The Political Lounge

[PeacefulAnarchy]

It doesn’t mean it cannot be done better, as there is waste

This is true of everything everywhere, doesn't matter if it's run by governments, NGOs, public corporations, private corporations, anything. No business is fully efficient, neither in monetary terms nor in productivity terms nor in any other measure. There's always waste because sometimes the control needed to eliminate waste ends up costing more than the waste itself, people make mistakes, contingencies and safeguards need to be made that are sometimes never used, etc. The difference is that when a bureaucrat has a 500K salary everyone is up in arms, but if that same person doing the same job for the privatized service makes the same it's just normal business, gotta be competitive. We're paying for it all the same, through taxes for things run by government or through costs for things run by private enterprise. The biggest wastes of public money aren't public services, they're government contracts through obscure bidding processes enabled by privatization of services the government should be hiring people to do directly.

[Pretentious Hipster]

Legalizing marijuana here was a great example. It was government run in Ontario. They were sold out of most products within days. The right were like "typical of the government to fuck up". Doug Ford decided that private companies can sell weed too. The result? Everything was quickly sold out again.

[Pretentious Hipster]

[Pretentious Hipster]

Netanyahu won again...

[Cippenham]

Isnt he facing charges

[Pretentious Hipster]

Isnt he facing charges

Yes... and he still won. He claims it's his biggest victory

[Pretentious Hipster]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/can ... dget-cuts/

[Pretentious Hipster]

[Cippenham]

https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Is ... ing-621145

This is interesting, from a Nobel laureate too

[Pretentious Hipster]

Send this to every right winger https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/ ... obilebasic

[St. Gloede]

A recession is likely coming.

Businesses will collapse.

Yes, including "too big to fail".

I would like to remind you of the options on the table for governments around the world (aside of letting it all crash and burn):

1. Massive give-away stimulus package that will be taken out in profits by the owners
2. Interest-free/low rent loans
3. Buy-ins

And of course, we can expect most Liberal governments around the world to just throw money at billionaires.

This means money is taken away from regular people and used to shore up and enrich those at the top.

The moderate, even centre-right alternative, is to support these businesses with loans and at least get the money back.

Though the best option is to buy-in, or even take over the businesses. This ensures that what would have been taken out in profits go back to the people.

What matters to a market economy is that the products are produced, consumers have purchasing power and that investments are made. Private owners getting richer is not needed. If they fail, but are to continue to make profits if fixed, why not shore up/strengthen the economy by having the money go to all. This leads to 2 advantages:

1. More money in the bank, which can be used to fund services and even decrease taxes
2. Increased control of the economy, meaning push-back from capitalists (i.e. threatening to leave/outsource) have less consequence and allows countries to have more power in decisions such as working hours (6 hour days/4 day weeks anyone?).

[weirdboy]

A recession is likely coming.

I'm not sure I agree with this whole "likely" bit.

[Knaldskalle]

A recession is likely coming.

Businesses will collapse.

Yes, including "too big to fail".

I would like to remind you of the options on the table for governments around the world (aside of letting it all crash and burn):

1. Massive give-away stimulus package that will be taken out in profits by the owners
2. Interest-free/low rent loans
3. Buy-ins

And of course, we can expect most Liberal governments around the world to just throw money at billionaires.

This means money is taken away from regular people and used to shore up and enrich those at the top.

The moderate, even centre-right alternative, is to support these businesses with loans and at least get the money back.

Though the best option is to buy-in, or even take over the businesses. This ensures that what would have been taken out in profits go back to the people.

What matters to a market economy is that the products are produced, consumers have purchasing power and that investments are made. Private owners getting richer is not needed. If they fail, but are to continue to make profits if fixed, why not shore up/strengthen the economy by having the money go to all. This leads to 2 advantages:

1. More money in the bank, which can be used to fund services and even decrease taxes
2. Increased control of the economy, meaning push-back from capitalists (i.e. threatening to leave/outsource) have less consequence and allows countries to have more power in decisions such as working hours (6 hour days/4 day weeks anyone?).

I'm personally in favor of option 0. Let it crash and burn. If companies and corporations are willing to live by the market they must be willing to die by the market. Government interventions every time something goes bad is just encouraging risky and reckless behavior. I'm strongly opposed to unregulated capitalism for the good times and socialism for the bad times.

It'll suck, but maybe, just maybe, it'll prevent this from happening again in 10 years. The coming recession/depression is basically just a continuation of the previous Great Recession. There were no major institutional changes or changes in how corporations operate, so we end up in the same mess again. The only thing achieved with the massive injection of cash into the system (bailouts, "quantitative easing" and so on) was a respite until things once again became unsustainable. And this isn't just Covid-19, we had the inverted yield curves before that, covid-19 is just the trigger.

I doubt, though, that either of the two parties is willing to let it crash and burn (other than a few Republicans who'll scream about it, knowing full well that it won't happen and that's the only reason they voice their opposition).

[Pretentious Hipster]

Maybe I should join the Kristiania Bohemian movement.

[St. Gloede]

Took the quiz linked by @Clip... and found out - wait for it - I'm a liberal. Shock.

But I still refuse to join the Democratic Party.

The funny thing is that in Europe "Liberal" is considered right-wing and the antithesis of socialism. But in the US the words have different meanings and liberalism is considered left-wing. In reality the words original meanings are quite accurate for US politics: a center-right (D) vs. extreme right (R) spectrum.

In my country Sanders would be considered a centrist. Maybe center-left because the country have moved significantly to the right since the 1990s. In the US he is a socialist. Funny how labels work.

That is why I think I am liberal.. I would support right wing Democrat or moderate Republican so would like Clinton and Kasich to win probably

Reminder.

[Pretentious Hipster]

https://tiermaker.com/create/political-ideologies-46003

Dunno quite a few of these. Also wtf fascist-communism is a thing?

[Kublai Khan]

I think Trump is leaving our relationship with North Korea worse than he found it.

[Pretentious Hipster]

I should mention that I was somewhat of a tankie back then and it was when I was still newer in politics. It was quite silly of me. The reason why I did it was because I (still) believe that the ussr did some aspects better than in America. They were imperialist as well too which I hate, but I do find it funny because Lenin was against imperialism. That being said, I still do believe that they were better than nazi Germany. I mean, there was a 60 hour work week in Germany and they even privatized welfare. To call them socialists too is so fucking stupid.

That being said, what is my affiliation now? I am torn between marxist-leninist and anarcho-syndicalist. I will do more reading about both to help decide.

[fori]

I know pretentious hipster won’t see this, but I’ve thought a little recently about why communist movements active in countries like Canada, USA, Australia etc are basically doomed to achieve little.
First on the agenda: the intellectual barriers to entry are very high. Perhaps this is the spectre of capitalist realism speaking, but I find Marxist theory unwieldy and difficult to fully comprehend, while capitalism is often intuitive and easy (though that is not correlated with functional). I read ‘Critique of Political Economy’ and started ‘Capital I’ after years of only having read ‘The Communist Manifesto’, but found much of it impenetrable, and heavily dependent of further external reading that the text references. I find it difficult to see how a movement of competent communists can be built when there is so much theory you need to dive into. Even though I have the head start of familiarity with some of the core concepts of communism since early childhood, I don’t think I have the know-how to lay out what post-capitalism looks like as a functioning system without leaving big question marks all over it.
Related to this, my experience with communists I have met is that it’s a bit like religion: they all turn up to the same organisations but when asked independently, their perspective on what the end goal looks like varies widely. I think most self-identified communists out there likely have a similar degree of theoretical grounding to me: not nearly enough. Even if half the population of Australia were avowed communists, I doubt that would translate into revolution, because revolution means too many different things to too many people. The post-capitalist tent is too broad to be meaningful right now.
Communists also seem inexorably divided or even absent on big issues of great immediacy as well. What is the communist position on free trade? What is the movement’s response to the discourse about animal rights? Where are they on the power shift between the US and China? The lack of clarity on these issues does not bode well.
On top of these things (and there are many more that I’m forgetting now), society’s institutions are still stacked heavily against communists. Even with the massive swellings of dissatisfaction and alienation among the population, there is almost no representation of Marxist thought in media or governing bodies. My understanding is that current consensus amongst Marxist thinkers is that a communist society cannot arise alone because it will be destroyed by imperial powers. Then when does the revolution take place? The ideological scaffolding has barely started to go up even in the most anti-capitalist demographics.
I’d love to be proven wrong on this.

[blocho]

Boris Johnson is in intensive care

What's the UK's system for this situation in terms of governance? Who is in charge when the PM is incapacitated and how is incapacitation determined? Who replaces him if he croaks?

The US has a very detailed system set up for these scenarios, but I have no idea what's the rule in the UK.

[blocho]

I know pretentious hipster won’t see this, but I’ve thought a little recently about why communist movements active in countries like Canada, USA, Australia etc are basically doomed to achieve little.

I think this really belongs in the politics lounge, but are you familiar with Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony? If not, I think you will be interested in reading about it.

[Pretentious Hipster]

I know pretentious hipster won’t see this, but I’ve thought a little recently about why communist movements active in countries like Canada, USA, Australia etc are basically doomed to achieve little.

I think this really belongs in the politics lounge, but are you familiar with Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony? If not, I think you will be interested in reading about it.

You know what's the best part about this? Pete Buttigieg's dad literally translated Gramsci's work. And what became of his son? He became Mr. Cultural Hegemony himself.

[blocho]

I know pretentious hipster won’t see this, but I’ve thought a little recently about why communist movements active in countries like Canada, USA, Australia etc are basically doomed to achieve little.

I think this really belongs in the politics lounge, but are you familiar with Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony? If not, I think you will be interested in reading about it.

You know what's the best part about this? Pete Buttigieg's dad literally translated Gramsci's work. And what became of his son? He became Mr. Cultural Hegemony himself.

I know! I read that a few months ago. His dad was apparently the biggest expert in the US on Gramsci. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.

[albajos]

Boris Johnson is in intensive care

What's the UK's system for this situation in terms of governance? Who is in charge when the PM is incapacitated and how is incapacitation determined? Who replaces him if he croaks?

The US has a very detailed system set up for these scenarios, but I have no idea what's the rule in the UK.

I don't think they have a system for it.

Foreign minister Dominic Raab was picked by Johnson himself as designated survivor.

Other countries that have several parties in governement would usually have give the leader of the second biggest party the reins while the PM is ill (we do that in Norway). If the PM dies, the party would need to elect someone new within their party, the second biggest party would rule until then.

So it's not like the US where if Trump and Pence dies, Pelosi from a completely different party would take over. The same party would always stay in power here.

Neither Norway or the UK have personal election on Prime Minister, and can switch whenever they like in parliament. And the PM and all other ministers can be just as easily be thrown by a 50+% majority in the parliament. We don't need any impeachment, just "distrust", usually after a short hearing

[St. Gloede]

Boris Johnson is in intensive care

What's the UK's system for this situation in terms of governance? Who is in charge when the PM is incapacitated and how is incapacitation determined? Who replaces him if he croaks?

The US has a very detailed system set up for these scenarios, but I have no idea what's the rule in the UK.

I don't think they have a system for it.

Foreign minister Dominic Raab was picked by Johnson himself as designated survivor.

Other countries that have several parties in governement would usually have give the leader of the second biggest party the reins while the PM is ill (we do that in Norway). If the PM dies, the party would need to elect someone new, the second biggest party would rule until then.

Neither Norway or the UK have personal election on Prime Minister, and can switch whenever they like in parliament.

Not quite accurate, the biggest party would simply need to select a new PM. The leader of the second biggest party would have no role this, and in the interim there is a pre-selected rank system within the government. This is not set based on role, but decided by the government.

If Solberg had become incapacitated the replacement until recently would have been Jensen (the leader of the second biggest coalition party), however, since FrP left this is no longer the case. I cannot find a list of the current ranking, though until two months ago it was:

1. Solberg (H)
2. Jensen (FrP)
3. Sanner (H)

[albajos]

What's the UK's system for this situation in terms of governance? Who is in charge when the PM is incapacitated and how is incapacitation determined? Who replaces him if he croaks?

The US has a very detailed system set up for these scenarios, but I have no idea what's the rule in the UK.

I don't think they have a system for it.

Foreign minister Dominic Raab was picked by Johnson himself as designated survivor.

Other countries that have several parties in governement would usually have give the leader of the second biggest party the reins while the PM is ill (we do that in Norway). If the PM dies, the party would need to elect someone new, the second biggest party would rule until then.

Neither Norway or the UK have personal election on Prime Minister, and can switch whenever they like in parliament.

Not quite accurate, the biggest party would simply need to select a new PM. The leader of the second biggest party would have no role this, and in the interim there is a pre-selected rank system within the government. This is not set based on role, but decided by the government.

If Solberg had become incapacitated the replacement until recently would have been Jensen (the leader of the second biggest coalition party), however, since FrP left this is no longer the case. I cannot find a list of the current ranking, though until two months ago it was:

1. Solberg (H)
2. Jensen (FrP)
3. Sanner (H)

It is the one that replaced Grande as cultural minister that is Solberg's back up. The newest member to the government.

Otherwise, you just repeated me.

[St. Gloede]

Found the current number two (the government really needs to update their website):

1. Erna Solberg (H)
2. Iselin Nybø (V)

Source: https://www.nrk.no/norge/iselin-nybo-_v ... 1.14943094

[St. Gloede]

You said " the second biggest party would rule until then", this is not quite accurate, but it is a general rule to make the leader of the second biggest coalition partner number 2.

[blocho]

So Boris can just pick someone to do his duties while he's sick? Can it be anybody, like my buddy James, who is a Scottish oceanographer? Can it be someone who's not even a UK citizen, like me?

[albajos]

I would think it has to be someone within his government. So they actually know what's on the agenda when they take over.

[xianjiro]

politics in politics focused lounges please - after we moved away from BoJo being incapacitated and who would take over in his stead, we aren't talking as much about the direct effects of CoV-19 disease any longer. For those of us who have chosen to avoid the political discussion areas, we would prefer no lead in be given here to someone's incessant posting of political polemics, diatribes, and general claptrap.

I am not a mod on this board or I'd move the handful of posts to another thread myself.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

politics in politics focused lounges please - after we moved away from BoJo being incapacitated and who would take over in his stead, we aren't talking as much about the direct effects of CoV-19 disease any longer. For those of us who have chosen to avoid the political discussion areas, we would prefer no lead in be given here to someone's incessant posting of political polemics, diatribes, and general claptrap.

I am not a mod on this board or I'd move the handful of posts to another thread myself.

You can report posts. I actually thought it was the politics thread until you pointed this out.

[St. Gloede]

Re: Norway ranks, did a bit of research:

- The rank is entirely up to the sitting government
- The norm of selecting the leader of the 2nd biggest coalition party as Rank #2 started in '97 and has been applied in all but one governments since
- Before this the norm was to select the Foreign Minister as #2, this was abandoned as the Foreign Minister is (surprise surprise) often abroad.
- Today the ranks are usually given to the coalition party leaders based on the percentage of votes their party received, so #3 and #4 would be the leaders of the 3rd and 4th biggest parties in the coaliton.
- Beyond this most lower ranks are usually given based on time in government, followed by age.

- Unlike many other countries, the Parliamentary President has no path to power through rank.

Fun trivia: Outside of replacing the Prime Minister, the rank is primarily used to decide where people sit when they meet the king.

[fori]

I know pretentious hipster won’t see this, but I’ve thought a little recently about why communist movements active in countries like Canada, USA, Australia etc are basically doomed to achieve little.

I think this really belongs in the politics lounge, but are you familiar with Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony? If not, I think you will be interested in reading about it.

I am (somewhat), though not through any reading on the topic. It’s obviously a factor in some of what I’ve pointed out. I was really just responding to the half-joke in the tweet in the covid thread that “We don’t have communism because people want market-level variety of soup”. I am near certain communism will not happen in our lifetimes regardless of negative public sentiment about capitalism.

[Dolwphin]

Amazon are Communism

[Pretentious Hipster]

[Armoreska]

Anyone take this test?
8values.github.io
i got 70% equality, 80% world, 72% liberal, 88% progress and it says im a libertarian socialist

[Pretentious Hipster]

[Onderhond]

Anyone take this test?
8values.github.io
i got 70% equality, 80% world, 72% liberal, 88% progress and it says im a libertarian socialist

Same for me, with slightly different numbers
78.2% equality, 75.6% world, 63.1% liberal, 84.0% progress

I eat meat though, so there's that.

[Dolwphin]