cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/50913906

Financial Times drops the bars

top 89 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 81 points 3 months ago

I'm an American. Y'all Europeans don't believe the horse shit they got most of my countrymen to accept.

Also, that Janan Ganesh guy looks like a putz.

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 3 months ago* (10 children)

    What about taxing wealth, while reducing mass taxes like the VAT to finally get people to spend again? Increasing peoples salaries would also help, and capping rent to what it costs to ensure upkeep and needed new construction - i think that would easly do the trick to fill the states coffers and get the economy out of this slump instead of filling the bank accounts of shameless, greedy people. Those will find other ways to enrich themselves, maybe through the defense industry.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    We should have a 20% annual wealth tax on fortunes over a billion dollars. Staying a billionaire should be like trying to swim up a waterfall.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Under FDR in 1935, if you made more than $5 million, you paid a 79% tax rate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I'm talking wealth, not income. If your total net worth is $1.2 billion, this year you owe the IRS $200 billion.

    The idea is that we make being that rich an extremely temporary condition. It's like trying to run up a downward moving escalator or run against a moving sidewalk.

    In fact, I would tune the tax structure to harness some of the competitive impulses of the wealthy. People that rich view their net worth as a high score. They literally view it like a personal life score. It's just a video game to them. When your net worth goes from $10 to 20 billion, your lifestyle changes very little. Past a certain point, it's just about bragging rights.

    So I would harness this impulse. I would tune the tax rates so that it actually would be possible for a handful of the absolutely most skilled business owners to maintain wealth slightly above a billion (or whatever inflation-adjusted level we set) for a limited period of time. Those owning the world's most profitable companies will be able to stay a bit over the threshold for the years their company is at its peak.

    If you did this, you could actually harness the competitive instincts of the rich. Remember, it's all about getting a high score. But instead of competing for the largest fortune, they would compete for how long they're able to stay on the treadmill. Instead of size, they compete for time. A year or two would be a feat. A decade above the threshold would be a once-in-a-generation achievement. You would know these people by name. They would be famous. Staying above the wealth cap for any prolonged period would make you as famous as Musk or Bezos today. The rich would still get to compete with each other for bragging rights. They still compete for a high score. We just change what the score measures.

    I don't want to eat the rich. I want to harness their greed. Imagine a donkey being lead by a carrot. Except the donkey is on a treadmill, and the treadmill is powering an electric generator. I want to turn every billionaire into that for the public treasury.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Because these locusts leave and take everything that is taxable with them.

    And i doubt a one time moving Tax is a good deterrent.

    The only Thing the state could do is seizing the means of Produktion before Hand, but we can barely Imagine a wealth Tax. State capitalism is was of the Charts for Most peoples Imagination.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    They can't take real estate with them, and there's no reason why a foreign owner of real estate can't be taxed more than a local owner. Dividends of stocks in local businesses can still be taxed, as can transfers of ownership of those stocks on the local stock exchange. They're also dependent on the state they left for any governments bonds they own as well as for enforcing any loans local legal persons owe them.

    They can sell all those things, of course, but that just means other people have to start paying more taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    So we have to make sure that most of the world implements these taxes. Tax havens should be ostracized. In this specific case, there's no need for a communist revolution, just political will to change something, diplomacy and unwillingness to budge towards countries who don't want to play fair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    So we have to make sure that most of the world implements these taxes

    Arent we already trying?

    Tax havens should be ostracized.

    Why should they care? They have more Money now. Of course not as much as they could have, but more than they Had previously.

    In this specific case, there's no need for a communist revolution, just political will to change something, diplomacy and unwillingness to budge towards countries who don't want to play fair.

    The people everywhere already try the diplomatic way, but breaking political will with capitalist media is part of the counter Offensive of the Bourgeoisie against the reformist struggle.

    The need to Organize is equally important in reformist battles as in revolutionary Battles. Furthermore, the dependancy of the plan on global scale action means organization of scale unheard of in human History.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 76 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Defend the continent from who? The teetering regime that has spent the past 5 years drawing the poorest country on the continent to a stalemate?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Defend the continent from people whose countries are becoming unlivable, and from missing out on all the resources we might want to procure.

    I'm afraid we've really entered into a new era of increasing aggression and warfare.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    War is very expensive though. It makes sense to spend fraction of that on a deterrent and that's one thing EU does really well is to hedge all investments for overall stability. This is more of the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Well, kinda, yeah. The only reason that has been a stalemate is that Europe mustered a bunch of support for Ukraine, at great expense. They’ve needed to gather and regather the will to spend money on this throughout, if you’ve been paying attention you’ve seen it.

    Now I totally object to someone saying they need to dismantle their social programs to dump all that money into warfare, but neither should we say there is no threat at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    What exactly will happen if there are suddenly "separatists" in Narva?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    There's 2.200 soldiers in Tapa which I assume would be deployed immediately.

    There's a total of 27.000 soldiers deployed as part of the Enhanced Forward Presence NATO deference. So they need a little more than just "separatists"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I am worried about Russia and it's behaviour, but I totally disagree with this narrative across Europe about spending more on defence.

    We spend plenty as it is, we just need to reorganise things and integrate our armies and navies. So many resources can be freed up by removing pointless duplication and redundancy, without spending more money at the expense of other parts of our economies.

    It won't happen because nationalism is a disease that infects almost all European countries.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Exactly.

    OK, if you're worried about Russia, let's build a few more nukes and drone factories, and call it a day. Unless you're trying to project power (the US) or use weapons manufacture as a fill-in for failed industrial policy (the US and now Germany), that's all you need.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    The Royal Navy currently has fewer than 20 vessels active, including coastal boats. This is not enough to secure fisheries, defend the home islands, interdict drugs before they arrive, and to keep open the global shipping lanes Britain relies on existentially. There is no redundancy. Until earlier this year, only one Type 45 destroyer was operable. It had to be removed from its duties and sent to defend Cyprus from air attack, but it took a week to get it ready to leave.

    Since the 2010 Strategic Defence Review, British military capability has been gutted. A large investment is now needed to course correct. Many European powers fell into the same complacency trap at the same time.

    Some countries, like Ireland, have never had adequate military capability. Ireland has no surface to air missiles - not even a radar tracking system - and no jet aircraft at all. Again, half of its 8 naval vessels are inactive. Russia has been camping out in or near Irish waters happily doing whatever they please. Considering the amount of European data going through Ireland, this is a concern and the Dail is considering whether they need a more comprehensive military.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    I remember years ago reading an article complaining that Germans are too frugal and their frugality will negatively impact the economy because of lack of consumption. And I thought to myself: "Hang on. I thought they tell us to spend only on what we need?" And if we do spend as they have wanted, the elites will say this is why we can't afford a house because we spent it all on avocado toasts.

    This is the hypocrisy, gas lighting and double standards of capitalism. They tell us such and such is good, and when we do exactly what they tell us, and it has had negative consequences, they say it's our fault. It reminds me of one of the episodes in the first season of Squid Game, in which the players were winning but the games master broke the rules to handicap the players.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The people are what makes the continent.

    If you stop defending the people, what are you defending?

    Wealth. The wealth of companies and individuals that have no loyalty except to themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 43 points 3 months ago

    So let’s kill what makes our countries worth to live in.

    Fuck you, bootlicker!

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    Europe could get more for less if they bought less low quality, super expensive, american made, defensive shit.

    I hear Ukraine have some interesting and well proven kits for cheap.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    Tbf a lot of that spending is to keep relationships with the US. That's kinda the entire shtick of EU is to bind competing parties through global economy and while Russia is an outlier I do think it's mostly a success story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah but what about binding our economy with some other countries (that don't threaten to attack us)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    They're working quite actively on that with things like Mercosur, the free trade agreements with India and Australia and strenghtening ties to Canada among other things.

    Many were already in the works, but got boosted considerably when Trump got in for a 2nd time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    No way to make more rich people richer than to sacrifice the underclasses benefits.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 3 months ago

    Because austerity measures worked so well after the housing bubble burst. 🙄

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Janan Ganesh wants to suck billionaire dick and lick their boots

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Yeah.

    Ganesh co-authored Compassionate Conservatism (2006) with Jesse Norman, which received the T. E. Utley Memorial Prize for young journalists.

    Norman and Ganesh argue that Britain faces the two great problems of trust and security in the 21st century, and only a compassionate conservatism as expressed by Conservative prime minister David Cameron can provide the understanding of what British society is and could be that is necessary to solve them.

    "Compassionate Conservatism", well there's an oxymoron for you. And "as expressed by David Cameron" of all people. This guy really does not care about being credible, does he?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago

    Just stop subsidizing the rich, problem solved.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago

    No, that's like dad straight up saying "I know you need new clothes for winter, but I don't like you and I do like drinking, so I'm going to spend our money at the bar instead."

    Saying we don't have the money to feed the poor is at least having some shame about it.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    In the US we don't really have money for either.

    It's mostly deficit / debt spend. But don't worry, we'll always be able to service debt easily because the USD is standard and in large amounts of demand. Nobody would ever be stupid enough to screw that up and get people to look for alternatives.....oh wait, here's that Trump guy again.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 15 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    In the US we don't really have money for either

    Yeah you do. Your corrupt politicians just keep giving most of it to the rich and powerful, and their corporations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago

    As non American it's always funny to see one of the richest country in the world never have any money for anything but yachts and mcmansions. Have americans checked their couch cushions? There must be 1 healthcare there somewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Europe drops the welfare state for fucking what? To spend money in weapons from usa? The same weapons that usa can disable remotely while they treat to invade iceland?

    Nice...

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago
    1. Europe doesn't drop anything, it's an opinion peace from the Financial Times.

    2. No, not US weapons (or rather: not only). The EU-based military industry is currently booming with countries ordering tonnes of stuff from Germany, Poland, Sweden, and France. All locally designed and built gear.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Financial Times has been maskless for a long time.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago

    The class war doesn't stop happening if you dont fight back.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago

    «Opinion» pieces are a way for news media to cover their asses.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Where is a good guillotine when you need one.

    Or better, send the asshole and perhaps his family to a war somewhere, so he knows first hand what he is asking about.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (13 children)

    In Holland the new center-left government proposed a “freedom tax” to fund the army, which was widely supported. They implemented it half heartedly though, so there’s no line of “freedom tax” on your tax report. But the model might definitely work elsewhere

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] 14 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    center-left

    “freedom tax” to fund the army

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (9 children)

    I don't get it. Seems like a very center left thing? You socialize the costs for protecting your freedoms - a freedom tax if you will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

    Pretending that military spending is about "protecting your freedoms" is jingoistic (and thus right wing) propaganda.

    Also, a few corporations, billionaires, and hectomillionaires get richer every time military spending goes up. Taxing everyone to pay them is a reverse Robin Hood move not in accordance with left wing ideology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago*

    How does a community of people protect themselves if not collectively pooling their money to "buy guns"?

    There's nothing left or right wing here - spending on protection is needed be paying someone else to do it or developing your own guns. So despite the flavorful wording here of "freedom tax" i dont see how this could be anyone's problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    You know, whether you like it or not, there are bad people out there who will attack you if they think you look weak. There's a pecking order to the world and the ones with the big guns think they have to go around and rub some "shithole country" into the dirt ones every 5 years.

    I believe that we, as a species and by mutual agreement between peoples, must rid ourselves of weapons in order to defuse and degrade the capabilities of despots and mercenaries. But unilateral disarmament won't work when a few countries think its their civilizational duty to come and murder your mother and extract your resources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    You know, whether you like it or not, there are bad people out there who will attack you if they think you look weak. There's a pecking order to the world and the ones with the big guns think they have to go around and rub some "shithole country" into the dirt ones every 5 years

    Fun fact: most of Europe being part of the same military alliances makes the necessary military spending per nation to avoid this MUCH lower than current levels.

    Especially when the biggest threat is a country already teetering on the brink of economic and military collapse from overextending itself.

    I believe that we, as a species and by mutual agreement between peoples, must rid ourselves of weapons in order to defuse and degrade the capabilities of despots and mercenaries

    Agreed.

    But unilateral disarmament won't work

    Neither will multilateral unnecessary military spending increases.

    a few countries think its their civilizational duty to come and murder your mother and extract your resources.

    None of which are anywhere near capable of carrying out said "duty" against the full force of two of the biggest military alliances ever, the EU and NATO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I agree overall. But the irony is that Europe's cooperation with the United States is a major source of instability. So I'd rather see NATO replaced by an international alliance of smaller countries and middle powers or smaller countries that reject aggression and abide by international law.

    I also think that the whole "must spend X" obsession largely comes from NATO propaganda which assumed that Europe would use that money to buy weapons from the American MIC. That doesn't invalidate all additional spending, especially if temporary, but I think it's important to recognize the role it has had in shaping the United States (force the poor to join the military) and to vehemently reject that model.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Europe's cooperation with the United States is a major source of instability. So I'd rather see NATO replaced by an international alliance of smaller countries and middle powers or smaller countries that reject aggression and abide by international law.

    Couldn't agree more. It's long past time to wean Europe off of dependence on the US of any kind, but especially military and economic.

    I also think that the whole "must spend X" obsession largely comes from NATO propaganda which assumed that Europe would use that money to buy weapons from the American MIC.

    That and propaganda on behalf of the European MIC, which is also a thing, though a lot smaller.

    That doesn't invalidate all additional spending

    True, but the arguments for it being necessary not holding water does.

    especially if temporary

    Yeah, because militaries and the rich people and corporations never make sure that "temporary" subsidies and government contracts become effectively permanent 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Yeah, temporary contracts have this tendency of becoming drawn out. This is also why it's so wild that so many European countries increased military spending before they even knew what to even buy with all of that money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    Center-left is a big stretch. There's a (sort of) center-left party in it, but the other 2 are center-right to right and you can see that in their proposed policies.

    Also, the "freedom tax" affects the lower and middle class more than it does the rich class.

    And they still cut back on the welfare state.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago

    Only desperate people, right-wing gun nuts and neo-nazis join the army voluntarily, so that sounds about right.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    I normally don't wish death on people, but the author of this hate-piece....

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    It's like the author saw the gap in the market left by the glorious demise of Rod fucking Liddle, and figured he'd toss his hat in the ring.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    'We will kill so many brown people abroad just to kill welfare' - Liberals

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Given what Russia is doing, and how the US is bailing on its European allies, it does make sense for Europe to focus a bit more on defense, sad to say.

    The US otoh has no excuse.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago*

    The US maintains a military the size it does to control the world economy

    I’m sure Europe are spending a bit more now but I don’t think we need to worry about our neighbours like Russia, and legitimate defence is cheaper than what the USA does

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Certain irony in this article being turned out by a guy who would likely get pulled out of his car and beaten to death in any of the White's Only No Go Zones of Europe.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Can you elaborate on the No Go Zones in Europe? I did not hear about any such zone nearby, can you link an article or something?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 3 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    The "no-go zones" trope is a disgusting, racist conspiracy theory created by American right-wing xenophobes, and exported to their anti-immigrant counterparts across the pond. It is a product of the era immediately following the attacks on September 11, 2001.

    The main claim is that there are specific areas within European cities which have been "taken over" by immigrants, usually Muslims, which have become "unsafe" for white or non-Muslim citizens to exist in, especially after dark. The more extreme claims state that "islamic extremists" have replaced the existing order with "sharia law".

    This is racist, Islamophobic, and false.

    In reality, racists and xenophobes simply do not like immigrants (especially the brown kind who talk funny and pray the wrong way) forming their own solidarity networks, running their own schools, and getting involved in their own local governments. They especially do not like them making time and space for their own forms of worship in their own communities, and will often claim that forced conversion is occurring in these areas, and that schools and governments have been "islamized".

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    And Canada wants to join that shitshow?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    8 comments in c/noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works view that post
    2 comments in c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world view that post