Zompist Bboard Again

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 5:36 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 3:39 pm Regarding the EU: Greeks say the EU's austerity measures have crippled its poorer members. Personally, I don't know enough details about EU politics.

So far as I know, they're right. Elites, and Germans, are still unwilling to understand Keynesian economics—

Arguably the problem with Keynesianism is that only a handful of countries can afford it. Everyone else, if they try it, will quickly run out of people willing to buy their bonds. If investors had been eager to buy Greek bonds, Greece would never have been so dependent on the Troika in the first place, and the Troika would never have been able to force austerity on Greece.

As I said a while ago, my nightmare scenario about economic policy is that the Keynesians and the supporters of austerity might both be right about why the other side's approach won't work.

they love austerity, largely because other people feel the pain.

Ah, don't get me started on that type. "I'm very tough, because I'm very willing to make decisions that are tough for people other than me and my friends!" Our current Chancellor and the people close to him are very much like that.

I mean, if I would say something like, "It is very important to be willing to make tough, painful decisions, and therefore, from tomorrow onward, all human beings in the world except for me and my family and friends should be flogged in public every day!", no one would take me seriously. People would laugh. But people who make arguments that are basically very similar to that about economic and welfare policies are very much being taken seriously. [insert expression of cold fury here]

Thanks, zompist.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Oct 12, 2025 11:47 am As I said a while ago, my nightmare scenario about economic policy is that the Keynesians and the supporters of austerity might both be right about why the other side's approach won't work.

Capitalist economies produce goods that the most money is spent on, thereby heavily favoring the rich. Communist economies planned everything from the top, thereby failing to fulfill requirements that the people actually wanted.

What hasn't been tried yet is asking those on the bottom in a democratic manner, and using computers to do just-in-time planning from the top to fulfill those requirements as best as we can. This wouldn't always fulfill all requirements, but capitalism doesn't do that either. Even in capitalism, entrepreneurs decide ahead of time which goods they think will sell the best. Sometimes they're all wrong. This is not to mention the structural crises produced by business cycles, which wouldn't exist in a non-capitalist economy.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 5:36 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 3:39 pm Regarding the EU: Greeks say the EU's austerity measures have crippled its poorer members. Personally, I don't know enough details about EU politics.

So far as I know, they're right. Elites, and Germans, are still unwilling to understand Keynesian economics— they love austerity, largely because other people feel the pain. Reading Adam Smith, you can find the same attitude 250 years ago: he had to make arguments that recessions are bad actually. After all, workers in good times tend to demand more money.

During the last set of crises Paul Krugman pointed out that the US avoids some of these problems because it's an actual country. If there's a recession, unemployment, Social Security, and other benefits go disproportionately to poor states; nobody thinks of this as "New York and California bailing out Louisiana and West Virginia". But the safety net is not federalized in the EU, so e.g. Germans don't want to subsidize Greece.

I half agree with this.
The part where I agree: Greece got some help from EU, but probably too little too late, and after years of useless bickering; and the demands for austerity measures were excessive.
It's not just Germans; EU leaders were happy to let Germany take the blame, but as I recall they weren't exactly in favor of generous help either.

The Greek crisis was triggered by the 2008 financial crisis; but there were deep underlying causes that would have eventually provoked a crisis no matter what. Basically, Greek didn't collect enough taxes and the Greek government overspent and took on debts that couldn't be repaid.
There weren't doing Keynesianism either, at least not as I understand it. Greece let its rich evade taxes and what it overspent on weren't social programs, but military expenses.

The narrative at the time was that this somewhat the EU's fault, or the Euro. I can't agree with that. As I said, the EU certainly didn't do enough to help (though it did help, eventually). But Greece would have gone through a crisis anyway.
I probably misrember, but I think Krugman suggested the Euro got in the way. I don't see how getting out of the Eurozone, or not being in it in the first place would have helped. The one thing that could have been done without the Euro was devaluate, which would have been a lot worse in the long run.

I do agree with Krugman to the extent that there should be more social programs on a European scale. And of course punishing austerity measure prolonged the crisis -- though these happen on a national level as well.

Arguably the problem with Keynesianism is that only a handful of countries can afford it. Everyone else, if they try it, will quickly run out of people willing to buy their bonds. If investors had been eager to buy Greek bonds, Greece would never have been so dependent on the Troika in the first place, and the Troika would never have been able to force austerity on Greece.

Investors were in fact a little too eager to buy Greek bonds. I'd say the problem with Keynesianism is that the basic principles are easy to figure out; but the money has to be directed in economically useful ways, which is not a trivial problem at all.

Shouldn't all democratic parties cooperate when democracy faces a major challenge from extremists and populists? I think that is what Macron attempts to achieve. I don't know whether Lecornu is the best choice for that, though; I know too little about French politics.

A new government has been announced (mostly people from Renaissance, so core Macron supporters.) We'll see what happens.

I agree that what Macron attemps to achieve is cooperation with non-populists. The problem is, he is very committed to certain centrist and/or conservative views -- blinded by them as a result. As a result, he and his party offer no concessions of their own. Our political parties stick to their gun and are unreasonable unwilling to compromise; but Macron isn't exactly setting an example either.

So what he's happening is that he's governing with a minority; this is something our constitution allows; but it raises issues of legitimacy.

Myself, I believe new elections would have been a better option. Or barring that, a technical government, as was done in Italy.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 4:41 am A new government has been announced (mostly people from Renaissance, so core Macron supporters.) We'll see what happens.

How many party names has Macron gone through now? It seems like they're given the PMs a run for their money.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 11:13 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 4:41 am A new government has been announced (mostly people from Renaissance, so core Macron supporters.) We'll see what happens.

How many party names has Macron gone through now? It seems like they're given the PMs a run for their money.

It looks like they’ve only changed their name once, from En Marche — twice if you count La République En Marche as a separate name.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 11:13 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 4:41 am A new government has been announced (mostly people from Renaissance, so core Macron supporters.) We'll see what happens.

How many party names has Macron gone through now? It seems like they're given the PMs a run for their money.

I had to check Wikipedia; so En Marche, then La République En Marche, then Renaissance. There's also the Renew coalition on the European scale, and the Ensemble pour la République, which includes various tiny parties, including Horizons, former PM Edouard Philippe's party -- identical to Renaissance for all intents and purposes except that Philippe and Macron hate each other for unclear reasons.

I can't keep any of them straight myself, and neither does anyone. I think almost everyone says les macronistes.

As bradrn says, it's not that much (though it'd be a lot by British or American standards) but I don't know. Renaissance just doesn't stick. It doesn't help that it's not associated to any well-defined ideology (the best description I can find is "right wing but not as much as the actual right wing, to say nothing of the far right?")

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 11:26 am I had to check Wikipedia; so En Marche, then La République En Marche, then Renaissance. There's also the Renew coalition on the European scale, and the Ensemble pour la République, which includes various tiny parties, including Horizons, former PM Edouard Philippe's party -- identical to Renaissance for all intents and purposes except that Philippe and Macron hate each other for unclear reasons.

Ah, I'd assumed Ensemble was yet another name, when it's in fact the coalition they're in. That makes more sense. In English they're usually “Macron's Party” if you have to talk about them, or maybe “The Centrists” if you haven't been paying attention to their policies since about when he got elected. Le Macronistes has a nice ring to it.

Interesting times in France.

If this report is accurate, Lecornu basically wrote off Les Républicains and sought the support of the Socialists instead. So, center + left rather than center + right. It was a big gamble but evidently it worked: he survived his vote of confidence.

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 7:08 am Interesting times in France.

If this report is accurate, Lecornu basically wrote off Les Républicains and sought the support of the Socialists instead. So, center + left rather than center + right. It was a big gamble but evidently it worked: he survived his vote of confidence.

That report take a few liberties with the truth.

Most of Les Republicans, the equivalent of the Republicans in America, have also essentially shown their stripes and have joined Le Pen’s fascists,

That didn't happen. Most of LR voted against both motions of no confidence. (Trying to figure out what the author meant... There was a split in LR, as some of their members allied with the RN, but that's old news now. Also LR is pretty badly racist and authoritarian, but that's old news too.) Yes, two motions, one led by the far-right, the other by the far-left.

Useful diagrams here: https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/ar ... 55770.html

Lecornu reached an agreement with the PS, ie. Socialists, ie. centre-left over retirement age. So the 'agreement' (it's not really a coalition), so far, is centre-left/centre/centre-right basically. In practical terms this means he doesn't have to rely so much on LR, which must be a relief, because with allies like LR, who needs enemies?

I don't know if it'll last because the Socialists are under huge pressure from the left (Greens and LFI) now. Though severing ties with LFI may well be a relief for the PS.
Reform of the pensions and retirement system is a huge deal for the right and centrists, so Lecornu may have trouble delivering on his end of the deal.

Seeing both Macron's followers and part of the left reaching an agreement, however small, is pretty unprecedented, so I take this as a positive development.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 7:38 am

Most of Les Republicans, the equivalent of the Republicans in America, have also essentially shown their stripes and have joined Le Pen’s fascists,

That didn't happen. Most of LR voted against both motions of no confidence. (Trying to figure out what the author meant... There was a split in LR, as some of their members allied with the RN, but that's old news now. Also LR is pretty badly racist and authoritarian, but that's old news too.) Yes, two motions, one led by the far-right, the other by the far-left.

Useful diagrams here: https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/ar ... 55770.html

Lecornu reached an agreement with the PS, ie. Socialists, ie. centre-left over retirement age. So the 'agreement' (it's not really a coalition), so far, is centre-left/centre/centre-right basically. In practical terms this means he doesn't have to rely so much on LR, which must be a relief, because with allies like LR, who needs enemies?

I don't know if it'll last because the Socialists are under huge pressure from the left (Greens and LFI) now. Though severing ties with LFI may well be a relief for the PS.
Reform of the pensions and retirement system is a huge deal for the right and centrists, so Lecornu may have trouble delivering on his end of the deal.

Seeing both Macron's followers and part of the left reaching an agreement, however small, is pretty unprecedented, so I take this as a positive development.

So it perhaps looks like the Socialists have a lack-of-no-confidence agreement with the Macron bloc, at least temporarily. Which is a positive. What's quite funny to see, though, is that LFI's censure motion got RN's support, but LFI did not support RN's censure motion, so "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't go so far here.

Whether or not the agreement lasts, though, remains to be seen. The big question is also if Lecornu will uphold his promise to not attempt to use article 49.3 to force the budget through... which might be the straw to break the camel's back.

doctor shark wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 8:01 am Whether or not the agreement lasts, though, remains to be seen. The big question is also if Lecornu will uphold his promise to not attempt to use article 49.3 to force the budget through... which might be the straw to break the camel's back.

Using article 49.3 to force the budget through was pretty stupid on Bayrou's part -- or maybe it was his way of stating he wanted out.
The procedure means that the government can cut short parliamentary debate and adopt a law directly if they can win a vote of confidence.
So it's obviously intended to bring a solid but unruly majority back into line -- which isn't really the case -- or to beat MPs into submission by threatening them with new elections -- but Macron doesn't want a new elections.

So a cynical observer may note that Lecornu has promised not to use a procedure he can't use anyway.

Oh, linguistic note: 'Lecornu' very literally translates to 'The Horned One'. Pretty funny, uh?(He's said to be a very devout Catholic, too)

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 8:14 am
Oh, linguistic note: 'Lecornu' very literally translates to 'The Horned One'. Pretty funny, uh?(He's said to be a very devout Catholic, too)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUozUboVwJM

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 8:14 amOh, linguistic note: 'Lecornu' very literally translates to 'The Horned One'.

Am I the only one here who keeps reading that as "Hornèd"?

alice wrote: ↑Fri Oct 17, 2025 2:19 pm

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 8:14 amOh, linguistic note: 'Lecornu' very literally translates to 'The Horned One'.

Am I the only one here who keeps reading that as "Hornèd"?

Now you've written that, no.

Not about an election, but politics-in-a-specific-country related, can anyone make sense of this?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy7528ekzro

I'd say depending on what, exactly, the real reason for this is, it might be either a somewhat good or a very bad sign.

No idea and I'd take any interpretations with a huge heap of salt: the CCP is opaque when it comes to its internal struggles.

The Irish presidential election is, barring unforeseen disasters or something, on Friday. The leading candidate, Catherine Conolly, seems to be some kind of tankie, who visited Syria back when Assad was still in power. But I should start with the overall setting and procedures, because that's necessary to explain who the candidates are, and why.

Irish presidents, who are standard run-of-the-mill ceremonial-head-of-state officeholders,are elected for seven years, with a limit of two terms. The current incumbent, Michael D. Higgins, is term limited, and is 84 years old anyway. But, and that's the crucial thing, not everyone can run. Candidates (except for incumbent or former presidents who aren't term limited) have to be nominated by either at least 20 people who are members of the one or other house of the Irish parliament, or by at least 4 city or county councils.

This means that arguably, the important part of the current election cycle was the nomination period, when various hard-right and/or populist types who would have liked to run didn't get the necessary nominations. Only three candidates did manage it to get formally nominated: Conolly, by the various serious left-of-center parties in Irish politics; Heather Humphreys, by the center-right Fine Gael party; and Jim Gavin, by the other main center-right Party, Fianna Fáil. (Why two main center-right parties? They started out as ideological descendants of the two sides in the Irish Civil War. That meant that for a very long time, they understandably didn't like each other at all, but relatively recently, they became willing to forget their ancient enmity enough to form a coalition with each other.)

Since Irish presidential elections are instant-runoff, there were no worries about the center-right vote being split.

However, earlier this month, Jim Gavin got caught up in a scandal involving money he owed to a tenant of his, and officially suspended his campaign. It's legally impossible to take his name off the ballot, though, so he's legally still a candidate, and people can vote for him if they want to. But I'm not sure if his chances were ever that great, anyway. His main claim to fame is that he's the former manager of the Dublin Gaelic football team. Which makes me wonder what Fianna Fáil were thinking when they nominated him. Anyone who knows anything about how sports work in Ireland should have known that, first, being the former manager of the Dublin Gaelic football team was never likely to get him many votes outside Dublin, and second, being the former manager of any Gaelic football team might not have won him many votes among people who prefer rugby or soccer or no sports at all, either.

That leaves Humphreys and Conolly. Out of these, Conolly is, as I said, apparently at least tankie-adjacent, but seems to be a somewhat interesting person, while Humphreys is apparently simply a mellow, generally non-distinctive run-of-the-mill career center-right politician. And the Irish left seems to have a bit of a tradition by now of doing a good deal better in presidential elections than in parliamentary, EU, or local elections.

Any ideas on how to make my Mom do less doomscrolling? I hate the idea of her spending her remaining years in a constant state of agitation about what's happening in the world. And it was me who set up the news app on her cellphone and the news bookmarks in her laptop browser. I wanted to make sure that, if she's getting news from her phone and her laptop, it should at least be from reputable sources. But now I kind of regret having done that. (Posted here because it's deeply connected to the politics of various different countries.)

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Oct 22, 2025 5:28 pm Any ideas on how to make my Mom do less doomscrolling? I hate the idea of her spending her remaining years in a constant state of agitation about what's happening in the world. And it was me who set up the news app on her cellphone and the news bookmarks in her laptop browser. I wanted to make sure that, if she's getting news from her phone and her laptop, it should at least be from reputable sources. But now I kind of regret having done that. (Posted here because it's deeply connected to the politics of various different countries.)

Hobbies like board games or science news.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Wed Oct 22, 2025 5:56 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Oct 22, 2025 5:28 pm Any ideas on how to make my Mom do less doomscrolling? I hate the idea of her spending her remaining years in a constant state of agitation about what's happening in the world. And it was me who set up the news app on her cellphone and the news bookmarks in her laptop browser. I wanted to make sure that, if she's getting news from her phone and her laptop, it should at least be from reputable sources. But now I kind of regret having done that. (Posted here because it's deeply connected to the politics of various different countries.)

Hobbies like board games or science news.

She's not really the type who's into science news, and there are limits to how much time I can spend playing board games with her.