Is this where the West is heading? - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15191730
Noumenon wrote:Socialism at root is a Christian doctrine for which life is something to be suffered through like Christ on the cross. It is not a life-affirming doctrine. It hasn't even begun to transform itself to the postmodern reality that god is dead.

You make many good and interesting points, however I think Nietzsche got it wrong. Its not for the death of God that we grieve, but the death of Satan. It was Satan and the struggle against him that gave meaning to people's lives. This is why Cultural Marxism has been so fabulously successful. it has given people back Satan in the form of the White Cis Heterosexual male.
#15191731
boomerintown wrote:
Sure, there is no question that we were a big help to Germany during WW2. I just dont think allowing german trains through Sweden to Norway during the 1940s is what people usually call western imperialism.



No -- ?

How about 'collaboration with Western imperialism' -- ?



Collaborationism is cooperation with the enemy against one's country of citizenship in wartime.[1] The term is most often used to describe the cooperation of civilians with the occupying Axis Powers, especially Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, during World War II. Motivations for collaboration by citizens and organizations included nationalism, ethnic hatred, anti-communism, antisemitism, opportunism, self-defense, or often a combination of these factors. Some collaborators in World War II committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, or atrocities such as the Holocaust.[2] More often collaborators simply "went along to get along," attempting to benefit from the occupation or simply survive. The definition of collaborationism is imprecise and subject to interpretation.



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



---


boomerintown wrote:
Regarding the free market, I have no idea what you are talking about. Everything is heavily regulated, and especially the EU market. We essentially set the world standards for global trade with the regulations of the EU market. As I wrote somewhere else, from GDPR in USA to japanese cars sold in Mexico and Saudi Arabia. Virtually all global transactions follow EU regulations, which can be pretty good seeing as it raises the standard for quality and environmental concern everywhere.



So you're implying that trade regulations can be interpreted to disallow international economic participants from international labor markets?


boomerintown wrote:
There is not a market for all kinds of jobs in a country where taxes are high, where salaries are high, where regulations regarding work security, vacation, parental leave and so on are high for "all kinds of jobs". The cost of labor is simply too high, which is the reason that there are extremly few job positions for unqualified labor.



I don't think you seem to understand how capitalist markets *work* -- if there is a *surplus* of something, say, labor, which happens to be currently *unemployed* / underutilized, then the market mechanism will tend to pay *low prices* for that commodity, since it can be had at a bargain due to its oversupply compared to economic demand.

This supply-and-demand dynamic operates for *all* commodities, including labor, so if the labor commodity happens to be in a state of *oversupply* that means that the market will -- theoretically -- create *buyers* for that labor commodity, at that lower cost.


boomerintown wrote:
And its not for me yo say this, the standards are set through negotations between trade unions and employer associates.



Okay, but the prevailing economic market conditions *themselves* are *independent* / outside-of whatever fixed-set of rules are established for a given situation / labor contract.


boomerintown wrote:
It is pretty funny that you say you dont advocate a free market doctrine and that you seem to be against imperialism, but seems to want to enforce this doctrine, as an american, on other countries. :D



No, as before, you *misunderstand* -- nowhere am I advocating for any enforcement of free-market economics. Imperialism is *political*, and I'm anti-imperialist as well as being anti-capitalist since the two go together, in our world of international bourgeois rule.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



---


boomerintown wrote:
Anyway, I think we will keep our model, why dont you focus on your own country?



Your 'model' -- ?

Self-sufficiency / domestic markets are inherently *limited*, as we're currently seeing in China:


Could Evergrande collapse topple China's economy _ DW News

#15191733
Swedens labor market is doing just fine, thank you, whatever limit you are talking about I dont see any model working better for its people than the Nordic one does.

Our labor market is not international. It is national, and it is up to us who can work here and who cant. We dont tolerate low wage jobs, and therefore they wont magically appear "because of capitalism".

If you actually oppose imperialism, then let the citizens of each country run theirs democratically and set up their own rules.

Then if you want to experiment with open borders, push for it in USA instead. During the autumn of 2015 Sweden took in, gave shelter, food, asylum and access to one of the worlds most generous wellfare systems to 10 000 refugees every week. Obviously this isnt possible in the long run just from a logistic perspective in finding homes to everyone, and you can forget about a universal wellfare.

For USA this would be rougly 320 000 people, every week. 16 million people, every year. I am not sure there is a massive support for this in the american voterbase either.
#15191736
Anyway, if this actually is the total refugee admission I can see why imagining what 16 million would be instead might be hard...

Luckily we changed our laws pretty quickly, and the total number was just 160 000 that year. Or the equivalent of about 5 millions for USA.

Image
Last edited by boomerintown on 23 Sep 2021 00:55, edited 1 time in total.
#15191737
boomerintown wrote:
Swedens labor market is doing just fine, thank you,



It sounds rather insular.


boomerintown wrote:
whatever limit you are talking about I dont see any model working better for its people than the Nordic one does.

Our labor market is not international. It is national,



Sorry, but *capital* there is *international*, so why the discriminatory attitude and practice regarding the *labor* for those jobs, for that labor market, for that investment capital?



Nasdaq First North Growth Market FNSE
NGM Main Regulated XNGM
NGM Nordic SME NSME
Spotlight Stock Market XSAT



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_E ... _exchanges



---


boomerintown wrote:
and it is up to us who can work here and who cant. We dont tolerate low wage jobs, and therefore they wont magically appear "because of capitalism".

If you actually oppose imperialism, then let the citizens of each country run theirs democratically and set up their own rules.



Again, I'm an *anti-capitalist* kind of anti-imperialist, so the point is that the world's *workers* can certainly collectively run their own workplaces. Remember that capital *needs* labor, but labor *doesn't need* capital.


boomerintown wrote:
Then if you want to experiment with open borders, push for it in USA instead. During the autumn of 2015 Sweden took in, gave shelter, food, asylum and access to one of the worlds most generous wellfare systems to 10 000 refugees every week. Obviously this isnt possible in the long run just from a logistic perspective in finding homes to everyone, and you can forget about a universal wellfare.

For USA this would be rougly 320 000 people, every week. 16 million people, every year. I am not sure there is a massive support for this in the american voterbase either.



Certainly not if Trump was allowed to have his coup, that's for sure.

Again, my argument is simply that economic participants -- both labor and capital -- should be able to roam the world to find markets for themselves.
#15191738
ckaihatsu wrote:
Certainly not if Trump was allowed to have his coup, that's for sure.



Image

Donald Trump?

Again, Sweden granted 160 000 people asylum in one year. Which would be over 5 million in one year for USA, and these are your numbers. Yeah its easy to put yourself on a piedestal when others take the blow of your policies.
#15191739
boomerintown wrote:
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/US_Asylum_Grants%2C_1990-2016.png/1024px-US_Asylum_Grants%2C_1990-2016.png[img]

Donald Trump?

Again, Sweden granted 160 000 people asylum in one year. Which would be over 5 million in one year for USA, and these are your numbers. Yeah its easy to put yourself on a piedestal when others take the blow of your policies.



I'm not a nationalist, so I don't identify with the policies of the U.S. government.
#15191743
boomerintown wrote:
Ok, and as a nationalist I am glad we could help hundreds of thousands of people fleeing from war and become a part of the swedish volksgemeinschaft. :)



Regarding *politics* it would be good, in terms of the thread's topic, to address why the *labor commodity* is discriminated-against in international labor markets compared to capital's participation, through exclusionary nationalist border policies. The West *was* headed towards increased market protectionism and nationalist retrenchment under the Trump administration, but now the immigration issue needs to be reassessed.
#15191745
boomerintown wrote:
Because I think we as a nation should base our policies on whats best for us and our national volksgemeinschaft, as long as we let other people do the same in their countries.



As I already mentioned, this kind of insular approach simply *doesn't work*, because the world is economically interconnected, and that goes for labor markets, too. Nationalist regulations on the free flows of labor are *counterproductive*.
#15191748
ckaihatsu wrote:
As I already mentioned, this kind of insular approach simply *doesn't work*, because the world is economically interconnected, and that goes for labor markets, too. Nationalist regulations on the free flows of labor are *counterproductive*.



boomerintown wrote:
Its been working fine for us for the last 500 years. But maybe the world changed overnight during covid.

What country that doesnt put its own national interests first do you think will be the winner in this new world?



Well, I don't wish economic catastrophe on *anyone*, but, again, insular nationalist thinking is *counterproductive*, as we've already seen in the 21st century -- Cyprus had to be bailed out, and Iceland left its foreign investors holding the bag.



The 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis was an economic crisis in the Republic of Cyprus that involved the exposure of Cypriot banks to overleveraged local property companies, the Greek government-debt crisis, the downgrading of the Cypriot government's bond credit rating to junk status by international credit rating agencies, the consequential inability to refund its state expenses from the international markets[1][2] and the reluctance of the government to restructure the troubled Cypriot financial sector.[3]sopalsuemae

On 25 March 2013, a €10 billion international bailout by the Eurogroup, European Commission (EC), European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) was announced, in return for Cyprus agreeing to close the country's second-largest bank, the Cyprus Popular Bank (also known as Laiki Bank), imposing a one-time bank deposit levy on all uninsured deposits there, and possibly around 48% of uninsured deposits in the Bank of Cyprus (the island's largest commercial bank).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%8 ... ial_crisis




The Icelandic financial crisis was a major economic and political event in Iceland that involved the default of all three of the country's major privately owned commercial banks in late 2008, following their difficulties in refinancing their short-term debt and a run on deposits in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Relative to the size of its economy, Iceland's systemic banking collapse was the largest experienced by any country in economic history.[1] The crisis led to a severe economic slump in 2008–2010 and significant political unrest.[2][3]

In the years preceding the crisis, three Icelandic banks, Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir, multiplied in size. This expansion was driven by ready access to credit in international financial markets, in particular money markets. As the financial crisis of 2007–2008 unfolded, investors perceived the Icelandic banks to be increasingly risky. Trust in the banks gradually faded, leading to a sharp depreciation of the Icelandic króna in 2008 and increased difficulties for the banks in rolling over their short-term debt. At the end of the second quarter of 2008, Iceland's external debt was 9.553 trillion Icelandic krónur (€50 billion), more than 7 times the GDP of Iceland in 2007.[4][5] The assets of the three banks totaled 14.437 trillion krónur at the end of the second quarter 2008,[6] equal to more than 11 times the national GDP. Due to the huge size of the Icelandic financial system in comparison with the Icelandic economy, the Central Bank of Iceland found itself unable to act as a lender of last resort during the crisis, further aggravating the mistrust in the banking system.

On 29 September 2008, it was announced that Glitnir would be nationalised. However, subsequent efforts to restore faith in the banking system failed. On 6 October, the Icelandic legislature instituted an emergency law which enabled the Financial Supervisory Authority (FME) to take control over financial institutions and made domestic deposits in the banks priority claims. In the following days, new banks were founded to take over the domestic operations of Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir. The old banks were put into receivership and liquidation, resulting in losses for their shareholders and foreign creditors. Outside Iceland, more than half a million depositors lost access to their accounts in foreign branches of Icelandic banks. This led to the 2008–2013 Icesave dispute, that ended with an EFTA Court ruling that Iceland was not obliged to repay Dutch and British depositors minimum deposit guarantees.

In an effort to stabilize the situation, the Icelandic government stated that all domestic deposits in Icelandic banks would be guaranteed, imposed strict capital controls to stabilize the value of the Icelandic króna, and secured a US$5.1bn sovereign debt package from the IMF and the Nordic countries in order to finance a budget deficit and the restoration of the banking system. The international bailout support programme led by IMF officially ended on 31 August 2011, while the capital controls which were imposed in November 2008 were lifted on 14 March 2017.[7]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%8 ... ial_crisis
#15191749
If policies are bad for the country, then why would it be in the countries interest to adopt them?

Ive only said that we should base our policies on what is best for us as a volksgemeinschaft and that I expect other countries to do the same.

You asked me about migration, and Ive said what I think is the best for us as a country.
#15191752
boomerintown wrote:
If policies are bad for the country, then why would it be in the countries interest to adopt them?

Ive only said that we should base our policies on what is best for us as a volksgemeinschaft and that I expect other countries to do the same.



We're seeing the same pattern over and over again with corporations and even entire countries -- each country / corporation wants to maximize its own circumscribed 'value', but in having that kind of goal the country / corporation becomes increasingly *financialized* and runs into *liquidity* problems as its assets become tied-up / 'frozen', hampering any business *expansion*.

So this isn't a 'Sweden' issue, or a 'U.S.' issue, etc. -- it's a fundamental dynamic of *capitalist economics* that encourages the Ponzi-scheme dynamic, through ever-increasing financialization, and inevitably on into *insolvency*.


Everything You Need To Know About the Chinese Evergrande Crisis (So Far) - How Money Works

#15191754
Rich wrote:You make many good and interesting points, however I think Nietzsche got it wrong. Its not for the death of God that we grieve, but the death of Satan. It was Satan and the struggle against him that gave meaning to people's lives. This is why Cultural Marxism has been so fabulously successful. it has given people back Satan in the form of the White Cis Heterosexual male.


Either way getting rid of religious belief leads to nihilism. And to avoid nihilism you need to create meaning in your life and something to struggle against. But yes that would create meaningful struggle for people.
#15191758
Rich wrote:
it has given people back Satan in the form of the White Cis Heterosexual male.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Either way getting rid of religious belief leads to nihilism. And to avoid nihilism you need to create meaning in your life and something to struggle against. But yes that would create meaningful struggle for people.



So can we go ahead and damn him now?


= D
#15191770
(Again.)


boomerintown wrote:
If policies are bad for the country, then why would it be in the countries interest to adopt them?

Ive only said that we should base our policies on what is best for us as a volksgemeinschaft and that I expect other countries to do the same.



On this, I've found that there's a distinct difference between 'the country', and 'the people'. I have a handy diagram for it, as well:


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show
Image
#15191780
Rich wrote:You make many good and interesting points, however I think Nietzsche got it wrong. Its not for the death of God that we grieve, but the death of Satan. It was Satan and the struggle against him that gave meaning to people's lives. This is why Cultural Marxism has been so fabulously successful. it has given people back Satan in the form of the White Cis Heterosexual male.


Doesn't "Cultural Marxism" serve as the new Satan for conservatives to oppose, giving meaning to their lives?

In my interpretation, "god is dead" has a very expansive meaning. It could be anything that serves as people's "god." Socialism served as that when the theological God became not very believable for a lot of secular people. But woke-ism is now a civil religion operating in much the same way. There is always a god and a satan, religions tend to work in similar ways.

Of course, god is not "dead" for everyone at any given time. But what is dead is the idea that one belief system can rule, unquestioned as Absolute Truth. And that is the reality regardless of whether there are "cultural Marxists" or not.

It is only once you get to the point that nothing is believable, that then we can construct a single "truth" to agree on (that is, a fiction).
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18

Pretty clear France will be taking a leading role […]

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]

Yes, and it did not order a ceasefire. Did you ev[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]