Norway appoints Muslim woman Minister of Culture

[Hurlshort]

As difficult as the housing bust was in the US, the economy has been slowly recovering for a number of years, as has the employment numbers. Housing prices are stable, the banks and auto industry stabilized, etc. I have no idea what that will mean for Europe, but I would think it would offer some hope.

[Humodour]

The sad thing is that none of this is relevant. The elephant in the room is global warming and it's not getting better, it's getting worse.

 

In a world where Western crops regularly fail, famine and war can decimate us just as easily as it can Africa.

[Nepenthe]

I'll just say that, as a rule, things are and appear very different if you're from the U.S. or from Europe - and talking about Europe as a whole is, of course, generally a bad idea. Peaceful coexistence can't happen without shared values and cultural symbols, multiculturalism is an utopia.

[213374U]

As difficult as the housing bust was in the US, the economy has been slowly recovering for a number of years, as has the employment numbers. Housing prices are stable, the banks and auto industry stabilized, etc. I have no idea what that will mean for Europe, but I would think it would offer some hope.

The situation in Europe is different. In the US, you are in control of your own economic and monetary policy, you just have to find someone who knows what he's doing. In Europe it's a bit more complicated - for years now states have been relinquishing their economic -and political- sovereignty to an opaque and undemocratic bureaucracy that answers to no one and whose overall aims and the interests they obey are difficult to discern. This bureaucracy is hellbent on implanting a policy of austerity and cuts that not only is not helping, it's making things worse. Saddled with ever-increasing debt interests, deprived of the economic and political tools to do something about it at the national level (all power to the Troika!), and forced to adopt failed policies that stifle recovery, the outlook is quite bleak. And this isn't just me being pessimist.

[Drowsy Emperor]

When the IMF starts shaping a country's economic policy (and austerity and cuts is their [neo-liberal] invention and specialty), you can be pretty sure they're well on their way to poverty and disaster.

What we're seeing in Europe now are those same recipes and there are plenty of examples of what the outcome looks like.

 

Most countries in EU are now treated as second rate citizens by the few powerful ones, Germany in particular - what will happen when they're twice as weak and dependent a few years down (this) road?

[Nepenthe]

While I agree with you that the IMF austerity measures don't exactly promote growth, let's not forget that, say, Greece was a country that simply lived over its means for almost a decade. They had annual pay hikes in the 5-6 % region, so even the "common man" most definitely got a chunk of the pie. And don't get me started on their retirement age.

 

As difficult as the housing bust was in the US, the economy has been slowly recovering for a number of years, as has the employment numbers. Housing prices are stable, the banks and auto industry stabilized, etc. I have no idea what that will mean for Europe, but I would think it would offer some hope.

The situation in Europe is different. In the US, you are in control of your own economic and monetary policy, you just have to find someone who knows what he's doing. In Europe it's a bit more complicated - for years now states have been relinquishing their economic -and political- sovereignty to an opaque and undemocratic bureaucracy that answers to no one and whose overall aims and the interests they obey are difficult to discern. This bureaucracy is hellbent on implanting a policy of austerity and cuts that not only is not helping, it's making things worse. Saddled with ever-increasing debt interests, deprived of the economic and political tools to do something about it at the national level (all power to the Troika!), and forced to adopt failed policies that stifle recovery, the outlook is quite bleak. And this isn't just me being pessimist.

The Eurocracy doesn't obey anyone's interests, it's a headless blunder. This lobbying thing has been a real eye-opener, they have absolutely 0 concept of economic realities and will hose everyone, including Big Business, without giving it a thought. I can't also help but feel that they are seriously over-staffed due to the eastern expansion, and are thinking up new initiatives simply to keep themselves occupied. Certainly feels that way.

 

Case in point: they believe there is a market disturbance because small building companies using highly experimental technologies can't receive cheap liability coverage/performance guarantees.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Nepenthe

[BruceVC]

When the IMF starts shaping a country's economic policy (and austerity and cuts is their [neo-liberal] invention and specialty), you can be pretty sure they're well on their way to poverty and disaster.

What we're seeing in Europe now are those same recipes and there are plenty of examples of what the outcome looks like.

 

Most countries in EU are now treated as second rate citizens by the few powerful ones, Germany in particular - what will happen when they're twice as weak and dependent a few years down (this) road?

 

I don't think that the IMF should be blamed at all, I live in a country that has high unemployment and poverty worse than any of the EU countries going through austerity and people like me survive and thrive fine. I will say that most of you Europeans are very good at complaining and arranging government protests. But the reality is that almost all the financial woes that Europe is going through are self inflicted. Bad government policies, inept tax collection and the spiraling credit card debts are to blame. Yes austerity and financial sacrifice is the path certain countries now have to follow. Lets stop blaming countries like Germany, who have managed there economies well, for the changes that need to be made

[Humodour]

Germany is probably the very last country responsible for Europe's current crisis. The USA is in large part to blame for wrecking the joint in the first place, but certainly each EU state (apart from some such as Germany) should have been more resilient to that possibility. For instance, Greece was always a house of cards that simply hadn't encountered a slight breeze yet up to the GFC.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Krezack

[Drowsy Emperor]

While I agree with you that the IMF austerity measures don't exactly promote growth, let's not forget that, say, Greece was a country that simply lived over its means for almost a decade. They had annual pay hikes in the 5-6 % region, so even the "common man" most definitely got a chunk of the pie. And don't get me started on their retirement age.

 

The problem with IMF austerity measures is that they always target the welfare state and never the business institutions that created the problem in the first place. Their solution to the crisis is to cut state spending on health care, education and other things everyone needs while never touching the filthy rich financial capital that created the crisis, never putting regulations on the systematic loans that are given out to grease the wheels of the economy and subjugate the weaker countries. Everyone knew a decade ago how this was going to play out and the large capitalists that run the whole scheme played it this way on purpose because in the end:

a) their personal wealth wasn't going to be touched, only increased

b) in the event that their companies "fail" the state can be manipulated and pressured to bail them out

Its a win win situation for them.

The IMF is just a tool for playing dumb, leveling all the blame at the state and the masses as if Tom, **** or Harry were asked what their country's fiscal policy should be.

Did certain countries take advantage of the loans? Definitely.

 

But I ask you, what was the alternative? These same faceless institutions changed the PM of a major european country overnight (Italy). With that sort of power, to install their "agent Smith" type characters at top political positions, how much power did states really have in the issue?

 

It was a rigged game and the masses are getting all the blame and the short end of the stick.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[pmp10]

Well this thread quickly moved from multiculturalism into 'the sky is falling' territory.

[Nepenthe]

Well, on the european level the Union is doing plenty to target the "filthy rich financial capital", mostly by creating a massive bureaucracy of reporting, requirements and other oddball stuff that mostly remind me of Roman law (I'm half expecting to see a Regulation the specifies the proper way sacrificing sheep to the Brussels Gods). The problem is, of course, that when you run out of money, you have to either cut back or tax more. Sure, in a lot of places there's an established moneyed class that's untouchable due to cronyism, but "taxing the rich" is one of those left-populist war cries that always gets a lot more complicated when you try to implement it in practice. Unless you're honest enough to define rich as "everybody who makes more than I do", you soon run into the problem that there's actually a lot less rich people than you believe. The really rich people often have the option of simply packing up and leaving, meaning that you're in fact just more out of pocket than you were before. So you wind up squeezing the money out of the upper middle class, like you always have.

 

This, in fact, is an interesting facet of the Greek crisis. Since they had basically no (upper) middle class outside of government workers(!) Now those civil servants, archaeologists etc. have been sacked, and they suddenly find themselves without the upper middle class to carry the whole shebang. But again, there are some, but very few, rich people in Greece, and while it's popular to blame them, tax evasion and corruption reaches absolutely all levels of the society. I remember when the taxi drivers were on strike for weeks when a law was passed requiring them to give receipts a while before the 2004 olympics.

[alanschu]

I think we'll get a good idea of how much religion and a bunch of -isms really matter in modern western society as the economic stuff continues to unravel. Last time there were really big economic upheavals in europe, well within the last century, we got a whole bunch of extremely unpleasant stuff based on/ using as an excuse religion and isms. In such times anyone demonstrably different is at risk, and always has been.

 

I think the words of some in this thread are actually pretty reflective of that

[Zoraptor]

Germany is probably the very last country responsible for Europe's current crisis.

Depends what you mean by that, really. Germany has the benefit of being the largest economy in Europe and having had monetary policy in Europe reflect its economic realities rather than the larger european one. PIIGS would not be in the shape they are now (or at least not in as bad a shape) if they didn't have exchange rates and the like set to reflect Germany's economy rather than their own. That's the inherent limitation of having a single currency without a single economy and overall fiscal policy so it isn't really Germany that is to blame, but it does (well, did, now that the whole south of Europe is imploding and needing help) get the benefits of the single currency without the drawbacks for a long time.

 

It's like what would have happened if there were a "South Pacific dollar". Australia (and to a lesser extent New Zealand) would do fine out of it, but Fiji/ Tonga/ Samoa would be completely stuffed as NZ's high interest rates and Australia's mining boom pushed the currency way above what their economies could handle.

 

As for the US, the problem there is that the economic growth is still rather tepid and being funded by extensive borrowing, zero interest and money printing- none of which are sustainable in the long term and are only really viable to the extent they are being used because the dollar is the world's reserve currency and no one has interest in crashing it as the collateral damage would be catastrophic.

[Rostere]

This is beautiful, but not very practical. Methinks you haven't actually immersed yourself in a society that has attempted to get "multiculturalism" to work, or any society other than your own, for that matter.

 

I live in the largest city in the country that has the largest amount of refugees per capita in Europe, barring Malta and Cyprus.

 

I think it's quite telling that you speak so fondly of "tolerance" but are so quick to dismiss conflicts arising from cultural differences, the solution apparently being simply general niceness. Do you believe people don't love their culture, their customs, their ways? I think your stance is deeply arrogant; those people and their little cultural idiosincrasies should simply drop their generations-old beliefs and customs and "be nice". What if they'd rather continue being who they are instead of conforming to your poorly defined idea of "nice"? Tolerance only goes so far.

 

You seem to have a fixation on "culture" and "customs", whatever that means. I think it's quite arrogant to see such importance in someone's cultural heritage and ethnicity. People are defined to a much larger degree by their own separate personality. What are you going to say next, that you can smell people's nationalities from 100 yards away? That people of [insert nationality here] are all alike? You seem to have an immense amount of prejudice concerning people from differing cultures.

 

The world is not going to change in an instant. You're making a fool of yourself when accusing me of believing that seems to be the core of your argument. Of course I don't think I can just tell everyone to be nice and that's it. It will be a gradual process and in the end, everyone will adopt multicultural, democratic ideals because that is the only philosophy that can unite the world.

 

At times, this progress will be slowed down whenever global economic downturn occurs amid the ensuing discontent, blaming and pie- throwing. Hopefully it won't end up in too much pop-a-mole with extreme nationalist regimes.

 

It's kind of like free trade: you can try to pretend capitalism does not exist and lock yourself in, and you'll end up like North Korea. Nationalism is a stillborn ideology. As improvements in communications have made a globalist ("multiculturalist") ideology possible (and increasingly necessary), so has nationalism become an obstacle instead of the uniting factor it was in the 19th century.

[Drowsy Emperor]

I've been to Malta and it sure isn't some multicultural paradise. Its a strongly catholic country of approximately half a million people, and not really representative of anything.

Cyprus's multicultural status is even more dubious what with the ever present threat of conflict that hangs over it. In fact, its a very divided place and probably a prime example of multiculturalism not working.

 

Besides culture and ethnicity are extremely important to most people in the world, to ignore that in favor of "individual personality" is to be voluntarily blind in political matters. Individual personality is relevant between individuals but its not how states can conduct relations with one another. Never has been and never will be.

 

It will be a gradual process and in the end, everyone will adopt multicultural, democratic ideals because that is the only philosophy that can unite the world.

 

What makes you think the world wants to be united? If there was such a desire it would be spontaneous, from the bottom up - not spoon fed by propaganda and politicians. And "democracy" will certainly not prevail when the usual method of delivery is on the wings of NATO bombers. I'm sorry to say but your argument is 99.9% wishful thinking.

 

I will say this, a good sort of multiculturalism works in countries where it isn't an elaborate propaganda. The US prides itself on it, yet racial divisions are still extremely present. On the other hand you have Brazil or Cuba (but oh so undemocratic!), where whites, natives and blacks work together and the question of race is nowhere near as important as in the "progressive" US.

And let me remind you that we had a functional multicultural society in Bosnia before the current model of multiculturalism was even concieved. It went to **** only when the economy was so bad that dissolution became inevitable, but it worked for a long while.

 

So, 3 conclusions:

a) multiculturalism can work when its spontaneous, born out of necessity

b) it doesn't have to exist under a democratic rule

c) multiculturalism created by a) is true multiculturalism because the "cultures" that comprise it are really preserved

[Humodour]

I've been to Malta and it sure isn't some multicultural paradise. Its a strongly catholic country of approximately half a million people, and not really representative of anything.

Cyprus's multicultural status is even more dubious what with the ever present threat of conflict that hangs over it. In fact, its a very divided place and probably a prime example of multiculturalism not working.

 

Besides culture and ethnicity are extremely important to most people in the world, to ignore that in favor of "individual personality" is to be voluntarily blind in political matters. Individual personality is relevant between individuals but its not how states can conduct relations with one another. Never has been and never will be.

 

It will be a gradual process and in the end, everyone will adopt multicultural, democratic ideals because that is the only philosophy that can unite the world.

 

What makes you think the world wants to be united? If there was such a desire it would be spontaneous, from the bottom up - not spoon fed by propaganda and politicians. And "democracy" will certainly not prevail when the usual method of delivery is on the wings of NATO bombers. I'm sorry to say but your argument is 99.9% wishful thinking.

 

I will say this, a good sort of multiculturalism works in countries where it isn't an elaborate propaganda. The US prides itself on it, yet racial divisions are still extremely present. On the other hand you have Brazil or Cuba (but oh so undemocratic!), where whites, natives and blacks work together and the question of race is nowhere near as important as in the "progressive" US.

And let me remind you that we had a functional multicultural society in Bosnia before the current model of multiculturalism was even concieved. It went to **** only when the economy was so bad that dissolution became inevitable, but it worked for a long while.

 

So, 3 conclusions:

a) multiculturalism can work when its spontaneous, born out of necessity

b) it doesn't have to exist under a democratic rule

c) multiculturalism created by a) is true multiculturalism because the "cultures" that comprise it are really preserved

 

The logical conclusions that can be drawn from your train of thought are disturbing.

 

If you are concluding that multiculturalism is bad, then what are you proposing it be replaced with? And how do you propose enforcing the replacement policies?

[213374U]

While I agree with you that the IMF austerity measures don't exactly promote growth, let's not forget that, say, Greece was a country that simply lived over its means for almost a decade. They had annual pay hikes in the 5-6 % region, so even the "common man" most definitely got a chunk of the pie. And don't get me started on their retirement age.

Agreed. Euro has created a false sense of prosperity and countries have failed to ramp up competitivity. But that's only a facet of a more complex problem.

 

When a fast-food restaurant gets 1.200 job applications in the first week after opening is announced, I'm finding it hard to believe that further austerity is the solution, though. Sure, there's loads of people living off benefits that are dead weight, and more politicians per capita than anywhere else, but with a ~54% youth unemployment rate -engineers and nurses can't find work, not just unqualified labor- investment cutbacks and tax increases are choking an already struggling working class, the middle class being all but extinct. So when I read foreigners commenting that it's now time to pay for the excesses of the past decades and shed some economic fat, so to speak, I can only shake my head and hope they never get to experience what it feels to spend years unemployed, with no prospect of finding a job in the foreseeable future.

 

And Germany. Germany is the good guy here, right? Well, Germans have been reaping the benefits of a huge export market without tariffs for years, while basically dictating economic policy for the rest of the Eurozone alongside France. They have been staunchly resisting taking action to stabilize the debt crisis affecting weaker Eurozone members, because that increases German political leverage as it pushes countries to either quit the Euro or enter into a bailout deal under terms dictated by... Germany. On the other hand, Germany has for years benefitted from the artificially increased purchasing power of her Eurozone neighbors as a result of fixed interest rates that made loans safer and also an extremely favourable artificial exchange rate. Germany hasn't simply managed her economy well... she has also managed other economies to her advantage - with the acquiescence of local politicians more concerned with securing re-election than ensuring sustainable development and growth.

 

So, yeah. It's a tad more complex than "hard-working Germans have to shoulder the burden of the excesses of their lazy southern neighbors". But it's always easier to drink the Washington Consensus kool-aid than spending a few hours a day reading up on the economy, right?

[Nepenthe]

Sure, money doesn't just disappear, it goes somewhere. In this case a large chunk of it has gone to Germany.

 

You have to remember I'm looking at this from the Finnish viewpoint. We're tiny, we didn't **** up or profit from the southern waste in the way the Germans did, yet we're paying through the nose for their casino years. I swear the difference between the austerity measures we are "voluntarily" implementing to foot the bill and what the crisis countries are refusing to do is... marginal.

[213374U]

I live in the largest city in the country that has the largest amount of refugees per capita in Europe, barring Malta and Cyprus.

Rofl. So you live in a country of ~9.5M inhabitants, that is 3rd in asylum requests per capita. Never mind that even within the link you posted, over 66% of said requests were rejected. Wow, you guys are so cosmopolite! I bet you have even seen lots of Africans on TV!

 

Seriously, lol. You fail at statistics (which doesn't bode well for your career as a scientist), you fail at reading, and you Google-Fu is weak. Or maybe you just think everyone but you is really dumb and will readily accept your bull**** without a second thought.

 

I live in a country of 47M of which roughly 12% are immigrants, a majority of which weren't born in the EU. I have friends (*SHOCK!!!*) of Middle Eastern, Maghrebi, South American and East European descent. I have shed more sweat and tears (not blood, fortunately) alongside some of them than your pale armchair theorist ass has in your whole life. So do us both a favor, take your insinuations that I'm a xenophobe and kindly go **** yourself.

[alanschu]

Yeah I'm not a big fan of Germany's position and actions within the EU.

 

Life was simpler when they were out conquering! Hehe.

[Gfted1]

Ah, but maybe they are still conquering, just peacefully. If they couldnt take you by force, they will take you by putting your economy in their pocket. Would be kind of funny if that was some master plan.

[Hurlshort]

How is the eastern part of Germany handling all this, by the way? It's hard to believe it has only been a little over 20 years since they were reunited.

[Meshugger]

That's just being nice, which is a pretty damn loose definition for a political movement. Read again what i said, I was talking about cultural identity. In Hurlshot's case, they were all proud Americans. A nation founded on an ideal. That's their cultural identity.

 

The problem that i was talking about is that germans, japanese, persians, russians and whatnot have their cultural identity. They have their own code of conduct, customs, ethics and language and to a certain degree: ethnicity. They move to another country where they all keep being germans, japanese, persians and russians. What is the cultural identity of the nation if it is all consisted of germans, japanese, persians and russians? Either it will morph into a completely different one (various south american countries), separate ministates in a looser federation (Switzerland) or a dominant culture will be the defining one (Anglo-saxon in the US, Australia, etc...).

 

That's why i find it pointless to have a nation of true multicultularism to begin with when there's no underlying fabric that binds people together as a society. Being nice to one another? Oh please, there has to be a more sound social foundation than that. What is right and wrong? What rights and obligations should an individual have? What is the role of the state in relation to the citizen and so on...

 

That's why i am more for free trade as an expression of multiculture, since it is a voluntary act between two different actors that share a common interest: trading.

 

I fail to see how you think being nice to one another is an unsound social foundation.

 

If you go back to read my earlier posts you will see how I write a lot about moral convictions and how those are the only limiting factor against the unity of humanity as a whole. Some people do not believe in democratic principles, and in tolerance. Unlike you, who seem to group together this with "ethnicity" (whatever that means in your vocabulary, I'm not sure) I think tolerance and understanding for different people in spite of superficial differences is a sign (and a product) of an advanced, healthy society. Acceptance and tolerance are neccessarily found in all healthy societies. You speak of multiculturalism as having no "underlying fabric", this couldn't be more wrong. In fact, multiculturalism has the strongest possible (and indeed also most general) underlying fabric - the one of mutual respect, tolerance, the recognition of the democratic rights of our peers. This is so simple, yet so very powerful. I can't imagine a more powerful "underlying fabric" to bind together a society.

 

I provided examples on countries where people with different cultures intermingled with each other and the corresponding results. You answered with wishful thinking. Again, how will a nation of sweden and swedish culture exist it the country only consist of cultures that are not swedish to begin with?

 

Or lets do an example on a smaller scale: This forum. We all share one thing that binds us together: We like RPGs, especially ones made by Obsidian. We have agreed to a set of rules, a set of conduct and even talk the same language! Those who break the rules are warned and then banned, and thus we have created our own miniculture of our own. Other people not so interested Obsidian are tolerated as long as they play by the rules set up by the forum. Hell, they can even have subforum if they want to.

 

Now, some people suggest that we should change this. We should invite people who love cooking in korean, racing cars in german, and musical theory in swahili and 50-60 other different groups of interest. They will have their own code of conduct, communicate in their own languages and follow their own rules. Soon enough there's no clear majority and people will have nothing in common. What will then happen? How will mods manage it? What will be the common identity that sets Obsidian forum apart from all other forums?

[Hurlshort]

Or lets do an example on a smaller scale: This forum. We all share one thing that binds us together: We like RPGs, especially ones made by Obsidian. We have agreed to a set of rules, a set of conduct and even talk the same language! Those who break the rules are warned and then banned, and thus we have created our own miniculture of our own. Other people not so interested Obsidian are tolerated as long as they play by the rules set up by the forum. Hell, they can even have subforum if they want to.

 

Now, some people suggest that we should change this. We should invite people who love cooking in korean, racing cars in german, and musical theory in swahili and 50-60 other different groups of interest. They will have their own code of conduct, communicate in their own languages and follow their own rules. Soon enough there's no clear majority and people will have nothing in common. What will then happen? How will mods manage it? What will be the common identity that sets Obsidian forum apart from all other forums?

 

The premise of your argument seems to be that when a new group moves to Sweden, that they won't embrace Swedish culture in any way. That does not have to be what happens. You can celebrate your traditions and heritage and still take part in your new home's cultural identity.

 

Your use of these forums is a great example of diversity working. We are an incredibly diverse group here with quite a few different beliefs. Many of us come from vastly different cultures, and not all of us speak English as our primary language. We are brought together by a fairly simple thing, video games. It seems like a person's home country would be a bigger common thread than that.

[obyknven]

I think best example peacefully coexisting is Russia. Over 100 ethnics live here. All of them save own cultural diversity and own lands...

We don't want cultural enrichment. We don't respect miscegenation. Immigrants not welcomed here. Multiculturalism never been in Russia!

Indifference is the cause of peaceful coexistence. We just not bothering each other. And exterminate any one who trying bother us.