Politics XXXV (Life in the Vault is about to change)

[Bartimaeus]

18 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

China could invade Taiwan tomorrow and nobody would lift a finger to help.

I've actually been pretty terrified for Taiwan virtually all of Trump's administration, as he has signaled various times that he has little to no interest in helping defend allies. Don't know if he's said anything about specifically Taiwan, but this would seem to be the prime time for China to get away with something like taking Taiwan while the U.S.'s interest in protecting allies is seemingly at its weakest.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

The motto of the whole world is "gimmie gimmie gimmie" and people get mad when you say no. But China, much like the USSR back in it's day is pretty niggardly with it's aid. So that brings back to why the heads of state seem to fall all over themselves to kiss up to dictators and repressive governments. They have large militaries and usually take threatening postures. There is the wrong headed idea that you need to be nice and befriend bullies and bad actors. Ninety years later people still make the same errors. 

[Guard Dog]

In other news. Remember when Bernie Sanders was praising Mauduro and saying the "American Dream" was more likely to be realized in Venezuela? Well, Venezuela, the country with the worlds largest oil reserves, has run out of gasoline: https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Oil-rich-Venezuela-is-running-out-of-gas-15204464.php

Hooray socialism! I remember when the Soviet Union was the worlds largest producer AND importer of wheat and there still wasn't enough bread to go around. 

[HoonDing]

Those three million sanctions and embargoes prolly help a lot too.

[Skarpen]

24 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

Those three million sanctions and embargoes prolly help a lot too.

Confusing cause and effect.

[Elerond]

44 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

 

Hooray socialism! I remember when the Soviet Union was the worlds largest producer AND importer of wheat and there still wasn't enough bread to go around. 

To be fair towards communists, it is not like any other state can say that there is enough bread to go around

[Maedhros]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

In other news. Remember when Bernie Sanders was praising Mauduro and saying the "American Dream" was more likely to be realized in Venezuela? Well, Venezuela, the country with the worlds largest oil reserves, has run out of gasoline: https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Oil-rich-Venezuela-is-running-out-of-gas-15204464.php

Hooray socialism! I remember when the Soviet Union was the worlds largest producer AND importer of wheat and there still wasn't enough bread to go around. 

What's your take on the most socialist countries in the West are always topping democracy and happiness indexes? Not meant sarcastically btw, serious question. How do you explain socialism "bad", when countries that are the most socialist (within a capitalistic system) do so well?

Would we do even better if we abandoned our system and became "mini-USAs"?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/03/20/northern-europe-dominates-happiness-rankings-once-again/#62e1f2902bd3

https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-social-mobility-index-2020-why-economies-benefit-from-fixing-inequality

https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

 

In before Skarpen "but barnevernet"

Edited April 16, 2020 by Maedhros

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

56 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

Those three million sanctions and embargoes prolly help a lot too.

As well as the oil price war between mbs and putin, and the havoc covid-19 is wrecking worldwide. It's strange how some free market folks can't account for conditions outside of government policy for phenomena.

[Skarpen]

44 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

As well as the oil price war between mbs and putin, and the havoc covid-19 is wrecking worldwide. It's strange how some free market folks can't account for conditions outside of government policy for phenomena.

Because all countries are having the same worldwide situation, yet only the countries with particular political systems are collapsing. So unless you are saying that the worldwide circumstances affect only one country then there is an underlying reason for what happens.

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Maedhros said:

In before Skarpen "but barnevernet"

Sure let's skip the violations of human rights, being rape capitol of Europe and other minor inconveniences. Scandinavia is a paradise to live

Edited April 16, 2020 by Skarpen

[213374U]

Just now, Skarpen said:

Sure let's skip the violations of human rights, being rape capitol of Europe and other minor inconveniences. It's a paradise to live there 

Kinda mixing up your Nordic countries there bud.

[Maedhros]

17 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Sure let's skip the violations of human rights, being rape capitol of Europe and other minor inconveniences. Scandinavia is a paradise to live

No country is perfect (or even close to perfect), but there's a reason the same ones continously top all indexes no matter the positive criteria (democracy, happiness, least corrupt, you name it).

Also, pretty sure Sweden isn't actually the "rape capitol" of Europe. They're superfeminist, so the term "rape" has a far wider definition there than elsewhere, and the women there are also far more likely to report them than in other countries (more faith in the justice system).

I can ask you the same question I asked GD - why do you think those countries always top happiness indexes (and alike) despite being the most socialistic ones?

Edited April 16, 2020 by Maedhros

[Malcador]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

In other news. Remember when Bernie Sanders was praising Mauduro and saying the "American Dream" was more likely to be realized in Venezuela? Well, Venezuela, the country with the worlds largest oil reserves, has run out of gasoline: https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Oil-rich-Venezuela-is-running-out-of-gas-15204464.php

Hooray socialism! I remember when the Soviet Union was the worlds largest producer AND importer of wheat and there still wasn't enough bread to go around. 

So your government's policies contributed nothing to this, you believe ? 

[213374U]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Hooray socialism! I remember when the Soviet Union was the worlds largest producer AND importer of wheat and there still wasn't enough bread to go around. 

Little to do with "socialism" per se. Marx didn't really bother with agriculture, so "marxists" were kind of flying by the seat of their pants. The Chinese saw agricultural cooperatives fail, so they scrapped them after Mao kicked the bucket. The Soviets didn't, compounding other problems such as relative scarcity of quality farming land, inadequate and outdated technology and, yes, stupid ass planning decisions such as the diversion of rivers that led to the Aral Sea depletion. I'm sure you'll agree that sadly, socialists do not have a monopoly on poor planning.

In an ironic turn of events, traditional small family farms in the US are failing at an alarming rate. They are giving way to huge corporate farmers that benefit from economies of scale and tech -- not even cooperatives, just wageslaves and computers. I don't think anyone would argue that socialism is to blame for this either. Sure, Americans aren't at any risk of starving as a result, but neither were the Soviets. The ever-increasing Soviet grain imports were, among other things, to avoid slaughtering livestock during the lows in their cyclic agriculture yields -which increased dairies and meat consumption- and were paid for with the proceeds from exporting other commodities.

Edited April 16, 2020 by 213374U
grammer is hard

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Maedhros said:

What's your take on the most socialist countries in the West are always topping democracy and happiness indexes? Not meant sarcastically btw, serious question. How do you explain socialism "bad", when countries that are the most socialist (within a capitalistic system) do so well?

Would we do even better if we abandoned our system and became "mini-USAs"?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/03/20/northern-europe-dominates-happiness-rankings-once-again/#62e1f2902bd3

https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-social-mobility-index-2020-why-economies-benefit-from-fixing-inequality

https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

 

In before Skarpen "but barnevernet"

Not really socialist though are they? Businesses are private, land ownership is private, natural resources belong to the land they sit on. You can own property, own a business, own a multi-billion dollar corporation and get rich selling cell handsets and base stations to the world. What the Scandinavian countries have is a really high tax rate that is used to fund a social welfare system that is very beneficial to a small and mostly homogeneous country and population that is mostly centered in one area. Nothing at all like Venezuela or the USSR or their ilk is it? In fact it's fair to say they are EXACTLY like the US except they pay a little more in tax and get better value for it am I right? Sort of like a mini-USA only no Wal-Mart. Hey, they are happy with it and I'm happy for them. 

Of course that does not exactly work in a huge, heterogeneous, and exceeding complex country like the US where one part of the country is so different from another they might as well be different peoples. Or where the tax rate is already over 38% for the people who pay taxes and they are getting nothing like that because and enormous military, bloated bureaucracy, entitlements, and aging population, numerous population centers with a huge diversity of challenges, etc. I could go on. Americans look at other countries and wonder "why can't we do that?". The answer is "Because we are different, have different problems, a different culture, and are just different."

If things weren't the same they'd be different. 

[Guard Dog]

26 minutes ago, Malcador said:

So your government's policies contributed nothing to this, you believe ? 

Sure, same as yours, the EU member nations, Japan, Greenland and Mexico and a few others. All of them did the same thing at the same time. Don't care. I didn't vote for Obama, don't get a vote in any other country. I have 0 responsibility for it. Don't blame me I voted for Johnson. Of course Venezuela was falling apart well before Maduro and the 2014 fiasco that led to sanctions so no, they don't get a pass for f----g their own people over. It's what governments do. And the more power they get the harder they f--k them.  

[Maedhros]

1 minute ago, Guard Dog said:

Not really socialist though are they? Businesses are private, land ownership is private, natural resources belong to the land they sit on. You can own property, own a business, own a multi-billion dollar corporation and get rich selling cell handsets and base stations to the world. What the Scandinavian countries have is a really high tax rate that is used to fund a social welfare system that is very beneficial to a small and mostly homogeneous country and population that is mostly centered in one area. Nothing at all like Venezuela or the USSR or their ilk is it? In fact it's fair to say they are EXACTLY like the US except they pay a little more in tax and get better value for it am I right? Sort of like a mini-USA only no Wal-Mart. Hey, they are happy with it and I'm happy for them. 

Of course that does not exactly work in a huge, heterogeneous, and exceeding complex country like the US where one part of the country is so different from another they might as well be different peoples. Or where the tax rate is already over 38% for the people who pay taxes and they are getting nothing like that because and enormous military, bloated bureaucracy, entitlements, and aging population, numerous population centers with a huge diversity of challenges, etc. I could go on. Americans look at other countries and wonder "why can't we do that?". The answer is "Because we are different, have different problems, a different culture, and are just different."

If things weren't the same they'd be different. 

Thanks for replying. Yeah, no country is socialist really, but in the 21st century it feels like the useage of the word means "welfare state" more than anything else.

I don't agree that it couldn't be done over there, you have a long history of having huge top tax rates after all, but I see your point with all the challenges.

[Guard Dog]

28 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Little to do with "socialism" per se. Marx didn't really bother with agriculture, so "marxists" were kind of flying by the seat of their pants. The Chinese saw agricultural cooperatives fail, so they scrapped them after Mao kicked the bucket. The Soviets didn't, compounding other problems such as relative scarcity of quality farming land, inadequate and outdated technology and, yes, stupid ass planning decisions such as the diversion of rivers that led to the Aral Sea depletion. I'm sure you'll agree that sadly, socialists do not have a monopoly on poor planning.

In an ironic turn of events, traditional small family farms in the US are failing at an alarming rate. They are giving way to huge corporate farmers that benefit from economies of scale and tech -- not even cooperatives, just wageslaves and computers. I don't think anyone would argue that socialism is to blame for this either. Sure, Americans aren't at any risk of starving as a result, but neither were the Soviets. The ever-increasing Soviet grain imports were, among other things, to avoiding the slaughtering livestock during the lows in their cyclic agriculture yields -which increased dairies and meat consumption- and were paid for with the proceeds from exporting other commodities.

What happened to the USSR has a lot more to do with incompetence. Almost the first thing the Bolsheviks did was find everyone who knew how to run a country and shot them. Things did not improve from there for a very, very long time. The problem with socialism, and I already know you agree, is the absence of incentive. An entire country run by people who don't know what they are doing and don't really give a f--k if it works or not just as long as it's perceived to be working.

The problem with farming and agri-business in the US is something I'm just now starting to get an idea of. More and more in my day job I'm working on studies for irrigation system installation and their use and effect on the water table. Plus I'm dealing with a number of small and large farm businesses in my real estate ventures. The US government and it's aversion to free trade has a huge role in this. There are other problems too, including poor business decisions by private farmers. 

The biggest problem on this one particular topic however is one of economic philosophy. You can have a unregulated economy and you will be fine. Everyone will accommodate themselves to it's rules. You can have a regulated economy like Maedhros & I were discussing. And you'll be fine. But PICK one and STICK with it! The US government's relationships with business, consumers, and banking and investing has been schizophrenic to say the least.  

[Guard Dog]

7 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Thanks for replying. Yeah, no country is socialist really, but in the 21st century it feels like the useage of the word means "welfare state" more than anything else.

I don't agree that it couldn't be done over there, you have a long history of having huge top tax rates after all, but I see your point with all the challenges.

Yes and in all that history no such system ever existed. First of all, I would NEVER trust the US government with all that money. Second of all the USA is ungovernable on the micro level that kind of system requires. Now if an individual state wanted to do something like that, THAT might work. On a national level here? It. Will. Never. Happen.

Plus when tax rates were that high there were literally thousands of different taxes that did not exist then but DO exist now. It WILL wreck the economy. You fellow citizens are NOT entitled to every dollar you earn.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Malcador]

33 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Sure, same as yours, the EU member nations, Japan, Greenland and Mexico and a few others. All of them did the same thing at the same time. Don't care. I didn't vote for Obama, don't get a vote in any other country. I have 0 responsibility for it. Don't blame me I voted for Johnson. Of course Venezuela was falling apart well before Maduro and the 2014 fiasco that led to sanctions so no, they don't get a pass for f----g their own people over. It's what governments do. And the more power they get the harder they f--k them.  

Well that was the point.  If I shoot you, can't use your resulting death as a mark against your fitness.  Chavez chose very poorly with Maduro though.

[Zoraptor]

4 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I've actually been pretty terrified for Taiwan virtually all of Trump's administration, as he has signaled various times that he has little to no interest in helping defend allies. Don't know if he's said anything about specifically Taiwan, but this would seem to be the prime time for China to get away with something like taking Taiwan while the U.S.'s interest in protecting allies is seemingly at its weakest.

Taiwan should be safe so long as China and the US/ Trump are actively fighting an economic war. I'd be more worried about Trump forcing China's hand by recognising Taiwan as independent (without a very detailed plan of how to deal with the consequences) than him abandoning them. That's exactly the sort of stunt he'd pull.

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

But China, much like the USSR back in it's day is pretty niggardly with it's aid.

China, much like the USSR, gives most of its 'aid' effectively 'in kind' rather than in cash. Big infrastructure projects funded by China, and using mostly Chinese labour much as the soviet aligned bloc got soviet or Cuban engineers for their projects. In many ways that is a lot better than the old IMF/ WB model of giving countries wodges of dosh that inevitably disappeared into various Mobutu types' swiss bank accounts instead of being spent on what they were meant to, leaving the leaders as billionaires when inevitably deposed and their countries with nothing  except being permanently indebted, and forced to run their economies as dictated by the IMF- debt trap neo colonialism, as absolutely deliberate policy.

Of course the Chinese model isn't disinterested benevolence either and is mostly Chinese money paying Chinese workers for projects that benefit China (and secondarily the host country), but I'm always amused at 'Chinese debt trap in Africa' type articles railing against what the west has done for the past 70 years because now it's the Chinese instead; and at least the infrastructure gets built and the Chinese can't walk away with all the ports, roads and power stations they're building.

[majestic]

21 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

The troubles with that are that the US still hasn't provided any evidence, let alone proof, for their accusations against Huawei.

It also really makes them look like (the) hyprocrites (they are) in a post-Snowden world. Please let us spy on you, not China.

Polemic? Perhaps, but as you've so wonderfully stated the US has worked hard for the past 20 years on that dim view of them the world's slowly adapting.

12 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

It seems to me the best form of government is repressive authoritarian. The more human rights abuses the better. Slavery? Good. Mass murder? Better! The world will just fall all over themselves to kiss your ass and make you happy. But Republican or Parliamentary Democracy?  Not only will the world hate you but they will pitch a fit when you stop funding the lipstick they buy to properly kiss the tyrants asses. 

Past time this BS stopped. But it won't. 

See that's the point, for as long as you're on the inside that statement rings true. When you're outside, though, it's the Obama drone program that blows up your wedding. It's US funded terrorism that gets you beheaded, shot, mutilated or blown apart. It's the sudden removal of support that sees all your hard work wiped away by a Turkish invasion. It's NSA spying pervading even the most intimate parts of your life.

It's China that's selling you cheap knockoff products. Unless you're in Tibet, Taiwan or Hong Kong you're much more likely to accidentially catch a stray freedom cluster bomb than be spirited away to some gulag by the CCP.

We also really don't need to discuss how the US has done more good than harm before BruceVC comes and has an aneurysm, and how even with the likes of Trump, Obama and Bush the US is vastly preferable to the dystopian nightmare that is China. Going back to having a foreign policy that reflects that would be a appreciated though, and also much cheaper, something I know you're agreeing with (for different reasons, perhaps, but it's an agreement nonetheless).

I'm also very much in favor of making ourselves as indepdendent of the US and China as possible, even if it takes some doing and costs money, who knows, perhaps Covid-19 will finally give us a push in the right direction. I'm also with you on that we shouldn't kowtow before dictators and wannabes (which at the time includes The Donald(tm)).

Edited April 16, 2020 by majestic

[213374U]

Hey, if it works domestically, you know it can work as a basis for foreign policy.

America: at least we are not China!

[Gorth]

6 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

In fact it's fair to say they are EXACTLY like the US except they pay a little more in tax and get better value for it am I right? Sort of like a mini-USA only no Wal-Mart. Hey, they are happy with it and I'm happy for them.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The political system is very different. Say hello to 10+ party systems, creating a patchwork of alliances and compromises when creating governments. No powerful presidents. Nobody being above the law (Impeachment? What's that?) If the prime minister breaks the law, he goes to jail. End of story (not sure about the other Nordic countries, but in Denmark, the queen is the only one that has Sovereign Immunity and is effectively above the law.

But not having one or two powerful parties makes a big difference, as most laws will have to pass through the approval process of several parties, meaning they are generally better at passing "centrist" laws and also less likely to be reversed when opposition parties are in power (because they or their allied parties may have been signatories to them)

Margrethe Vestager (European Commissioner for Competition) is a typical product of the system. Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Apple probably still hates her guts for cracking down on their business practices in Europe (slapping billions of dollars of fines on them when they abuse their market positions and to show them, that no matter how big they are, they are not above the law either)

Things like free healthcare, free universities, basic income etc. paid through taxation, passing on most of the bill to the richest part of the population, is sort of "socialist" in nature, but in the end, helped a country that had little natural resources to have an educated, skilled work force and a good "happiness" rating in those various charts.

Free speech is one of those things that became a bit of a talking point when the infamous Muhammad Cartoons got published by a Danish newspaper. First the government tried to stop it from escalating (filing a judicial complaint against the paper), but when it failed, they bowed to public pressure and stood firm. Not sure how it is now, 15 years later, but the press is/was very, very powerful and always there, watching the various governments and calling them out on any BS

 

Edit: Don't get me started on unions, labour laws, 6 weeks paid annual leave etc.

[Skarpen]

7 hours ago, Maedhros said:

I can ask you the same question I asked GD - why do you think those countries always top happiness indexes (and alike) despite being the most socialistic ones?

The most socialistic? Out of what? World? Europe? Not in the slightest to both.

Maybe the indexes are flawed or the things they are measuring are not really important or the indexes are designed for certain types of countries to "shine".