Lot's of people share Trump's attitude, even here in the UK. But being a fascist is not something many people are willing to admit to in civilised company. They don't admit to reading the Daily Mail either, but plenty of newspapers are sold.
The fundamental flaw in democracy is humans are stupid.
There was a poll released today by Bloomberg that shows that 65% of Republicans support Trump's ban on Muslims entering the country. 65%. 2/3 of Republicans. Hell, 37% of the American electorate at large supports it. And if you're the type of person who eschews poll numbers, I can understand your skepticism, but in elections they are highly historically accurate, and are the only reliable way to gauge public sentiment in a country with hundreds of millions of people. They have scientific methodologies, I used to work for one. The numbers and people aren't made up and called out of thin air.
As for the candidates joluv mentioned above, none of them (outside of Trump) have a chance of securing the nomination. If Trump falls through or (more likely) decides he doesn't want it, the man positioned to pick up his supporters, and the man who has been strategically positioning himself to do so is Ted Cruz, who is as much a demagogue as Trump himself. I don't hope to change any minds, I've been following the conservative moment and their politics and tactics for well over a decade, and Trump's rise doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm shocked it didn't happen sooner.
On an unrelated note taxi drivers today in Toronto are blocking off traffic (as well as more extreme behaviour like trying to open peoples car doors if they suspect an Uber driver). This has happened already in many North American cities.
Personally I think its the worst PR move ever. I'm not even going to deny that Uber is acting illegally, but the only thing this move does is annoy the heck of of your average driver (and any transit users that get caught up in it as well). That doesn't win you support!
On an unrelated note taxi drivers today in Toronto are blocking off traffic (as well as more extreme behaviour like trying to open peoples car doors if they suspect an Uber driver). This has happened already in many North American cities.
Personally I think its the worst PR move ever. I'm not even going to deny that Uber is acting illegally, but the only thing this move does is annoy the heck of of your average driver (and any transit users that get caught up in it as well). That doesn't win you support!
The problem with any protest that is important enough to engage in is that because of how our societies work, they are an inherent Catch-22. If they don't inconvenience the average citizen out of their daily routine and shake their complacency, the media would never, ever cover it. And it would have less than zero effect. On the other hand, you will inevitably piss alot of people off on a personal level, and they will be against you on general principle. The way Western media functions has made it nearly impossible to influence meaningful change. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The game is rigged.
The problem with any protest that is important enough to engage in is that because of how our societies work, they are an inherent Catch-22. If they don't inconvenience the average citizen out of their daily routine and shake their complacency, the media would never, ever cover it. And it would have less than zero effect. On the other hand, you will inevitably piss alot of people off on a personal level, and they will be against you on general principle. The way Western media functions has made it nearly impossible to influence meaningful change. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The game is rigged.
I don't agree that it is rigged. I more suspect that most people go overboard with flash and passion rather than charting the course.
Quite a lot of the atrocities that happen in the news today (particularly here in the US) are less about making a statement or driving change but end up being more about how much media coverage that they can get. These disenfranchised people think that the only way they will be "Important" or get anything like the attention that they crave, they need to do something "Extreme". And they do. But it is rarely about change.
On an unrelated note taxi drivers today in Toronto are blocking off traffic (as well as more extreme behaviour like trying to open peoples car doors if they suspect an Uber driver). This has happened already in many North American cities.
Personally I think its the worst PR move ever. I'm not even going to deny that Uber is acting illegally, but the only thing this move does is annoy the heck of of your average driver (and any transit users that get caught up in it as well). That doesn't win you support!
The problem with any protest that is important enough to engage in is that because of how our societies work, they are an inherent Catch-22. If they don't inconvenience the average citizen out of their daily routine and shake their complacency, the media would never, ever cover it. And it would have less than zero effect. On the other hand, you will inevitably piss alot of people off on a personal level, and they will be against you on general principle. The way Western media functions has made it nearly impossible to influence meaningful change. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The game is rigged.
The thing is in late September they actually held a demonstrating at city hall (because Uber was being debated on that day) and it got a lot of local media coverage (city hall is normally a pretty boring place). Also there is a lot of support in the city for Uber (even if people want to see it regulated) and not as much support of the existing cab industry, so to me it seems like they are moreso shooting themselves in the foot here.
I guess most people see it like the weavers protesting the loss of their livelyhood (sometimes with violence) during the industrial revolution. It may be tragic on a personal level, but protesting against inevitable change is a pointless inconvenience.
I guess most people see it like the weavers protesting the loss of their livelyhood (sometimes with violence) during the industrial revolution. It may be tragic on a personal level, but protesting against inevitable change is a pointless inconvenience.
I wonder if that's true. I think you're right most people see it that way but I have a sneaking suspicion that uber and it's like might be a short lived-if widespread- product of the Silicon Valley culture. All of this seems to be made with some kind of subconscious mass utopia fantasy that everyone will willing share everything. Communism perfected if you think about it. But things like uber are hard to regulate and I seem to remember state and local governments coming down on it. I don't remember who but some comedy host said "eventually, serial killers are going to find out about AirB&B and it all going to end"
Uber's a long way from communism; it's essentially a radically deregulated version of taxi service, which was previously a relatively closed market. That's about as capitalist as it gets.
Uber's a long way from communism; it's essentially a radically deregulated version of taxi service, which was previously a relatively closed market. That's about as capitalist as it gets.
Yeah, I was going to say the same, it's more Libertarian than Communist.
It's hard for governments to tax uber, hence the opposition to it. Most taxi drivers would be for it if they didn't have to pay outrageous licensing fees.
The only issue is that it can saturate the market with a service, severely limiting the cost of that service making it harder to make a living from it.
Uber's a long way from communism; it's essentially a radically deregulated version of taxi service, which was previously a relatively closed market. That's about as capitalist as it gets.
Haha, that's not the point. The communism quip was a joke. Or at least a half joke. Obviously uber is not communist.
It's hard for governments to tax uber, hence the opposition to it. Most taxi drivers would be for it if they didn't have to pay outrageous licensing fees.
The only issue is that it can saturate the market with a service, severely limiting the cost of that service making it harder to make a living from it.
Also in the case of Toronto (and I think New York and other major cities are probably experiencing something similar) the plates taxi drivers own used to be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more than they are now (the number of people who could own transferable plates was fixed). From listening to them in person (I'm a nerd and went to a town hall meeting awhile back) I got the impression that a lot of them were relying on them for their retirement (selling or leasing them when they were ready to retire) and are upset that they've decreased in value so much.
The problem with any protest that is important enough to engage in is that because of how our societies work, they are an inherent Catch-22. If they don't inconvenience the average citizen out of their daily routine and shake their complacency, the media would never, ever cover it. And it would have less than zero effect. On the other hand, you will inevitably piss alot of people off on a personal level, and they will be against you on general principle. The way Western media functions has made it nearly impossible to influence meaningful change. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The game is rigged.
Yeah, I think this is spot on. I live in Chicago where we are having LOTS of protests right now. People are finally fed up with the corruption in the city's government and police force and are demanding changes. The most effective protests have been along the big retail districts. The media was all over those protests, and in response the mayor fired the police superintendent and has VERY begrudgingly allowed the DOJ to launch an investigation into the police corruption. There have been lots of protests in the neighborhoods where all the violence is happening, but you have to dig deep to find any news about those, so they didn't get many results, unfortunately. All this week there have been people on the streets demanding Rahm to step down as mayor (and he should...he's been a terrible mayor). (For the record...I absolutely adore this city, and can't imagine living anywhere else. It's great to see people trying to take back our government, even if they didn't show up for the elections when they had a chance to fix it.)
@elminster "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" and so on. I think the competition is great, as with AirBnB and other share economy concepts. I will be staying with AirBnB instead of a hotel next month when I travel to Barcelona, simply because hotels cannot (or do not) compete.
I guess most people see it like the weavers protesting the loss of their livelyhood (sometimes with violence) during the industrial revolution. It may be tragic on a personal level, but protesting against inevitable change is a pointless inconvenience.
I wonder if that's true. I think you're right most people see it that way but I have a sneaking suspicion that uber and it's like might be a short lived-if widespread- product of the Silicon Valley culture. All of this seems to be made with some kind of subconscious mass utopia fantasy that everyone will willing share everything. Communism perfected if you think about it. But things like uber are hard to regulate and I seem to remember state and local governments coming down on it. I don't remember who but some comedy host said "eventually, serial killers are going to find out about AirB&B and it all going to end"
Trump talks about building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out. Well, I say the world ought to come together to build a wall around Silicon Valley to keep their horrible ideas contained. Silicon Valley and the tech industry as a whole is the most ruinous, parasitic, and destructive new development in capitalism that this generation has seen. It appears to be run by people who looked at the cyberpunk dystopias of Neuromancer or Snow crash and said, "You know, that'd be awesome so long as I were in charge!
The new-phone-a-year planned obsolence. The rampant misogyny and racism. The child-like egos backstabbing their way to the top. The cult-like worship of technology that sees human beings as inefficient obstacles that need to be "optimised." I fully expect some sociopathic CEO to create a means of "curing" sleep so that people can be worked 24 hours a day, and this appalling idea will surely be hailed as a brilliant "disruptive innovation." Don't like it? Oh, you naive fool, don't you understand that this is the FUTURE?
Aside from complaining bitterly about the homeless and inventing myriad ways to sell us expensive gadgets and harvest our personal data, what has Silicon Valley actually accomplished thus far? For all the grand ideas and self-congratulatory, attention seeking behaviors, how have they "changed the world" as they so often and loudly claim to be doing? They've repackaged neoliberal economic wisdom for the umpteenth time. It's nothing but the latest coat of paint on the "privatize it, outsource it, focus on costs" mantra we've been hearing since the Seventies. Indeed, there is nothing revolutionary about "Find someone to do it for less, piecemeal and without benefits." It's another version of the glorious future in which the rich can hold onto all of their money with the added allure of replacing even the unwashed plebeians who serve them with apps and robots. For now we can develop a web-based platform to farm out to The Cloud the tasks of an Executive Assistant, but just imagine a dazzling techno-future of automation in which the elite don't need to pay anyone at all.
Consequences be damned, I personally can't wait for Commiefornia, specifically San Fransisco, to sink into the ocean as a result of the long-overdue Fran Slam.
On CETA: It took Harper's Government 7 years and over 200 pages long to negotiate. It took Trudeau's team one year and 6 pages to make it completely unravel.
I also never understood why people are afraid of Free Trade Agreements. They are never the doom and gloom (see NAFTA) that is predicted prior to it being sign.
This Wallonia crisis just screams as a "look at me!" tactic that will be mimicked in any other types of trade deals the EU will want to pursue (Brexit, US) in the future and I believe the Canadian International Trade Minister is right in saying, if you can't do it with us, you're not going to be able to do it with anyone.
@deltago I think what people are afraid of are the Investor-State Dispute Settlements that are part and parcel of CETA and TTIP which allow companies to sue any government (of a country that has signed the agreement) that passes legislation which reduces the company's profits in that country (e.g. banning cigarette advertising).
deltago I think what people are afraid of are the Investor-State Dispute Settlements that are part and parcel of CETA and TTIP which allow companies to sue any government (of a country that has signed the agreement) that passes legislation which reduces the company's profits in that country (e.g. banning cigarette advertising).
Investor-State dispute settlements are to prevent states from passing biased legislation.
Any legislation already in the books is immune from these settlements. Canadian companies will have to follow EU regulations for any products that they want to sell, tariff free, in the region.
So Seal hunters aren't going to be able to take the EU to court because they can't sell their products in the region since a ban on their products are already in effect.
Any new legislation that passes however need to be biased free. A region can pass a ban on cigarette advertising for example, as long as every tobacco company (or product) is treated equal in it. A corporation could attempt to bring it to tribunal, however, if the legislation is biased free they will most likely fail in their attempt.
But if a region wants to pass legislation that says "Beef sold in our country must only be fed grain from XXX region," then that is a biased law, as it not only limits beef imports, but can also heavily affect grain imports. A corporation, could take that region to tribunal to either scrap or alter the legislation, or ask for a monetary compensation for effected sales of said product. The company would have to prove how much money they'd be losing due to the passed legislation and really can't pull an unrealistic amount out of thin air.
That's the jiffs of it. Everything else that people are saying, is fear mongering.
Doesn't sound like fear mongering to me - any law that affects companies will have to include 'bias'. A ban on cigarette advertising for instance could be challenged in a multitude of ways, e.g. - by companies that supply the paper for cigarettes. - by transport firms that specialise in moving cigarettes. - by clinics that do a lot of work treating lung diseases. - by advertisers that carry a lot of tobacco advertising
I wouldn't be impressed in the least by any of the above arguments, but that doesn't mean that such arguments won't be made and I can absolutely understand why people fear that the legal process could undermine the ability of countries to make laws aimed at benefiting their population.
But if a region wants to pass legislation that says "Beef sold in our country must only be fed grain from XXX region," then that is a biased law, as it not only limits beef imports, but can also heavily affect grain imports. A corporation, could take that region to tribunal to either scrap or alter the legislation, or ask for a monetary compensation for effected sales of said product. The company would have to prove how much money they'd be losing due to the passed legislation and really can't pull an unrealistic amount out of thin air.
That's the jiffs of it. Everything else that people are saying, is fear mongering.
Ok, so English isn't my language but I'll try to make myself clear, no animosity :
Your example is good, in the way that if a region decides to pass legislation, based on environmental ethics or ideas, that says "short circuit" (not sure how to express that in english, it's the idea that you shouldn't import goods from far away when you can have the same thing from a closer area) have to be privileged because it's a effing environmental scandal to transport things that are already available in the area, they should be able to do it without having to pay all the companies in the world some kind of compensation.
But if a region wants to pass legislation that says "Beef sold in our country must only be fed grain from XXX region," then that is a biased law, as it not only limits beef imports, but can also heavily affect grain imports. A corporation, could take that region to tribunal to either scrap or alter the legislation, or ask for a monetary compensation for effected sales of said product. The company would have to prove how much money they'd be losing due to the passed legislation and really can't pull an unrealistic amount out of thin air.
That's the jiffs of it. Everything else that people are saying, is fear mongering.
Ok, so English isn't my language but I'll try to make myself clear, no animosity :
Your example is good, in the way that if a region decides to pass legislation, based on environmental ethics or ideas, that says "short circuit" (not sure how to express that in english, it's the idea that you shouldn't import goods from far away when you can have the same thing from a closer area) have to be privileged because it's a effing environmental scandal to transport things that are already available in the area, they should be able to do it without having to pay all the companies in the world some kind of compensation.
I get that idea, and local agricultural (among other goods) will always be predominant in a given region. It is already cheaper for someone to buy local.
Flooding the market with the same type of products however removes the monopoly that certain businesses have, gives consumers more choices and promotes innovation. All of these lower prices for goods.
A population can always be persuaded to buy local through advertising or government subsidies but the consumer should have the last say in what they are going to purchase, not a government.
Comments
The fundamental flaw in democracy is humans are stupid.
As for the candidates joluv mentioned above, none of them (outside of Trump) have a chance of securing the nomination. If Trump falls through or (more likely) decides he doesn't want it, the man positioned to pick up his supporters, and the man who has been strategically positioning himself to do so is Ted Cruz, who is as much a demagogue as Trump himself. I don't hope to change any minds, I've been following the conservative moment and their politics and tactics for well over a decade, and Trump's rise doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm shocked it didn't happen sooner.
Personally I think its the worst PR move ever. I'm not even going to deny that Uber is acting illegally, but the only thing this move does is annoy the heck of of your average driver (and any transit users that get caught up in it as well). That doesn't win you support!
Quite a lot of the atrocities that happen in the news today (particularly here in the US) are less about making a statement or driving change but end up being more about how much media coverage that they can get. These disenfranchised people think that the only way they will be "Important" or get anything like the attention that they crave, they need to do something "Extreme". And they do. But it is rarely about change.
But things like uber are hard to regulate and I seem to remember state and local governments coming down on it. I don't remember who but some comedy host said "eventually, serial killers are going to find out about AirB&B and it all going to end"
The only issue is that it can saturate the market with a service, severely limiting the cost of that service making it harder to make a living from it.
(For the record...I absolutely adore this city, and can't imagine living anywhere else. It's great to see people trying to take back our government, even if they didn't show up for the elections when they had a chance to fix it.)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37788882
(Actually scratch that...I think we'll be stockpiling that for ourselves
The new-phone-a-year planned obsolence. The rampant misogyny and racism. The child-like egos backstabbing their way to the top. The cult-like worship of technology that sees human beings as inefficient obstacles that need to be "optimised." I fully expect some sociopathic CEO to create a means of "curing" sleep so that people can be worked 24 hours a day, and this appalling idea will surely be hailed as a brilliant "disruptive innovation." Don't like it? Oh, you naive fool, don't you understand that this is the FUTURE?
This blog post sums it up best:
I also never understood why people are afraid of Free Trade Agreements. They are never the doom and gloom (see NAFTA) that is predicted prior to it being sign.
This Wallonia crisis just screams as a "look at me!" tactic that will be mimicked in any other types of trade deals the EU will want to pursue (Brexit, US) in the future and I believe the Canadian International Trade Minister is right in saying, if you can't do it with us, you're not going to be able to do it with anyone.
Investor-State dispute settlements are to prevent states from passing biased legislation.
Any legislation already in the books is immune from these settlements. Canadian companies will have to follow EU regulations for any products that they want to sell, tariff free, in the region.
So Seal hunters aren't going to be able to take the EU to court because they can't sell their products in the region since a ban on their products are already in effect.
Any new legislation that passes however need to be biased free. A region can pass a ban on cigarette advertising for example, as long as every tobacco company (or product) is treated equal in it. A corporation could attempt to bring it to tribunal, however, if the legislation is biased free they will most likely fail in their attempt.
But if a region wants to pass legislation that says "Beef sold in our country must only be fed grain from XXX region," then that is a biased law, as it not only limits beef imports, but can also heavily affect grain imports. A corporation, could take that region to tribunal to either scrap or alter the legislation, or ask for a monetary compensation for effected sales of said product. The company would have to prove how much money they'd be losing due to the passed legislation and really can't pull an unrealistic amount out of thin air.
That's the jiffs of it. Everything else that people are saying, is fear mongering.
- by companies that supply the paper for cigarettes.
- by transport firms that specialise in moving cigarettes.
- by clinics that do a lot of work treating lung diseases.
- by advertisers that carry a lot of tobacco advertising
I wouldn't be impressed in the least by any of the above arguments, but that doesn't mean that such arguments won't be made and I can absolutely understand why people fear that the legal process could undermine the ability of countries to make laws aimed at benefiting their population.
Your example is good, in the way that if a region decides to pass legislation, based on environmental ethics or ideas, that says "short circuit" (not sure how to express that in english, it's the idea that you shouldn't import goods from far away when you can have the same thing from a closer area) have to be privileged because it's a effing environmental scandal to transport things that are already available in the area, they should be able to do it without having to pay all the companies in the world some kind of compensation.
Flooding the market with the same type of products however removes the monopoly that certain businesses have, gives consumers more choices and promotes innovation. All of these lower prices for goods.
A population can always be persuaded to buy local through advertising or government subsidies but the consumer should have the last say in what they are going to purchase, not a government.