Trump/Farrage/NATO

[Machiavelli]

Someone at least understands what the key problems are:

"The main challenges of our times are the rise in inequality and global warming."

I suspect his solutions aren't too far off either:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/16/globalization-trump-inequality-thomas-piketty

 

[hans kraay fan club]

What you are seeing here isn't a revolution! The people are going to the polls and achieving changes within the current system not to the system as a whole. In terms of where the power lies the status quo is maintained.

Indeed

Trump appoints 3 of his own offspring to cabinet positions, his main cheer-leader / far right progangadist as his Chief Strategist, and refuses to discuss any conflict of interests between his government policy making and his 200 companies, and that constitutes 'power to the people'.

Quiet lovely stuff.

 

[pb21]

Someone at least understands what the key problems are:

"The main challenges of our times are the rise in inequality and global warming."

I suspect his solutions aren't too far off either:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/16/globalization-trump-inequality-thomas-piketty

A similar view held by Chomsky:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/38360-trump-in-the-white-house-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky

Corbyn was also talking about the rise in inequality and recent neoliberal policy on the Marr show on Sunday.

The opposition to the populist nationalism we are currently seeing is forming a coherent voice. It better get it's skates on though...

 

[Machiavelli]

A similar view held by Chomsky:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/38360-trump-in-the-white-house-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky

Corbyn was also talking about the rise in inequality and recent neoliberal policy on the Marr show on Sunday.

The opposition to the populist nationalism we are currently seeing is forming a coherent voice. It better get it's skates on though...

Here we might disagree: Chomsky is a frightful bore, and Corbyn is utterly clueless. Piketty was so disappointed with his pathetic contribution to the EU referendum that he withdrew from being an advisor to Labour Party economic policy (that group of economic advisors McDonnell brought together is about the only decent thing done by Labour under Corbyn).
Corbynism, however, is an interesting phenomenon, although that might also be a form of populism.

 

[beorhthelm]

Someone at least understands what the key problems are:

"The main challenges of our times are the rise in inequality and global warming."

I suspect his solutions aren't too far off either:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/16/globalization-trump-inequality-thomas-piketty

his solution amounts to tax everything heavily, especially assets and equity, then spread it around everyone through the state. i believe this has been tried before and didn't work, except of course there was less inequality when everyone was poor.

 

[Machiavelli]

his solution amounts to tax everything heavily, especially assets and equity, then spread it around everyone through the state. i believe this has been tried before and didn't work, except of course there was less inequality when everyone was poor.

No, it doesn't, although it does amount to taxing some things and some people heavily, amongst other things. And if you actually paid attention to what's going on at the moment, you might find out that the neoliberalism that has been foisted on us for decades, and you consistently cheerlead for, is resulting in:
-- low or negligible growth rates (far lower than during the post-war consensus when there were eyewateringly high tax rates on the rich)
-- accelerating growth in inequality and disaffection
If you actually read Piketty, you might find some substantial empirical support for these claims too.

 

[symyjym]

It's not Blair's corrupt nature that made the west successful, the west was successful long before Blair.

Your point was "The west has built itself on corruption". I disagree. While there is corruption everywhere, that's not what the west built itself on.

What are you going on about? Did I actually say that "Blair's corrupt nature that made the west successful"?

I not going to entertain your strawman argument and I am surprised that you are using all my comments out of context and adding your own twist to them.

 

[symyjym]

I don't like your first sentence. It implies that you have an objective understanding, mine is merely subjective and is one that I've uncritically accepted from the powers-that-be. What's really happening is both of us are making accounts of the processes that go on in the world.
I'm not taking a moral high ground, and merely stating that Putin's behaviour and increasingly dictatorial grip on Russia is problematic, as is his expansionism. Go and talk to those in East Aleppo at the moment, and I think you might find that this view is widely accepted.
I don't deny the role of oil, nor the pivotal nature of the Saudi regime, nor that it is the US' other key partner in the Middle East. That's abundantly obvious. But you said "NATO is all about promoting Wahhabism". I repeat: this is an absurd statement. And almost go as far to say it's objectively wrong.

Can you stop twisting what I say. I said "promoting Wahhabism by design or default". It is not absurd because we are allies of Saudi Arabia, the most brutal regime in the whole world

Go and talk to those in West Aleppo and other areas under Government control.

The rebels and foriegn fighters have been financed and supplied sophisticated weaponary by the US directly or via Saudi and Turkey and other Sunni states. We encouraged a violent uprising and endorsed war and bloodshed. We turned a blind eye to all those British Muslims going to fight in Syria and it only became a concern when we realised they were joining ISIS and Al Nusra instead.

Shall we talk about the peaceful demonstrations started by people from the Health Ministry in Bahrain where the minority Sunni rule over the majority Shia, and its aftermath resulted in 122 deaths and almost 3,000 injured. Why didn't we tell the Bahrainian so called royal family to step down or else? Why don't we call them brutal dictators? Why didn't we apply sanctions on them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Bahraini_uprising_of_2011_and_its_aftermath

 

[beorhthelm]

No, it doesn't, although it does amount to taxing some things and some people heavily, amongst other things. And if you actually paid attention to what's going on at the moment, you might find out that the neoliberalism that has been foisted on us for decades, and you consistently cheerlead for, is resulting in:
-- low or negligible growth rates (far lower than during the post-war consensus when there were eyewateringly high tax rates on the rich)
-- accelerating growth in inequality and disaffection
If you actually read Piketty, you might find some substantial empirical support for these claims too.

the neo-liberalism you so dislike and try desperately to find fault with has lead to higher standards of living across the world for decadesc. so now the focus switches to "inequality", which is relative (anyone on average earnings in the UK is in the top 2% worldwide) and retread of old left politics that failed in 1989.

 

[Triggaaar]

What are you going on about? Did I actually say that "Blair's corrupt nature that made the west successful"?

Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's how it reads. You said "The west has built itself on corruption", I said there was corruption everywhere and you said "But the west was also built on slavery" and then you said "I didn't have to use slavery as an example, I could have used the corrupt nature of Blair taking us to war by deceit". So we were talking about what 'built the west', and you went from corruption to slavery to Blair.

I not going to entertain your strawman argument

I'm only reading what you wrote. You obviously didn't think about what you were replying to when making your posts. We were talking about what 'built the west', and whatever you've said you think built it, I disagree.

and I am surprised that you are using all my comments out of context and adding your own twist to them.

I am not, I wouldn't do that. You obviously didn't mean your point to come across as it did, but that's not my doing, I tried to understand what you meant.

 

[Machiavelli]

Can you stop twisting what I say. I said "promoting Wahhabism by design or default". It is not absurd because we are allies of Saudi Arabia, the most brutal regime in the whole world

Go and talk to those in West Aleppo and other areas under Government control.

The rebels and foriegn fighters have been financed and supplied sophisticated weaponary by the US directly or via Saudi and Turkey and other Sunni states. We encouraged a violent uprising and endorsed war and bloodshed. We turned a blind eye to all those British Muslims going to fight in Syria and it only became a concern when we realised they were joining ISIS and Al Nusra instead.

Shall we talk about the peaceful demonstrations started by people from the Health Ministry in Bahrain where the minority Sunni rule over the majority Shia, and its aftermath resulted in 122 deaths and almost 3,000 injured. Why didn't we tell the Bahrainian so called royal family to step down or else? Why don't we call them brutal dictators? Why didn't we apply sanctions on them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Bahraini_uprising_of_2011_and_its_aftermath

I'm not twisting what you said, although I have gone back to your original post that I responded to, and concede that there were certain qualifications in there. But my point is that NATO is not all about promoting Wahhabism, it's origins were for entirely different reasons, for instance, and you could hardly accuse it of promoting Wahhabism when it intervened in the breakdown of Yugoslavia. Hopefully you can agree on that.
I actually agree on (most of) the rest of what you're saying there, and would add that the Bahrainis were probably using British arms that were pimped out by Cameron on his first foreign excursion as PM. Where I'd differ is that the situation in Syria is far, far worse, because it's been going on for five years now, and what's currently been rained down on the Free Syria Army is appalling and utterly unproportional. I suspect that their resistance will yield shortly.

 

[Machiavelli]

the neo-liberalism you so dislike and try desperately to find fault with has lead to higher standards of living across the world for decadesc. so now the focus switches to "inequality", which is relative (anyone on average earnings in the UK is in the top 2% worldwide) and retread of old left politics that failed in 1989.

Growth rates have declined, and what is there is increasingly accounted for by population growth, such that growth rate per capita is declining. As indicated, if you acquaint yourself with Piketty, you might be aware of this. The global growth rate in the last few decades has predominantly been from China, which has witnessed the fastest modernisation programme in human history, but could hardly be described as emanating from neoliberal policies. Although, hopefully, we might be able to agree that neither is it down to state socialism...
... On which, I've never been an advocate of a state socialism which you insinuate I favour. To do so is just a sign of the desperation of your defence of neoliberalism when it's increasingly being exposed, attacked and rejected. Neither is Piketty advocating a pre-1989 style of politics, so try and engage with his and my argument, rather than trotting out failed shibboleths.

 

[symyjym]

Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's how it reads. You said "The west has built itself on corruption", I said there was corruption everywhere and you said "But the west was also built on slavery" and then you said "I didn't have to use slavery as an example, I could have used the corrupt nature of Blair taking us to war by deceit". So we were talking about what 'built the west', and you went from corruption to slavery to Blair.

I'm only reading what you wrote. You obviously didn't think about what you were replying to when making your posts. We were talking about what 'built the west', and whatever you've said you think built it, I disagree.

I am not, I wouldn't do that. You obviously didn't mean your point to come across as it did, but that's not my doing, I tried to understand what you meant.

I was originally replying to a comment that stated: "Russia is utterly corrupt". My only point as a response was that historically and even currently no country is without this problem and the west has built itself on corruption.

You piped up and said that we weren't built on corruption.

I understand corruption to be the same as expoitation, whether of the poor or slavery. We could probably write a book about types of corruption, so is this where your argument is leading?

I just gave a distant example of slavery, but you weren't happy with this so I gave you a more recent one and said Blair.

Can you not see that you are drawing me into a strawman and I am only replying to it. You made a comment I made to someone else about corruption go from slavery to Blair because you pushed it that way but my original point still stands. That has all the signs of a strawman.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

"are hard to miss"

yeah, you're right aren't you. Never thought about that saying that way

 

[symyjym]

I'm not twisting what you said, although I have gone back to your original post that I responded to, and concede that there were certain qualifications in there. But my point is that NATO is not all about promoting Wahhabism, it's origins were for entirely different reasons, for instance, and you could hardly accuse it of promoting Wahhabism when it intervened in the breakdown of Yugoslavia. Hopefully you can agree on that.
I actually agree on (most of) the rest of what you're saying there, and would add that the Bahrainis were probably using British arms that were pimped out by Cameron on his first foreign excursion as PM. Where I'd differ is that the situation in Syria is far, far worse, because it's been going on for five years now, and what's currently been rained down on the Free Syria Army is appalling and utterly unproportional. I suspect that their resistance will yield shortly.

Maybe I should have said that NATO indirectly falls in line with a country that exports Wahhabism, I thought default did the job. But we got there in the end.

I haven't looked into the details of what exactly happened in Yugoslavia. I don't know what sect of Islam they had there or if Islam caused any friction initially. I will have to look into it before I comment on the subject because I just remember Yugoslavia being a top holiday destination. What we do find as a pattern is that the different Islamic sects hate each other and kill each other too.

Regarding Syria yes we do differ because I am of the view that we propagated a war against a sovereign state and we used people whose ideology is to fight for something and become martyrs and they don’t mind making their children martyrs either. Their Allah rewards suffering and death in his cause and this is a problem in a war like this. Most normal people like you or me, if their children and families were at risk of being killed or seriously injured would have gone for the peace talks option, but the rewards for suffering and death outweigh this logic. As it stands the FSA are launching thousands of smuggled in rockets in government held areas. They are not there with swords and their intention is to kill or be killed with no concern about their own children.

The Assad government was a secular one, the PM was Sunni, but he joined his brother in the FSA. There was hope for reform but not whilst the west was encouraging unrest. Sunni Wahhabism is something to be very worried about and that is the side we backed against the Syrian government. There were lots of dirty tricks used to cause division and friction and whilst the protests may have looked peaceful to start with, they were infiltrated with trained foreign fighters. Where this all started in Deraa 7 Syrian policemen were killed and various buildings set fire to, then hey presto, all of a sudden there was an army of thousands armed to its teeth sold on the ideology of this war being the prophesised Islamic Day of Judgment.

If Assad loses it will justify and empower the Wahhabism ideology and Syria will become an Islamic State with a lot of Russian militaryware.

 

[Triggaaar]

yeah, you're right aren't you.

Always.




Except when I'm wrong, but that doesn't count.

 

[cunning fergus]

What you are seeing here isn't a revolution! The people are going to the polls and achieving changes within the current system not to the system as a whole. In terms of where the power lies the status quo is maintained.

Revolutions are epitome of the will of the people..........the events of Brexit and Trump are as close to a revolution you can get through the western democratic system. If it wasn't then these threads on Trump and Brexit wouldn't amount to anything more than a few pages.

Whether the status quo is maintained is yet to be proved, evidently exit from the EU and the election of a non politician to the office of US President are clearly huge steps away from the status quo.

The revolutions of 1848 did not change anything in the end, so maybe it is still a valid historical precedent........time will tell.

 

[cunning fergus]

Totally this.

Anyone thinking that Trump is changing how things are should look at the team he has around him. Cronyism is as rife as it was before. The elite remain, just from a different family.

He has not even been inaugurated into office and yet you are making your conclusion of how successful or not now.

You may be right, those involved in revolutions in 1848 thought they would change their respective countries but they didn't.

The French Revolution of 1789 did not deliver liberte, egalite and fraternite for all.........they subsequently restored their monarchy, crowned an emperor and elected his nephew which is why they are on their 5th Republic!

 

[Brighton Mod]

He has not even been inaugurated into office and yet you are making your conclusion of how successful or not now.

You may be right, those involved in revolutions in 1848 thought they would change their respective countries but they didn't.

The French Revolution of 1789 did not deliver liberte, egalite and fraternite for all.........they subsequently restored their monarchy, crowned an emperor and elected his nephew which is why they are on their 5th Republic!

And how much change has come about due to the arab spring, the pundits and experts will talk, the chattering classes will chatter and little eventually changes, you're absolutely right in your view, too many people want to predict the news and not wait for it to happen and most get it wrong.

 

[beorhthelm]

On which, I've never been an advocate of a state socialism which you insinuate I favour. To do so is just a sign of the desperation of your defence of neoliberalism when it's increasingly being exposed, attacked and rejected. Neither is Piketty advocating a pre-1989 style of politics, so try and engage with his and my argument, rather than trotting out failed shibboleths.

i dont believe i said you favour state socialism. it is what Piketty favours, unless you have another name to describe state intervention and high progressive taxation on wealth. my main objection to this line of thought is that inequality matters more than income, that its more important to make people a bit more equal than it is to improve peoples income and earning potential (which is what liberalism has provided for billions). there is also a strong critique of Piketty that he ignores the wealth provided by the state, from education, healthcare so on, so that no matter how much you redistribute you dont actually raise anyone else personal wealth.

and while GDP growth rate has inevitably slowed, its still rising even on per capita basis (have a look). liberal economics have been winning and continue to win even if they sometimes go a goal behind.