Oh you don't see this war and the Russo-Georgian war of 2008 etc. as a tragedy? Well, objectives like containing NATO for Russia would have been easy without any war. Just as easy as kicking out the US from Central Asia. Assuming that would have been the only objective.I don't see how that's a 'tragedy'. — Isaac
I'm happy at least that you aren't denying Russian imperialism. And naturally the actions of the US have far more reach than the actions of Russia. The US has had a real trainwreck of a policy in the Middle-East for sure, which has brought death and misery there even if there would be instability and wars even without an active US there. Yet the policy failure is obvious: first from CENTO (Iran, Iraq and Pakistan as allies with Saudi-Arabia) to "Twin pillars" (Saudi-Arabia and Iran as US allies), then to "Dual containment" (of Iran and Iraq) and now troops on the ground still fighting the "War on Terror", which Americans have forgotten about. But that's another topic we could discuss. Yet when it comes to European security, the desire to join NATO in North and East Europe has happened because of Putin's actions.the US's approach to 'modern' imperialism takes a far greater toll on human well-being than Russia's version. — Isaac
There's a climate change thread on the Forum among others, which would be better for this topic. And you think India and China are still colonies of the West? And I don't know if it is tactful to compare any war to something that actually has been killing people for a long time (as cooking food with an open fireplace creates an air pollution hazard).Air pollution kills more people in a few weeks than the war has so far. The West's 'imperialist' habit of offloading it pollution, labour, waste, and extraction costs to its modern 'colonies' kills whole orders of magnitude more people than Russia's border skirmishes. — Isaac
If you disregard the politics (just as the actors in this conflict) and stick to Smedley Butler's line "that war is a racket", that answers far less than you think. But it's one point.... We're hurtling toward global war not because of Russia's petty border disputes. We're hurtling towards global war because hawks see an opportunity to profiteer from crisis and it seems to take so little now to convince gullible idiots to cheer-lead the whole process. — Isaac
Some real estate investors are like Trump: anything they get, any money, they put into new buildings and take as much debt as they can. Then when the building is finished and the sell it and they would basically make that profit that would be taxed, they can deduce their interest and debt and basically start a new project. Hence they can make no profit ever, but increase their assets with billions.I mean, does anyone actually defend a system where a billionaire can go years without paying income taxes? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Now I don't understand this. If there is a housing shortage, why discourage renting flats / investing in real estate?When there is a housing shortage, it automatically will become less attractive to buy up real estate, curbing the positive feedback loops that keeps leading to bubbles. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Even if this would be the case, even if the tax would go to a special fund, it would be peanuts and very inefficient to have any effect on housing. After all, profits are only taxed, and profits are a small cut from the actual investment to real estate. If the incentives for building apartments or renting them is nonexistent, then no matter where the taxes would go will not matter. There will continue to be a housing shortage.Then revenue raised from this tax goes to a special fund used for building housing units. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Oh they want to retain it.Arguments have been made that the invasion was an attempt to retain power (in a region Russia previously had power over) — Isaac
I think the recessions haven't happened because of tax increases, but lowering taxes in hope of increasing economic activity can happen and has happened. Just as lowering the price of money (the interest rate).Every time they have begun to eclipse that number there has either been massive tax cuts or a recession. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Income from a job may be important to many ordinary people, but for the rich it is the capital gains. And this presents a problem with taxation. Let's say for some reason the Leftist party would win here and would triple the capital gains tax here (that would be then a tax percentage of 99%). My reaction would to F-them and not sell anything before those crazies are out of office and the capital gains tax are normal again. For the rich, well, their assets can suddenly be then in a tax haven.Also, it is somewhat spurious when marginal rates are represented only for income taxes, not the regressive payroll tax or effectively regressive capital gains tax. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Well, at least those countries that have a steady inflow of educated young working emigrants don't have problems, if these foreigners are accepted. And they basically are accepted, if it is perceived that they bring more to the economy than they take. I mean, nobody hates tourists, even if there are those foreigners all the year around. Now if those tourists wouldn't spend anything, just hang out on the streets, people in any country wouldn't like them.I only bring this up because it is sometimes claimed that much higher levels of migration to developed countries from the developing world can fix the pensioner crisis and relieve global inequality. This is highly unlikely to work. — Count Timothy von Icarus
But it is a perfect example of classic 19th Century and earlier imperialism, which Russia has gone back to. This makes it so obvious. The annexation of land territory, is indeed something that isn't something much seen in post-WW2 history, but hence this should make obvious and quite clear the fact that Russia is imperialistic. The rhetoric coming from the Kremlin is surprisingly similar to the kind of attitudes you could hear in the start of the 20th Century in Imperial Russia, starting from the exceptionality of Russia and the threat that Western culture and Western style democracy poses Russia.an land invasion to take territory is not a very good example of modern imperialism, — Isaac
And you should accept the definition that dictionaries give for the word imperialism, for starters. :wink:You just carry on... — Isaac
We also need austerity. It is trivial to cheat Medicaid and Medicare right now and attempts to recoup costs are arbitrary. $500,000 worth of heart surgery at age 85, step right up, that's the right sort of ailment. $500,000 worth of long term care for Alzheimer's? We need to liquidate all your assets to pay for things. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If the bank gets robbed too many times, people will not put money into the bank. The basic problem is that even if tax rates have varied, the tax income hasn't change as much as you would think. So doubling the tax rate will increase your revenues, but won't double them.The reason you need to mostly target the income and taxes of the wealthy isn't ideological or moral. I think framing it this way hurts attempts to deal with the structural deficit, making reforms less politically palatable. You go after high networth households for the same reason you rob banks, "that's where the money is." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Wages are the perfect culprit for central banks and governments. Anything else than loose monetary policy is given as the reason for inflation.Overall price level increases can't be wholly due to growing wages for the the bottom half of the income distribution, since they only account for 12-14% of all income and their wage gains only outpaced inflation for a few months. Their real wages have since experienced negative growth. — Count Timothy von Icarus
And earlier have had to be really big ones very close to a star or then have been in the perfect angle towards us (going in front of the star).But they're all so distant that their existence has no real significance, other than as scientific data. — Wayfarer
How aboutI've yet to read something more presumptuous in this thread. — Tzeentch
This is clearly not an "imperialist war".
Do you think that's incompatible with imperialism? — jorndoe
In this context, yes. — Tzeentch
And just how few years ago exoplanets were a hypothesis? I guess some 30 years ago, but I'm not sure just when it was generally accepted that we had proof. Now we have evidence of dust strorm on exoplanets.JWT spots dust storm on exoplanet. — Wayfarer
And this is the reason why you get a country like Sweden to throw away it's 200 year neutrality, that it has avoided both WW1 and WW2. Finland tried long and hard to keep good relations with Russia, but that doesn't matter to Putin.Now Russia is fighting a classic imperialist war of aggression. Empire nostalgia is rife in the Russian public sphere, and Putin likes to compare himself (favorably) to Catherine and Peter, and revels in his territorial conquests. — SophistiCat
It takes extreme tunnel vision and lack of reading comprehension not to understand that Russian imperialism has always been defined as a defensive measure. And not understanding that nearly all imperialist actions are sold as defensive measures. Catherine the Great's so apt saying that "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them." puts in a nutshell the deeply internalized Russian thinking of empire and security, that hasn't changed for hundreds of years. Also to simply ignore the militaristic imperialism of Russia is quite a feat to do. But of course, one can simply skip everything that happens in Russia.This is clearly not an "imperialist war".
The Russians have stated from 2008 onward that they considered Ukraine joining NATO to be an existential threat. They were promptly ignored, and the US only intensified their efforts to incorporate Ukraine.
It takes some special tunnel vision to simply ignore that. — Tzeentch
Some just absolutely love the rhetoric coming from the Kremlin.Or countries on Russia's border wanting access to NATO? Right now in particular, apparently. NATO can't colonize (like land grab), it's a defense pact among member countries, not a country. Countries may or may not apply for NATO membership. — jorndoe
Best example of it being Russia's attack on Ukraine. :smirk:The point is simply one about the varied nature of modern imperialism. — Isaac
What??? That's your counter line?You didn’t mention that Trump spoke with Abdul Ghani. That’s because the propaganda you dine on doesn’t tell you these things. — NOS4A2
Yeah, right.The propaganda tells you the deal is bad; you think it’s bad. — NOS4A2
?Interesting to that all the NATO countries wanting access to Russia's border, are all post-colonial countries — boagie
Russia has been and one can argue is still a colonizer: there are parts that it annexed through force in the 19th Century just as other European colonizers were doing (starting with Chechnya, that was occupied as late as 1859). China has had some ports colonized, but never has been colonized (the Mongol Horde didn't have colonies).The other half of the world, the BRICS, are post-colonies and are now saying no to their past masters. — boagie
Well, we've finally seen the ugly head of inflation come up and take a place in the World economy. Hence the monetary policy and the spending during the pandemic, even without the war in Ukraine, has made it that natural resources have gone up in price, which then is good for the producing countries. Hence the Saudi's, Kuwaitis and others having their economies grow isn't just because of the Ukraine war. (Although the real estate boom in UAE does have something to with rich Russians leaving their country.)Not en vogue? — jorndoe
Uhh... the German people and others too, I guess. So much, that they still have these Hitler-Welles of every generation asking just what the hell hapened with them.Effectiveness is no measure for leadership, for me anyways, unless one adheres to some statist or collectivist foundation. Hitler was effective. Who cares? — NOS4A2
Honestly it was just nice to have someone who wasn’t an utter coward, for a change. — NOS4A2
LOL! :rofl:He reasoned with the Taliban leadership. — NOS4A2
I saw on a Finnish fortress island in 2002 maxim machine guns still in stock, and now they have been finally taken away. If you have water and bullets, you can continue firing a maxim for hours... it won't heat up or stop functioning. The whole thing is very heavy and difficult to move, yet on an island you simply cannot have movement so much. And warfare on islands and in the archipelago means that normal supply routes by road don't exist and everything has to be moved either by ship or by air. So if you have very reliable weapon system that you can fire all day along, why not use them, if you don't have anything else to place on a forgotten remote piece of land surrounded by water?The T-54 has finally shown up in Ukraine. I suppose a tank from 1948 is better than no tank. The inexhaustible supply of Russian tanks seems to be getting exhausted. It can't be that they are out of more recent tanks, it must be that some more modern ones are in too rough of a condition to repair.
I also saw a video of a Ukrainian using a Maxim Gun. I wonder if it was pulled from a WWI museum. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Look above your post the post I write. Nice to know something new. I think that's enough of an answer to your ad hominems etc.What exactly have you 'understood' differently to how you came into this discussion 450 pages ago? — Isaac
The leadership qualities of Trump can be seen just how effective he was when he had also the legislative branch in control, with both houses with a Republican majority. Or how much wall he actually got built.It doesn’t make him a bad one, either. — NOS4A2
How have we made an enemy "for no reason"?What do you expect to happen?
If Russia's so "bad" ok well that would explain why their our enemy, but why would we expect anything other than bad things from our enemy?
If Russia isn't so bad, Putin not literally equivalent to Hitler, then clearly we've made an enemy for no reason and have brought about the destruction of Ukraine for no purpose while, especially in Europe, harming our own interests in the process.
Now, I've consistently asked that, ok, assuming Russia is so bad, what's the actual plan to "defeat" the baddies? — boethius
And thus the decision to do this would be just bizarre.By that time Germany had already reduced its dependence on Russian gas from ~50% to ~9% and was on course to eliminate it entirely. And it wasn't getting any gas from Nord Stream anyway, since the Russians had already shut it down indefinitely in an apparent attempt to cause as much pain for Europe as they could before they lost their leverage entirely. — SophistiCat
First and foremost, we discuss these issues here to understand them. We discuss here a lot of issues to understand them better, to have insights and to get the feel what others think. To know and understand what is happening in international politics is very important. To have feedback on what total strangers think of your ideas is good, because people in this Forum aren't totally clueless.I use pretty clear language that it's a primary responsibility what we actually have power over. — boethius
Unfortunately that's one of the saddest reasons incompetent populists do get elected. People will fall for the boisterous guy who declares the "He can fix everything" and are for them "against the evil elites" and in the end just make a mess.Voting for Trump meant at least trying to improve things. — frank
OK, so you don't like the establishment the establishment, Washington, the 4th estate, the political dynasties, and their stooges on the world stage. So Trump irrated them.For me he is the demagogue I’ve been waiting for, the kind Murray Rothbard defended. His mere presence has lead the establishment, Washington, the 4th estate, the political dynasties, and their stooges on the world stage to overplay their hand, and I don’t think there is any going back. — NOS4A2
Apart from Trump personally adoring Putin, the pro-Russian stance of the Trump team was actually very brief and basically when Trump was running for office and had Paul Manafort at the helm.So what's the angle there. Trump helped Russia invade unopposed by... giving Ukraine weapons his predecessor wasn't prepared to give...? — Isaac
(Washington Post, July 18th 2016) The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.
Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.
(ABC, Jan 16th, 2020)The Trump administration broke the law by withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine last summer “for a policy reason,” a top government watchdog said Thursday in a scathing report.
The Government Accountability Office’s report came a day after the House of Representatives sent articles of its impeachment of President Donald Trump to the Senate for conduct related to holding back that aid.
Trump refused to release the funds to Ukraine at the same time he was pressuring that country’s new president to announce investigations of former Vice President Joe Biden and of Biden’s son Hunter, who had served on the board of a Ukraine gas company. Joe Biden is the current front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
This would be the proper antidote. And politically it's totally impossible.No more bail outs and no more money printing. — Tzeentch
Just who?Good! Fuck 'em. — Mikie
Oh it was the Fed.I don't think that was the Fed, if you're talking about 2008-2009. It was Congress and the Treasury. — frank
It simply wasn't in the news. Only later we found out that the whole financial system had been close to collapsing. And just how much was given to banks and corporations.A 2011 study by the Government Accountability Office found that "on numerous occasions in 2008 and 2009, the Federal Reserve Board invoked emergency authority under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to authorize new broad-based programs and financial assistance to individual institutions to stabilize financial markets. Loans outstanding for the emergency programs peaked at more than $1 trillion in late 2008."
Broadly stated, the Fed chose to provide a "blank cheque" for the banks, instead of providing liquidity and taking over. It did not shut down or clean up most troubled banks; and did not force out bank management or any bank officials responsible for taking bad risks, despite the fact that most of them had major roles in driving to disaster their institutions and the financial system as a whole. This lavishing of cash and gentle treatment was the opposite of the harsh terms the U.S. had demanded when the financial sectors of emerging market economies encountered crises in the 1990s.
Russia is a police state and has firm control of it's citizens. If it's GDP actually goes down 15%, it doesn't matter for Putin. Sanctions and economic problems aren't your biggest problem when you are fighting a large conventional war. Just look at Ukraine: every tenth Ukrainian is out of the country and not producing to the GDP. There is a mere trickle of wheat and grain exports from Ukraine, Russia is bombing it's infrastructure every day. Ukraine's GDP shrank by -30% or so last year.Those calculations make sense but whether Russia can really find a work around to the sanctions is the big strategic question. — Paine
That's the worrying part.I follow the general idea that time is not on Ukraine's side. — Paine
I think the Fed is now busy saving the banking system... again. And with that of course, it doesn't have to be worried about the money having the same effect as those covid-dollars put into the pockets of Americans that were forced to stay home. During these times the banks will hold on to that money like Scrooge McDuck.That cannot go unpunished. — Mikie
Economists are only people, and when people come together, there's usually the the "in crowd" and those would like to be in the in crowd. I think in the 1980's was the peak for the Chicago School.Also, our state university economics department regarded the University of Chicago economics department as an econ policy mecca. I seem to remember this trivia as more important than the content of the course. — Mark Nyquist
Economics as a profession have deep ties with Central banks. After all, few of the most lucrative positions are held there and Central Banks (not just the Fed) do sponsor economic research. So for example the very long and interesting history of the US opposing a Central Bank is very much put aside to the conspiracy theorists to argue about.Also I've picked up a long the way that institutions such as George Washington University and U of Pennsylvania's Wharton school have close ties with covert US Federal economics policies and personal. — Mark Nyquist
In the examples what @neomac gave about the Bellingcat critique on Sy Hersh, I noticed the following.For my part, I wasn't all that interested in fact-checking Hersh's story, because I didn't take it seriously in the first place. — SophistiCat
Until July 26th, both Welt and Hersh have been quiet about the obvious contradictions between their claims and the OPCW FFM report. This changed when Charles Davis, editor at ATTN.com, emailed Hersh and asked him to comment on the fact the OPCW FFM report contradicted his claims published in Welt. Hersh offered no defence of his work, stating that he had “learned just to write what I know, and move on”, and recommended that Davis contact two individuals: Ted Postol, and former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter.