High cost of living gives rise to declining living standards. See the UK. Or some Euro countries.
Social priorities at national level
At national level, almost half of respondents (48%) believe that addressing the high cost of living should be a main priority in their country, followed by low wages (35%).
I'll resist the temptation to take a couple of very easy shots here suffice to say that this is precisely why I think you are very confused:
1. You obviously think badly of "Neo-liberals" / "Neo-cons" yet have admitted to me you favour some kind of qualified autocracy.. so your beef with neo-liberals and Neo-cons can't be about them robbing you of your rights or wealth because you choose the one form of government that will definitely make you poorer with fewer personal rights.. that's what autocracy means. You don't get to have a say. You also get to pay taxes without any representation and the autocrat gets to build enormous palaces and basically not give a shit about the serfs struggling to survive, of which you most certainly will be one.
2. I actually don't think you want autocracy. You just think you do because you've swallowed too much Russian propaganda and have such a keen awareness of how modern income inequality is hurting a large share of the population in the West that you think autocracy must be better than what we have. Maybe you have romantic notions of how wonderful things were in the GDR, with its paucity of goods, crumbling infrastructure, filthy air and Stasi. If you do, you are being pretty bloody selective in your memories. I for one most definitely DO NOT want that.
3. You lump Europe in with the neo-liberal /neo-con west, totally overlooking the screeds of European law that is out there to protect consumers and keep the market in check. This is in stark contrast to what Neo-liberalism is all about.
4. Finally you think I am a neo-liberal / neo-con type guy. Ask Lazy. Pretty sure he'll assure you than I am nothing of the kind. I even support the idea of universal basic income for God's sake.
And finally, a fact check. Living standards in Europe have NOT been constantly declining. On the contrary, Europe is an amazing success story.
Yes, I am fully aware that the winds of change are sweeping in favour of the nationalist reactionaries. History always seem to be two steps forward, one step backwards, or even two or three if we are unlucky.
IMO tThe current wave of nationalism is a pure protest vote by people who feel threatened by change. This demographic is being milked by opportunists of all kinds, from you-tube grifters through to Putin-versteher. The only question that remains is how long will it take for people to realise they were duped. It is basically Brexit all over again and I am pretty certain it is going to be just as disastrous.
I surrender my weapons. You are the better pretender. On all ends - the Gelukpa recedes.
Yet your bubble is counting for the "other half" which may well be less than 35 per cent in the long run while culture wars and tribal interests will weigh in globally. Some 15k years ago, man on Earth was ahead of today in moral standards, or so mankind's oldest scriptures still tell us.
Mistery and myths may well remain a thing for man, even if current winds preside.
Enzo, you keep being a PITA as semper incapabile to step out of your neo-liberal / neo-con fascist bubble of global political "West" which will go down soon and sooner.
The Ukraine war together with the neo-liberal politics of your kins mechanistically resulting from it are de facto the reason why living standards in Europe have kept declining so that the people start craving for political alternatives in considerable amounts, finally.
I'll resist the temptation to take a couple of very easy shots here suffice to say that this is precisely why I think you are very confused:
1. You obviously think badly of "Neo-liberals" / "Neo-cons" yet have admitted to me you favour some kind of qualified autocracy.. so your beef with neo-liberals and Neo-cons can't be about them robbing you of your rights or wealth because you choose the one form of government that will definitely make you poorer with fewer personal rights.. that's what autocracy means. You don't get to have a say. You also get to pay taxes without any representation and the autocrat gets to build enormous palaces and basically not give a shit about the serfs struggling to survive, of which you most certainly will be one.
2. I actually don't think you want autocracy. You just think you do because you've swallowed too much Russian propaganda and have such a keen awareness of how modern income inequality is hurting a large share of the population in the West that you think autocracy must be better than what we have. Maybe you have romantic notions of how wonderful things were in the GDR, with its paucity of goods, crumbling infrastructure, filthy air and Stasi. If you do, you are being pretty bloody selective in your memories. I for one most definitely DO NOT want that.
3. You lump Europe in with the neo-liberal /neo-con west, totally overlooking the screeds of European law that is out there to protect consumers and keep the market in check. This is in stark contrast to what Neo-liberalism is all about.
4. Finally you think I am a neo-liberal / neo-con type guy. Ask Lazy. Pretty sure he'll assure you than I am nothing of the kind. I even support the idea of universal basic income for God's sake.
And finally, a fact check. Living standards in Europe have NOT been constantly declining. On the contrary, Europe is an amazing success story.
Yes, I am fully aware that the winds of change are sweeping in favour of the nationalist reactionaries. History always seem to be two steps forward, one step backwards, or even two or three if we are unlucky.
IMO tThe current wave of nationalism is a pure protest vote by people who feel threatened by change. This demographic is being milked by opportunists of all kinds, from you-tube grifters through to Putin-versteher. The only question that remains is how long will it take for people to realise they were duped. It is basically Brexit all over again and I am pretty certain it is going to be just as disastrous.
The Greens (they were the biggest losers in the latter EU elections), completely "out of touch" - unable to save themselves from themselves... ++ Baerbock fordert mehr Unterstützung für Ukraine ++
Federal Foreign Minister Baerbock has called for greater support for Ukraine. According to Ukraine, it is fending off Russian attacks in the Donetsk region.
Some of us went so far as to say, we won't get fooled again... so history is going round and round.
Everyone - the Greens in front - working hard for their own earthly delight.
Perceived as me or mine or I that heerah AM ...or ought to be, according to me, my or mine.
could have fooled me... you've been plugging Russia's fascist propaganda here for quite some time...
don't believe me? See 2.
Enzo, you keep being a PITA as semper incapabile to step out of your neo-liberal / neo-con fascist bubble of global political "West" which will go down soon and sooner.
The Ukraine war together with the neo-liberal politics of your kins mechanistically resulting from it as mere 'reaction' are the de facto reason why living standards in Europe have kept declining so that the people start craving for political alternatives in considerable amounts, finally.
Any more questions? - Support your local Sheriff (not Omar Sharif, may he rest in peace).
So I'm just filling in some gaps here but I'm getting a sense that you're okay with fascism in France because they deserve it for not supporting the leftists? And a happy-for-you side effect will be that they'll withdraw support for Ukraine, right?
So I'm just filling in some gaps here but I'm getting a sense that you're okay with fascism in France because they deserve it for not supporting the leftists? And a happy-for-you side effect will be that they'll withdraw support for Ukraine, right?
This should be a wake up call to the US Democratic party. Seems that the lurch to the right is a result of folks unhappy with higher prices and immigration. The same things that keep Biden's poll numbers in the crapper.
What many people in Europe want (as per the EU elections) are things the media and political establishment try to publicly ignore, like:
Less weapons for Ukraine, less bellicosity, more cheap energy, low prices in the supermarket, and less foreigners.
Europeâs insurgent Right wonât change anything The right-wing populists do not have a common agenda on Europeâs most pressing issues, and when they get a sniff of power they tend to bend towards the EU establishment anyway.
As for the elections over the weekend, the expected lurch to the far right has occurred. Democracy is like a drunkard stumbling home, it very rarely can follow a straight line. That said, there is still a strong center in the European Parliament.
This lurch to the right is basically a protest vote and will reverse some time in the future, when people realise the far right don't have any solutions either. It's like Brexit all over again.
In Germany the groundswell behind the AfD is fuelled by the disaffected, namely eastern German states and also rural areas in Western Europe. Much like the States I guess. All the people who don't want to change, or at least don't want to feel forced to have to change. Denial sums it up quite nicely. Also supported by a lot of affluent voters who are scared of losing what they have.
For Europe's climate goals it is a disaster.
This should be a wake up call to the US Democratic party. Seems that the lurch to the right is a result of folks unhappy with higher prices and immigration. The same things that keep Biden's poll numbers in the crapper.
In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending, to help ensure the Alliance's continued military readiness. This decision was taken in response to Russiaâs illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East. The 2014 Defence Investment Pledge built on an earlier commitment to meet this 2% of GDP guideline, agreed in 2006 by NATO Defence Ministers. The 2% of GDP guideline is an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to contribute to NATOâs common defence efforts. In 2024, two thirds of Allies are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2% of GDP in defence, compared to only three Allies in 2014.
There are still deadbeat NATO members even though Trump decreased the number with his threats. Before Trump it was less than half of the members honored their commitments. Namely one third of the members as illustrated above.
Here's something recent which states that currently only 35% of NATO members are making that 2% commitment in contrast to NATO's own statements above.
Controversial comments by former President Donald Trump turned attention to the alliance. Here's which member countries are meeting a defense spending benchmark.
By Elliott Davis Jr.
March 7, 2024, at 3:55 p.m.
your reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired. What I wrote is totally consistent with NATO's 2% investment guideline.
Moreover, my point was that post-Trump, the failure for most NATO members to meet the 2% guideline in 2023 is pretty much unchanged (as your figures so clearly show). In other words, Trump didn't achieve a damn thing. The uptick in 2024 in defence spending in 2024 can be solely attributed to Russian aggression.
PS .. quotes from Trump "they fail to pay the bills", "they owe us an enormous amount of money".. etc. .. do I need to go on?
All that Trump did was shake down the deadbeats. Made them pay up. Made a call for the rest of the members to start pulling their own weight. So who needs NATO ? Is its usefulness and purpose over ? I could ask the same about the U N.
Sorry to disillusion you, but Trump didn't make anybody pay up. NATO is not a protection racket and doesn't work that way (to flog a dead horse, but hey, if you think it is just injured or lame, feel free to keep pushing the idea). Each NATO member itself decides on its defence budget, the U.S. included. The only person who made NATO members reconsider their defence spending was Putin. You can see that the closer a nation is to Russia, the higher its defence spending relative to GDP. I wonder why?
In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending, to help ensure the Alliance's continued military readiness. This decision was taken in response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East. The 2014 Defence Investment Pledge built on an earlier commitment to meet this 2% of GDP guideline, agreed in 2006 by NATO Defence Ministers. The 2% of GDP guideline is an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to contribute to NATO’s common defence efforts. In 2024, two thirds of Allies are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2% of GDP in defence, compared to only three Allies in 2014.
There are still deadbeat NATO members even though Trump decreased the number with his threats. Before Trump it was less than half of the members honored their commitments. Namely one third of the members as illustrated above.
Here's something recent which states that currently only 35% of NATO members are making that 2% commitment in contrast to NATO's own statements above.
Controversial comments by former President Donald Trump turned attention to the alliance. Here's which member countries are meeting a defense spending benchmark.
As for the elections over the weekend, the expected lurch to the far right has occurred. Democracy is like a drunkard stumbling home, it very rarely can follow a straight line. That said, there is still a strong center in the European Parliament.
This lurch to the right is basically a protest vote and will reverse some time in the future, when people realise the far right don't have any solutions either. It's like Brexit all over again.
In Germany the groundswell behind the AfD is fuelled by the disaffected, namely eastern German states and also rural areas in Western Europe. Much like the States I guess. All the people who don't want to change, or at least don't want to feel forced to have to change. Denial sums it up quite nicely. Also supported by a lot of affluent voters who are scared of losing what they have.
All that Trump did was shake down the deadbeats. Made them pay up. Made a call for the rest of the members to start pulling their own weight.
So who needs NATO ? Is its usefulness and purpose over ?
I could ask the same about the U N.
Sorry to disillusion you, but Trump didn't make anybody pay up. NATO is not a protection racket and doesn't work that way (to flog a dead horse, but hey, if you think it is just injured or lame, feel free to keep pushing the idea).
Each NATO member itself decides on its defence budget, the U.S. included. The only person who made NATO members reconsider their defence spending was Putin. You can see that the closer a nation is to Russia, the higher its defence spending relative to GDP. I wonder why?
The result, as this week has demonstrated, is an infantilised political class terrified at the prospect of losing its transatlantic overlord.
Which brings us to the alternative view: that a more isolationist America under Trump would be an opportunity for Europe to finally develop its own strategic autonomy.(UnHerd)
All that Trump did was shake down the deadbeats. Made them pay up. Made a call for the rest of the members to start pulling their own weight.
So who needs NATO ? Is its usefulness and purpose over ?
