Politics' Official Eighteenth Thread

[HoonDing]

""I think it's deterioration of the family," Black said. Citing the expression, "idle hands are the devil's workshop," Black said that without a family support structure, teens turn to the Internet, violent movies and pornography."

 

Idle hands, huh."

 

pornography and idle hands, joke writes itself

[smjjames]

""I think it's deterioration of the family," Black said. Citing the expression, "idle hands are the devil's workshop," Black said that without a family support structure, teens turn to the Internet, violent movies and pornography."

 

Idle hands, huh."

 

pornography and idle hands, joke writes itself

Note how she says it without defining any solutions. Yes, she says family support structure, but she needs to define it (I suspect part of it is God), otherwise it’s just a talking point if there’s no detail as far as how. Edited May 30, 2018 by smjjames

[majestic]

I thought that the ‘left’ here in the US would be mostly centrist in Europe. Meanwhile, our far-right are somehow even more far right than Europe’s own far-right groups. Or maybe they’re approximately the same amount of far-right since there’s not much differentiation on that side of the spectrum.

 

On social issues maybe, everything else not so much. At least for the parts of Europe that were never in the Soviet sphere of influence, we're not that homogenic. We've got state run companies, socialized healthcare and things like a needs based minimum income.

 

Our moderate right wing parties aren't debating whether socialized healthcare should exist - they just question how much it should cover.

[Tagaziel]

edit:

 

Never mind, 's not worth it.

That's why I put him on ignore. Polish far right is too toxic even as entertainment.

 

On social issues maybe, everything else not so much. At least for the parts of Europe that were never in the Soviet sphere of influence, we're not that homogenic. We've got state run companies, socialized healthcare and things like a needs based minimum income.

 

Our moderate right wing parties aren't debating whether socialized healthcare should exist - they just question how much it should cover.

Except for a chunk the former Eastern Bloc, it seems. Poland, for example, is aping the United States since Balcerowicz reforms, with predictable results.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Tagaziel

[smjjames]

Aping? If it really were aping or copying, it wouldn’t have gone as far right as it has gone.

[majestic]

Guys, what? The current Polish government is led by socialist christians, where do you get the right wing idea from?

Edited May 30, 2018 by majestic

[smjjames]

The whole messing with the judicial system (though to be fair, that’s not limited to one side or the other) and the high amount of nationalism in the political sense, and general authoritarian bent?

 

Edit: and you link to a thread by the resident Polish far-right/rightwing/conservative forumite?

Edited May 30, 2018 by smjjames

[majestic]

The whole messing with the judicial system (though to be fair, that’s not limited to one side or the other) and the high amount of nationalism in the political sense, and general authoritarian bent?

 

Sorry, I fixed the link in the post. It was... a joke.

 

 

The whole messing with the judicial system (though to be fair, that’s not limited to one side or the other) and the high amount of nationalism in the political sense, and general authoritarian bent?

 

Edit: and you link to a thread by the resident Polish far-right/rightwing/conservative forumite?

 

I wanted to link to a specific post where he said the current Polish government is run by socialist christians. I could have just stated the joke outright but then he'd be back here demanding to know exactly where he stated that, or claim I misinterpreted his meaning while quoting verbatim.

Edited May 30, 2018 by majestic

[smjjames]

 

The whole messing with the judicial system (though to be fair, that’s not limited to one side or the other) and the high amount of nationalism in the political sense, and general authoritarian bent?

 

 

Sorry, I fixed the link in the post. It was... a joke.

I’m American, so, the fine details of Polish politics are limited, so, I missed the joke you were trying to make.

[majestic]

 

 

The whole messing with the judicial system (though to be fair, that’s not limited to one side or the other) and the high amount of nationalism in the political sense, and general authoritarian bent?

 

Sorry, I fixed the link in the post. It was... a joke.

I’m American, so, the fine details of Polish politics are limited, so, I missed the joke you were trying to make.

 

The entire world thinks Poland has a right wing populist government with a nationalistic, conservative and religious bent, except for Sharp_One. For him his government is run by socialist christians.

[Ben No.3]

Fun fact: The borderline reactionary Bavarian “wing” of Germany’s christian-conservative CDU (Merkels Party) is actually called the CSU/Christlich Soziale Union, so the Christian social union.

 

Another funny thing: Some years ago, they (CSU) refused to act against (bavarian) schools which didn’t want to take the Christian cross off the wall, regardless of the Supreme Court explicitly saying they had to. Nothing ever happened after that... Until recently, when they in fact made it obligatory for schools to have the cross on the wall. So they went from ignoring Supreme Court ruling to straight up acting against it. That’s our government-coalition-member for you there.

[Chilloutman]

everyone who is not hardcore communist is far right, don't you know? Well people still thinks that National Socialists are right wing so who can tell huh? :/

[majestic]

everyone who is not hardcore communist is far right, don't you know? Well people still thinks that National Socialists are right wing so who can tell huh? :/

 

Yeah, and people actually think the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually a dictatorship. How can it be, having democratic and republic in the name?

[HoonDing]

[Chilloutman]

 

everyone who is not hardcore communist is far right, don't you know? Well people still thinks that National Socialists are right wing so who can tell huh? :/

 

Yeah, and people actually think the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually a dictatorship. How can it be, having democratic and republic in the name? 

 

 

''People's'' is the key word in it

 

Do you disagree that Nazi's were socialistic or that they were nationalistic???

[Ben No.3]

Define “socialism” and “nationalism”

[Chilloutman]

very short and dumbed down answear could be something like that:

 

socialism - state ownership of means of production

nationalism - putting forward national interest above global

Edited May 30, 2018 by Chilloutman

[Ben No.3]

How much of the means of production have to be state owned and to what degree have national interest to be put first? As it stands, I can’t really think of any country that is NOT “national” and “socialist” to some degree, by those definitions

[Chilloutman]

How much of the means of production have to be state owned and to what degree have national interest to be put first? As it stands, I can’t really think of any country that is NOT “national” and “socialist” to some degree, by those definitions

 

Of course that is true, not sure about USA, I don't think there is many state controled companies. Nazis just put that nationalism to another whole level, they didn't put national interest above global in their own country, they also thought that every other nation is inferior and have to be "corrected', that is why they put shame on that word. Today healthy nationalism have to be called patriotism otherwise you get associated with nazis in seconds. But its a word play really

Edited May 30, 2018 by Chilloutman

[Hurlshort]

Entire world thought that Hillary would be president, except for Sharp_one. Who was right about that?

 

 

Actually Val was the one here that not only believed Trump would win, but was willing to wager on it. So he gets more credit than you.

[Ben No.3]

 

How much of the means of production have to be state owned and to what degree have national interest to be put first? As it stands, I can’t really think of any country that is NOT “national” and “socialist” to some degree, by those definitions

Of course that is true, not sure about USA, I don't think there is many state controled companies. Nazis just put that nationalism to another whole level, they didn't put national interest above global in their own country, they also thought that every other nation is inferior and have to be "corrected', that is why they put shame on that word. Today healthy nationalism have to be called patriotism otherwise you get associated with nazis in seconds. But its a word play really

perhaps so. But if (close to) every nation can be called socialist, then the word does loose its usefulness a bit, doesn’t it? Same with nationalist, for that matter.

 

And I might perhaps add something: I believe the Nazis were more focused on race than nationality in the stricter sense.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Ben No.3

[injurai]

Socialism vs socialism, people these days are talking about two different things.

 

Free economies rely on not over-consuming (or should), which is hard when people will consume based on loans. Essentially a populace will consume through it's surplus and abundance, until another group with the credit is owed the chance to consume their fair share. Which means people now must work to make up for their over-consumption.

 

There are two current problems. We want society to be fair so we want to maintain the value of a currency, and thereby maintain the validity of credit. This means not clearing debts, although sometimes simplifying the debt equation. However the people who need to produce will not be able to do it effectively if they can't engage in trade, yet they have little credit and are unworthy of being given more. In these circumstances you have to inflate the currency, but then you mess up loans between currencies. So then finally you must tax the rich to redistribute wealth, that way the working class can be productive enough to pay back the working class. Essentially the rich must invest in those who are trying to productively pay back their debts to the rich. Not doing so is the first problem. The second problem is the cyclic nature of the economy in which middle America consumes on a wide scale the America dream, then in the next half of the cycle a very few get to consume at a decadent level. In many ways it seems better if we just had two middle classes, which kind of existed between two different generations, but the way our populations are skewing this is starting to collapse.

 

So if, wealth redistribution is "socialism," then sure, all modern nations are socialist. But traditional socialism was more than just wealth redistribution even though most today mean it to be wealth redistribution or universal income. The thing is, permanent fixed systems of redistribution aren't fantastic and are quite stifling to growth. We want to more strategically direct our surplus to building out society on the large scale. Whether through government spending, or through large public sector spending. However to suggest this gets you labeled as establishment democrat or neo-liberal, which are far worse. If anything it's New Keynesian, which will be sympathetic to the politics of Bernie Sanders. There is a good reason why Sander's New Deal style democratic socialism / social democracy (depending on who you ask) is taking off, but I believe mostly it just sounds good to people's ears. The real reason is because our nation is moving towards economic default relative to other countries. Currently we are staving things off by letting our middle class collapse. Germany and China save more than they consume (per capita.) unlike the US where most people live paycheck to paycheck and can't save much. Truly saving for many means cutting enough spend to where you're basically living impoverished lives. Minimalism as a style is truly for the rich. Further, social momentum typically means spending enough to maintain your social capital. This is especially true when it comes to spending on the youth.

 

Basically the state of affairs is that the Boomer's where given bad credit, making them feel right in their successes, where their children must rely on taking out loans themselves to get started in life. Which means that the over-consumption of the past now must be paid back by the new generation in order to maintain the value of the dollar. There really is no way out. Right now western's aren't really allowed to invest in China, but China is buying up a ton of western companies and moving their tech and IP portfolios. There is a real reason why Sander's and Trump sync up on the grounds of China. China is a great trade partner, we want to specialize in different sectors and trade. The problem is the US is ahead of the world and China wants to catch up, and will negotiate deals that in the short are great for the west but in the long term are bad. The US has mostly invested itself in the software and services side of things over the past 30 years, and these market's are getting tapped out. Which is why Amazon is really the only name of the game when it comes to the US clawing it's way back out of stagnation. Unfortunately Amazon relies heavily on the consumption of American's and the integration of the global supply chain connecting us to China. So trade deals must be negotiated, because globalism is not going to be turned back.

 

I've kind of gone off track about socialism, but my point is. We don't want classical socialism, and what people think is socialism is not. Wealth redistribution is an economic tool it's not a stable system. No more so than unregulated pure capitalism. There is a reason having the worker's control the means of production leads to balkanizing syndicates, and why it's much better to have publicly traded companies so people can buy into any system. As always people need wealth to even start that, so that is where *some* wealth redistribution comes in. It's also where *prudent* lending comes in. We also need to stop giving bad loans, but doing so is the easiest way to become super rich. Yet people still wanted to vote for Clinton...

[Chilloutman]

 

 

How much of the means of production have to be state owned and to what degree have national interest to be put first? As it stands, I can’t really think of any country that is NOT “national” and “socialist” to some degree, by those definitions

Of course that is true, not sure about USA, I don't think there is many state controled companies. Nazis just put that nationalism to another whole level, they didn't put national interest above global in their own country, they also thought that every other nation is inferior and have to be "corrected', that is why they put shame on that word. Today healthy nationalism have to be called patriotism otherwise you get associated with nazis in seconds. But its a word play really

perhaps so. But if (close to) every nation can be called socialist, then the word does loose its usefulness a bit, doesn’t it? Same with nationalist, for that matter.

 

And I might perhaps add something: I believe the Nazis were more focused on race than nationality in the stricter sense.

 

 

Important part is 'to some degree'. I am ok with some socialistic policies but I don't want socialistic state. Its about balance and prefer more free market than socialistic engineering.

[majestic]

 

 

everyone who is not hardcore communist is far right, don't you know? Well people still thinks that National Socialists are right wing so who can tell huh? :/

 

Yeah, and people actually think the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually a dictatorship. How can it be, having democratic and republic in the name? 

 

 

''People's'' is the key word in it

 

Do you disagree that Nazi's were socialistic or that they were nationalistic???

 

They weren't socialsts, no. Hitler violently purged what little his party had that could be considered socialist (Night of the Long Knives) and proceeded to set up a system of extreme right wing ideas combined with an economic "third option" that was neither socialist nor capitalist, not much surprising considering that the Nazis viewed both as the enemy.

 

Business and state formed a symbiotic relationship in Nazi Germany, not one where the state owned everything (communist) or the state keeps out of it as much as possible (capitalism). It wasn't that different from what currently both right wing and left wing populists like to criticize about the current political climate - that big business can do as it pleases and buys favor with the governments. The Germans at the time were supposed to just take it.

 

What makes Nazism and far-left extremism appear similar is the societal collectivism that formed the basis of the organisation of the state.

Edited May 31, 2018 by majestic

[Ben No.3]

@injurai

 

It is my understanding that a modest inflation is actually a goal? At least that’s how we treat it in Europe. The notion is that debts become easier and easier to pay over time, thus allowing credits to be taken, investments to be made and businesses to be created. If I am running a bakery, I can buy ingredients for $8 and tomorrow sell my bread for $9. That’s inflation pushing business for you.

Currently, we try to push inflation to 2%, though some recommend up to 4%. Course, what archiving 2% inflation means has changed over time... it used to mean acting against inflation to a certain degree; whereas now it means pushing inflation. So, whereas it used to mean a rising interest rate, it now means an ever shrinking one.

 

Saving large amounts of money seems (to me) like a more dangerous idea though. Wouldn’t that mean running risk of a deflation? And those are truly stifling, as far as I understand. In my bakery, I’d be buying ingredients for $8 but could only sell my bread for $7. It’s easy to see where the danger lies, I believe.

 

Since you talked about wealth redistribution... and a look at the following:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/KSUbos3-5yK8JT5hvaWG1g3QnLuNtCN4TZY47BjQr0qrvluE0743bGdwJZRTmorr3-GK2-til0bdG4xgx6LsleZ4laBR5k7L5YtbQyAq-9AkINKH5tsGSrfjXvTfI5gGJQ

As you can see, extreme situations like WWII and the 29 crash, returns grow much more than gdp. What this means is that a larger portion of the wealth creates annually goes to those who already own capital (via returns) rather to those who actually work (via growth).

You can see that the difference was rather stable after the war until the 70s, and we can observe a relatively stable divergence; after, it continues to grow more extreme. And indeed, this holds true for inequality as well:

Average hourly wages

First one starts significantly earlier, don’t allow that to confuse you.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Ben No.3