|
I'm not an economist and I don't pretend to be so I'll take your word for it when it comes to the theory behind them. I did do cfd at a place that develops and sells models. Even with theory 400 years old and still valid, even with physical experiments that have been done a hundred times, there is still a fuckton of work involved with getting your model to give anything approaching reality. You can't just make a model, calibrate it to one data set and assume it gives anything useful. That has zero predictive value. Unvalidated models never left the house. That is exactly why things like caps on caps on caps posted:Or, you do what "New Keynesians" do, models which for the most part are not even estimated but calibrated and simulated. are so worrying to me. I got the same feeling from the abstract of the article Junior G-Man linked. It mentions calibration, but not validation. If it is a standard, well known model, why mention either? If it has just been calibrated, why is this an article? I know that econ has problems with sufficient data sets, but those are absolutely critical to making sure your model's predictions are worth a drat. I just read that my own country's econ planning office ran predictions to 2060. We can't even predict the strength of a storm here more than 12 hours in advance. What the gently caress. you feelin fucky fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Feb 25, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
you feelin fucky posted:Ikea only operates one store directly: Ikea Delft. The rest are all officially franchises, who pay franchise fees to a (tax-free) charity promoting interior design. Take that sweden. That's genius. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
I'm curious what economists said about the Euro prior to its implementation. Is there anything approachable available or is it all just bland technical articles? It would be interesting if there were any major authorities sounding alarms a few decades ago only to be roundly ignored.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
I don't remember anything specific, but from what I know some economists did predict this sort of thing would happen and were dismissed in the midst of idealism/expectation that if poo poo hit the fan, the reaction would be to fix the issues rather than set up a lovely patchwork solution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/835145400889782272 I like the Macron voters who would abstain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Reminder that LemonDrizzle was jizzing himself at the thought of left-wingers being forced to vote for Fillon to stop Le Pen. Tbh I will probably not abstain, but rather put a gross picture like goatse in the envelope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Tbh I will probably not abstain, but rather put a gross picture like goatse in the envelope. You should vote for Le Pen instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 08:50
|
|
YF-23 posted:I don't remember anything specific, but from what I know some economists did predict this sort of thing would happen and were dismissed in the midst of idealism/expectation that if poo poo hit the fan, the reaction would be to fix the issues rather than set up a lovely patchwork solution. Given how many economists are out there, ~someone~ is always going to predict the next crisis correctly.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm curious what economists said about the Euro prior to its implementation. Is there anything approachable available or is it all just bland technical articles? It would be interesting if there were any major authorities sounding alarms a few decades ago only to be roundly ignored. My impression from reading about it is that there was a sizeable minority of economists pointing out that there were fundamental problems with the Euro, related to the macroeconomic trilemma and such, and the EU being way bigger than the optimal currency area, but the field as a whole basically ignored them and did not sound the alarm. The late 80s/early 90s was the high-water mark of neoliberal macro policy and the idea of a permanent delfationary regime didn't actually sound like that bad an idea in 1990
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
Money quote from Milton Friedman himselfquote:Europe exemplifies a situation unfavourable to a common currency. It is composed of separate nations, speaking different languages, with different customs, and having citizens feeling far greater loyalty and attachment to their own country than to a common market or to the idea of Europe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_currency_area#European_Union
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
The problem with economists and politics is that the only economists the people in power listen to are the ones who simply regurgitate orthodox neoliberal talking points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
efffffordpostyou feelin fucky posted:I'm not an economist and I don't pretend to be so I'll take your word for it when it comes to the theory behind them. I did do cfd at a place that develops and sells models. Even with theory 400 years old and still valid, even with physical experiments that have been done a hundred times, there is still a fuckton of work involved with getting your model to give anything approaching reality. You can't just make a model, calibrate it to one data set and assume it gives anything useful. That has zero predictive value. Unvalidated models never left the house. That is exactly why things like Okay let me go into more detail on economic modeling, because it is indeed not easy to understand what is going on when one comes from physical/biological sciences aka experimental sciences or more verbal approaches. Economic models come in two classes: Theoretical and Empirical (I will detail the connection below). 1. Theoretical Models ----- Theoretical models are basically a mathematical way to describe a relationship called a mechanism. They are based on a set of assumptions, which ensure that a suspected mechanism can be isolated. Since the model is mathematical, the only thing to really debate about are these assumptions. Each paper is usually attacked on the basis of how applicable to reality these assumptions are. That is why each theory paper has a section called "robustness", in which assumptions are relaxed and we see if the result still holds. A large part of the literature also deals with these assumptions. For example many papers isolate markets from "the rest". This is technically not correct, since if I change even a little thing in one market then all markets all over the world are affected. So doing economic modeling "correctly" is not even possible. Economists have thus tried to find out what needs to be true such that spillover effects are either small, or have no significant feedback effects. There are several ways this could be true and models using single markets therefore have these assumptions. Currently, a lot of research also looks at rationality of consumers and firms. Rationality means that preferences are transitive (A>B, B>C -> A>C) and complete (either A>=B or B>=A). This is a relatively weak ordering principle on the preference relation among choices which allows economists to already develop the models we use. Notably, this is formally much less demanding than what sciences with "informal theories" (aka sociology) posit on humans (they use "common sense"). But, especially when it comes to completeness of preferences and dynamic concerns, humans are not rational. A large literature is experimental economics. Here, we have the result that in a typical market setting where decisions are anonymous, people are indeed mostly rational. But in other situations they are not. And then the field of behavioral economics basically goes and reworks all models with new assumptions, such as consumers with habits, consumers who are sometimes dumb, etc. etc. It's an ongoing and popular research. The most valuable results are those, which have been shown in many contexts and assumptions. There are also results which assume a lot of things, but which are inherently robust to actors doing something else. This has been the approach of Mechanism Design, Matching, Cooperative Game Theory and so forth. These are examples where people's interest is not aligned with the policy maker and so the worst he can face is an actor who strategically tries to break the mechanism. Actors who, on the other, randomly do something stupid, are not really a structural problem. Here, it has been sufficient to assume "the worst" for the opponents and make mechanisms robust to that (although research takes this further still). A good example is Auction Theory. After its development in the nineties, governments have implemented a lot of different auction schemes that generally did better than they suspected, because actors didn't manage to bid 100% correctly and so - hey - more money for the designer. Or, as I said above with regard to Salesforce, more complex compensation schemes are directly based on theoretical models from contract theory, auction theory and mechanism design. That's also why Amazon, Google, Ebay and such employ a lot of economists now. 2. Empirical Models ----- Now, these theoretical models are very different from what other social sciences do. They almost only use the second part which are empirical models. Empirical models come in three flavors. First, structural econometric models (Microecon). Second, non-structural econometric models (Micro&Macro). Third, calibrated models (Macroecon). 1. Structural economic models are taking the above theoretical models and bringing them to the data. This is indeed exactly what you mean when you say validation. This is a very complex undertaking because one has to combine estimation techniques with abstract mathematics used in theoretical models (so like probabilistic differential geometry and lattice optimization, as an example). An economics PhD takes a minimum of 5 years. Someone doing structural econometrics is usually expected to finish exactly one model/paper during this timeframe. These models are validated in the sense that they are built to simply test how well a theory matches the data. The objective is not necessarily prediction, although these models do quite well all things considering. This kind of modeling started in the earnest in the late ninties. 2. a Non-structural econometrics are applied researchers using standard statistical theories to test hypothesis (as in sociology) or do policy evaluation. The popular technique now are quasi-experiments, that is, using instruments and statistical techniques such as panel data models, multiple diff-in-diffs, matching etc. to emulate experimental inference in observational data. The idea here is causal inference: What impact does raising taxes have? How does microfinance diffuse in India? Since prediction is not the key of these models, indeed they are not really able to do it, validation literally does not matter. The approach is more experimental Note that until here, all approaches belong to what we call Microeconomics. That's because the above techniques require good panel data, thousands of observations etc. These models work well but they are not what you read about when it says "GDP predicted to fall 2%". 2. b The second part of non-structural modeling are time series analysis, used in Macro and Finance mostly. I guess this is the closest to the models you are familiar with. These models are validated as you would expect, because people care either about inference or prediction. 3. Finally we have calibrated models. This is a subclass of models which are structural but not estimated. This is the only place where traditional Macro models (New Keynesian) still survive. It works like this: Models are created on a theoretical basis. Then, distributions from microeconomic models are included (for example consumer savings behavior etc.). No direct "data" goes into the model to be estimated expect the "calibration" (there's exceptions but that is the theory). Then, the model is simulated. A model is good when it can replicate first, second and possibly third moments of the true data. Since no data is estimate upon, the model itself is the validation. If it does something else than the true data, it is wrong. When it comes to predicting big Macro events, usually a mixture of time-series (so more "pure" statistical models) and DSGE calibrated models are used. Models nowadays are mixed using Bayesian techniques to get better prediction. Where prediction is the key, models are obviously validated very closely. But since data in Macroeconomics is just sparse, it is not enough to run time-series models and validate them. Calibration is basically something developed in the 80's to deal with the fact that we know a lot about the economy, have microdata, but do not have enough macrodata to really use statistical models. I hope this explains better the issues with economic modeling. Things are changing rapidly in the moment, the new thing is to combine machine learning/big-data with time series and causal inference (something machine learning doesn't care about since they only do prediction). As far as predicting until 2060 goes. Obviously it would be a misunderstanding to assume that this will resemble reality. The thing about the DSGE/Time-Series double approach is though, that these models are _extremely_ good when everything goes okay. Before the crisis, they matched the actual data more closely than any climate/weather forecast (I can link a good paper on evaluation of early DSGEs pre-crisis if you want). The thing is however, given their structure, it is impossible to predict anything which is not in the model. So the result is only a pointer as to what would structurally happen if things stay the same. And perhaps a forecast for the next few months etc. But that's why any forecast of Macro models of this sort are necessarily worthless when your standard is: should be correct over the whole timeframe. But that's also not an issue of economics as such, because there literally are no sciences that can predict more accurately with this data-basis. We can do a bit more predicting variance of time series with long-memory processes after 1990 or so, but that does not really help and it's honestly all bullshit anyway looking at macro "random processes" because Chaos Theory and such (ah, which btw we also do...) So yeah. The truth is, conditional on the data that is available, economic models do really, really well. Other predictive sciences are not at all doing better. And for causal inference, sciences like sociology and political sciences are doing much worse and have a much more fragmented body of confirmed knowledge. But, poo poo sucks so that's like that. Things will get better with more computer power and more big data, basically. As everywhere. The big debates about "Keynes" vs. "XYZ" is basically a thing from the pre-90's and internet blogs. And politics. That's where it matters, not in academics. The reason is that politicians are not academics and no one has time to evaluate a lot of models, especially if the answer is still ambigious. So we have people like Krugman or Cochrane who just ramble out verbal theories based on the common sense they gained in their academic work. That's literally all it is. It's like sociology without data. If we are lucky, all those political economists that get to pretend they can predict the economy will be replaced by machine learning code soon. Let me know if you have any questions. Edit: Here is a good paper, see section 5 especially (but note that they are using a much more simple DSGE than what is employed in practice) https://sites.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/schorf/files/er-final.pdf Squalid posted:I'm curious what economists said about the Euro prior to its implementation. Is there anything approachable available or is it all just bland technical articles? It would be interesting if there were any major authorities sounding alarms a few decades ago only to be roundly ignored. A majority group of economists in Germany formulated an open letter saying how the Euro is a bad idea before the Euro. As far as literature goes, the accepted theory of optimal currency areas developed exactly to that question basically told us that the Euro was a bad idea exactly for the reasons why it is indeed a bad idea. The Euro was 100% a political decision despite a very clear recommendation of both theory and actual economists. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Reminder that LemonDrizzle was jizzing himself at the thought of left-wingers being forced to vote for Fillon to stop Le Pen. Didn't you vote for Brexit
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Didn't you vote for Brexit no he voted for Lexit 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 13:03
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Tbh I will probably not abstain, but rather put a gross picture like goatse in the envelope. Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 13:19 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Blank (white) votes are officially recognised in France this election, so your vote can still matter and go to loving no one. Matter? How so? Like if there's a majority of blank voters, do we just consider the elections null and void and go with five more years of Hollande?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Matter? How so? "XXXXelected with less than 50% of the people vote!"* is kinda a spin that would gently caress fillon or anyone hard. *Like Hollande i think. But yeah at some level i wish there would be some weird poo poo starting if 50% of the electorate voted blank. Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:
Uhh what? I think a lot of economists supported the Euro, at least in theory ("Maastricht criteria are complied by", "no bailouts" or "more fiscal mixing"). And it isn't necessarily a failure. Don't know what the non-Euro counterfactual for most of Europe would be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:efffffordpost Thanks, this way more interesting than another Greeks  vs Neoliberals slapfight.Could you link something more detailed about the Salesforce stuff? I only did undergrad econ stuff but this would be right up my alley.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Matter? How so? Everyone would turn out to super lucid and make their own collectice utopia based on a leaderless non-movement. At least according to this book https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_(novel)
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Uhh what? I think a lot of economists supported the Euro, at least in theory ("Maastricht criteria are complied by", "no bailouts" or "more fiscal mixing"). And it isn't necessarily a failure. Don't know what the non-Euro counterfactual for most of Europe would be. Why do you think that tho? It's pretty hard to separate this from political concerns (France wanted the Euro, Germany did not etc.). Looking at the prevailing economic theory of that time, the Euro was a bad idea in exactly the sense which turned out to be true. So economists as such were against it. According to the newspaper "Das Parlament", the majority of actual economists world-wide (and especially in Germany) were very sceptical of the Euro. People predicting the collapse of the Euro were for example Friedman, Krugman, Greenspan, Sinn and many more. mobby_6kl posted:Thanks, this way more interesting than another Greeks sure here you go http://www.simon.rochester.edu/fac/misra/mkt_salesforce.pdf Edit: Here is one along similar lines that is cool&good, but less structural and more of type 2a. as I pointed out above. It's cool because it shows some shortcomings from simple compensation models http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/debraj/Papers/Tea.pdf Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:efffffordpost Thanks a lot for that. I was only somewhat familiar with the second part. In fact my only experience with econometrics was helping calibrate an old school gravity model that came from traffic engineering to simulate german trade. When we were done I found out there was no more data than what we had already used, which wasn't very inspiring. It's nice you mention climate/weather predictions because that's exactly what I was comparing the lack of accuracy to. We don't have the time series to accurately predict weather 50 years into the future. Nothing will solve that except waiting 45 years. If you want to future proof your infrastructure you can fit an extreme value distribution and use that as input for an environmental model, but by then your uncertainty might be in the same order of magnitude as the effect of the measures you are simulating. This gives the modeler quite some leeway in determining the best policy in say, flood protection. Not surprisingly the field has a troublesome relationship with policy makers. Once the report is written and out the door the results are taken at face value. "Gee wiz, I dunno anything about all this I'll agree with the expert." You can get significantly different results with different assumptions, modelling package, package of measures or statistical distribution. Sometimes the government, or client, will pressure you to do so. On the other hand thanks to liberalization all these reports are written by large consultancy companies who have an interest in making the problem as big and complex as possible. Not that I think these studies routinely get tailored, but the space is there if you want to. Then 5 years down the road farmer Joe gets his hovel bulldozed to make room for an extra spillway. When he tells reporters he doesn't trust the government's predictions, he's more right than people give him credit for. That is where my suspicion comes from. Especially now that pension reform is an election topic. I understand from your post econometrics works differently. That is good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
you feelin fucky posted:Thanks a lot for that. I was only somewhat familiar with the second part. In fact my only experience with econometrics was helping calibrate an old school gravity model that came from traffic engineering to simulate german trade. When we were done I found out there was no more data than what we had already used, which wasn't very inspiring. Well let me say it this way: Structural modeling in micro is less prone to these issues because there is good data and the assumptions generating the model can be checked by everyone immediately. That's indeed a good advantage of econ models (and why everyone can criticize them so easily, which is actually also good). And non structural models are usually not mainly used for prediction anyway. But oh boy, in competition policy? Like, when firms get sued for anticompetitive behavior? The firms lawyers will have an econ consulting firm producing a model for their case, no doubt. And you better believe that model supports their pov. But these models are not really data based, they just give an idea of a mechanism, at least currently. Judges use them for illustration. In Macro, yeah, I can pick and chose my models similarly - I can include this and not include that and so forth. And then if someone asks me to predict 60 years into the future, well it ain't worth much. The good news is that Macro models are pretty much only used for short term forecast - and never as a single model. If you look at the changes in business cycle variance throughout the years, you can see that policy became very good in reducing boom&bust cycling compared to earlier times... right up until something that was not structurally modeled in the DSGEs and was a structural break in the time-series models. I don't really see a way against this but to keep developing the models based on more and more data. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Why do you think that tho? It's pretty hard to separate this from political concerns (France wanted the Euro, Germany did not etc.). Looking at the prevailing economic theory of that time, the Euro was a bad idea in exactly the sense which turned out to be true. So economists as such were against it. According to the newspaper "Das Parlament", the majority of actual economists world-wide (and especially in Germany) were very sceptical of the Euro. http://www.economist.com/node/199382 quote:The results are shown in the table. Of the 256 sent the questionnaire, 164 (or 64%) replied. A comfortable majority, 65%, was in favour of switching from the pound to the euro. The reasons for supporting joining are the same then as now. Improved cross-border mobility of capital, increased trade, a stabilized currency for many member states etc. all of which are difficult to measure because of the absence of a good counter-factual.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Money quote from Milton Friedman himself Except that he's wrong. I mean more precisely that he's right about the situation he describes, but wrong about it being the reason why the common currency fails. People speaking different language isn't an obstacle (see: Swiss Franc), having different customs or national identities aren't obstacles either. What is an obstacle is forgetting what money is. Money is a token guaranteed by THE STATE and controlled by THE STATE. The euro was born of the idea that actually, the state shouldn't control money anymore, because the model that has worked for every single country of the world throughout history without exception is obviously bad. In short, the euro failed because of bright-eyed economists having clever idea about perfectly spherical cows. Really the euro with the idea of an independent central bank is basically a physical bitcoin. What a common currency needs is to a common approach to economic policies, including stuff such as fiscal federalism. And that's what's not happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Except that he's wrong. I mean more precisely that he's right about the situation he describes, but wrong about it being the reason why the common currency fails.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Immaculate Darita Feb 26, 2017 Shaquin posted: instead of "The Laughing Man" we have "Retard Dare" and he is a menace to the cyberstream i love u tho and want to get married pls take me on date u r most beautiful girl i ever seen srsly LOL uh oh i guess im hosed http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/sho....php?p=18727172 # ? Feb 26, 2017 05:07 Profile Post History Rap Sheet Edit Quote Immaculate Darita Feb 26, 2017 Go Back TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion Reload this Page Harlequin Romance Novels Is Obscene Pornography 100% Absolutely Every Time . Welcome, spockhammer. | Log Out You last visited: 02-25-2017 at 03:20 PM Private Messages: Unread 0, Total 267. Thread Tools spockhammer VeteranX Contributor Old 1 - 02-25-2017, 11:44 PM Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message She had never felt so helpless or s completely at the mercy of another human being.. a being who could snap the slender column of her body with one squeeze of a steel clad arm. No Trace of tenderness softened the harsh pressure of his mouth on hers... there was only a savagely punishing intentess of purpose that cut off the breath until her sense reeled and her body sagged against the granite hardness of his, he released her wrists, seeming to know that they would hang helplessly at her sides, and his hand moved to the small of her back to exert a pressure that crushed her soft outlines to the unyielding dominance of his and left her in no doubt as the force his masculinity. The books uphold the values of their readers who share this fear of break-ing social codes, but behind these reassur-ingly familiar restraints they celebrate a wild, eager sexuality which flourish and is finally affirmed in "marriage," which Parisi sees as mainly a code word for "gently caress." And this is how Harlequin Romance Novels castigate women into The Patriarchy Matrix. Life In The Patriarchal Matrix GGz give me my PHD now. # ? Feb 26, 2017 05:07 Profile Post History Rap Sheet Edit Quote Immaculate Darita Feb 26, 2017 https://lifeinthepatriarchalmatrix.wordpress.com/
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
An interesting point, for sure, but I still feel Macron palling around with De Rugy and Bayrou makes his campaign look like a parade of losers and opportunists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
heh, Britain probably would have profited from the Euro. Doesn't really make it a success, right? also, lol at the majority of actual monetary economists being against the Euro.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I think the point is, different national identities stand in the way of fiscal federalism. Had there been a strong pan-European identity, the EU would have been able to take over the role of THE STATE. That didn't stop all the other transfers of sovereignty...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I think the point is, different national identities stand in the way of fiscal federalism. Had there been a strong pan-European identity, the EU would have been able to take over the role of THE STATE.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Yes everyone really wants Jean Claude Juncker, Guy Verhofstadt et al to have even more power lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Anyone have a quick explainer on what the gently caress is wrong with François Hollande and the PS in general? Is it just that they're neo-liberal shits who care more about their own intra-party ambitions than actually winning over the electorate? I've not kept up as much as I would have liked to in the last few years, but it felt at his election that he had a starting point from which he could actually address the underlying problems contributing to the burgeoning rise of the FN, but then he just pissed it all away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Anyone have a quick explainer on what the gently caress is wrong with François Hollande and the PS in general? Worse income inequality Worse labour laws Smirking colonialist military action Uncharismatic leader Split party
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
The party was infested with third-way blairites/schröderites who are more concerned with deregulating, appeasing the market gods, and slashing the budgets than with pushing actual leftist politics. Hollande campaigned by claiming to oppose financial lobbies, and then he appointed as minister a banker who ended up betraying him and his party to run as the anti-establishment super sayyan. gently caress absolutely everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Le pen had a meeting in Nantes. Some fuckdummy antifas in balaklavas had to stop a pair of coaches bringing people in to throw paint and poo poo at them. https://mobile.twitter.com/Bertrand_IRAGNE/status/835844933982511104?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Good job fighting fascism guys, she's probably won a few thousand extra votes  Take that local bus company !
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Anyone have a quick explainer on what the gently caress is wrong with François Hollande and the PS in general? Is it just that they're neo-liberal shits who care more about their own intra-party ambitions than actually winning over the electorate? I've not kept up as much as I would have liked to in the last few years, but it felt at his election that he had a starting point from which he could actually address the underlying problems contributing to the burgeoning rise of the FN, but then he just pissed it all away. my impression is that it's run by people who are both third way blairites and also career party apparatchiks with the charisma of a rotting piece of roadkill, in a country where there is simply (or has been for the last few decades) no appetite for third way blairism
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
French MPs recently decided to revamp the limitation period on various charges. Mostly this means doubling the period to 20 years for crimes and 6 years for misdemeanours. But the funny thing is how they changed the rules about covert infractions: before, the limitation period would start when the infraction was discovered; but now, it starts right when the infraction is made. The kicker being that political corruption is one of the covert infractions covered by this new law. So you can be as corrupted as you want as long as you make sure to keep it under wraps for enough years. To pick a real life example, Mrs Fillon was allegedly employed by her husband from 1998 to 2002, and then by her husband’s successor from 2002 to 2007. Under this new law, the judges would have only been able to investigate as far back as 2005 (the infraction was discovered in 2017 and they could go back 12 years). Further details (in French) TLDR: French MPs decided to make corruption harder to punish
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:Le pen had a meeting in Nantes. Americans didn't set buses on fire and Trump still won. Maybe it's time to try something new?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:02
|
|
