Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wolfhunter107]

Helgo means neoliberal in the European sense, which is in terms of economic policy similar to mainstream Republicans in the us.

[Loud Whispers]

Helgo means neoliberal in the European sense, which is in terms of economic policy similar to mainstream Republicans in the us.

Closer to Democrats, formerly Republicans - but the Neocons in the Republican party have been usurped, where the Neoliberals in the Democrat have not

[smjjames]

If your conservatives are called liberals in Europe, are liberals called conservative? Because calling conservatives neoliberal is twisting the ideological spectrum into a pretzel.

Helgo means neoliberal in the European sense, which is in terms of economic policy similar to mainstream Republicans in the us.

Closer to Democrats, formerly Republicans - but the Neocons in the Republican party have been usurped, where the Neoliberals in the Democrat have not

Neoliberalism is getting pushed out though, or rather they're kind of floundering about trying to figure out how to fix the situation that neoliberalism itself has created.

[Loud Whispers]

If your conservatives are called liberals in Europe, are liberals called conservative? Because calling conservatives neoliberal is twisting the ideological spectrum into a pretzel.

Many things are called many things in Europe, Europe is an assortment of countries each with their own naming conventions based upon their own histories. You're dealing with countries that fought on different sides of the Enlightenment, on different sides of the Liberal Revolutions, on different sides of the Communist Revolutions, on different ideological sides of the Second World War and Cold War etc., naturally there is no consistent naming convention. It is best to look at them on a case by case basis.

Also the parties themselves can be split into factions that rise and fall in ascendancy from time to time. For example in the UK, our Conservatives went from being Conservatives to Neoliberals then Conservatives again. In that same time our Labour party went from Socialist to Neoliberal to Socialist again. In countries like Italy, Liberal and Conservative can be interchangeable, while in Germany Merkel's CDU would describe itself as Liberal-Conservative. It is important to stress that every country's liberal or conservative or neoliberal in Europe may have a different definition and yuropoors are not trying to be confusing on purpose

Neoliberalism is getting pushed out though, or rather they're kind of floundering about trying to figure out how to fix the situation that neoliberalism itself has created.

Best of luck, who's pushing them out tho?

[smjjames]

I was being a little bit facetus (if that's the right word) and poking fun a little.

Neoliberalism is getting pushed out though, or rather they're kind of floundering about trying to figure out how to fix the situation that neoliberalism itself has created.

Best of luck, who's pushing them out tho?

Anybody not a clintonite and/or establishment? It's kind of 'that which has no name yet'.

[Loud Whispers]

I was being a little bit facetus (if that's the right word) and poking fun a little.

Sorry I was just being apologetic because European politics is often times incomprehensible by design

Anybody not a clintonite and/or establishment? It's kind of 'that which has no name yet'.

Ah, write the story and the name'll follow

[Sheb]

European ministers of labour and social affairs have reached an agreement, after long and hard negotiations.
From 2021 onwards, EU workers taking a job in another EU country will have to be paid the same wages, and get the same benefits (like holidays, and social security benefits) as set for native workers, instead of just minimum wage.

About 2 million EU citizens work in another country than their own. Even though this is just a very small percentage of the total EU labour pool (0,7%), it has been a cause of great social and political tensions in the Western member states, with complaints about unfair competition, negative influence on wage development, and housing shortages in cities that need to shelter lots of foreign EU workers.

There's still a loophole in the new agreement though; Employers get a 1 year leniency period (extendable to 18 months in special circumstances), in which they can still pay their 'temporary' workers minimum wage.

The transport sector is excluded from the agreement, for this sector an agreement will be negotiated later.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/poolse-bouwvakker-krijgt-vanaf-2021-dezelfde-beloning-als-nederlandse-collega~a4523179/

Anyone know how that works with benefits? Do they pay social contribution to their host country? Because I'm fairly certain they aren't eligible for stuff like unemployment insurance in their host country.

[Reelya]

The one flaw with regional cost of living adjusted minimum wage is that it discourages people from the most efficient economic migration patterns.

Why optimize purely for economic efficiency though? I'd consider allowing people to keep living where they grew up a good thing in and of itself. What you're suggesting is actually incredibly neoliberal: Something as fundamental as a person's surroundings, their family, their friends, all that should be subjugated to market forces.

+100000000

We've created cities no one can afford to live in, but that's where all the jobs are. Hence, urban sprawl and people having two-hour commutes (because fuck mass transit, right?). Oh, the rich can afford to live there in their mixed-use condos where they don't even need a car anymore. Meanwhile their housekeeper has to live a country or two away and spend a fifth of her paycheck on gas.

I'm suggesting that that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's the same as paying half of people's rent is "nice" in the short term but just means in the long term that the market adds however much the government is willing to subsidize rents to the price. Sure, in that situation you can argue "oh no don't take away the rent subsidies" and of course ... nobody wants that, so it won't happen. But in the long term it's a major driver of rent prices. The total market price will rise by the exact amount that the government pays in subsidies.

For the minimum wage thing I was actually arguing that allowing poor states to undercut federal minimum wage because they're poor is a driver of the region staying poor. Because with low wages, the money doesn't stay in the economy.

Also, the added minimum wage won't even be a major driver of business costs. It'll still be way cheaper to set up a factory in Alabama if they have to pay federal minimum wage instead of $2 an hour less or whatever. It just means more money stays in the local economy. And that might mean in the long run that people might not have to go to the city to get those good jobs.

[scriver]

Liberalism is pushing for reform, conservatism is about putting on the brakes, stopping it altogether or reversing changes, in essence maintaining status quo.

That's... That's not it at all. In what world do you live in? Liberalism in the modern world is all about making sure rich people get richer and removing social security systems which keep the masses from being dirt poor (because rich people are individuals and poor people are faceless masses).

[Reelya]

That's the european definition, economic liberalism. In the USA it means pro-welfare state / pro social liberalization people.

Liberals in America are all about expanding social security and healthcare access (e.g. Obama massively expanded Medicaid, which is a universal healthcare provider, while Clinton was promising universal government-provided paid maternity leave). Conservatives are all about removing that stuff (Trump winding back Medicaid access for instance).

[scriver]

The worldly definition, as far as I'm aware it's only the Americans that differ in that point.. And regardless, this is the European politics thread

[Reelya]

The point is if you stick to "well you don't make sense according to my definitions" then you're not seeing the argument that the person is making that's wrapped up in the language. That's kind of the point in these situations. It's important to realize that if you critique someone's choice of words it's not the same as critiquing the ideas that they're trying to express. Too many times people "debunk" some entirely superficial semantics then act like they've made an argument against the ideas that the person was - usually perfectly obvious to anyone who tries to listen - actually making.

I think it was fairly obvious that greatorder was talking about social liberalism vs social conservatism. Even europe has this concept:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism#Origins

In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, a group of British thinkers known as the New Liberals made a case against laissez-faire classical liberalism and argued in favor of state intervention in social, economic and cultural life. What they proposed is now called social liberalism.
...
One of the first German authors to propose the term and concept of "social liberalism" (Sozialliberalismus) was the historian and economist Ignaz Jastrow. He published the manifesto "Social-liberal": Tasks for Liberalism in Prussia" ("Sozialliberal": die Aufgaben des Liberalismus in Preußen) in 1893.

[scriver]

Firstly, I don't think that was clear at all from the context of the discussion ("what is liberalism in Europe?") but I'd rather not argue about greatorser did or did not mean above his head when it could simply be settled by letting him speak for himself.

Secobdly, you are really going overboard with the whole "discuss actual points, not semantics" schtick considering the actual discussion that was being had was a semantic discussion.

[RedKing]

I'm with scriver on this. We Yanks are the odd ones out on our political discourse terms (see: Liberal Party in Australia, Canada, etc.), and being that this is the Euro thread, commentary should abide by Euro conventions.

That said, liberalism in the European sense did start as pushing for reform (greater economic freedom, abolition/curtailment of the monarchy, etc.) but once it reached its goals, it's didn't continue to inherently push for reform. Now it's more of a status quo ideology.

[ChairmanPoo]

I suggest we invade Ameripol Thread and impose our definitions