This probably isn't biological but more of a sociological phenomenon. — Agent Smith

Prosperity and wealth is a sociological phenomenon, so yes, it hasn't got anything to do with biology.

Ok, maybe I agree that this kind of alarmism as a political strategy isn't all that helpful, in that it potentially alienates those that weren't already convinced even further. — ChatteringMonkey

Wrong models won't just alienate those that aren't already convinced, they simply can contribute to wrong policies. It's not just pep talk. If a forecast is ulitmately proven wrong, we cannot excuse it because "it supported the good cause". Something "for the cause" isn't the way to make models about the future, especially the ones that you base your actual policies on. The issues are complex, not so simple to be good or evil as people want them to be. And furthermore, to criticize models about their validity when they are wrong isn't some "climate denier" scheme, it's basic way to do science. And strawmanning this, like responding "oh, so you are denying climate change?", doesn't help. The models really need to be accurate, realistic and not simple extrapolations from linear models, where the end result is that you are forecasting the year when the human race, or all species, are extinct.

Just take the extremely stupid Chinese "one child" policy, a real product of the fears of the overpopulation debate in the 1970's implemented in 1980. Or similar policies in Singapore: that there simply will be too many SIngaporeans / Chinese and hence drastic measures were taken to limit population growth. All because of the threat of overpopulation, which ought to have resulted in widespread famines twenty years ago. And now both policies have backfired and they face a bigger problem now (Singapore is desperately trying that Singaporeans would have more children). India utterly failed in any kind of population growth limitations and guess what: it's fertility rates have gone down. The simple fact that prosperity alters the need for people to have children was shown again to be true, but I'm not sure how anyone saying this would have succeeded in any of the overpopulation debates in the 1970's. The Malthusians would evidently have won the day as they did. And likely will win a public debate, because that's what people want to hear.

But my point this time was that it doesn't really matter that it isn't an existential threat, it is still or should be very alarming nevertheless. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree.

Just as in the Zeihan example, over dramatization still is not great when you are dealing with facts. It's far too easy to ask the question: Is China really to collapse now, immediately, and get the answer "Likely not". The same happens if we take the most dire forecast in the shortest time period. When that most dire forecast doesn't happen (in the few months or one year) it's supposed to happen, you can seriously question then the forecaster.

To think that the most dire forecast is just a way to "wake up" people and hence it's OK to be alarmist, then one should remember that to get most closest to what happens will be the best forecast.

Let's remember that for 20 years the nuclear codes were “00000000” in Minuteman silos.

I love me some polarization, to be honest. — NOS4A2

We know, NOS.

And in Canada you are a spectator, just like me.

So getting your popcorn ready for the binge watching of blood on the streets?

Yes.

We can always just hope for the Yellowstone supervolcano to erupt. Then we'll have those nice cold winters and beautiful sunsets for a long time.

Yeah, I know. It isn't a solution. Most recent volcanic activity was 70 000 years ago and major eruption some 700 000 years ago.

Biden’s whole theme was unification and decency but he has done the exact opposite. — NOS4A2

Because it sells in America.

Polarization rules.

Not being an existential problem is a very low bar. I know there's people focusing especially on existential risk — ChatteringMonkey

And that's alarmism. Call something existential when it's really existential, then you don't fall into alarmism: of making unwarranted claims. The Sun poses an existential threat to life on Earth as current theory on the sun's stages in the future holds, but that is in the billion year time scale. This isn't just a rhetorical question, it really drives the discussion. Because pointing this out, I am categorized as being non-alarmed about climate change, as simply giving a "meh" about it. When doubting the most severe predictions is labeled as being a denier of the whole problem, that is a real problem for honest discussion. We have to avoid the lures of tribalism and making making issues to be like religious movements with their proper liturgy and other views considered blasphemy.

I had this same issue come out on the Xi Jinping and the CCP has no clothes thread where, yes, China is facing real difficulties and no, China isn't going to collapse. Again the love affair we have with "end-is-nigh" thinking.

Or it's similar when talking about the financial system. I believe that sooner or later our international monetary system will have a huge crisis and something new will replace this present system. Yes, it's also a big issue, even if climate change is a fa larger issue. But that collapse doesn't mean a societal collapse. The last time when the monetary system collapsed, many didn't even notice what had happened.

The question is: How many? Already scores of youth are opting for not having kids because of CC. — Olivier5

With more prosperity, people have less kids. That's what historically has happened. This is a trend that didn't start yesterday. And just look Japan: their stock market hasn't ever reached the highs in the late 1980's, they have a lot more old people than young people and are they on a verge of collapse? I don't think so.

The real problems are in the places that are already in dire straits before the largest impact of climate change.

And so do children from malnutrition in the Sahel region, and people in the conflicts there, where part of the reason is surely climate change. A lot more than the official bodycount in Pakistan as of now. But then, when we look at the statistics about people killed in famines:



Or then the statistics of natural disasters:



Those tell a different story, not of climate change or it's impact, but simply that our society can handle problems such as climate change better now than hundred years ago. And this isn't denialism, I'm not denying that climate change is a serious problem, only that it's not a existential problem for human kind. The year 2100 or 2200 there will very likely be humans around. That's the alarmism I'm talking about.

So, do you think you and your family will die directly or indirectly because of climate change?

The world will not end, but our world will. That's the point. — Olivier5

Oh, but that's call change. Like in climate change.

And I'm not so sure climate change will kill you and all of your family. Or mine.

These 'non-alarmed' folks are just trying to ignore the problem, to reassure themselves. — Olivier5

I don't think so. At least me I think that climate change is a real problem for us and it has been happening already for a long time. And will be to us and the next generation after us. But the World will not end. That's the point.

They would have embraced and sung revolution songs together as they tore down American democracy. — NOS4A2

That's correct.

The only way to destroy American democracy is to say that you are protecting it from a clear and obvious threat. And then really believe in what you are saying (to be clear, obvious and true).

In my view in January 6th Trump could have made a self-coup, assuming he would have the objective and the leadership qualities starting from forming a real junta, controlling at least his own security entourage (which drove him off, which is hilarious) and then going forward with emergency powers until the "threat to the democratic system" would have been dealt with. Then have the ability to stage fake trials.

But he didn't do that.

He didn't put a no-nonsense guy like general Flynn in charge in the military and have ready other supporting officers to replace the joint chiefs of the armed forces when they would have resigned. No, he relied on his lawyers and some pillow guy. As if these kind if things are done by legal loopholes. Any kind of real self-coup would have to have real planning, solid backers in the government believing the cause to be righteous, which would mean that the main conspirator would have to have some leadership skills.

Which we know the very able orator and populist Trump doesn't have. What he would have had is fervent die hard supporters on the street backing his self-coup. One cannot underestimate their role...if Trump would have walked to Capitol Hill with them. And the strategic surprise: people simply wouldn't have fathomed a self-coup happening in the US. The nation simply would have been in self denial afterwards.

To do real self-coup, on live television, Saddam Hussein actually shows the way:


But of course it was the usual Trump train wreck. Because what else does Trump do?

And as pathetic the whole debacle was, the worry that it can happen again is alarmist. And frantically sounding the Trump alarm bells just alienates people, when actual problems of the present should be the focus of discussion.

Nope, the US will just have awful elections, especially Presidential ones.

I'm skeptical about the alarmism. — Tzeentch

I think this is one of the main concerns for many. Alarmism is creeping into many discourses, actually.

Public discourse often is held hostage by loonies. Not that people listen to them, they don't (as they obviously are loonies), but by them being picked up by the opposing side. The loonies are the people who are pointed out and said to represent "the other side" in the debate. As if there would be these masses of "climate change deniers" (or climate deniers) or those that want to use "Climate change" as this vessel for radical socialist agenda. Yeah right.

But if you can find an example of them in the social media, there has to be huge swarms of them! :roll:

We just need a modern system of exchange which works better than the barter system and is fair for all and provides a basic economic parity. — universeness

What do you mean here by 'basic economic parity'?

And what do you have in mind when saying "a system that works better"?

With any medium of exchange there likely is a measure of value, be they dollars, pack of cigarettes or squirrel hives. What is wrong then with this having store of value?

Do you have something against money in general, or is your criticism about the current monetary system?

As I have already stated, the label socialism has be greatly soiled in the US by the capitalists because they are terrified of it, so any American description of the term will be dubious. — universeness

So just talk about then social democracy. UK Labour and the various Social Democrat Parties of Europe. Works as a political party in other Western countries and hasn't been such a ruinous totalitarian experiment as Marxism-Leninism has been every time it has been tried.

If socialists cannot convince a majority of the population of a society, through reasoned argument, that their tenets will benefit all and be a fair and equitable way to live then they should not gain power. — universeness

Democracy actually works by reaching some kind of consensus. Socialists can ask for something, conservatives ask for something else, some agreement has to be found between the two. It's naive to think that one side can convince everybody to back their agenda by reason, that simply doesn't happen. That's not only democracy, it is reality

You don't need to rely on visits to takeaway food shops for your doses of human interaction so I am sure you can live with such systems becoming fully automated. — universeness

So you would be fine meeting your friends in a pub that is fully automated? Would you prefer also fully automated restaurants? Yeah, I have no problem with the vending machines. Yet what you describe are a bit bigger vending machines, ones you walk into (or drive through).

We need a socialist/humanist system such as a resource based economy to provide every human born with what they need to live a comfortable life from cradle to grave based on need and ability and we need to facilitate the aspirations and individual freedoms of each individual as much as is possible within the local circumstances presented. — universeness

But your providing, providing people what they need from cradle to grave, not that they would work for this (with their abilities and own motivation).

Socialists and humanists simply believe we can do better than we are doing at the moment in how we live and how we enact our stewardship of this planet. — universeness

So your answer is what? To give a committee or some central power the role to decide about the means of production, distribution, and exchange? That's it? That will improve our stewardship of this planet?

Hasn't worked so well in history.

Definitely wishes he had their power. — Michael

Yeah. (And too bad he hadn't those Wehrmacht generals he'd wished he had. Perhaps then we would have had that unfortunate helicopter accident with Marine One.)

But at least some time ago understanding that your opponents are smart would be seen as a good thing as the worst mistakes happen when you depreciate your opponent.

Even Trump in the bit forecast correctly how the anti-Trump media would play it him saying so.

I'm guessing that moving 100s of tanks from wherever they are in Russia can be seen by satellites or whatever monitoring.
If so, then the Ukrainian defense might get a warning. — jorndoe

Ukraine is surely given top satellite information. And don't forget the simply thing as people taking videos and posting them on the net.

This was actually the reason why Russia couldn't gain strategic surprise at the start of the war. Even if Ukraine didn't start the mobilization of it's troops until the Russians were attacking.

How did humans manage to live any kind of life of value before money was invented as an exchange mechanism? — universeness

They had to barter. Simple as that. The society was totally different and nowhere near the advance system of our society.

These are not and never have been socialist or humanist even through they may have soiled the labels. — universeness

Oh right... so a two hundred year old political ideology hasn't been just misunderstood or missused? Do you understand how much hubris is in this idea?

I was no fan of Stalin, Trotsky or Lenin. None of them were socialists. — universeness

Really? Or do put Marxist-Leninism or Marxism not to be socialist? Interesting.

. Socialism is a democratic system. — universeness

So you are talking about social democracy (or in the way they say in the US, democratic socialism)?

Well, I think there's a huge problem with that, just as is with the right-wing libertarians when they accept democracy. You see, in a democracy there will be people who oppose you. Hence in an democracy there will be both a left-wing and a right-wing, and the other simply won't fade out! And since a lot of people are OK with private capital, then socialism won't prevail. Just as in the right-wing libertarian democracy social democrats would feel totally fine to criticize the system.

So, you advocate for a smiling human female as you pick up you automated takeaway. — universeness

Or basically having human interaction in your average daily life, yes. And do notice I said waiter / waitress.

At my age of 58 and with any good looks I once had fading fast, I would settle for a pretty robot with limited vision or what I would consider 'good programming.' — universeness

?

:lol: What worries you most in the future I am trying to paint for you? Where did I propose anything akin to Orwell's or Huxley's dystopias? — universeness

When you redefine what is work, you redefine a lot in our lives.

Why is this so troublesome?

Basically there's this extremely stupid (and arrogant) idea of there not being work enough for everybody in the future. That because machines can do so much, there isn't enough for people to do, hence you will have this large idle underclass that has to be fed "tittytainment" to them or they can live all their lives in some virtual reality. Or something like it.

The idea is not only condescending, but show the arrogance and the hubris of those that believe in this. The society doesn't create such huge abundance of wealth that this would be possible. In fact we will likely see this Century peak human population, and then the demographic trend will be like in Japan. Or now in China, actually. Ageing and decreasing population is a real problem for our society, so the idea that there will be too many people and too few jobs simply isn't realistic. We can see this from history: the industrial revolution didn't create large hoards of unemployed agrarian workers roaming the land begging for food as machines had replaced their work on the fields. Computers didn't do this to typists and secretaries either.

The fact is that changes like we don't live in an agrarian society where the majority lives in the countryside and the cities are small. Change from substance farming to industrial farming has happened and that means there are fewer farmers, but the children of those farmers are just in new jobs. And people don't live in the countryside.

So when there won't be those "idle masses because of technology". Why is then redefining work so ominous?

Well, because when our leaders fuck things up and we end with high unemployment (thanks to stupid decisions), they will likely use that lie that the World has changed so much that we should redefine just what work means. If you can hide some percentage of the unemployed away with these kinds of redefinitions, they will gladly use that statistical trick to lie about how great things are and how they have tackled unemployment.

Surely such jobs will be automated in the future, automated drive or walkthroughs. — universeness

Do you personally want everything to be an automate drive or walkthrough?

I think I'd pay that few cents (and likely more) for the smile from the human waiter/waitress gives me when giving my coffee.

so perhaps we need to redefine what a job is. a job should be something you want to do that also contributes to supporting the community/country/planet. — universeness

Oh God, you don't know how scary that sounds! Because, they'll likely try to do that... :grimace:

Contribute to the society... by being a nice person. That's all. Thank you for existing!!!

You should write the next book in the line of "1984" by George Orwell and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". The next dystopian nightmare we would gladly all read.

So why not socialism/humanism and a resource based economy? — universeness

The free rider problem, among others. And the incentive problem.

If how much I do work (or not) doesn't show in my income, wealth position or status, why would anyone try harder? Especially when the other guy next to me doesn't do shit and gets the same wage.

It's great to get people to do something voluntarily for the collective, but to do everything for the collective is really hard, if not possible. With the experiments it has gotten twisted, corrupt and in the end the system has to be a totalitarian system in order to survive, because otherwise it wouldn't work.

I remember what Stephen Kotkin, who has written books about Stalin, noted that it's not that the Soviet Union just stumbled to the hands of Stalin, the whole system would likely had collapsed without an organizer like Stalin.

Very interesting! Do you think the welfare offered should not be so meagre then? — universeness

If you get more as unemployed than working at McDonalds, who would work at McDonalds? It's not an awesome bonus on your CV. Or at least when your in your 20's. Why just hmmm... enjoy sports or discuss things on a Philosophy Forum than take those orders at the drive in?

Why is unemployment perpetual until you die? — universeness

Unemployment benefit is never taken away. Naturally they urge you to look for jobs, provide courses, but there's no penalties like being kicked out of the system. So basically, you'll get unemployement benefits until 65 years, and then you get state pension. Although they have, I guess, taken the American statistical gimmick that over certain period people aren't unemployed, they are just discouraged workers. As if those looking for jobs are just the ones unemployed.

The Finish system seems much better than the UK one but it seems to me from your description of it, shows that its not FINnISHed yet (sorry! :blush: ), perhaps a UBI which is enough for an individual to live 'in comfort,' is needed. Is your health service free at point of delivery? — universeness

In fact they experimented with UBI here in Finland. The results were a mixed bag, but not so hugely positive that UBI would be implemented in Finland. Here's an official video of the experiment results:

Do you really think that something like UBI would mean that most people would choose not to work or take part in activities which would help the society they live in and benefit from? — universeness

Most? Of course not. But it is simply a wealth transfer. And those who have no other income, it works just like an unemployment benefit. And also, important, labour is very organized hence the labour unions have a lot of say. A fixed UBI for everybody would be inflationary, for the vast lower taxes might be better.

In Finland we do have a Nordic style welfare-state, and the negative effect of it is that part of the society do become marginalized. If you don't have a home, you are subsidies from the city/community that you get a small flat (or in the country side, a small house). Unemployment is perpetual, until you die. So you can live on these meager welfare and if you can find a low income job, a cleaner or an assistants position in a hospital or pensioner's home, you really have to judge which option, taking the job or not, will you take. Your basic income will only marginally go up and then you have to work 9 to 5 or more.

Some simply give up: once they have never worked earlier, they will not get hired. And that's that. There are families in Finland where the children have not worked and where the parents have not worked. It's a huge stigma and once met these dropped out teenagers, I couldn't believe the level of apathy it takes you into. But this is only the bad side.

The good side is that there's no homeless people in the streets. The beggars that you find in the city center (if you find them) are from other EU countries, likely from Romania, not Finns. Those who are criminals, likely really want to be criminals. The era of old style homeless men (some WW2 veterans back in the age) are not so frequent in parks at summer.

Hence when you have perpetual unemployment benefits and housing is a right, it really questions why UBI?

Ah. I should have seen that coming.

Hopefully we can still get a good discussion. Money is an interesting phenomenon in our society.

Now this might sound crazy, but to me at least makes perfect sense. Prove me otherwise if you can. — Yozhura

Very difficult, because you already have said that "to you it makes perfect sense". How could anybody then alter your thinking? Really? Are you open to other ideas than yours? Just a question.

Money is an illusion. — Yozhura

It has always been, what else would be something that is a) a medium of exchange b) a unit of account and c) a store of value. All of those are quite imaginary, basically advance agreements in our society that humans have built. And it isn't a tool for slavery, as you might think. Debt can be slavery, but it's also the way to become rich.

On today's standards we're forced to work to sustain ourselves, even though our society could provide for you if they deem you beneficial enough for them to provide such assistance. — Yozhura

Could it, really? If nobody would work and do anything, likely then we'd die quite quickly.

Anyway, just few comments, then it's hard to follow your argument.

Oh, it's quite convoluted as you talk Quantitative Easing and many start with silly arguments because it's really not physical money printing. But take a central bankers word for it:


(That was years ago. And we do have that high inflation now. And the Fed ought to be doing what Bernanke says.)

The mechanism is easy. The government has to pay something: salaries and other expenditures. It hasn't gotten enough tax revenues. So the government goes to a money printer, prints money and sends that money to it's employees etc. and problem solved. Yet as in the economy there are now more money trying to buy the same goods, hence prices rise. And when the people lose faith in the currency altogether, then you have hyperinflation.

(It's easier to understand when just imagine what would happen to prices of the cars, homes, luxury items and even basic food and if every US citizen (330 million of them) would instantly get 1 million dollars to their bank account. You really think nobody of the 330 million would go and buy something?)

Why inflation can be beneficial to governments:

There are a few reasons inflation makes it easier for a government to pay its debt, especially when inflation is higher than expected. In summary:

Higher inflation increases nominal tax revenues (if prices are higher, the government will collect more VAT, workers pay more income tax)

Higher inflation reduces the real value of debt, bondholders on fixed interest rates will see a fall in the real value of their bonds and it becomes easier for the government to pay back these bonds.

Higher inflation can enable the government to freeze income tax thresholds so more workers pay higher tax rates – it becomes a way to increase tax revenues without increasing tax rates.

I need to read more. — Agent Smith

If you understand two things:

1) That money is created through the issuance of debt.

and

2) Fiscal and monetary policy do interact, especially when the government finances it's spending through printing money.

Then I think you will get the hang of it.

I might add to this that something that confuses the discussion is that basic market mechanisms, that is when free market sets the price because of supply and demand, can have inflationary consequences. That is the "cost-push" and "demand pull" inflation. Or the discussion of external shocks, like COVID restrictions and their impact to supply chains etc.

Of course there are multiple reason for a complex phenomenon, but naturally the central banks will (and have) emphasized the external shock argument and naturally will be silent of the effects of monetary policy. In this situation it is totally understandable that they won't be forth coming and honest: it's simply their role to be so.

However I think the really big question is here, will the US try to get it's debt problem contained by inflation? Of course somethings have to be done along with this: likely the increase the age limit when people can have social security, higher the age when people can retire, lower military spending, limit money transfers and so on.

In the 70's, in ten years the US dollar lost about half of it's value with only "modest" inflation, not experience anything remotely to hyperinflation. Now that the past acquired debt would be cut 50% might help with inflation, but of course then current expenditure is the problem. It really doesn't add up. Neither in the US or here in Europe.

In the end the system has to be changed: either by collapse, some twisted debt-jubilee or some kind of wealth transfer. Unfortunately in our time, the nation states and their leaders have forgotten from history is that the easiest way is simply to rob the bankers, throw them in jail and start it over with new bankers.

A bit on the statistics:

U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark A. Milley said in mid-June that the international community had provided Ukraine with 97,000 various anti-tank weapons.

According to Milley, this is “more antitank systems than there are tanks in the world.”

According to Oryx, an online investigative project documenting equipment losses in Russia’s war, Russia has lost at least 994 tanks as of Sept. 1.

However, according to estimates by the Conflict Intelligence Team, an independent Russian online armed conflicts monitor, the Oryx database covers nearly 70% of the total equipment lost in combat by both sides, as it includes only fully-verified losses -- not every single captured or destroyed vehicle is pictured and documented.

Based on these estimates, Russia has lost nearly 1,300 tanks – an impressive 40% of its total operational tank fleet.

Which basically means that Russia can still fight on for quite some time without it's tank fleet being finished.

I think the basic flaw is this messaging of collapse. Yeah, it sells, get's attention, it gets hits, we know, but still...

Now Peter Zeihan is an interesting commentator that I follow, but basically his trick is playing the "America is AWESOME, Others are DOOMED!" card for years now. China is finished, Europe is finished, but the US is awesome!!! That's something Americans want to hear and sometimes, some Americans ought to listen to (who think utter doom is just around the corner). But that's basically his shtick. (So when Zeihan would be gloom and doom about the US, that is the canary bird dying in the coal mine moment.)

Yet how many years have there been this idea of that the European Union is finished? Or China is finished?

The fact is, country simply aren't finished. They can have a huge crisis, but they aren't finished. I think even Sri Lanka isn't finished. Even Somalia isn't finished, it seems to just hang on there... somehow. And actually, might be more than just hanging on.

Mogadishu in 2022, not the hellhole as portrayed:




So China's going to have a recession. Yep.

Wow.

And I can remember the time, not so long ago, that other planets outside our solar system were a theory, even if quite realistic one which the majority believed in.

How likely do you think this is? What are the major arguments for and against the idea of a simulation? Would you mind personally if it were? And do you think a simulation must be determined (programmed) or could it allow for free will (a sort of self coding open-simulation) ? — Benj96

Just think about a limited scenario: What if in this Forum there are only two people and you, @Benj96, are the other and the other one is just a frantic administrator using clever algorithms to create different kind of answers from so-called "other" people? Actually, nobody else than you can join into this forum.

Even in this more limited scenario, the above mentioned issues would take hold: So? What is your problem if it would be so? You won't meet us... likely you won't take the bus and notice the person sitting next to you is on the Philosophy Forum. As @180 Proof said above:

What difference would it make to our existence whether or not "we live in a simulation"? — 180 Proof

It’s very tedious. A single riot at the capitol is seen as an attack on democracy while years of political violence and persecution is met with a hand wave. — NOS4A2

Ummm.... which "years of political violence and persecution" are you referring and where? :chin:

The current Spanish PM seems to fit the male version of good looking. Seems that many times he got into positions as "replacement". And he came to be the party leader eight years ago.

Yet I have to say, the best female politicians are actually those who nobody thinks of being "female politicians", first and foremost, or women... or mothers. When it's their politics, good or bad, that is remembered, then that is true equility.

You are right! There is clearly a trend in selecting beautiful women. — javi2541997

And even if young beautiful women can be capable, they are just a few. Marin had been less than a year in a ministerial position (minister of transport) before being selected to be a prime minister and prior 4 years as a member of Parliament. Great, some might say. The video scandal might say something, but she has shown the political inexperience in other ways too. I would grade her as a mediocre+ politician, not a stellar one.

A lot of people resent attractive women for obvious reasons, and may even assume they are unable to do a good job because they are good looking. — Tom Storm

Actually those who pick young women aren't actually who one first think would be picking them. It's usually older women and older people who after being disappointed of their generations politicians want to pick a candidate from the younger generation. The average age of the members in Sanna Marin's party is over 70.

My first wife was a former model and super intelligent but she copped that prejudice all the time. — Tom Storm

Having been a model creates that stigma,unfortunately. Even (or maybe especially) for males too.

This reminds me of the first time a beautiful young woman MP was chosen to a ministerial position in the 1990's by the Centrist Party. As she had been a former Miss Finland beauty pageant, the press sneered just how well "she was coached" to respond to politics and ridiculed her. And of course the tabloid press had her firmly locked in the gossip pages. (And of course there were the gossips, she dated back then the current President of Finland, who was from another party). Yet in my view she looked just as competent as Sanna Marin. Actually it's said that the former Miss Finland wanted first to join the social democrats, but back then they turned her down. She was for 12 years a member of Parliament and now has gone away from the media limelight.

Everybody suffering from the gas and oil prices crisis and those politicians having fun... It is not correct to me. — javi2541997

Yeah, some feel that way. Yet I think a more pressing issue is that this administration is spending like crazy, trying to stimulate things when there is rampant inflation going on. Not a good policy I say. The issue is that when you don't have the best team possible to lead.

The ugly fact is that Sanna, as other Finnish female party leaders were put to the position because of their looks: they were somewhat young good looking women. It seems that there was a collective decision of "Let's have young good looking women!". Not porn stars like Cicciolina, which basically was an Italian protest vote. Yet that's the only reason why Finnish politicians suddenly are so popular. Just look at the party leaders before them:

Sanna Marin, current Social Democrat Party leader and prime minister:


Social Democrat party leader and former prime minister before Sanna Marin:


Green Party leader, current minister:


Green Party leader before her:


Centrist Party leader, finance minister (at start of Marin administration, replaced by another woman):


Centrist Party leader before, prior prime minister:


Leftist Alliance party leader, current minister:


Leftist Alliance party leader before the current leader:


Can anybody notice a trend here from the pictures? No?

I think you are misinterpreting some of what I'm trying to say. It isn't about the END OF CHINA but more about the END OF THE CURRENT WAY CHINA DOES THINGS. — dclements

What is likely going to happen is that the population of China will get a lot smaller.

Something what has happened to Japan.

Otherwise, China will survive ....somehow. But likely it will have this crisis just as the "Asian Tigers" had far earlier. And then it will recover. Assuming it won't go to war with the US.

An insightful and interesting interview with Jeffrey Sachs. I think Sachs puts the "doom & gloom" into a reasonable perspective.



As Sachs points out, Ukraine could easily see hyperinflation because of the war.

As the war against Russia enters its seventh month, Ukraine is stuck between a financial rock and a hard place as it seeks to stay afloat while fighting off Moscow's invading forces.

Tax revenues have plummeted due to an economy in free fall while military spending has skyrocketed, leaving the government facing a budget shortfall of $5 billion (€5.02 billion) per month.

To make up for the lack of cash, the country's central bank has effectively been printing money — buying government bonds to the tune of $7.7 billion over the past six months. The Financial Times reported that the printing presses effectively created $3.6 billion in June alone.

Inflation in Ukraine is now about 20% and is going to 30%. The Baltic States have endured high inflation too in the euro area:

It is interesting to see how the Ukrainian counterattack goes. The simple fact is that even with military aid they have gotten, they don't have enough resources for a full on Materialschlacht, a battle of attrition. Counterattacks sooner or later go into this.

Wow. Now that would be a dramatic move. But after this we haven't anything new about this, I guess.

I remember that Morocco offered cavalry to Finland during the Winter War. Yet the Moroccan cavalry didnt come to fight in snowy Finland.

Why should hatred be morally right? — baker

In some occasion, people do understand why someone would have this feeling.

If someone kills your family and other loved ones, is it morally wrong to hate a person for this action?

Heck, if you would say that hating Donald Trump is morally wrong, many here would disagree (I presume).

With something quantitative you get people doing quantitative measurement. That is something people simply do. You don't get just an answer of one action being more ethical than another, but just how much "more ethical" it is. And their obviously should be an agreement just what is more ethical than other.

Yet many times we simply just want to choose "the most ethical" option, which depends on many things, starting from our World view and our understanding of the issue at hand. Which may differ from others as many issues are very complex and the most ethical option can be under debate.