How does the World view America these days?

[chenGOD]

11 hours ago, ignatius said:

i've heard some crazy stories about Gary Indiana though.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/gary-indiana

 

Because Gary, Indiana decided to tie their economic prosperity to a single industry (steel) it was always doomed. Much like I fear my hometown (Edmonton, Alberta) will be, if the current government remains in power (likely they will, as Albertans have been programmed to believe that oil and gas are the only way they can prosper).

Cities change  - Vancouver BC used to be viewed with some disdain, as it was a port town, full of sailors, hookers, and gangsters. Look at it now - always rated as one of the most desirable places in the world to live (except for the housing prices lol).

[dingformung]

3 hours ago, chenGOD said:

I disagree with the premise that Obama is a moderate conservative, as his policies, legislation and regulations were full of measures that were aimed at helping the American working and middle class. Was he a leftist, non. But are any political parties in major powers leftist (I mean Marxist leftist, not social democrats)? And Obama's policies (which I assume Biden will likely continue) were much more on the road to a social democracy than they were to moderate conservatism.

So conservatives don't want to help the middle and working class per se? I think often that's what they try to do (but usually fail). In many ways he is a neoliberal conservative, not unlike Merkel, definitely not a social democrat. Not quite sure why you toss in Marx again. Do you miss Zeffolia? 

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, dingformung said:

So conservatives don't want to help the middle and working class per se?

Their policy prescriptions tell it like it is.

How was he a neoliberal (you don't need to put conservative there - it's redundant)? Neoliberals argue for deregulation, the Obama administration increased regulation at almost unprecedented levels: https://www.politico.com/agenda/agenda/story/2016/1/obama-regulations-2016/

I didn't say he was a social democrat, just that his administration's policies put the US more on a path toward a social democracy. Like Chomsky says - you gotta start somewhere.

Unless you mean his approach to foreign policy/international relations is neoliberal, in which case sure - but that's generally a good thing.

[dingformung]

Quote

Unless you mean his approach to foreign policy/international relations is neoliberal, in which case sure - but that's generally a good thing.

It generally is? Honestly let's drop this taxonomy bullshit, you're probably right anyway (not that I think so ). But... it generally is? I think TTIP/CETA was a good example of a bad neoliberal project that luckily failed. Also, exploitative trading relationships with less powerful countries, because you have the freedom to do that, is neoliberal and rather bad.

12 hours ago, chenGOD said:

I didn't say he was a social democrat, just that his administration's policies put the US more on a path toward a social democracy. Like Chomsky says - you gotta start somewhere.

Well, if you have a right wing president then a moderate conservative means a shift to the left, yes. Chomsky is right.

Edited April 30, 2020 by dingformung

[chenGOD]

19 hours ago, dingformung said:

Quote

Unless you mean his approach to foreign policy/international relations is neoliberal, in which case sure - but that's generally a good thing.

It generally is? Honestly let's drop this taxonomy bullshit, you're probably right anyway (not that I think so ). But... it generally is? I think TTIP/CETA was a good example of a bad neoliberal project that luckily failed. Also, exploitative trading relationships with less powerful countries, because you have the freedom to do that, is neoliberal and rather bad.

Neoliberal foreign policy is in favour of developing institutions, promoting free trade, and maintaining peaceful relations in pursuit of absolute gains, as opposed to relative gains at the expense of other states. The exploitative approach you're thinking of in international relations is realism/neorealism, which has some theoretical value but is terrible as a policy for a progressive world.

I'm all for expanding free trade, and CETA is a good agreement (not sure why you think it failed? it's been provisionally applied). It increased transparency around arbitration panels (needs to be more but it's a good step), increases rules around standards (so Canada can't import Parma ham from anywhere but Italy, for example), reduces tariffs on a lot of agricultural products, maintains the right of countries to regulate in matters of public safety (environment, public health etc.) and allows for freer movement of people between the EU and Canada - especially people with professional designations. The bad is that it forces Canada to align it's IP regulations more with EU (which are far more restrictive than Canada's). Why do you think it's a bad agreement?

[Rubin Farr]

On 4/29/2020 at 12:55 AM, xyrofen said:

I've heard people say their food is quite good. Apparently a coworker's wife had a coworker that didn't know it was a strip joint because she only ever had takeout there and was recommending it to people a few years back.

This was in the YT link, slightly nsfw pasties

 

[ambermonk]

I want to move to Portland now.

[dingformung]

1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

Neoliberal foreign policy is in favour of developing institutions, promoting free trade, and maintaining peaceful relations in pursuit of absolute gains, as opposed to relative gains at the expense of other states. The exploitative approach you're thinking of in international relations is realism/neorealism, which has some theoretical value but is terrible as a policy for a progressive world.

I'm all for expanding free trade, and CETA is a good agreement (not sure why you think it failed? it's been provisionally applied). It increased transparency around arbitration panels (needs to be more but it's a good step), increases rules around standards (so Canada can't import Parma ham from anywhere but Italy, for example), reduces tariffs on a lot of agricultural products, maintains the right of countries to regulate in matters of public safety (environment, public health etc.) and allows for freer movement of people between the EU and Canada - especially people with professional designations. The bad is that it forces Canada to align it's IP regulations more with EU (which are far more restrictive than Canada's). Why do you think it's a bad agreement?

Right, TTIP failed and CETA passed, luckily not in its original form, but it's still mostly bad. It's bad not only because it can lead to weaker Canadian standards being applied in Europe. It's bad because of arbitral courts that undermine democracy. Companies can make treaties to exclude national courts and move to a parallel judiciary that is completely secret and non-transparent (and not constituted by democratically elected parliaments). While in Canada it somehow might lead to better food quality it is against the interest not only of the Europeans but also of the Canadians because of that. But politicians still decide it, lots of them get a nice post in one of the profiting companies after their political careers (just coincidentally of course).

It allows companies to sue governments for "investment barriers" such as green restrictions to prevent climate change or smoking restrictions for public health. That can lead to compensation payments of governments to international companies. That's tax money going directly into the pockets of major corporations, these decisions are non-transparent and anti-democratic because made by arbitral courts. Right here in my state Canadian companies wanted to pump chemicals into the soil (fracking). Luckily, there was a citizens' movement causing them to not do it. But if Germany should decide to implement a general fracking ban it might have to pay billions to Canadian companies. And no, Canadian citizens don't profit from that. 

Neoliberalism is the liberty of major corporations to exploit people and the environment. It's anti liberalism, global or not.

 

[Nebraska]

 

[chenGOD]

38 minutes ago, dingformung said:

Right, TTIP failed and CETA passed, luckily not in its original form, but it's still mostly bad. It's bad not only because it can lead to weaker Canadian standards being applied in Europe. It's bad because of arbitral courts that undermine democracy. Companies can make treaties to exclude national courts and move to a parallel judiciary that is completely secret and non-transparent (and not constituted by democratically elected parliaments). While in Canada it somehow might lead to better food quality it is against the interest not only of the Europeans but also of the Canadians because of that. But politicians still decide it, lots of them get a nice post in one of the profiting companies after their political careers (just coincidentally of course).

It allows companies to sue governments for "investment barriers" such as green restrictions to prevent climate change or smoking restrictions for public health. That can lead to compensation payments of governments to international companies. That's tax money going directly into the pockets of major corporations, these decisions are non-transparent and anti-democratic because made by arbitral courts. Right here in my state Canadian companies wanted to pump chemicals into the soil (fracking). Luckily, there was a citizens' movement causing them to not do it. But if Germany should decide to implement a general fracking ban it might have to pay billions to Canadian companies. And no, Canadian citizens don't profit from that. 

Neoliberalism is the liberty of major corporations to exploit people and the environment. It's anti liberalism, global or not.

 

 

Lol you might want to look up what the actual provisions of the arbitral courts are. As i noted, they've increased transparency on them, and there are two courts of appeals.

Canadian food quality - I'm sorry, but the scariest looking food I've ever seen in a grocers has been in Europe - some sort of pickled sausages that originated in Poland or something in a Lidl's. Horrific. If you're worried about GMOs, don't be.

A Canadian natural gas company has already agreed to start production in Germany, with the fracking ban intact. Guess what - that reduces your country's reliance on Russian LNG!

CETA explicitly allows for countries (not the EU, individual countries) to maintain their own regulations on the environment and public health and other areas.

If you're anti-free trade, as well as being against freer movement of individuals (CETA removed visa requirements for citizens of 2 European countries, as well as allowed for better international recognition of professional degrees), just say so. Keep in mind though that protectionism is a net economic loss, and you'll end up paying more for lower quality products.

[dingformung]

4 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

 

Lol you might want to look up what the actual provisions of the arbitral courts are. As i noted, they've increased transparency on them, and there are two courts of appeals.

Canadian food quality - I'm sorry, but the scariest looking food I've ever seen in a grocers has been in Europe - some sort of pickled sausages that originated in Poland or something in a Lidl's. Horrific. If you're worried about GMOs, don't be.

A Canadian natural gas company has already agreed to start production in Germany, with the fracking ban intact. Guess what - that reduces your country's reliance on Russian LNG!

CETA explicitly allows for countries (not the EU, individual countries) to maintain their own regulations on the environment and public health and other areas.

If you're anti-free trade, as well as being against freer movement of individuals (CETA removed visa requirements for citizens of 2 European countries, as well as allowed for better international recognition of professional degrees), just say so. Keep in mind though that protectionism is a net economic loss, and you'll end up paying more for lower quality products.

Of course I'm not against free(r) movement and I'm for more cultural exchange. I'm for free trade if it is regulated in a socially responsible way.

Increased transparency doesn't negate the fact that arbitral courts are less democratic than national courts, they aren't constituted by parliaments. And they can decide if tax money goes to corporations as compensation. There are laws that are investment barriers (and compromise free trade) that are still sensible (even though they aren't in line with the neoliberal idea/ideology that free trade is always good in any and every case and an end in itself rather than a tool), e.g. green laws or health protection laws. Why should governments be punished when they implement them? The corporate lawyers working in the arbitral courts are paid on an hourly basis and they themselves have an interest in elongated law suits of corporations suing governments. Free trade treaties that include a parallel judiciary should be excluded from the outset by EU law. Other kinds of free trade treaties can be discussed, imo, and should be.

As for GMOs, it's a nuanced topic. GMOs saved Vietnam from famine. Making plants yield higher crops of better quality without having to breed them that way over years is a good thing. Making crops that produce infertile seeds so farmers are dependent on distributors is bad. Making plants that resist insecticides so more of them can be used can in some cases be reasonable, in most others rather environmentally damaging, so should be strictly regulated. Also plants that are made immune to certain insect infestation can become a problem when they become part of the natural/non-agricultural environment (which is inevitable), taking away the food resources of bugs who in turn are the food resources of birds, destabilizing ecosystems. It's more complicated then generally banning it or saying it's generally harmless.

I have never been to Canada so I can't say anything about food quality there, I was referring to you saying that the labeling on Canadian food is more sincere bcs of CETA.

And Fracking is a sin against nature. Long term effects are hardly researched and it's an inefficient method. It makes more sense to buy Russian gas. Also, trading interdependence with Russia ensures peace. The Baltic states will thank us. Of course Russia is bordering dictatorship and has to be influenced in a way that hopefully makes them open up to the West more, which hopefully might cause political shifts into the right direction. Excluding trade is the wrong way.

And yes, Aldi has some nasty shit in their shelves

[xyrofen]

5 hours ago, Rubin Farr said:

This was in the YT link, slightly nsfw pasties

 

Yup, saw it when it hit the local news lol. What a time.

[Nebraska]

peaceful activists request governors help during trying times

 

[chenGOD]

7 hours ago, dingformung said:

Of course I'm not against free(r) movement and I'm for more cultural exchange. I'm for free trade if it is regulated in a socially responsible way.

Increased transparency doesn't negate the fact that arbitral courts are less democratic than national courts, they aren't constituted by parliaments. And they can decide if tax money goes to corporations as compensation. There are laws that are investment barriers (and compromise free trade) that are still sensible (even though they aren't in line with the neoliberal idea/ideology that free trade is always good in any and every case and an end in itself rather than a tool), e.g. green laws or health protection laws. Why should governments be punished when they implement them? The corporate lawyers working in the arbitral courts are paid on an hourly basis and they themselves have an interest in elongated law suits of corporations suing governments. Free trade treaties that include a parallel judiciary should be excluded from the outset by EU law. Other kinds of free trade treaties can be discussed, imo, and should be.

As for GMOs, it's a nuanced topic. GMOs saved Vietnam from famine. Making plants yield higher crops of better quality without having to breed them that way over years is a good thing. Making crops that produce infertile seeds so farmers are dependent on distributors is bad. Making plants that resist insecticides so more of them can be used can in some cases be reasonable, in most others rather environmentally damaging, so should be strictly regulated. Also plants that are made immune to certain insect infestation can become a problem when they become part of the natural/non-agricultural environment (which is inevitable), taking away the food resources of bugs who in turn are the food resources of birds, destabilizing ecosystems. It's more complicated then generally banning it or saying it's generally harmless.

I have never been to Canada so I can't say anything about food quality there, I was referring to you saying that the labeling on Canadian food is more sincere bcs of CETA.

And Fracking is a sin against nature. Long term effects are hardly researched and it's an inefficient method. It makes more sense to buy Russian gas. Also, trading interdependence with Russia ensures peace. The Baltic states will thank us. Of course Russia is bordering dictatorship and has to be influenced in a way that hopefully makes them open up to the West more, which hopefully might cause political shifts into the right direction. Excluding trade is the wrong way.

And yes, Aldi has some nasty shit in their shelves

Less democratic? How impartial would a German court ruling against a Canadian company be? I'm assuming they'd be more impartial than you, but I don't believe they would be as impartial as the way the panel is laid out under CETA. Here is a very good analysis of the arbitration system and some of the new transparency and impartiality measures the treaty implemented. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/02/08/analyzing-features-of-investment-court-system-under-ceta-and-euvipa-discussing-improvement-in-the-system-and-clarity-to-clauses/

How many times do I have to say it: CETA continues to guarantee member states right to regulate in areas such as public health and environmental laws: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/september/tradoc_156060.pdf

https://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/belgium-belgique/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/Myths_and_Realties_CETA_mythes_et_Realites.aspx?lang=eng

Yes you are right GMOs are a nuanced topic - but they are not inherently bad. EU food standards are not weakened by CETA.

How can you say in one sentence that fracking is a sin against nature and then in the next say the long-term effects have not been studied. I'm not a particularly huge fan of fracking, but they have made a lot of gains in terms of efficiency since the process was developed in the 1950s/60s.Bby purchasing Russian LNG, you (yes you personally ) continue to support a regime that is not bordering dictatorship, it is a dictatorship. Putin has ruled the country with an iron fist since 2000 (yes, including the years he was only "prime minister"). The profits from Gazprom that flow to Putin and his cronies have been garnered through intimidation, corruption, and have been protected by many nefarious and criminal means, including murder. We have our problems in Canada, but our government isn't out there murdering lawyers investigating corruption. And to bring this back on topic, Russia supports Trump. Do you want to keep supporting Trump? Do you? Do youuuuuuuu?

 

[dingformung]

15 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Neoliberal foreign policy is in favour of [...] maintaining peaceful relations

Without CETA Canadian troops would soon attack Europe saying "sorry" after every bullet.

Basically the point I made about Russia, though. Have you been to the baltic countries? They are really worried about Russia. And as you mentioned, trading relationships are a peace factor. Plus their gas is cheaper. Fracking gas is a huge waste of water (1 to 8 million gallons of water each fracturing job), it's inefficient and it contaminates the groundwater. I don't know how people even got the idea that it's harmless to pump hazardous chemicals into the soil. I think the burden of proof is on the people who want to contaminate the soil in that way (and proof isn't on their side). That being said, Nordstream 2 isn't unproblematic either, from an environment protection perspective, but still better than fracking. And we won't change Russia by stopping all trade with them. You know, in Europe Russia isn't another far away place with a problematic political system, it is part of Europe and we have to live with it.

5 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Less democratic? How impartial would a German court ruling against a Canadian company be? I'm assuming they'd be more impartial than you, but I don't believe they would be as impartial as the way the panel is laid out under CETA. Here is a very good analysis of the arbitration system and some of the new transparency and impartiality measures the treaty implemented. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/02/08/analyzing-features-of-investment-court-system-under-ceta-and-euvipa-discussing-improvement-in-the-system-and-clarity-to-clauses/

You could be right that national courts might be more in favour of the population that lives in the place where the business is done rather than in favour of big business, since they were elected by representatives who were elected by that population. I don't think it's a bad thing, though. Rather democratic.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

Edited May 1, 2020 by dingformung

[Silent Member]

14 hours ago, Nebraska said:

peaceful activists request governors help during trying times

 

I'd love to see a group of Muslim extremists do the same thing and get the same response.

[chenGOD]

Just now, Gocab said:

I'd love to see a group of Muslim extremists do the same thing and get the same response.

I’d love to see a group of unarmed Muslims protest in front of the state legislature and get the same response. 

[Nebraska]

1 hour ago, Gocab said:

I'd love to see a group of Muslim extremists do the same thing and get the same response.

you mean terrorists 

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, Gocab said:

I'd love to see a group of Muslim extremists do the same thing and get the same response.

For real though, that's the definition of white privilege.

[Nebraska]

you guys are confusing terrorists with "really good people"

you can tell the difference because the really good people are patriots. the other guys are terrorists

[cwmbrancity]

Needs more provisional Irish republicans in balaclavas pls.

[dingformung]

I always thought national security is seen as so important in the US. How come armed people can storm government buildings without getting arrested?

[milkface]

2 minutes ago, cwmbrancity said:

Needs more provisional Irish republicans in balaclavas pls.

In adidas tracksuits

[chenGOD]

3 minutes ago, dingformung said:

I always thought national security is seen as so important in the US. How come armed people can storm government buildings without getting arrested?

They have the correct skin colour.

[Rubin Farr]

5 minutes ago, dingformung said:

I always thought national security is seen as so important in the US. How come armed people can storm government buildings without getting arrested?

The 2nd Amendment is an ancient and completely out of date regulation.