Paris is Experiencing Violent Economic Protests, Meanwhile in London some protesters chant "We want Trump!"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Mar 11, 2004
23,073
5,552
146
Even if the Germans literally all became Nazis (again) what people in the US consider "left" or "socialism" wouldn't be gone, it would probably be intensified. The popularly desired economic solutions really haven't changed all that much in decades. Zinfamous has an excellent point about Russian manipulation seeking to, effectively, turn countries inward against themselves by turning cracks into chasms virturally. I would however argue that Putin has only benefitted modestly from this strategy since (almost) everybody hates/distrusts Russia now and sanctions have done nothing but increase.

Russia hasn't seen much if any real benefit because yeah their antics have tended to blow up in their faces (and then the corrupt people running the government stealing their money, and putting a lot of the rest of it to trying to prop up their military). Putin himself has massively profited from it though (last I recall, they estimated he was by far the wealthiest individual in the world, with over $200 billion, and that was a few years ago, I doubt he's cut how much he's fleecing the Russian people in the time since). There's still no real movement to do anything about the massive amount of dark money that the corrupt wealthy have flowing, and that's also exactly why Putin is doing all this stuff, as creating chaos prevents meaningful reform from happening.

Hard to get too excited about what roughly half of Britain thinks about anything....they've make their own shit bed to lie in with Brexit. Those that voted for it only want Trump because he may actually be less bad than the people who fought for Brexit LOL!

Indeed. Nah, they want Turmp because he's unapologetic for being such a massive bigot, whereas the British politicians tend towards not being as brazen and trying to couch it in a more respectable manner. They know he's a slimier piece of shit than their own politicians, and that's why he appeals to them.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,963
136
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/11/gilets-jaunes-emmanuel-macron-french-rebels

The key bit being

A 25-point gilet jaune manifesto circulated last week. The manifesto is “unofficial” but mirrors the jumble of statist and non-statist ideas that win viral support on yellow vest “anger” groups on the internet. A halving of all taxes; massive new spending on rural areas and suburbs; a 40% increase in the minimum wage and welfare payments; the repudiation of the national debt; departure from the European Union and Nato; popular referendums for all laws; and tough restrictions on migration.

Personally I think this is the consequence of socialism failing as a positive project, while capitalism continues to vindicate many of the bad things socialists said about it. What is scary to me is that a confused mixture of left-and-right anger seems historically to be what leads to fascism. It also, to me, shows how national historical contexts lead to different responses from the angry (I don't see Trumpists demanding increased spending on welfare, and I think it's the US history with race that explains that).

I also think that the tendency to blame all these (global) developments on an all-powerful Putin is a bit of a comforting illusion. It's deeper than that.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,073
5,552
146
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/11/gilets-jaunes-emmanuel-macron-french-rebels

The key bit being



Personally I think this is the consequence of socialism failing as a positive project, while capitalism continues to vindicate many of the bad things socialists said about it. What is scary to me is that a confused mixture of left-and-right anger seems historically to be what leads to fascism. It also, to me, shows how national historical contexts lead to different responses from the angry (I don't see Trumpists demanding increased spending on welfare, and I think it's the US history with race that explains that).

I also think that the tendency to blame all these (global) developments on an all-powerful Putin is a bit of a comforting illusion. It's deeper than that.

No idea where you're getting that? How is it socialism failing, let alone vindicating capitalism? That's straight up nonsense considering that America, supposedly the most capitalist major society, was suffering through that exact situation before then (which, uh, I take it you're forgetting that nearly collapsed and that it nearly sent the rest of the worlds' economies spiraling similarly? Plus that being the primary driving force for why there has been so much anger to exploit?). Arguably the US has been dealing with that for about a decade as conservative groups have been trying to push similar shit ever since the recession (by that I mean, they had full on active campaigns to try and exploit, beyond the divisive rhetoric they'd been pushing). Have you completely forgotten about the Tea Party? Sure it might sound different from the French situation, and it is, somewhat, mostly because France just has more political extremists (always have, it seems to inherently be an aspect to their culture), and then they also have a more sizeable group of anarchists. But don't forget the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street seemed to be pushing for similar goals, or rather the Tea Party tried to claim they did in order to prop themselves up (but that quickly unraveled when it was revealed to be a sham and in fact be an old school conservative ploy wherein it transitioned into basically just being another PAC).

That you see that, and ignore the blatant parallels (same thing happened in Israel, then the UK, then America, now its happening elsewhere in Europe) is just baffling. Its blatantly similar, to the point that you'd have to be blind to not see it.

First, I don't think people are doing that. The only people I know actually saying that, are the right wing morons trying to claim that's how the people calling them out are, so they can try to paint people seeing their (conservatives) lead role in all of this as crazy. The other thing is, it really wasn't deeper than Putin/Russian manipulation that has triggered all of this. Now, absolutely it is deeper, in that they're merely exploiting things that were already issues (in fact most of that stuff is always an issue, even in good times), but he's magnifying them, and then targeting the extreme views/people to make things more chaotic, which will just fuel itself.

Its not "all powerful Putin", its just that they've been able to access and exploit shit that groups in those places were already trying to exploit for their own gain. Especially on the conservative side. People have wondered why there hasn't been the big reveal from all the conservative hacks, its because they're in cahoots with and have been exploiting the resources that conservatives built (stuff like the NRA, Cambridge Analytica, etc, that was all conservative shit, and the Russians buddied up to them to exploit it, they basically just found a way to actually make them effective where the conservatives on their own were not). The other thing is that, Putin/Russia's government are very conservative to the point of pretty much being full on fascists, which is why all these situations are all the more stupid, as Conservatives all over are blatantly lying and just going "we're not being this way its the ____ that are". Russians have been saying "we're not fascists, we're super anti-fascists" and then pointing back to WWII and the Nazis attacking them yet conservatives chose to go "yeah, that checks out" because they're idiots. The Soviet Union were fascists too. And just like American conservatives are using the immigrant boogeymen, Putin has been using Nazis. Its ridiculously transparent bullshit but people have been falling for it because they're so pissed off about other shit they're blinding themselves to what's been going on.

So yes, it is deeper than just Putin directing some social media campaigns and hacking, with that serving just as the match that lit these fires properly. Honestly, I doubt Putin even imagined it would be as effective as it has been, and yes it was because all of those societies had been deliberately refusing to address a lot of those issues and because we had a huge near cataclysm which as left a lot of lingering emotions while we're also trying to address many other issues (health care, discrimination/bigotry, and tons of others), and that was the actual fuel of the fire. I don't think Putin is some grandmaster overseer (honestly, he's a shrewd but often ridiculously stupid, like insisting on showing off new military hardware during his parades, when that hardware isn't actually working right, so it breaks down in the middle of the parade, or letting his military help the undertrained idiots they were trying to help shoot down a passenger jet with a Russian anti-aircraft missile; or trying to do a show of force only for their aircraft carrier to catch fire and have to be towed to port), he basically just decided to use some old Soviet tactics from his old KGB days to try to enrich himself, and because of societal issues, it ignited into a much bigger thing, and then he's just made moves to exploit situations as they arose. He got pretty lucky a lot (because seriously him and the Russians are bumbling dumbshits themselves). But its like Turmp. There's enough corrupt assholes who will help them, and there's enough idiots that will support them, that they can be effective in spit of themselves.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,963
136

Much of your post seems to be based on wildly mis-reading my first sentence! Read it again, perhaps?

But the great stress put on Putin's actions (and I don't deny his regime plays a role, along with his allies across the globe) does often look excessive, and sometimes comes across as a defence mechanism for "centrists" who don't want to acknowldge the real problem (because they are part of it, having been the smiling face of neo-liberalism for a long time).
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,963
136
Meanwhile, this is like an Onion story - President insists he's not a President of the rich, while sitting behind his gold desk in his gold room next to his gold cockerel.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...f-the-rich-speech-elysee-palace-gilets-jaunes

Thank God I live in the UK, with our 'strong and stable' government. Good job we dodged the 'coaltion of chaos'. Had a narrow escape there. [that's sarcasm, by the way...normally would be obvious but just realised Trumpians say that sort of thing literally.]
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,963
136
I guess the way I see it is capitalism is massively unstable (due to it's lack of fairness, in part). But socialism leads to economic stagnation. The ever-present danger is that we'll therefore end up with fascism instead. I'm personally inclined to push for socialism even though I don't, intellectually, think it will work (and my heart isn't really in it), simply in the interests of maintaining an unstable equilibrium in the middle. It was fear of socialist revolution that created the welfare state. Take away that fear and capitalism runs amok and you then get a scary backlash towards the far right.

When socialism fell over in 1989 it removed one end of the spectrum, and it's that unbalance that is having its effect now.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,330
1,203
126
Do you believe in science? Then you will accept that the Paris Agreement is a good thing. We don't have the luxury of taking our time curbing temperature changes; the planet isn't about to hold back on flooding just because you want a V8 in your next car.

Also, aren't you the one who claims leftists are the real perpetrators of violence, the problem with the US and the world at large? Yet when people commit violent acts that you think support your cause, you're cheering them on. Hypocrite. Liar. Disgrace to your family and your country.

Thankfully, there's a good chance you'll be very disappointed by France today, and by the US in 2020. Intelligent government is coming back, and the Trump mistake will be erased forever.
The Paris Accord was a joke and was only designed to transfer money. Try some research next time.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,568
29,174
146
The Paris Accord was a joke and was only designed to transfer money. Try some research next time.

lol no it wasn't. do you have any argument to back up your nonsense? "it was designed to transfer money" That's the kind of thing a highschool sophomore once told me ~27 years ago when I asked him what he thought about the first remakes of those shitty Star Wars movies (the original shitty movies)--OK, some people got rich, but "transfer money?" what does that mean?

...from whom and to whom? That is kinda obvious for people making movies...buy why? And do you actually know anything about the production history of this project--where and why and when? Tell me something...but that';s silly nonsense.....

You're trying to talk about major international treaties that govern the very existence of life on this rock that we live on. You know, fucking reality.

So, what are you bringing to the table of "only designed to transfer money"? what do you fucking mean?

Don't dare come back in here without 3k words, 10 sources, and a fucking argument for once. You "do some research" you halfwit moron that hasn't bothered to spend 5 minutes reading complicated sentences in the last 30 years, at least. It's fucking obvious, you goddamn clown.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,426
7,485
136
I guess the way I see it is capitalism is massively unstable (due to it's lack of fairness, in part). But socialism leads to economic stagnation.

Why not both?
Take a share of the economy and help people with it. The rest is free market.

The idea that helping people and thriving are two different things is anachronistic BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
lol no it wasn't. do you have any argument to back up your nonsense? "it was designed to transfer money" That's the kind of thing a highschool sophomore once told me ~27 years ago when I asked him what he thought about the first remakes of those shitty Star Wars movies (the original shitty movies)--OK, some people got rich, but "transfer money?" what does that mean?

...from whom and to whom? That is kinda obvious for people making movies...buy why? And do you actually know anything about the production history of this project--where and why and when? Tell me something...but that';s silly nonsense.....

You're trying to talk about major international treaties that govern the very existence of life on this rock that we live on. You know, fucking reality.

So, what are you bringing to the table of "only designed to transfer money"? what do you fucking mean?

Don't dare come back in here without 3k words, 10 sources, and a fucking argument for once. You "do some research" you halfwit moron that hasn't bothered to spend 5 minutes reading complicated sentences in the last 30 years, at least. It's fucking obvious, you goddamn clown.
Take Trump out of the equation for a moment. The NY Times recently wrote that not one signatore to the Paris Agreement is even remotely close to hitting any of their targets. Consumption of fossil fuels is actually increasing! Even Germany, which is very progressive and forward thinking about climate change, is struggling. The coalition opposed to Merkel included the coal regions of Germany. Sound familiar?

For every solar panel factory in China, they are setting up a coal firing plant in Africa. India is in the process of rapidly expanding its electrical grid when it can barely manage the heavily polluting infrastructure it already has. How much of this accelerating demand for energy is driven by our own consumerism. All I see is 4000 square foot mansions and inefficient luxury towers going up around me.

Sacrifices need to be made. It may already be too late.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,024
32,994
136
inefficient luxury towers going up around me.

Unless they are putting coal fired power plants in each unit higher density construction is way more efficient, particularly with newer energy and building codes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,963
47,868
136
Unless they are putting coal fired power plants in each unit higher density construction is way more efficient, particularly with newer energy and building codes.

Yeah, even luxury towers are still vastly more efficient than your average single family house. VASTLY. Increasing housing density is one of the best tools we have to combat climate change. That's why NYC is the greenest city in the country per capita when it comes to carbon footprint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K1052

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Unless they are putting coal fired power plants in each unit higher density construction is way more efficient, particularly with newer energy and building codes.
I was talking more in terms of square footage allocation per tenant. Luxury towers are far less efficient than affordable housing but are more profitable.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,527
5,045
136
Take Trump out of the equation for a moment. The NY Times recently wrote that not one signatore to the Paris Agreement is even remotely close to hitting any of their targets. Consumption of fossil fuels is actually increasing! Even Germany, which is very progressive and forward thinking about climate change, is struggling. The coalition opposed to Merkel included the coal regions of Germany. Sound familiar?

For every solar panel factory in China, they are setting up a coal firing plant in Africa. India is in the process of rapidly expanding its electrical grid when it can barely manage the heavily polluting infrastructure it already has. How much of this accelerating demand for energy is driven by our own consumerism. All I see is 4000 square foot mansions and inefficient luxury towers going up around me.

Sacrifices need to be made. It may already be too late.


Got a link to that NY Times article? Only ask because, from what I've read, at least the UK is at or ahead of their goal. In 2016, the UK had reduced CO2 emissions by 35% vs. their 1990 levels, which is darned close already.

Unfortunately, Germany is looking to be around a 32% reduction by 2020, which is sadly a miss, but close I guess. But at least they're trying.

The U.S., on the other hand, seems to be embracing increasing our CO2 emissions. Sad, really.

And with Trump's stance on refusing to engage in putting us on a path of aggressive CO2 reductions, he's going to acquiesce having the U.S. be a leader in developing clean energy tech, leaving that to the EU to become clean tech leaders, which could leave us having to buy from them instead of the U.S. being a leader in clean research and leading development of clean energy tech. That's the truly sad part....Trump's ideal of increased use of coal and other fossil fuels will cripple us down the road as far as clean energy research goes.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Got a link to that NY Times article? Only ask because, from what I've read, at least the UK is at or ahead of their goal. In 2016, the UK had reduced CO2 emissions by 35% vs. their 1990 levels, which is darned close already.

Unfortunately, Germany is looking to be around a 32% reduction by 2020, which is sadly a miss, but close I guess. But at least they're trying.

The U.S., on the other hand, seems to be embracing increasing our CO2 emissions. Sad, really.

And with Trump's stance on refusing to engage in putting us on a path of aggressive CO2 reductions, he's going to acquiesce having the U.S. be a leader in developing clean energy tech, leaving that to the EU to become clean tech leaders, which could leave us having to buy from them instead of the U.S. being a leader in clean research and leading development of clean energy tech. That's the truly sad part....Trump's ideal of increased use of coal and other fossil fuels will cripple us down the road as far as clean energy research goes.
The data points are spread across several articles that came out after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate released its latest report. You acknowledged or are aware of the relevant data points. Germany is working the hardest and still came up short. The US sacrificed its leadership position on this topic courtesy of Trump. China is simultaneously making investments in clean tech while also increasing developing nation dependency on coal.

Even analysis of midterm election ballot initiatives and exit poll data send mix messages on what sacrifices Americans are willing to make.

I live deep in Hillary country. Not a lot of love for Trump. And yet all I see are big gas guzzling luxury SUVs zipping around and McMansions. I shake my head when I see a Range Rover with a Hillary sticker.

Climate is the most urgent and pressing technological challenge facing our species...and yet a fraction of our best and brightest minds are working to solve it, and our government is not moving aggressively enough to shift our grid to sustainability.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,963
136
Why not both?
Take a share of the economy and help people with it. The rest is free market.

The idea that helping people and thriving are two different things is anachronistic BS.

I feel that the evidence suggests that having both is inherently unstable. The market resists attempts to regulate it, and economic inequality leads to inequality of political power. Post-war (or post-boom) history seems to strongly demonstrate that. It's questionable whether you can have 'a little bit of capitalism'. Capitalism creates rich people, and as soon as you have rich people you have a problem.

However, I have come to the working hypothesis that it's a kind of dynamic instability, that requires pushing towards the opposite extreme in order to have any hope of staying in the centre. Which might be what 'be realistic, demand the impossible' meant (never understood that slogan).
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,963
136
The data points are spread across several articles that came out after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate released its latest report. You acknowledged or are aware of the relevant data points. Germany is working the hardest and still came up short. The US sacrificed its leadership position on this topic courtesy of Trump. China is simultaneously making investments in clean tech while also increasing developing nation dependency on coal.

Even analysis of midterm election ballot initiatives and exit poll data send mix messages on what sacrifices Americans are willing to make.

I live deep in Hillary country. Not a lot of love for Trump. And yet all I see are big gas guzzling luxury SUVs zipping around and McMansions. I shake my head when I see a Range Rover with a Hillary sticker.

Climate is the most urgent and pressing technological challenge facing our species...and yet a fraction of our best and brightest minds are working to solve it, and our government is not moving aggressively enough to shift our grid to sustainability.


I think with climate change there are two aspects to it.

There's the ruthless selfishness of the rich elites, in the form of the corporate lobbying (especially fossil-fuel companies, whose entire existence depends on valuing in-the-ground assets that, if we really took climate-change seriously, would be unusable and hence worthless), combined with the dysfunctional political system that gives those elites disproportionate power.

But there's also the enemy within, i.e. within all of us, ordinary people. Because it's human nature to not want to face difficult choices (I can think of many examples from my own personal life) where when presented with two options both of which are unpleasant, we employ any-and-all mental strategies to convince ourselves we don't need to choose either but can pretend the dilemma doesn't exist. That climate science is fairly hard, requiring a certain level of education to even understand, makes this very easy to do in this case.

Oh, and there's also the collective-action problem, the usual issues with 'free riders'.

Those factors combined, our collective and individual imperfections, make this problem possibly insoluble.

I thought the UK was doing relatively-well on CO2 emissions, certainly when compared with the US or Australia or China, say...but that had very little to do with explicit 'green' policies, and much more to do with deindustrialisation and the destruction of the mining industry etc. Also the US is awkwardly dependent on air flights, car travel, and air-conditioning, because of the physical nature of the country and low population density. I've also heard it suggested that the US and Australia both have strong climate-change denial movements because they are both 'frontier nations' that were founded on the idea of escaping constraints and limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starbuck1975

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,024
32,994
136
I was talking more in terms of square footage allocation per tenant. Luxury towers are far less efficient than affordable housing but are more profitable.

That depends a lot on what you are talking about specifically. Lots of new rental buildings are marketed as "luxury" when they're really just run of the mill new stock with more amenities. True high end luxury construction (say one or two units per floor) is a different deal entirely and still a hell of a lot more efficient from an energy perspective than those same people buying mansions in the burbs.

Land use is indeed a huge problem in the US for climate change and energy consumption. We need to go denser at every income level and everywhere. No more low density exurban sprawl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starbuck1975

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,963
136
The Paris Accord was a joke and was only designed to transfer money. Try some research next time.

I did think it was a bit of a joke, I agree. It was designed to create the appearance of doing something while not actually commiting anyone to actually doing anything.