political will to make it happen come from? Who will pay for it? The EU and UN have no real power over these troubled nations. It has no power of Syria.
|
Norway28714 Posts
On November 14 2017 02:07 sharkie wrote:
Just helping refugees is shortterm thinking. I hope you realise that?
Obviously 'just' helping refugees is short term thinking. That doesn't invalidate it, any type of disaster relief deals with the short term. These are two separate issues that should not be conflated, but both are of critical political importance. If there's a hurricane or earthquake, you help the victims with aid on a short term basis, and you try to build more resilient infrastructure to help with long term. Understanding that helping refugees by itself is insufficient isn't an argument against helping refugees, but an argument for also hindering the outbreak of more (civil) war. Which is certainly an extremely difficult task. ;p
|
poverty migration to Europe will be a thing for probably the foreseeable future because we're not going to solve all the wars and destroyed economies around the globe in a heartbeat. So even if you put the best efforts in by 'helping people in their country of origin', this will never completely stop people from moving, because the gradient between a rich Europe and a poor Africa or Middle-East or even Eastern Europe still exists. Not much to be done about this in the next few decades.
And of course as others pointed out 'economic migration" within Europe is obviously a thing as well and has been in the past, both with good and bad consequences. There will be no world were economic migration does not exist.
|
On November 14 2017 02:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 01:56 Big J wrote:On November 14 2017 01:45 Plansix wrote:
Is the ongoing discussion about “Rather than helping refugees, let’s fix the areas they come from so they won’t come here”? Yeah, and we have reached the point where we have typical conservative "let's just do it, but hey, no state-involvement, let's just bitch about private organisations doing it in a way I don't want it to be done: The market way of being the most competitive at raising money. Which is obviously bad for reasons of double standards. People who work there should just magically be skillwise competitive, work hard and earn less for reasons of me demanding them to do so." Of course, because the Marshall Plan was all about capitalism and market drivers. The invisible chain and all that. Fixing the problems of other nations must be super easy. Way easier than just helping refugees.
That's a little offtopic, but the Marshall plan and Bretton Woods system were exactly that, saviors of liberalism:
After the war the US had a massive war overproduction of industrial goods that they didn't need, but which were perfectly fit for rebuilding Europe. But they couldn't pay and were on the verge of becoming communist. Hence the US gave Europe money and created an international monetary system that ensured the US to be the supreme trading partner and the dollar to be the standard international currency, Europe bought the American surplus, America didn't suffer the typical post war economic collapse due to the sudden stop of state purchases and could get rid of their own war debts through extensive exports (the thing that Germany is trying right now). Once the other states had caught up and the US had lost their surplus and started to become an import nation, they ended Bretton Woods, as it wasn't benefitial to the US anymore.
Back on topic: I didn't say it was easy. What I'm getting at is that in the current system a competitive private organization is probably the best one can do. I believe in general the amount of money that a manager earns in comparison to the work he/she does is completely out of order, but the worst thing you can do to a caritative organization is specifically regulate them. You either regulate them all (then there is no benefit in working somewhere else for the best), or you have to live with the situation as it is. With managers, who know how much they can demand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
