Print

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

[Reelya]

That's scary far left according to American standards, especially the supra-national thing. Alex Jones would have a few words to say about the Socialist International.

[martinuzz]

Don't get me wrong, they stopped striving for an international socialist state decades ago. It's just an organization that facilitates debate and sharing of knowledge and experience between the various left parties in the world. Not sure what would be 'scary' about that.

Tbh, it says more about how scary anti-everything-that-rhymes-with-social the US is.

[Doomblade187]

SOCIAL CLUBS!? WHERE!?

[Reelya]

that's not really my main point, i can surmise it like this:

I'm assessing this from the viewpoint of the English-speaking media world, not world standards. BBC, FOX, nytimes are all flavours of corporate establishment propaganda aimed at the Anglo / English-speaking elite audiences in USA/UK. It's "international" in the sense that the English speaking Anglo elite matter, and you weird garlicly smelling non-english speaking people really don't. no offense meant.

The English-speaking press covers things with an inherent bias that if a left-wing (by Anglo standards) party loses, it's inferred that a "sensible" center-right-wing party won. e.g. people in UK/USA/Australia interpret these things according to "Anglo" political norms which are firmly a two-party "center left/center right" affair. The media then frames these international issues as if they are within that framework without giving adequate context to really understand the issues.

making the point about "socialist international" membership is not to make any claims about what SI is, it's just to point out that the English speaking media isn't giving people enough information to understand issues, pretty much deliberately.

[Kagus]

SOCIAL CLUBS!? WHERE!?

Buena Vista, deep in the heartland of filthy communalism.

Also, Norway actually still has a full-blown communist party, simply titled "Red". This last parliamentary election was a big milestone for them, as it landed them their first-ever seat in parliament.

Moxnes, the leader of the party and now singular representative in parliament, has since spent his time launching petitions of "mistrust" against famously loudmouthed and incompetent politicians.

I don't necessarily agree with his rhetoric or his attempt at a beard, but I have to say I do love the firestorm he's been kicking up.

[Reelya]

On a related note, I note 31 dead (with more suspected) in Honduras after the elections in January. The military police are directly implicated in at least 21 deaths. Story from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/02/us-silent-as-honduras-protesters-killed-in-post-election-violence

Note, that the BBC story three weeks later has it's summary in Google as "Police fire tear gas at protesters across the country, with one death in the northern town of Saba."

Wow, the Guardian knows about accusations for 31+ deaths by military police, with live video footage, and multiple NGOs speaking out, morgue workers, hospital staff etc etc, yet all the BBC knows about is tear gas and one death? Three weeks after the Guardian article?

e.g. this kind of thing exemplifies how distorted coverage works. Since Honduras has a pro-Washington right-wing government, then the BBC omits any mention of government wrongdoing that you can't 100% prove, regardless of how much raw video footage there is detailing the attacks.

... Whereas I'm willing to bet that for e.g. left-wing Nicaragua, the same BBC includes all mentions of government wrongdoing that can't be 100% disproven. e.g. any claim becomes newsworthy, regardless of physical evidence, because somebody made the claim.

We can contrast that with the claims made about nicaragua:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-43860848

The protesters and some of the journalists covering the demonstration were set upon by men wearing motorcycle helmets who beat them with metal pipes and electric cables. Some local media said those beating up the protesters were part of pro-government gangs and were wearing T-shirts with pro-government slogans.

Yeah, so in Honduras you have armored squads firing automatic rifles against rock-throwing youths, whereas the case against Ortega in Nicaragua is that people with helmets and t-shirts with funny slogans were hitting people with makeshift clubs.

Is that actually a government conspiracy or is it just "Nicaraguan Antifa"? Because we know that almost identical scenes can be found in the USA, but we don't automatically jump to the conclusion that the nationally elected party leader is responsible.

[Reelya]

After 11 dead (according to the government, or 25 dead and 43 disappeared, according to human rights organisations), Nicaraguan president Ortega has given in to the demands of the protestors, and scrapped the new proposed laws to decrease pensions and social support funding.

this is also bullshit.

BBC:

The changes were aimed at boosting Nicaragua's troubled social security system, which has been running on a deficit.

Pensioners would have had to pay 5% of their pensions into a fund for medical expenses.

Employees would have had to contribute a larger chunk of their salary towards social security - 7% instead of the current 6.25%. And employers, too, would have had to pay more money into the social security pot.

There were no cuts to social spending, the change was to increase the amount saved into social security accounts. Where are you reading your sources martinuzz? A couple of times now I've noted you repeated some fairly right-wing sounding claims that don't match up with other sources.

e.g. pensions stayed the same, not decreased, but part of it would go into a medical fund. And a little more of wages, 0.75% would go into retirement savings. These are modest changes, of the type that provide the type of social security that places like e.g. the Netherlands take for granted.

it's completely misleading to characterize them as Ortega acting to "decrease pensions and social support funding."

[Egan_BW]

He never posts sources, so I can only assume that he's secretly an international journalist~

[Teneb]

I'm pretty sure Martinuzz works for a newspaper (volkskrant?), so... probably there?

[Reelya]

maybe it's the local equivalent of Daily Mail or something. Could translate as "folks ranting"

... j/k

However, it does sound like it's designed to play to the audience, somewhat. e.g. if you want to turn people against Ortega because business interests want you to, and you're talking to Dutch people, who enjoy a very strong social security system you accuse him of slashing social security ... somehow ... by what turns out, according to the BBC, to actually be a plan to increase the amount of money flowing into social security.

Similarly, the 5% of pensions that would flow into a medical fund kinda sucks because you don't have that money to spend straight away, however, when you get sick (as all pensioners will) you get better value for money because you're covered for medical insurance rather than floundering in the free market. By just calling it "cuts to pensions" that strikes home with the Dutch since the Netherlands have strong pension spending. But they also have universal health care, which is what Ortega's changes to pensions was intended to implement. So ... you just leave that detail out of the story completely and focus on the "less money to spend" part.

[Sheb]

maybe it's the local equivalent of Daily Mail or something. Could translate as "folks ranting"

Krant is just dutch for "newspaper". It's one of the biggest mainstream papers in the Netherlands. Think NYTimes, not NYPost.

[martinuzz]

After 11 dead (according to the government, or 25 dead and 43 disappeared, according to human rights organisations), Nicaraguan president Ortega has given in to the demands of the protestors, and scrapped the new proposed laws to decrease pensions and social support funding.

this is also bullshit.

BBC:

The changes were aimed at boosting Nicaragua's troubled social security system, which has been running on a deficit.

Pensioners would have had to pay 5% of their pensions into a fund for medical expenses.

Employees would have had to contribute a larger chunk of their salary towards social security - 7% instead of the current 6.25%. And employers, too, would have had to pay more money into the social security pot.

There were no cuts to social spending, the change was to increase the amount saved into social security accounts. Where are you reading your sources martinez? A couple of times now I've noted you repeated some fairly right-wing sounding claims that don't match up with other sources. At least link your sources because making inflammatory claims but without the benefit of the actual links is damaging to having a free and fair debate of the issues.

e.g. pensions stayed the same, not decreased, but part of it would go into a medical fund. And a little more of wages, 0.75% would go into retirement savings. These are modest changes, of the type that provide the type of social security that places like e.g. the Netherlands take for granted.

it's completely misleading to characterize them as Ortega acting to "decrease pensions and social support funding."

https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/nicaragua-trekt-omstreden-wetgeving-in-na-grootste-rellen-in-jaren~a4595079/

How can you say that pensions stay the same? That's not how a pensionada will percieve it, when he gets less money to spend in his account than last month, because part was witheld for a medical fund. Nothing social about that either, making the old pay extra for medical funds. A social system should be based on solidarity, where the strong shoulders carry the weak.

Same for the increase in wage tax to fix a deficit in social spending. Would make sense if it was an income-related tax, but this way, the poor are affected disproportionally.
Fixing a deficit in social support spending by indiscriminately increasing worker taxes =/= boosting social support structures
Something can be said for increasing employer taxes. As long as you don't hurt business so much that they need to fire people or decrease wages, because then you're only making the group that needs social support larger.

Not sure what's rightwing about that, and de Volkskrant most definitly isn't a rightwing paper.

Krant is just dutch for "newspaper". It's one of the biggest mainstream papers in the Netherlands. Think NYTimes, not NYPost.

This. On the political right-left spectrum, they'd be the equivalent of the NYT. They even exchange guest columnists with the NYT regularily.

EDIT: I don't work for the Volkskrant, but it is my first news source of choice, for generally providing professional journalism.

[Reelya]

how are pensions paid for, if not by people paying into the scheme? It's the same with medical expenses.

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

In fact, if you look at the details, the fund has been predicted to completely run out of money in 2019, a trend anticipated even before Ortega was elected. Meaning: no more pensions at all.

In fact, the "good guys" of the IMF recently demanded that Ortega raise the age that you get the pension from 60 to 65. Ortega's proposed changes to the system were designed to prevent a large number of people losing 100% of their pensions, which is the IMF's proposal. Losing 5 years worth of pension would be a big cut. Assuming a life expectancy of 75 years, that would be losing 5 out of 15 years worth of pension, on average.

this way, 5% of pensions are "lost" to a medicare-type insurance scheme, but you get something for that money - medical coverage. And an extra 0.75% of wages are "lost" to retirement savings, but you're granted an extra 5 years of pension compared to the IMF's alternative proposal.

What's the alternative plan then? The opposition using "setting fire to things" as their proposal would seem to suggest that they don't actually have an alternative and just want to use this as an excuse to seize power. If they have a better solution, let them present it. Nope, you can bet that if they take power they'll enact the IMF proposal of raising the retirement age to 65, if not 70, while privatizing hospitals and slashing corporate taxes. e.g. like Honduras.

Same for the increase in wage tax to fix a deficit in social spending. Would make sense if it was an income-related tax, but this way, the poor are affected disproportionally. Fixing a deficit in social support spending by indiscriminately increasing worker taxes =/= boosting social support structures
Something can be said for increasing employer taxes. As long as you don't hurt business so much that they need to fire people or decrease wages, because then you're only making the group that needs social support larger.

This all seems contradictory and confused. you don't support cuts to spending, you don't support increases to taxes, what do you support then? When spending > taxes one or the other need to change.

And it's not "indiscriminately" increasing the costs. Someone with 10 times the incomes pays 10 times the additional taxes. However, both people earn the same pension. It's still a net transfer of wealth from rich to poor.

[martinuzz]

Depends on if the lowest income classes can actually 'afford' to lose income to taxation without falling below the poverty line and becoming dependant on social support structures, possibly negating any budgetary increase that was gained through taxation.
Paying someone 5 dollars wage is cheaper for society than providing someone with 5 dollar worth of social support.

I agree that 1% tax for a high income is still more than 1% tax for a low income on an absolute basis. It's just not the only thing that needs to be taken into account.

[Reelya]

there are reasons that sometimes organizations don't even want your labor for free. e.g. go around and offer to volunteer these days, and many places will reject your $0 labor, because they have to pay for overheads, training, safe work environment, liability insurance, etc etc. You could pay them for the prvilege, and they'd still reject your labor, because sometimes labor even has a negative value, e.g. conducting the action costs more than it produces.

Paying someone $5 to work isn't necessarily cheaper for society than giving them $5 to live on. Also, if they get that $5 for working then the worker has more expenses (all the expenses in travel, getting ready to work, additional hygiene and clothes cleaning) as well as the nation having higher costs. It's cheaper, for everyone involved, to pay someone to sit around doing nothing, than to pay them to walk around doing stuff.

And we're not talking welfare to able-bodied people here, but old-age support payments. If you put a 60+ year old in work then the $5 you paid them isn't the cost: you have inordinate amounts of additional costs to ensure that they're working safely and aren't injured. Plus, they take up a space that could be filled by a more productive person. It's not "PC" but it's the truth.