More importantly, what's your take? — jorndoe

Even if I consider myself a conservative, I will take the benefits of a welfare system to a system without it. The largest benefits are simply not measurable, like social cohesion, far more safety. That "happiness" that we are said to have in this country (see Finland tops world happiness ranking for 7th year in a row). Like the fact that criminals are those that really genuinely want to be criminals. The fact that there are no beggars in the streets (or if there are, they have flown from Romania here) and no panhandlers trying to make a swindle. That my 12-year old daughter is safe to walk in the city center to school and to her friends homes, which basically has the most crime in the Capital. Never underestimate, just how beneficial and awesome social cohesion in a society is.

Yes, there are also negative aspects. It is huge economic burden and someone like Elon Musk would see it as wasteful. First and foremost, once you are in "the system", apathy can really take over and you can simply get "institutionalized". Meaning that a person will look for work just for so much time. Yet when you give up, you really can give up: your won't find yourself living in the street as a hobo.

In this kind of system, a basic income might help, because otherwise you are constantly waiting for the next appointment with the social welfare employee, going on the next course or something. The universal income is not as dramatic as it sounds when you get already the assistance to having a home and the unemployment benefits perpetually, if you don't work. That adds up to an "universal income".

There's a story (that I've already told somewhere, but I'll repeat it) that a Finnish policeman I know told us about this alienation: consider you are young, but have never had a job. Then consider that your parents have never held a job. Then consider also that your grandparents have never held a job. This kind of situation isn't typical, it is the exception, but it is reality for some in Finland. How difficult, psychologically is it to then get into a work life from those surroundings? Because unemployment is still a stigma: you aren't capable enough, the World isn't made for you, stupid. It's for better people.

Financial crisis can hit individuals for rest of their lives. When we had our housing bubble/banking crisis and severe recession in the 1990's, 50 000 people from the construction sector got laid off and basically the majority worked never in their lives again. Never, straight to basically retirement. That can happen. Those people were forgotten, and it's a quite a high number as there were only 5 million people. As one person in the construction business said: a lot of the alcoholics got dumped away during that time.

Then there's the real question of time: OK, will you either live very modestly and have all the in World and be like a retired person, or will you use work a shitty job without that spare time and basically have a similar tight financial situation? Many will opt for the first option.

Because once you have that "career background", once you are a so-called professional, then it's far more easy. You can really decide which type of work you want, because many employers will want to hire you and you can simply change jobs, if you don't like it. The divide between those in the workforce and those in "the system" is huge. Perhaps not as huge as between the vagrant homeless person and the white-collar worker in the US, but still.

Ah. I don't think Fannie and Freddie caused the 2008 crisis, though. It was derivatives, right? — frank

It was a lot of things, a real witches brew. The derivatives were a major issue, but it was the entire structure of the US housing and lending market that led to the explosion of derivatives in the first place. You can add in the rating agencies too. But part of the reason that the ratings agencies, pension funds, etc. didn't worry as much as they should have is the idea of the implicit state backing for loans made by the parastatals. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is true that Freddie and Fannie went along with the excesses (I think both directors were fired), but great example of an totally reckless actor was Countrywide, which basically had it's business model based on perpetually rising housing prices and hence was a top provider of liar loans. But hey, during 1982 and 2003, the company shares got a 23 000% return.

Besides, the real damage of a housing bubble bursting is caused from the fact that robots don't make houses in China, it is builders that make them locally and hence the market have a huge impact on the local economy and in employment. If cryptocurrencies have a devastating crash, then the effect of the crash is limited to that market and the suckers that invested them. Yet buying a home is usually the largest investment a person or a family does: have problems with that and the effect on spending and consumption is huge. Hence the effects of housing bubble bursting are simply devastating for the economy. When there's a speculative housing bubble away and growing, the whole economy of a country looks to be just awesome. Until it isn't.

I think one real issue worth mentioning is just how differently the US government reacted to the financial crisis of 2008 than it acted to the Savings & Loans crisis decades earlier. Simply put it: when it was Wall Street itself, it was socialization of the losses rather than people going to jail (as in the S & L crisis).

So yes, it was a lot of things, but simply stating that it was government run banks makes a dubious argument as if the crisis would/could have been avoided without Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae, which btw officially aren't banks in the normal definition. Yet they are worth mentioning. also.

Of course, today it might be so that the assistance of private actors and corporations might be done totally covertly even without us knowing what is happening. The US is on it's way to functioning like a Third World country in this aspect. Would we know about it, if Tesla was assisted because of falling demand creating losses for the company?

We barely got to know that the whole financial system was on the verge of collapse back then.

But at least part of the 2008 financial crisis was due to the perverse incentives faced by massive government run banks, and America's student loan crisis shows how these sorts of problems are not easily dealt with. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Nope. It wasn't government run banks that made the 2008 financial crisis. Ninja-loans happened because of the twisted incentives in the market like the other reasons for the excessive mortgage lending (like MBS etc). A very classic speculative bubble.

There is zero chance that DOGE / Musk will go after United Health Care, et al. The sort of government spending that will be sacrificed are USAID, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, National Endowment for the Humanities. The Library of Congress? How many congressmen ever check out books there, anyway? Sell it to Amazon! — BC

Oh, those will surely go. But that won't do it. Sooner or later will come a hickup in the form of a crisis. US administrations just push it forward and hope a crisis doesn't happen on their watch.

The size of the national debt does concern me. I understand that deficit spending keeps the economy afloat, particularly, consumption.

people do consume a lot; I do my part. It's good for the economy. BUT if we wanted to tighten our belts and spend less on consumption and spend more on national debt reduction, where could we save a significant amount of money??? — BC

This will only happen through a crisis. And that crisis will happen through the markets, or as the classic political jargon is: the speculators did it and the (add here your enemy that you portray to be behind everything).

Some commentators say that Trump was freaked out by market reactions and agreed on a "30 day pause". The problem is that he cannot give up so easily his wacky ideas of tariffs. The possibility of a recession manufactured by Trump is very likely. And once the economy (US and global) is in recession, then the debt is even more problematic.

* * *

If the USAID is given to the State Department, perhaps the most destabilizing cut offs might be averted. If people think this is just bleeding heart liberals whining, not everything is DEI-nonsense, that Elon is celebrating from the shutdown:

US aid has also played a critical role in managing Al-Hol and Al-Roj camps in northeast Syria, which house over 46,000 displaced individuals—primarily women and children—from former Islamic State of Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) territories. Essential water and sanitation services managed by US-funded humanitarian staff were suddenly suspended, placing camp residents at greater risk of lack of access to safe drinking water, as well as water and vector-borne disease spread. Also alarming was the effect of the sudden pause on funding that contributes to the security and administrative management of major detention facilities holding close to ten thousand ISIS fighters in these areas, which raised concerns among counterterrorism officials about mass prison breaks and a potential ISIS resurgence.

So will Elon unintensionally help ISIS by not paying the prison guards? Syria is in a very precarious state now. These kinds of little issues are off the GOP-narrative, but small hickups like these can happen when you stop for 90 days the financing of absolutely everything. And although Ukraine likely denies it, this is hampering their war effort too, just as the last GOP halt did in the war.

Hope you get good treatment!

I think it has been discussed here earlier just why the US system is so expensive. It's when people's first contact to health care services is ER, which is the most costliest type of health care. The that the price of medication is through the roof for people (as the government isn't a huge buyer) and medication is advertized is something American and lastly that insurance companies are there to make a profit. They don't have obligations to handle part of the universal system without profit making as they do for example in Finland. Then there is inefficiency, which isn't so easy to get rid with a purge everything -mentality.

But that is not what is happening. This is like the US equivalent of Krystalnacht. — Wayfarer

That's why independent inspector generals would be a problem, as you said.

Can this be done, difficult as it is? Sure -- it just won't be done, in all likelihood. — BC

What in the WW2 example is usually forgotten is that huge change that happened of one spending totally ending, fighting the war, that opened another type of spending and demand. For example the US autoindustry stopped making cars for the public and transfered everything to making tanks actually earlier than Nazi Germany did such move! Private demand was curbed and limited, all that debt that people willingly bought war bonds went to military production of bombs and tanks. Which then totally ended once the war was over, and the millions in the armed forces went back to civilian life.

Nothing like that can happen here where the debt is basically there to uphold present consumption. And sooner or later DOGE has to look at where the actual government spending is, which isn't USAID.

Do we think that DOGE will go after enormously expensive health care spending, which first and foremost is expensive because corporations make profit from it?

What I think might bring Trump down is what I'm expecting him to deliver: an economic mess (if not catastrophe, and let's hope not). He still thinks, to this day, that the Chinese pay the American tarrifs on their exports and nobody can persuade him otherwise. He lives in an alternative reality, one devoid of fact, but the unfortunate thing is that tens of millions of people have decided to join him there. — Wayfarer

He will start to insist on the actions he talks about. No way to avoid that. This is why we will have the trade war. Rubio, clearly a normal Republican politician with a sane mind, will likely be pushed out at some time.

Let's look what actually has happened with Trump's idea of annexing Panama ...or more likely the Canal Zone.

Marco Rubio on his new job made his first trip to Panama:

PANAMA CITY, Feb 2 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday warned Panama's President Jose Raul Mulino that Washington will "take measures necessary" if Panama does not immediately take steps to end what President Donald Trump sees as China's influence and control over the Panama Canal.
Mulino, after the talks with the top U.S. diplomat in Panama City, signaled he would review agreements involving China and Chinese businesses, and announced further cooperation with the U.S. on migration, but reiterated that his country's sovereignty over the world's second busiest waterway is not up for discussion.

Here the MAGA-enthusiasts will declare victory of the Trump 4D-Chess of getting Panama to "review agreements involving China and Chinese businesses" and "announced further cooperation with the U.S. on migration" as obvious victories of the new US policy. Those are policies of a conventional Republican administration, unlike the possible annexation of the Canal Zone.

What they won't care about is that Panama's president reiterated that the "country's sovereignty over the world's second busiest waterway is not up for discussion". They won't understand that there's a price to pay for making someone do something by threatening their sovereignty. Above all, notice that Rubio didn't take up in any way what Trump was talking. Just read closely the Department of State brief about the meeting with Rubio and Mulino:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino and Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha today in Panama City to address critical regional and global challenges. Secretary Rubio informed President Mulino and Minister Martínez-Acha that President Trump has made a preliminary determination that the current position of influence and control of the Chinese Communist Party over the Panama Canal area is a threat to the canal and represents a violation of the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal. Secretary Rubio made clear that this status quo is unacceptable and that absent immediate changes, it would require the United States to take measures necessary to protect its rights under the Treaty.

Secretary Rubio also emphasized the importance of collaborative efforts to end the hemisphere’s illegal migration crisis and thanked President Mulino for his support of a joint repatriation program, which has reduced illegal migration through the Darien Gap. The Secretary underscored the desire for an improved investment climate and ensuring a level playing field for fair competition by U.S. firms. The Secretary also praised President Mulino’s regional leadership in support of a democratic, free Venezuela.

Secretary Rubio expressed his gratitude for the productive discussion and underscored the United States’ dedication to making both nations safer, stronger, and more prosperous. He noted this meeting marks an important step in reinvigorating the strategic relationship between the United States and Panama, in line with President Trump’s vision.

OK. Is the annexation of the Canal Zone even been spoken of? NO! Such absurd ludicrous issue is not mentioned here, and what is likely simply been dropped is the Panamian insistence, which likely was said, that they have sovereignty to their own territory.

It all might go under the radar for a while, but in the end it won't do. Trump cannot tolerate that there would be "the adults in the room" that would water down his effeorts. The idea that "oh well, Trump just blurts these things out to get attention" won't fly.

They clearly did. They wanted something similar, yet they also got a lot with that. Notably Trump and also Musk, which the latter they might not have anticipated.

And do you know that under Orban, Hungarian military has gone into Africa, into Chad specifically, perhaps to act like the Russian Africa Corps (ex-Wagner)? When typical domestic politics is boring, do something exciting!



For Orban reality set limits here. The Hungarian contingent is supposed to be from 200 to 400 strong for two years and is there to help the Chadian military (and perhaps get lucrative deals for Hungary, read Orban). That's as much as the puny Hungarian armed forces can do in another continent. But it tells something about the thinking of these people.

For Trump and Musk, what is the limit? So why not annex Greenland and Panama and talk about expanding the territory of the US? It's not so wild off, isn't it? What possible could go wrong? That Denmark would raise it's military spending to 5% to protect itself from ...whom? Equally with the DOGE, why think about contracts and Congress approved spending, when you can simply stop it on the weekend?

This is why the Republicans by becoming the loyalist MAGA party are pinning everything on Trump and Musk, and just can now observe what they are getting.

Anyone else? Surely there must be an alarm bell ringing somewhere about this? — Wayfarer

As I've stated again and again. Elon Musk will be the most hated man in the US in the future. You see, it will be alright for the South African born billionaire to be hated even by the Trump crowd, as God-Emperor Trump cannot do anything else than his genius blessed acts. But Elon can go. Because this won't end happily, really. The man is bouncing too hard here and there.

Let's start from the basics. Musk owns a very overvalued car manufacture. Somebody now buying a Tesla will make a clear political statement. And that is bad. This is the reason just why corporate leaders usually try stay out of the media limelight. And the demand for Tesla has started to plummet dramatically. As he hasn't at all put on hold his previous business life, the way that classical a business leaders like McNamara did when becoming the Defense minister, giving the fig leaf to being in a government position, he has painted himself a clear target. And what about then SpaceX? How about it now, if SpaceX suddenly wins contracts to build rockets to Mars? Will that bring the country together as the Apollo-missions did? Will that feel like the country getting together and showing what the nation can do or will it be something else. Just ask yourself.

What basically is happening in the US is what happened in Hungary. Basically one should learn what Victor Orban has achieved in Hungary, as that would be the objective of Trump.

Here's the problem. Trump is too much mesmerized with the tariffs. Don't think that he will leave it this, to 30 days and forget about them. Nope, this is just the start and the nasty EU hasn't even been bullied yet. Usually these things work when the response IS NOT things like Canadians booing during the singing US national anthem. And in the end there will be a trade war and this will cause inflation, the "pain" that Trump is now hinting. Now what does this have to do with Elon? Everything. As he will cut things, then when things get bad, they will likely have to give aid to otherwise collapsing industries or financial institutions. So likely the cuts in the larger picture won't happen.

I guess the thinking is to make a shock and awe multifaceted attack immediately on everything and then hope that by the midterms everything will look rosy again. But that's unlikely. Elon is just so intoxicated about power that he's going all over places, even into domestic politics of other countries. That shows a lack of focus and serious breach of respect, which is typical for a billionaire who for example started manufacturing flame throwers because he was bored. But getting entangled in British and German domestic politics? Yes, you will take the center stage in a fancy ball if ogle and grope the wives of others. At first the couples might be just taken back, but soon fists will fly. It is Elon that will be the lightning rod and will take the hits. After all, he isn't part of the administration and Trump won't do anything to help others. That's not Trump.

Interesting what the views would be in a year from now.

It seems to me that their small population is due to the fact that their ancestors were forcefully assimilated into the nation-states of Scandinavia, but I could be wrong. — Arcane Sandwich

You are wrong, at least in my opinion. The history wasn't like that. Believe or not, but Lapland was very much uninhabited and is still quite uninhabited. The population density is similar to Santa Cruz province in Argentina or to Alaska. The Sámi people have basically grown in size and actually the number of people speaking Sámi as mother tongue have increased.

The population of now Finnish Lapland in the year 1500 is estimated having been about 5000 and in 1830 about 20 000. Only in the 18th Century records of people started to be kept in Lapland. And actually the Swedish government banned Finnish migration from the south to Lapland until 1675, yet even then there were already Finns living in Lapland as Lappish people or Laplanders can be also a Finn (or Swede or Norwegian), not only Sámi. One cannot talk about colonization as for example in the Americas. Those that migrated to the area in the 17th Century had to get a permit from the Lappish villages to settle down or the land was bought or rented from then. Another way was through marriage. And the Lappish villages weren't only Sámi. Furthermore, there was no government project of "settling" Lapland, so the idea of similar attrocities as in America isn't a reality.

You say that as if it happened last Monday or something. — Arcane Sandwich

Well, the domestication of the reindeer happen in historic times, in the late Middle Ages. I think it was first the Norwegians that domesticated mountain reindeer. The Sámi adapted to this, but also other Lapplanders too. Usually domestication of wild animals, if you can call that about herds that freely walk around tundra, has happened far more earlier.

The classic picture of a Sámi with a reindeer in the tundra:

It doesn't seem that the issue here is about having white skin, blond hair and blue eyes. — Arcane Sandwich

Well, racist ideologies don't need any logic and there isn't logic. Europeans have been racist towards each other, not only other people.

The Sámi have a culture that has been deemed primitive or inferior in some sense, in relation to the modern nation states of Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc., which is why those countries carried out policies to assimilate them in a cultural sense. — Arcane Sandwich

Yes. Indeed those kind of ideas were popular during the era of nationalism and the classic racism that eugenics promoted. Wildly popular in Sweden. Yet in fact the opposite happened what you think. This made Sámi identity more evident. In 1917 there was held the first congress of the Sami people in Norway because of the actions of the Norwegian government. Similar "national consciousness" didn't rise in Finland then, because there wasn't much if any tensions between Sámi and other Lapplanders. Or there simple wasn't enough activists.

But note the time line here. All that talk of inferior people, the need for assimiliation and eugenics ended quite quickly after WW2. Eugenics and classic nationalism of the 19th Century went away in the Nordic countries quite quickly. Then in the 1960's and 1970's the governments have supported the Sámi culture and language. And why not, when you are talking about 10 000 people of whom 2 000 speak as a mother tongue Sámi language, it isn't a huge amount to sponsor Sámi culture and have a Sámi parliament of Finland. More like a tourist attraction nowdays when you have Europe's "only indigenous people" around.

Finnish president in the Sámi parliament:

Would it be fair to say that Norway and Sweden (and to a lesser extent, Finland) carried out fascist policies against the Sámi people? Maybe there's few native people today in Lapland because those are the ones that weren't forcefully assimilated. — Arcane Sandwich

Fascist? Again an awkward use of the term fascism. It's basically eugenics and racist ideas, not fascism. Sweden or Norway (or Finland) weren't fascist states.

And just what to you would be by "native people"? Compared to whom?

In America it's so different. You do have a divide between native Americans and all others. You have had a class divide by race thanks to the Spaniards, who were so racist that they made the children born in America to Spanish parents who had migrated from Spain, peninsulares, a lower caste, criollos. There's still a divide between the native population and those of basically European origin and it's really different. Some countries it's a bigger problem, some countries a lesser problem.

First of all, with the Sámi, we are talking about really a small group of people. In Finland there's only about 10 000 Sámi. That is a population of a small town. And about the genetics in Finland in general. Archeologists found this ancient village that was one of the earliest human settlements after the last Ice Age in Finland. When they looked at the geneology of the ancient people and compared them to the local people now living there, it was such a perfect match that they could say with high probability that likely the current folk living in the area were descendants of these ancient dwellers. Another example, which is actually quite common, I remember my parents summer cottage in Middle Finland had a farm as a neighbor. The farm had been owned by one family since the time Columbus found America. Unfortunately the Church books went only so far (to the late 15th Century), so likely the family could have been there for longer time.

Hence the idea of one group being indigenous and another not is a bit confusing, when basically these migrations happened thousands of years ago. Sámi became reindeer herders only in the Middle Ages.

But yes, the Sámi activists have to adapt to the dominant narrative of the indigenous/native people being the victims of the "white colonizers", because that's the only narrative which people use about these issues. Hence you end up with totally white Europeans calling other white Europeans "whities" and having to claim they aren't so white. Bit awkward when you have pale skin, blue eyes and blond hair.

For 30 days. Time for companies to start looking at ways to evade tariffs, if they hadn't thought that Trump is serious...

And US steel producers ready to higher prices to match the price of imported steel. Yes, that's the way!!!

and look how that has turned out. — NOS4A2

Yeah. Peace with Israel has continued without Islamists taking over. So?

Or you think it would be better to have Egypt as a failed state too, something equivalent of Syria? Btw, I think Egypt is one country that was off the aid cutting bloc (if I remember correctly).

Sure, I'm not a fan of the institutionalised aid given by rich countries to poor ones. There's a lot of negative aspects. Starting from the fact that aid doesn't usual give the growth. But all of it? Not all has been a just lost cause. Things like famines have become far more rare in Africa.

Africa is the last place that has large famines. Ok if those become larger?



How about Central and South America? And of course one might ask, you think the security of the US or Canada (that's where you live) is going to better with more nations going into such a dire state as Haiti?

He sure did. — NOS4A2

What role does Canada play in the U.S. fentanyl supply?

Almost none. In its fact sheet, the Trump administration says Canada has a "growing footprint" in narcotics distribution with Mexican cartels active in the country. But law enforcement and drug policy experts agree that Canada plays a minimal role in fentanyl smuggling into the U.S.

(See here)

Seems more of an excuse, because Canada likely isn't cheating in trade as China. Hope the Canada, Mexico and the EU make a coordinated stance against Trump's trade war. But in the end, it's the Americans themselves that have to pay the price.

It's going to be as chaotic like this. This is 100% Trump. Simply US soft power and role is going to demolish. How on Earth will they (DOGE) look over thousands of projects and decide what is OK and what is not? As I've stated, Elon Musk will be the most hated person after a year of this as likely even Trump loyalists will vent their anger at him.

Imagine the predicament of those staffers, many of whom have dedicated their lives to the welfare of their recipient states and nations, who's entire careers are now being ended under the MAGA jackboots. — Wayfarer

Imagine the actual consequences in Africa and the Middle East. So you stop vaccination programs in Afrinca? Ok. Any thought about the consequences on that? So you basically stop the education department in Jordan? Ok. If people don't know, the US supports directly the Jordanian government:

The new MOU is subdivided into four baskets of funds, including $610 million in Economic
Support Funds (ESF) for direct U.S. budget support for the Jordanian government—the most of any country worldwide; $400 million in Foreign Military Funds (FMF) for Jordanian Armed
Forces to procure U.S. equipment; $350 million in ESF for USAID programming; and $75
million in “incentive” ESF to support Jordanian economic and public sector reforms.

Next in line is the chaos at the FBI, which will be emasculated.

And for this trade war, that likely will result in a global recession, is as bonkers as US taking Panama or Greenland.

A rational response for Mexico, Canada and the EU would to gang up on the US, try to compensate for the loss of US trade with encouraging trade between themselves.

Even if the trade war and domestic chaos will engulf the Trump administrations time and Trump will just move on from the Greenland annexation dreams (hopefully), the rift has already happened. European politicians have to take seriously Trump's comments about Greenland. What it does to the alliance, when the US wants to annex territory from a very loyal ally that already gives the US free usage and bases in Greenland is really something nobody wants to discuss. But the first thing is obvious: do not rely on the US. Hence if Europe really will spend more on defense, it will do it focusing on creating it's own military industrial complex like France.

The French model can prevail:


I think it's worse for Panama. There Trump really could at least take control of the Panama Canal Zone. I'm thinking starting a thread about it.

A bit off the topic, but Swedes had similar policies. I think we Finns didn't, because we were looked down upon as Mongols by the Swedish racists of the 19th and early 20th Century. But that's history... a lot changed in Europe after the demise of the Third Reich, as you know.

What is hilarious in the present discourse only accepts the American juxtaposition of natives against white "colonial" thinking in how that doesn't fit to the Sámi. The Sámi look exactly like Finns, you wouldn't at all in any way differ them from Finns. The Sámi have their large share of blue eyed and blonds so it ridiculous for them to have to talk about Finns "whites". And the "clash" between the Finns and the Sámi happened I guess in Antiquity when there simply was no Finnish country (as Finnish tribes fought each other until the Middle Ages), so the idea of native people/colonizers is funny in the case of Lapland. And the Sami as actually so few here, far less than people in Greenland.

I think that we are talking about autocracy and totalitarianism rather than just fascism. Totalitarianism would be more useful than the just fascism. Yet since obviously the US on the way to socialism, not at least yet (let's see what the counterforce is to the Trump presidency), the oligarchs in the government along Trump's family will have now the power.

Are you expecting me to defend Maduro? I'm not quite getting what it is that you expect from me. — Arcane Sandwich

Lol. Nope, hopefully not. And those smart lefties here on this forum won't defend the Soviet Union or Marxism-Leninism either. They might be not as hostile and will note some positive aspects, but in general they do use their brains and don't just loyally support something religiously.

So there's no such thing as left-wing populism, in your view? It's always right-wing populism? — Arcane Sandwich

Oh no! On the contrary. Read some Lenin and you can see the populist elements in bolshevism and in Marxism-Leninism. Imperial Russia wasn't obviously a democracy, but right from the start democracy wasn't something that the leftist revolutionaries had in mind. After all, the dictatorship of the Proletariat isn't in any way "democratic" with it's class enemies and violent revolution against the capitalists.

Or are you saying that both left-wing and right-wing populisms lead to fascism? — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, it can lead. Best example of left-wing populism is Venezuela. Would that be a fascist state? Democracy isn't working there. But hey! Maduro is happily taking back Venezuelan illegals from the US and Venezuelan oil isn't under the Trump tariffs (yet).

The second development is Trump's demands for a list of all the FBI agents that worked on the Jan 6th insurrection and stolen documents cases. It seems many hundreds or even thousands of individuals could be fired or demoted for doing their jobs, following the exoneration pardoning of hundreds of insurrectionist police-bashers. — Wayfarer

Kash Patel in his confirmation hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee naturally had no idea of the insurrectionist that had pleaded guilty and now were pardoned. And simply wouldn't reply on who he will be going after. But if he gets to be the FBI director, nobody will be as loyal and a willing bulldog for Trump. Until when Trump is disappointed at him when he cannot give everything Trump wants.

Indeed. The fascist appeals to the irrational sentiments of his followers. He riles them up with vitriolic rhetoric about some other group of people who, for some reason, must take the blame for every key societal problem. — Arcane Sandwich

And here's why populism leads to fascism: by emphasizing the divide between the rulers and the "ordinary people" and stating that key societal problems are because of the rulers, populism can easily descend into fascism as populism embraces strong leaders, wants to take the power away form the real or many times imagined "elite" and replace it with the movements followers, who will follow their leader. Above all, fascism opposes democracy and democratic system where decisions have to be negotiated with other political factions. It sees democracy as the reason for corruption. Also this leads to a command economy, because the leader has to be in charge of everything.

Hell with all USAID? Well good that a 45 million program out of 42,5 billion was found out, but I guess all of them can go when you can cheer for 0,001% waste in Burma. At least the 100 countries or so that do have USAID projects ought to learn how untrustworthy the US is. Countries like Jordan will find it now the hard way on what it means to be dependent on the US as an "ally". But that's just positive to Trump, perhaps he can now pressure Jordan more for assist in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians out of Gaza. Nevermind that Jordan has been one key ally in the Middle East and has US bases and for example took 1 million refugees from Syria. Or the other border for Israel that has been peaceful.

But anyway, Trump trade wars are starting, so good luck with the effects of those. Could we later then talk of Trump layoffs in US factories that have been dependent on the integrated commerce between the US and Canada and Mexico? How this wouldn't end up in inflation, I don't know.

And firing of 15 inspector generals? Inspector general ought to be really independent, but once it's the Trump administration, there's the possibility of them not being so independent. Adam Schiff remarked on this too:

Schiff pushed back on that notion, warning that “if we don’t have good and independent inspector generals, we are going to see a swamp refill.”

He added, “It may be the president’s goal here ... to remove anyone that’s going to call the public attention to his malfeasance.”

Only if it's a realistic possibility, which it isn't. The US and Europe are and never were going to risk WW3 over Ukraine. — Tzeentch

What do you know, nuclear deterrence works.

Supplying arms to one side isn't going to war. Never has been. And that supplying arms has been the issue. For the 582 pages, if you have not noticed.

:100: :up:

With the realism you argue for, Finland never would have made it against the Soviet Union. We would have suffered the part like the Baltic States, that accepted "diplomacy". And luckily the Ukrainians have understood to defend their country and not surrender, which some "realists" have long argued for.

Actual realism is that Putin will accept a negotiated peace/ceasefire if he faces a real possibility of military defeat. Nothing else.

Unfortunately it’s very much different, Jews can hold Samaria, Judea and Jerusalem their “native” land given their culturale heritage. — neomac

All I'm saying that this is quite similar as many other reasons given for conflicts. I agree that it's totally unfruitful to ponder who is right and wrong. The fact is that Jews moved into Israel and established their state on a former British mandate that earlier was part of the Ottoman Empire. That there is no will (on both sides, I guess) to assimilate the population that lived there causes a problem.

This conflict could have ended as the Cold War ended in a negotiated peace, but it didn't. And now it is extremely unlikely.

That the US is an integral part of the conflict (as an ally of Israel) and Arab countries and later Iran has made the conflict a question for themselves doesn't help.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about conflicting claims over the same “native” land, re-location of people and colonization. — neomac

It really isn't so different. It's just marketed as such.

Do notice that Israel has expanded the jewish colonies in order to make more clear that the land is in doubt. If Stalin transferred native populations away from their homelands to Siberia, he also transferred Russians into these conquered territories. Hence the Russian minorities in the Baltic States haven't happened because of only voluntary work related migration. This can be seen from the fact that Finland was over a hundred years part of the Russian Empire, yet it has only a small minority of Russian Finns (about 1,7% of the whole population) as the Grand Dutchy didn't experience Russification. Hence this is a similar phenomenon happening here as obviously Israel's justification for territory would be dubious if no Jewish settlers would live there.

Hope you're right. But he could do a lot less than the most dire, and still be dire. Consider what is within his power, a misjudgement in an international economic or military crisis could be *extremely* dire. — Wayfarer

Of course. And the real issue perhaps is how not only does the "Overton Window" of what is acceptable change, a lot of policies can have a surprising effect. When Trump declares that he wants to increase the territory of the US and doesn't rule out military action either in Panama or against an ally, this can have the effect that it undermines the whole internationally based order system and the UN charter. Might makes right is the outcome, if the international order based structures fall.

This might be the real negative aspect of Trump's populism, not something that directly happens by Trump's actions, but indirectly happens. When it becomes OK to annex territories, you can sure that many countries will follow suit and won't try to apply silk gloves as earlier (like Morocco). Ruanda's actions in DRC seem to be an example of this.

At least Trump does react to polls and his supporters, so a lot that Trump has promised to do won't happen. Also the courts will defy his most insane ideas. Is a 30 000 person camp possible? Yes, but it goes well below of housing hundreds of thousands or even millions. The sheer scale needed and the huge effort to organize such mass transit simply isn't possible for Trump as he lacks the determination and ability to that. Trump is a demagogue, not a leader capable of organizing huge amounts of people to work in a coordinated way.

This also means that the most dire fears about Trump aren't realistic.

He hates Government, and he's in an ideal place to disable it. — Wayfarer

As he is the head of the executive branch, I guess that is called self-loathing then.

I get it; you don't want to believe that this is the case. It would be too ugly. Many of the 10/7 victims living on those kibbutzim on the border felt the same. We can see the world how we want to, or how it is. — BitconnectCarlos

I guess that the reasoning of remember 10/7 will have the lifespan as 9/11 was the reason for intervening everywhere. About two decades at most.

For you it's just the reasoning you need for your own stance. Next obvious question that you totally ignore is "how". The simply fact is that Hamas and PLO simply cannot destroy the IDF even theoretically, which just makes this argument nonsense. But just as the stance that there's nobody to negotiate with, that Palestinians just want to kill every Jew they can, will reassure your own justifications.

I'm only holding the view that there isn't a possibility for a negotiated peace and the current Israeli government thinks that in the long term a military solution can be achieved and the price that Israel would have to pay will be minimal.

And while we can invoke national self-determination and statehood to counter imperial ambitions (see Soviet Union and Russia), we can’t do the same when national self-determination and statehood can be achieved only at the expense of other people’s national self-determination and statehood like in Rwanda, Azerbaijan, Yugoslavia. That’s the impasse I was talking about and the reason why the cycle of violence can easily re-emerge, escalate and get vicious. — neomac

I'm not following your reasoning here at all. It doesn't make any sense.

First of all, any secessionist movement where one people get independence from another is a loss to the previous state, be it Imperial Russia, Yugoslavia or Sweden (with Norway). The former state loses territory and citizens to the new state, whatever kind of state it is. Yet states and countries have the ability to be in peace afterwards. The violent nationalism and jingoism can be put aside and relations be improved, even after a war. Norwegians and Swedes come along well, even if Sweden fought it's last war against Norway, which in turn got it's independence from Sweden with a popular vote. (Notice that Norway has been part of both Sweden and Denmark.)

The obvious fact is that Palestinians already have accepted the loss of pre-1967 territories and hold on to the UN ruling about the conquered territories during the Six Day war. The Oslo peace process was about dividing this remaining part of Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, to form a Palestinian state. But now that is out of the question. So I don't understand at all your idea here.

Or then you take granted the Israeli propaganda that there cannot be peace as Palestinians and Arabs will simply want to throw them into the sea and abolish the Israeli state. And any Palestinian state, how small or large, will continue this.

The whole Israeli objective is to make living unbearable and basically impossible in Gaza. As long as Israel's trading partners don't be upset about it as long there is no media outrage. I think that's the way the final solution for the Palestinians is implemented.

I think quite a few Gazans would choose to leave voluntarily if it were purely their own decision and they were promised stability elsewhere. — BitconnectCarlos

They likely would want to come to the US. Still you can "become" American, even if Trump is making a great effort to stop that idea and go with the more traditional nativity. Many of them would even go along with the idea that they would be now Americans and not anymore just Palestinians.

Let’s not shift from “sending hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in different neighbouring charitable and brotherly muslim-arab countries” to “forced removal of people”, — neomac

Neomac, that is the issue here.

When have Palestinian refugees that have fled had the ability to come back?

Never.

Not after 1948, not after 1967. Hence it is simply ridiculous to assume that "Simply move the people away while the place is refurbished". It's not a naive idea, it's an astoundingly stupid, ignorant idea. Besides, if this would really would be so "temporary", then have the Palestinian camp inside Israel, built in the Negev. There's vacant room there.

Appeal to national self-determination and national statehood historically emerged and worked better at time of empires. But neither Palestine nor Israel (however shaped as a colonialist project in modern times) are empires. That’s also why comparisons to Stalin’s Russia (which actually deported Crimean Tatars) or Putin’s Russia (which actually deported Ukrainians), both motivated by imperialist ambitions, aren’t as compelling as you think. — neomac

Lol.

Ruanda isn't an Empire. And Azerbaijan isn't an empire and neither is Burma. Yugoslavia wasn't an emprie, but killing people and cleansing the "unwanted people" away has happened in them. This isn't just done on imperial motives. So it's your argument that isn't at all compelling.

If people are treated as second rate citizens with different laws than the ruling people and these want to have an independent state, then it's a fundamental problem for the society and it just doesn't go away easily. And anyway, Palestinians and Israelis aren't talking anymore or trying to find a peaceful solution. They only are able to have a periodic cease-fire.

Are there more desirable outcomes? — neomac

If both sides would want genuine peace, yes. But they don't. The Likud wants a victory over the Palestinians, Israel being from the river to the sea without any Palestinian entity between it. And they believe that they are succeeding in this. And why not. There seem to be no actual negative things for this as Bibi only needs Trump's ear. Europe doesn't matter at all and China isn't interested.

The so called "Oslo Peace process" was an oddity of a moment that won't come back. Those Israeli politicians that attempted a peace aren't getting back to power. Or then Bibi would have to fail again miserably. What we are seeing is moderate Israelis leaving the country and the previously secular Israel changing to a more religious country. And of course Israel's actions don't make it any easier for a Palestinian "moderate" to surface.

"More than two-thirds of U.S. crop workers are foreign born, according to the USDA. Many of them came to the country through the H-2A visas, but officials estimate that 42% of the workers are undocumented migrants." -- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-deportation-plan-effects-undocumented-farmers/

So the cost of harvesting will increase, and some may not get harvested at all. — Relativist

These kind of statistics were given and noticed in Brexit, btw, when people started looking at what the Poles and other EU-citizens were doing in the UK.

And yes, you will get problems with these kind of policies. Or then the Trump administration will fail in it's policy. And that can very well happen. Remember the wall that Mexico would pay for?

As I've said, Americans will have their own version of BREXIT-type economy under Trump, if he goes through with the deportations. It's simply math.

What is helpful for Ukraine is new technology that has given it the chance to hit back at Russia in a way before only was possible if you could have a strategic air arm and had at least partial air supremacy.



What is encouraging is that Ukraine is becoming very good at this old-new form of unmanned air war and a home-grown industry is taking shape.

Anyone suggesting that forced removal of people from where they have always lived is practical, or a great solution, should then be ready to take those people themselves. Forced removal of people where they have always lived is a vicious, hateful idea that shows how unethical or lacking moral character a person is. Refugees are given sanctuary with the idea of them being really refugees, people that go back from where they fled once there's peace. Migrants are tolerated, if they bring something to the economy. Forced transfer people aren't refugees or migrants, because they have not opted to do this in any way voluntary. It was a hideous thing for Stalin to do and would be a similar thing now for us to do or to accept. It seems that we are just racing to lower our ethical standards. No wonder values of the Enlightenment are under attack in the West.

If you desperately want to instantiate and aide the religious extremists in Israel in their dream of creating an Israel only for the Jews, then do their dirty work and assist them by opening your home to those people forced out from their homeland. Be the willing henchman yourself. Do not imagine that the forced transfer wouldn't be wrong, or that someone else would happily assist in this. After all,

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

That Egypt and Jordan are totally against these ideas is clearly understandable.



Of course, the extremist Smotrich welcomes Trump's idea. Why not, Trump gives credence to their ideas of a "final solution" for the Palestinian question.

(Alarabiya News/AFP)Far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on Sunday welcomed US President Donald Trump’s idea to “clean out” Gaza by relocating Palestinian residents of the territory to Egypt and Jordan.

This has come up before. There are categories in my own subject of complex analysis, but in order to work with them you need a solid background of complex analysis at the beginning grad level. — jgill

I remember someone saying that basically set theory was first seen as a way to finally solve the problematic nature of analysis.

Category theory seems to be more a graduate school offering, whereas set theory can be presented at a much lower level. However, "New Math" of the 1960s and 1970s flopped when this was tried. Feynman was very critical of the effort. — jgill

I was a casualty of this "New Math" myself: on first grade they really started with set theory and believe me, for a first grader, it was indeed confusing. The old style with relating numbers to pieces of apples and toy cars with addition and substraction was far more understandable. I only remember how confusing "union of sets", "set substraction" and "intersection" was back then, because the teacher didn't give us any hint that somehow this was related to the old school addition and substraction. I also remember my grandfather and grandmother, both math teachers from my mother's side, having this negative attitude towards the new thing and talking with my parents and my other grandmother, that this is too difficult for a first grader.

Well, when you actually very easily get to "problems" like Hilbert Hotel and can discuss on a Philosophy Forum endlessly the basics of set theory (and the foundations of mathematics), it's no wonder just why "New Math" didn't meet the challenge.

As I studied in the Social Sciences Faculty in the university, I remember this math course what you could basically call a "Getting social science majors up to university-level math, because the school system has failed in this" -course. Or at least the teacher spoke about it so nearly every lecture. One of the best math courses ever that I took, actually. I remember how frustrated the math teacher was every time when some thing in mathematics was "just agreed upon to be so by an international convention" without any actual proof. He could just feel all the young social science majors thinking what on Earth is happening here. I remember just how many of these "agreements" there were in mathematics. Basically there is a huge gap between high school math and then university/graduate level mathematics.

I agree it's an undesirable situation. Unrestricted borders would be too big of a security risk for Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel's basic paradox is that it would need a strong state capable of defending it's territory (as Egypt and Jordan) in order for there to be peace. These two countries can keep non-state actors out. Lebanon is a perfect example of a weak state incapable of controlling it's borders. Yet as there is no trust or faith in the other side, this won't happen. A Palestinian state capable of controlling it's borders would also present a threat to Israel. Hence it looks like present administration Israel wants to go for some kind of a "final solution" option in the long term.

I like this. However, category theory - which includes categories of sets - an outgrowth of algebraic topology and what ever else of similar abstraction seem to have gotten into the game. — jgill

Category theory would be the philosophers companion here, but uh... we haven't been trained in category theory in school or in the university. That is really something lacking!

But if Palestinians (not Hamas, Palestinians) are destabilising for Jordan and Egypt despite being mostly all charitable arab-muslim brothers, then it shouldn’t be hard to understand that Palestinians ruled by Hamas can be destabilising for Israel, right? — neomac

Your enemy in a conflict is naturally destabilizing. How could it be something else, because it's your enemy?

Yet you can see the obvious problem with let's say with the PLO and Jordan. Yes, King Hussein did give them sanctuary. But having a large independent armed force (or separate forces) in a little country isn't something very secure. The whole thing ended up with Black September, or what sometimes is called Jordanian Civil War. This event from history should be remembered, when people just assume that other Arab states should happily bare the burden of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Worth watching, if one isn't familiar with Jordanian and Palestinian history:

"Palestinianism" is nothing but a front for the expansion of Islam. An identity built purely on revanchism. — BitconnectCarlos

I disagree. The PLO doesn't have it's roots in Islamism, as Hamas has. As the area had been part of the Ottoman Empire, with the exception of Egypt, there hadn't existed Lebanon, Syria or Jordan as we now know these countries now. But this isn't at all some kind of refutation. Just as there hadn't been an independent state called Finland, that doesn't mean that there hadn't existed Finns. And anyway, I despise people who talk about "the artificiality" of any people compared to others, when millions of people do relate being of a nationality. Usually these people have very dubious incentives for this strange argumentation.

Palestinian identity has basically emerged from the conflict itself. These aren't citizens of Egypt or citizens of Jordan. They aren't Lebanese or Syrian either. Even when it was Jordan holding the West Bank until 1967, even then the country had to maneuver tightly on the international stage. And of course in the 1948 the neighboring Arab states weren't defending the Palestinians, but trying to carve up the former British Mandate.

Regarding different laws, all Israeli citizens have the same laws. But yes, Palestinians under the PA or Hamas will have their own laws. ↪ssu — BitconnectCarlos

And here lies the absurdity of the situation: you are referring to PA and Palestinians under Hamas, but then again would they have then their independent statehood? No. Hence they aren't the responsibility of Israel, but then they cannot be responsable in the way a sovereign state is of it's borders. And in the era of Trump, just shove them somewhere else.

I’d question the idea that failed diplomacy is always due to stupidity or irrationality. People’s interests are shaped by emotions, power dynamics, and values not just logic. Even when opinions and interests seem irreconcilable, there are often ways to avoid war if both sides are willing to make concessions. The challenge is that compromise often feels like a loss, which is why diplomacy sometimes falters. — ZisKnow

Clausewitz looks at war from the perspectives of nations states, but there's the notion of war as a civil war, which is a rather different kind of monster.

Civil wars can happen when the society simply breaks up and cannot take care of it's members as before. If someone can come up with a civil war erupting in a state where the economy was great and people prosperous, please tell me, because I don't know of such a civil war except for perhaps on exception (and likely here I'm showing my ignorance). The exception that comes to my mind is the American Civil War, where at least to history economical hardship wasn't the reason for the war. But here I can be wrong.

@Maw made that remark six years ago, so at least for me the link is saying "not found". Yeah, not everything stays in the net. And Scruton died five years ago. I would assume that Scruton as a traditional conservative wouldn't be so enthusiastic about the state of conservatism today, anyway.

Sad that conservatives like Scruton seem to be a dying breed.