|
hankor posted:You attack him for being populistic, being incompetent and basically holding all the evils of the world in the black gate to the abyss he claims is his heart. Your only argument is that he plagiarized his thesis, which might say something about his morale values but doesn't really say all that much about his politics, as a matter of fact you haven't said anything of substantial value about his politics and yet you seem to think you are making a compelling case against him when in fact you are using populistic generalizations which is a bit odd seeing your stance on populism. 1) I'm not acusing him of 'holding all the evils of the world in the black gate to the abyss he claims is his heart' though. I'm just saying that a man like him (darling of the masses, apt at projecting an idealistic picture of himself, skilled in manipulating public opinion) could be very dangerous IF he is evil. And that he is using fraud, lies and deception so easily doesn't exactly paint a very rosy picture of the contents of his heart. 2) We don't need to argue about him being populistic since basically everyone in the media, experts and so on agree on that. 3) His Bundeswehrreform is just one example of him being incompetent and his politics being a mess. Another one would be his shoddy plagiarism. Just reading it superficially shows that it's a hacked together patchwork and not the words of a single writer. The FAZ agrees with me: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/guttenberg-ein-gefaehrlicher-mann-11542304.html Guttenberg - a dangerous man. Hungry Gerbil fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Nov 27, 2011 |
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
I see that we at least all agree that if he is evil, he is no evil genius.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Um, I just wanted to explain why the general german public doesn't view his plagiarism the same way some of you guys are. I wouldn't vote for him (until I left the country I've voted green or Piratenpartei), but I understand why, outside of the ivory tower, the average Heinz on the street doesn't see this as a cause for ending Guttenbergs political existence. In the eye of Heinz, every politician lies. Guttenberg did it about something that does not concern Heinz. He took some shortcuts to get his Dr., at a time when he already was an established politician. He was not choosen as minister for his dissertation, to quote Angie: quote:„Ich habe keinen wissenschaftlichen Assistenten oder einen Promovierenden oder einen Inhaber einer Doktorarbeit berufen, sondern mir geht es um die Arbeit als Bundesverteidigungsminister. Die erfüllt er hervorragend, und das ist das, was für mich zählt." Heinz may also have cheated once or twice in school or copied his homework from his buddy. Heinz also doesn't have a university degree, he understands that Guttenberg may have left out some footnotes/quotes, didn't say who he was quoting, but then Heinz also used some obscure REO Speedwagon song text when proposing to Gerda and he didn't tell her it were not his own words. Heinz doesn't get why this sympathetic young politician, that even looks a little bit like Michael Ballack and stems from a good house, who is not gay, scarfaced or adopted from Vietnam, had to resign over seemingly some formal errors. Heinz thinks that chucking stones at policemen and living in a WG with terrorists is a much bigger crime and that guy didn't have to resign. Gerda also thinks that it's nice to have someone with a noble background in a important position in politics. Maybe his daugther will once have a beautiful wedding like William and Kate this year. Gerda also thinks, that for a change it's nice to have someone in a high position that isn't divorced at least once, it has been a long time since someone with good christian family values was in power and a "von" is more or less a guarantee for that. That's why 70% of germans want to have Guttenberg back in a politics. He is still young, even if he waits another 3 elections to run for Bundeskanzler in 2021, he would be the youngest ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
gently caress those 70%. The fact alone that he plagiarised his thesis should normally be enough to show everyone what a bad character Guttenberg has. But how he treated everything afterwards made it as plain as day that he is not fit for holding any political power. gently caress those 70% who aren't even able to or refuse to recognize that. If he had admitted to conciously plagiarising his thesis and showed some kind of regret, I would have said his resignation is enough for his rehabilitation. But now I hope he will never be politically successful ever. He is just such a loving egoistic, self-centered, self-righteous, condescending, lying, deceiving rear end in a top hat. Edit: Allegedly other people have known for quite some time that his thesis was plagiarised: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/fall-guttenberg-jura-professoren-sollen-frueh-von-plagiat-gewusst-haben-1.1219744 http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/doktorarbeit-professoren-wussten-lange-von-guttenberg-plagiat_aid_688381.html They should kick out the whole faculty for rubberstamping and/or missing such blatant plagiarism. And he still claims that his plagiarism wasn't intentional. gently caress him. He obviously believes all Germans are braindead. Edit2: More than 50% of Germans are not braindead and don't believe his lie about the 'accidental' plagiarism. From a poll I heard on the radio a couple minutes ago. Hungry Gerbil fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
I think that most people simply do not rate "plagiarizing your doctoral thesis" very high on any right or wrong scale they have. Once you explain to people that plagiarizing your thesis is not like cheating on a test in school, but rather more like cheating on your Abitur or Meister-prüfung, or similar - then they start understanding what was so wrong with what he did. Anyways, to open a whole new can of words: Today, Baden-Württemberger went out and voted to keep building the new rail station in Stuttgart. All in all, I think that this was the best result that could have occurred. This way, everybody had their say, there was a clear discussion, and a clear statement was made as to what is to be done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
Hungry Gerbil posted:obviously
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
goethe42 posted:Heinz may also have cheated once or twice in school or copied his homework from his buddy. Props on the sexism here, bro.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 06:52
|
|
|
hankor posted:Your only argument is that he plagiarized his thesis, Wrong. The argument is that he's been lying pretty shamelessly about it ever since, telling sob stories about how overworked he was and pushing the semantic boundaries of the word "mistake". I think the most recent version of his apology tries to spin it so that he got confused because he worked on 4 computers simultaneously or something, and therefore the citations were "lost". It's not just the act of plagiarizing, it's the cheekiness with which he first denied everything and then half-assedly issued an "apology" that doesn't really admit anything that upsets me. And the fact that most people seem to buy into this crap. "Mistake", my rear end. quote:You attack him for being populistic Making posts on the Internet isn't quite on the level of populisticity (?) as having the Bunte, BILD and other B-papers suck your dick for ages. The fact that now Guttenberg and his fans have a persecution complex is almost as hilarious as Fox News claiming they are backed into a corner by the liberal media. quote:That's why 70% of germans want to have Guttenberg back in a politics. He is still young, even if he waits another 3 elections to run for Bundeskanzler in 2021, he would be the youngest ever. Heinz is a dumb rear end in a top hat and should consider alternatives to the BILD-zeitung.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 09:47
|
|
|
flavor posted:Before I answer the other stuff at a later time, one of my (unrelated) pet peeves with the German press and internet comments is the overuse of the word "offensichtlich" (obvious). At least in the German legal profession, something is only "offensichtlich" if no reasonable person could have the slightest doubt in it. It's offensichtlich slowly becoming the German "awesome". Yeah, ok. I should've said he apparently believes that all Germans are braindead. Oh, and more than half of them don't buy his story anymore, so that's at least not as bad as the 70% wanting him back from the ntv poll. Edit: Another Guttenberg poll, this time by the BILD: http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/karl-theodor-zu-guttenberg/das-gutt-o-meter-21241874.bild.html  72% think he conciously plagiarised his thesis 45% want him to comeback 31% want him to found his own party 62% didn't miss him since his resignation 40% want Angela Merkel to offer him a position as minister again 25% believe he will become chancellor one day So it really doesn't loook as bad as I thought. Now everything depends on the effectiveness of the Bild propaganda campaign. Hungry Gerbil fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 10:17
|
|
|
Hungry Gerbil posted:So it really doesn't loook as bad as I thought. Now everything depends on the effectiveness of the Bild propaganda campaign. Enjoy chancellor Guttenberg within the next 12 years or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
goethe42 posted:Gerda also thinks, that for a change it's nice to have someone in a high position that isn't divorced at least once, it has been a long time since someone with good christian family values was in power and a "von" is more or less a guarantee for that. I have never, ever gotten the impression anyone in Germany gives a poo poo about this sort of thing. The only case I can recall where the public paid attention to a politician's family life was with the Von der Leyens. Oh yeah and that CSU guy whose son engaged in gangster rapping  People care about Guttenberg's marriage because she's pretty and put together, they're sort of glamorous, and that's it. I guess this is also why the media insists on describing him as attractive, I mean he isn't exactly ugly, but singling him out as especially handsome is a bit odd. Guy isn't any better looking than say, Cem Özdemir, and the latter clearly has better hair. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
Stuttgart 21
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
"Hrm, I'm against Stuttgart 21 so I better vote 'no'." To vote against Stuggart 21 you have to vote 'yes'. Hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
Hungry Gerbil posted:"Hrm, I'm against Stuttgart 21 so I better vote 'no'." I sincerely can no longer tell where you're coming from. Would you like to elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
The confusing phrasing on the ballot card was in my opinion deliberate and a petty attempt to manipulate the outcome of this vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
Hungry Gerbil posted:The confusing phrasing on the ballot card was in my opinion deliberate and a petty attempt to manipulate the outcome of this vote. Sure, that's why the result is pretty close to the survey that was held a week before the poll. "Do you want the current plan to be changed?" That's what the whole thing is about, answer yes if you want to change the plan, vote no if you don't. I'm pretty sure the brochure the people were sent explained that pretty clearly, so gently caress whoever was to stupid or lazy to vote for what he actually wanted. You can word the thing in about a million different ways that people should vote yes if they are against S21 without it becoming misleading. Do you want to stop S21? = not misleading Do you want to keep the old station? = not misleading Are you against the S21? = not misleading Here is this bill we have that will stop S21, yo cool wit dat, brother? = not misleading Do you not want change the plan? = loving misleading and exactly what you are proposing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
How high was voter participation? Somehow the phrase "the majority of Stuttgart citizens is in favor on the project" doesn't sit well with me because I suspect it's more likely "the majority of people who could be arsed to vote are in favor of the project".
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 10:35
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:How high was voter participation? Somehow the phrase "the majority of Stuttgart citizens is in favor on the project" doesn't sit well with me because I suspect it's more likely "the majority of people who could be arsed to vote are in favor of the project". Around half the population voted and of those around 60% said No (as in 'build the thing'), so around 20% of all people voted yes and they would have needed at least 33%. And I'm actually pretty sure that everyone that wanted to stop this actually went out to vote and it's just that the majority is against it or doesn't give a poo poo. /E: you know what, this 'yes if you're against it' IS confusing
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 10:50
|
|
|
Most people are just tired of those protestors. I really don't care either way. I am relived, that there was a clear majority in this vote though. At least the stupid struggle will stop now. That is, if the protestors do in fact give up. They clearly lost and the leaders of the protest pulled back, but some people still try to fight for their cause. This is not how democracy is suposed to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
Air is lava! posted:Most people are just tired of those protestors. They have every right to fight for their cause with non-violent means. They have every right to make their opinions heard. Being able to do that is one of the foundations of a democracy. Personally I don't think it's wise to hold public votes on every infrastructure project in the current political atmosphere - "gently caress you, got mine", says the Green Party voter - but there should be proper laws governing when such votes can be held.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
ZeitGeits posted:but there should be proper laws governing when such votes can be held. Going with my gutfeeling, I feel similarly, but that's just a massive  if there ever was one.What especially surprised me is the reaction of the anti-Stuttgart21 movement to the result of referendum. They pushed for it, they got it, they lost and their reaction is..."Jetzt erst recht"? I may not have my ear exactly flush with the ground in terms of news cycles, but what the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
Stuhlmajor posted:Going with my gutfeeling, I feel similarly, but that's just a massive I think it's because they started to believe the hype they created. They are the good guys, die Bahn is a generally disliked company and then there was the whole issue with the police and that young group of protestors. For all intents and purposes they were the good guys fighting for nature, democracy and their history. People like that don't loose, they overcome the obstacle and gently caress the hot chick. Things like that tend to loose their factual basis rather quickly and turn into a personal struggle, when you get emotionally involved you don't really care about the goal anymore, you just want to be right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
If I am fighting for the right thing I sure as hell am not going to give a poo poo about what some majority believes is right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 22:05
|
|
|
niethan posted:If I am fighting for the right thing I sure as hell am not going to give a poo poo about what some majority believes is right. Who are you to decide what's the right thing though? You are basically saying that you are smarter than the mayority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Air is lava! posted:Who are you to decide what's the right thing though? Air is lava! posted:You are basically saying that you are smarter than the mayority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
niethan posted:If I am fighting for the right thing I sure as hell am not going to give a poo poo about what some majority believes is right. I agree, but the gameplan before a referendum should be to push a cause long enough till you can be reasonable sure you have the majority vote. Once you call for the referendum, you're basically offering to leave it in the hands of the judges (:iiapspa:) and losing that vote furthermore hurts your cause because people you could try to pull on your side in the future could always revert to "wait, wasn't that that cause that the majority didn't stand with?".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
Distant Mist posted:Our zeal against him is just a reaction to the blind devotion that big parts of the public had and still have for him. He was by far the most popular politician, and not because of anything he achieved politically. He wasn't judged by his actions like a normal politician but rather looked up to like a king. His followers were so impressed by the facade he built of an honest and upright statesman who tells it like it is that they dismissed any criticism from the beginning and ate up his most obvious and ridiculous lies without questioning them. This is true. But then you should hate dumb people. And remember, that half of a population are of subaverage intelligence and that this is perfectly normal. Hell, if I didn't know this was about Guttenberg it would be no problem to coin the above quoted text to Joschka Fischer who wasn't anything but an eloquent bag of wind and didn't achieve anything noteworthy as a Foreign Minister besides giving away submarines for free and obviously not having any control over his ministry. Still, he was loved by many people - even those who weren't really dumb. I think Fischer's a walking pile of congealed grease held together by self-righteousness and I would pile Guttenberg into the same category: all show and no substance and a knack for lying. quote:And Guttenberg continues to prove that he also believes that he is the above all other politicians and the saviour of German politics, and that he's absolutely incapable of any form of self-criticism. What he's really good at is keeping up the myth that he made a silly mistake, admitted it, apologized for it and immediately took the right consequences. And nobody who didn't believe him the first time is falling for it now. He has turned into a hate figure for those with a chip on their shoulder against nobility, rich people, conservative parties, Bavaria, Academia etc. I think he's a dead horse that hasn't realized that it is dead. quote:I'm not saying that Silvana Koch-Mehrin or Jorgo Chatzimarkakis are any better than him, but they're nowhere near as popular and important as Guttenberg. He still has so many supporters that it's a relief that even the likes of Seehofer, Dobrindt and Aigner are now telling him to have some decency and shut the gently caress up. Seehofer would rather lick a cone of frozen embryos than to yield any space to Guttenberg.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 13:00
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:This is true. But then you should hate dumb people. And remember, that half of a population are of subaverage intelligence and that this is perfectly normal. Oh yes, the plebs is at fault again! The only reason Guttenberg ever came to his positions is because he was well connected and had enough "elites" doing his propaganda for him. And the same people are still around, he lost a few, but nearly every "serious" newspaper in the last couple week had at least one or two pro-Guttenberg columns or op-eds by some conservative darling in the "interest of fairness". I can see from your posting carerr that in typical goony fashion you feel like all the bad things in the world are the fault of the dumb masses, but the media star Guttenberg wasn't created by the cheap boulevard for the masses, he started off as the golden boy of the elite that was supposed to bring knowledge and competency into politics and was sold as such to the masses later. And the same cheerleaders are still around and will do their best to bring him back. The approval by the BILD readers is only secondary to his success. Einbauschrank posted:
You do realize that, regardless of what you think about Fischer's "achievements" during his time in office, the Greens (and he as one of their most important players) did move a lot in German politics? Without those rowdies with their sneakers and jeans in the regional parliaments 30 years ago a whole shitload of policy areas wouldn't even be on the agenda for even the SPD, much less any party to the right of them. Fischer actually was working in politics for a few decades before he took his golden parachute of being foreign secretary. You can dislike every policy Fischer and the Greens ever stood for, but there is no denying that they actually brought change to the politcal business in Germany. Guttenberg hasn't done a single thing in his whole political career, now that even his own party has been dissecting his Bundeswehr-Reform. Einbauschrank posted:And nobody who didn't believe him the first time is falling for it now. He has turned into a hate figure for those with a chip on their shoulder against nobility, rich people, conservative parties, Bavaria, Academia etc. I think he's a dead horse that hasn't realized that it is dead. Seriously? Is this the genius new strategy for Guttenbergs next comeback attempt? Are you seriously implying that people "that have a chip on their shoulders against academia" are hating on Guttenberg now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 13:52
|
|
|
dreamin' posted:Guttenberg hasn't done a single thing in his whole political career, now that even his own party has been dissecting his Bundeswehr-Reform. This is a very good point that I think bears repeating, so I do repeat it lest it gets lost among your other good points. Guttenberg hadn't actually done anything. For all the talk about potential and competency, his political oeuvre is... let's say it is compact, as in "there is not a lot he's done, and it's all been done in a short time and with little consequence". I had to chuckle a bit when I remembered people talking about how Guttenberg got the Bundeswehr-Reform off the ground and it later turned out that it was just a mess that the levelheaded De Maizière only shook his head about when he took over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
I am watching the Piratenpartei Parteitag right now. Most of the stuff has been BGE, minimum wage etc. The ALG2 recipients seem to be the most vocal faction. From what I can see there will be minimal difference between Linkspartei and Piratenpartei except more 4chan memes. The rethoric is pretty much the same in the social/economic debate. Welp, seems like there is no party for me left. I guess I'll have to cross off my voting ballot next time around. Edit: okay BGE (1000€), minimum wage and now there's a restriction of upper wages Boner Slam fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Dec 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
Boner Slam posted:Edit: okay BGE (1000€), minimum wage and now there's a restriction of upper wages These are all excellent suggestions though. Basic income in particular is easily the best thing a non-socialist government could do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
dreamin' posted:Oh yes, the plebs is at fault again! I would like to know what serious newspaper had at least on or two pro-Guttenberg columns in the last couple of weeks? It shouldn't be a problem for you to show some of them. I can't remember a single pro Guttenberg column from the Süddeutsche, the ZEIT or the FAZ. quote:I can see from your posting carerr that in typical goony fashion you feel like all the bad things in the world are the fault of the dumb masses, I don't need to look at your postings to remember from our past meetings that you are unable to lead a proper discussion, but prefer to get to a personal level at once. Sorry, I am not interested. So either you stick to some modicum of social graces or please leave me be. quote:You do realize that, regardless of what you think about Fischer's "achievements" during his time in office, the Greens (and he as one of their most important players) did move a lot in German politics? The achievements of the Greens don't change the fact that Fischer is a windbag who didn't achieve much as a minister. He was very much a zero performer as Secretary of State for Energy in Hessen as he was a stinker as a Foreign Minister under Schröder. A lot was moved by the Greens. But it's shortsighted to claim it wouldn't have been moved without them. And especially without the windbag Fischer. I would agree though, that charismatic hot-air merchants like Fischer or Guttenberg or Westerwelle can help their parties to get in a position of strength. quote:Seriously? Is this the genius new strategy for Guttenbergs next comeback attempt? Are you seriously implying that people "that have a chip on their shoulders against academia" are hating on Guttenberg now? Again: I think he's a dead horse. Unless he publicly repents he won't make a comeback and even then he would need the strength to survive some hardcore ridicule. No one will let it drop. I think that Guttenberg is a projection figure for many people who suffer from a feeling of personal insufficiency - be it that they devotedly look up towards "their betters" or that their fragile egos feels threatened by other peoples' riches, their lineage or academic success. Those who feel threatened hate Guttenberg, those who look up to rich, noble and well educated people tended to support him. He is a projection figure for both groups. Much like many who yearned to be cool even though they were narrow-minded petty burgeois looked up to jeans and sneaker wearing Fischer even if he was a failure as a statesman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:These are all excellent suggestions though. Basic income in particular is easily the best thing a non-socialist government could do. The BGE is pretty much the worst thing you could do. Why on earth should we give money to people that don't need it? Why shouldn't we demand that the person that is supported by society is at least willing to give something back? Restricting upper wages is equally stupid, sure some people get way too much money but what about the ones that are actually worth it? If a company is able to be competitive while paying 8 digit wages to it's managers, good for them if it's sustainable. How can anybody justify that suddenly that nice 8 million paycheck is reduced to 250k, 1 Million, 4 million,on what factual basis? There is no overwhelming public reason that justifies it. People that earn millions aren't intrinsically bad or harmful for society so there is no factual reason to restrict their wages other than a general dislike for the upper class.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Nobody is worth it beyond a certain amount of money, and everyone is worth having enough money to live. If you combine a basic income with high upper marginal tax rates, it doesn't matter that you're also giving money to the rich, as you're getting it back anyway, and it conveniently combines all kinds of welfare programs into one comprehensive program. And ensuring that a person can live doesn't entitle you to demand poo poo from that person, it's basic human decency. There's a good reason the basic income is supported by 5 winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, including noted socialists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. It's literally the single most civilized thing any non-socialist government could institute and it'd help the economy a lot as well. As for a factual reason to restrict wages, it is no coincidence that the most propserous times in the history of the UK and the US, for two examples, occured when their upper marginal tax rates exceeded 90%. Wealth inequality leads to all kinds of very serious problems, most notably the current global crisis of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
hankor posted:
And if they aren't and still do it, effectively milking the company dry before it crashes and burns? Or if they stay competetitive by lowering wages of their workers and/or laying them off while maintaining (or even raising) the high wages of their top managers? quote:How can anybody justify that suddenly that nice 8 million paycheck is reduced to 250k, 1 Million, 4 million,on what factual basis? There is no overwhelming public reason that justifies it. At least for bank managers, I would support prohibitive taxes for boni to help fund the next round of bailouts brought about by their greed. I think even you would agree with me that many high ranking bankers have displayed gross misjudgment during the lead up to the crisis, motivated at least in part by their desire to score higher boni. That is fine, but I believe that if these same banks then appeal to the state to save them, there is a significant public reason to ensure that the state can deal with the next crisis brought about by this behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:And ensuring that a person can live doesn't entitle you to demand poo poo from that person, it's basic human decency. That's not what the BGE is about, that would be the Grundsicherung, BGE is about enabling people to participate in recreational activities. I don't think anyone in Germany honestly wants poor people to starve to death. The question on the floor is if it's a basic human right to be able to participate in society by being able to do things like going on vacation, to the zoo or to the theater and to what extent. Giving the poor money so they can barely survive is not enough I agree with that, but giving them enough so that they have the full range of options is not a necessity, it's a luxury. If you are poor you have limited options, that doesn't mean you can't participate at all it just means you'll have to prioritize. Orange Devil posted:If you combine a basic income with high upper marginal tax rates, it doesn't matter that you're also giving money to the rich, as you're getting it back anyway, and it conveniently combines all kinds of welfare programs into one comprehensive program. Combining the welfare programs is completely backwards to what welfare is about, by ignoring the needs you actually disadvantage people that actually need it. I don't see why somebody that is physically unable to work should get the same as someone that simply doesn't want to. Even the Piraten see the problem with the system when it comes to pensioners, the average pension is higher than any feasible BGE. Their proposal of adjusting the BGE to accommodate higher living costs with age are nothing more than a welfare system that is focussed on actual need which makes it not a BGE at all. You can make a case for people with disabilities, parents, pensioners and pretty much every other group that currently has a dedicated welfare program if you include this into the BGE you end up with the welfare system we currently have, while also giving money to people that don't need it. It's completely pointless if you do so and it's blatantly unfair if you don't. Sometimes it's a good idea to make things simpler but when it comes to issues that are as complex as welfare you might want to have specialized systems for the multitude of factors. Orange Devil posted:As for a factual reason to restrict wages, it is no coincidence that the most propserous times in the history of the UK and the US, for two examples, occured when their upper marginal tax rates exceeded 90%. Wealth inequality leads to all kinds of very serious problems, most notably the current global crisis of capitalism. If you are referring to the 1950-60s that was also the most prosperous time in German history and the upper marginal tax rate was 53%. Wealth inequality can lead to serious problems I don't dispute that but if you want to fight it a high capital-gains tax is a better way. ArchangeI posted:And if they aren't and still do it, effectively milking the company dry before it crashes and burns? Or if they stay competetitive by lowering wages of their workers and/or laying them off while maintaining (or even raising) the high wages of their top managers? In the first example they should be held accountable for that, the second one is a mood point that should be left to unions and the media to judge. Neither of those examples justifies generally limiting the income though. You seem to assume that limiting the maximum wage will directly translate into higher wages for the working class, if the management had any intentions of raising the wages they would do so. It's far more likely that the money that is saved will lead to expanding the company, maybe they buy one of 'em fancy new robots that only needs a single engineer to do the work of 50 workers. ArchangeI posted:At least for bank managers, I would support prohibitive taxes for boni to help fund the next round of bailouts brought about by their greed. I think even you would agree with me that many high ranking bankers have displayed gross misjudgment during the lead up to the crisis, motivated at least in part by their desire to score higher boni. That is fine, but I believe that if these same banks then appeal to the state to save them, there is a significant public reason to ensure that the state can deal with the next crisis brought about by this behaviour. I agree that some bankers were pretty negligent when riding the thin line between absurd profits and complete loss. Some didn't and I don't see why the ones that acted in a responsible way should be punished for it. As a matter of fact it was the rather risky approach that has been fueling the economy. Profits were high so the rates where low this translates to cheap money to invest in your little start-up, your construction company or your multinational conglomerate. Our credit rates have been low and our investment returns have been high, in one way or another we all benefitted from it, we have to take the good with the bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:These are all excellent suggestions though. Basic income in particular is easily the best thing a non-socialist government could do. No they are terrible suggestions especially a wage cap which is where the state steps between a private contract between company and manager which is absolutely against any liberal principle the Piratenpartei usually stands for. Additionally the amount of managers in Germany with several millions income is rather insignificant. Overstepping those bounds would achieve very little with a very serious "Eingriff". Orange Devil posted:Nobody is worth it beyond a certain amount of money, and everyone is worth having enough money to live. Capping wealth is the total opposite of a free and liberal society. It's monumentally stupid. It will not solve anything, especially not the reasons for the wealth disparity in the first place and at the same time set a grave example where the state restricts Artikel 2 GG. You can still tax them more if you must and OF COURSE we should consider every possible way to internalise the effects of the bank crash. But we must do so by FIXING the problems in our social market economy as laid out by Eucken and Erhard, not just throwing away our liberal society for some socialistic paper dream - the same way we must not give into neoliberal demands and influence or megacorporation lobby groups from the anglo-saxon side. The BGE supported by noted economists is NOTHING like the BGE that the left wing parties want. Even the FDP has a BGE model but I guarantee you will not like it at all. There is no current model that can support a BGE which not only ensures survival (which our constitution demands anyway obviously) but also the demanded real alternative to work. The rethoric supported by left is that the BGE makes you completely independent from the need to work. This means that the real value of the BGE needs to be high enough to allow for a decent, almost average life. In that a part of our society needs to generate enough welfare to do that and still keep innovation, growth and economy strong even with the demographic change we are going through. That on the other hand is quite frankly impossible to achieve and I don't know where the money is supposed to come from. Actual models for BGE struggle to guarantee an amount close to Harz4. Everything else are calculations that go against factual reality ("we'll just take this money from here and from that guy and do this and") or against any macroeconomically sound approach. In fact with the demographic change there are serious concerns how we can even keep our social systems intact for our truly needy - like the elderly. Read up on the concerns for the Rentensystem and Sozialhilfe in this context! We are also not Norway, we don't have the money, and yeah if you think that you can just apruptly redestribute the wealth short term and then live in a liberal society long term then you are dead wrong. It also worries me that apparently this stuff comes from people that just make up facts. Yesterday on the Parteitag I heard poo poo like "and with technical progress we have less and less jobs" (literally the opposite is true, look it up) or - get this! - "We will just finance the BGE like they financed the EFSF" (holy poo poo what) or the general opinion that they should just write the BGE in the Parteiprogramm even though they admit and realize that there is literally no concrete model that does what they demand. I am sorely disappointed how unreflected the Piraten are economically and no though at all is given to macroeconomic consequences of Mindestlohn and BGE at all. Like literally - no though. They didn't consult economists on the matter or even looked at possible problems. They are on par with the Linkspartei in that they just decide that BGE and Mindestlohn would be nice and fair without ever assessing what CAN actually be done with what we have right now. All argumentations are examples of "this happend to a guy" or "a banker did this". The Pirates seem to be unable to grasp the concept of macroeconomical effects of things. They only think on individual basis - just like the Linkspartei. Once again, realize that BGE has nothing to do with guaranteeing the ability to life. We wisely decided to have this in our constitution long ago. The BGE is about giving up the need for work as a concept. Boner Slam fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
Helmut Schmidt 2013!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
I'd vote for him unironically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
Previously on GBS posted:Helmut Schmidt 2013! Would vote for him unironically. Too bad a second stay as chancellor would probably kill him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 17:44
|
|