Has the US awakened the sleeping giant?

[MikeUpNorth]

I don't think the Russians would let those troops be there sans an official peace deal which is iron-clad. It would escalate before they arrived. And if there, they'd just go elsewhere to make the same message (where those troops aren't).

It isn't going to happen without an absolutely iron-clad peace-deal. And even then it's not certain. It would always (if at war) result in a backdown from the EU nations. However much they protested they would not respond in kind.

We wouldn't respond in kind by going nuke-for-nuke, as it were. But we would respond.

My guess is it would go something like:
1. Russia uses battefield/tactical nuclear weapon.
2. NATO responds by using non-nuclear weapons to sink the Russian Black Sea fleet and eliminate any ground forces outside Russian borders. (As described by former CIA director General Petraeus for this exact scenario here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus)
3. Russia uses a bigger nuke...
4. ???

 

[neverdie]

2. NATO responds by using non-nuclear weapons to sink the Russian Black Sea fleet and eliminate any ground forces outside Russian borders.

This doesn't happen, imo, precisely because of what you have at 3 and 4. Again, if a NATO nation then it's a different argument and Russia has, in theory, much less incentive to escalate. Where they are now, they have no incentive not to escalate if things move in that direction but that is not symmetrical. It doesn't go the same way for the US/NATO/EU.

If this were an invasion of Poland there would be a different response theory. Or if Russia uses a small-scale nuke in Poland, etc.

It goes back to what Obama said when you move beyond 3. There is no 4 because that's the end. 4 would be Russia is probably an outcast for a long time but there is no response. And it may not even be an outcast, the rest of the world might just feck the whole lot off (the US/EU/NATO/RUSSIA etc.).

1. Something happens. Could be troops or some kind of weapon the Russians hold as an absolute redline, not one of the lesser ones.
2. Rather than demonstrating an empty payload capacity, they actually do it.
3. Any response goes to 4 where you have to ask yourself if the Americans want to exchange their entire nation for a mid-sized city (the Russians might even just hit a largely empty area) in Ukraine. The answer is no.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

This doesn't happen, imo, precisely because of what you have at 3 and 4. Again, if a NATO nation then it's a different argument and Russia has, in theory, much less incentive to escalate. Where they are now, they have no incentive not to escalate if things move in that direction but that is not symmetrical. It doesn't go the same way for the US/NATO/EU.

If this were an invasion of Poland there would be a different response theory. Or if Russia uses a small-scale nuke in Poland, etc.

It goes back to what Obama said when you move beyond 3. There is no 4 because that's the end. 4 would be Russia is probably an outcast for a long time but there is no response. And it may not even be an outcast, the rest of the world might just feck the whole lot off (the US/EU/NATO/RUSSIA etc.).

I mean, this is the former CIA director saying that's the expected NATO response to the use of tactical nukes in Ukraine. I don't think it's bluster.

 

[neverdie]

I mean, this is the former CIA director saying that's the expected NATO response to the use of tactical nukes in Ukraine. I don't think it's bluster.

I think it's that person's opinion (out of office). I'll take what makes sense over that. They have no incentive to go like-for-like on the Russian border. I.e., I think Obama is absolutely correct and that the end of this war, or the promised end, demonstrates it.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I think it's that person's opinion (out of office). I'll take what makes sense over that. They have no incentive to go like-for-like on the Russian border. I.e., I think Obama is absolutely correct and that the end of this war, or the promised end, demonstrates it.

This is what Biden said in October 2022 (when Russia was talking up the use of nukes):

“(For the) first time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have a direct threat of the use (of a) nuclear weapon if, in fact, things continue down the path they are going."

“We’ve got a guy I know fairly well,” Biden said of Putin.

“He’s not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming.”

“I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily (use) a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.”

US officials are concerned that Putin might consider the use of a smaller tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine in a desperate attempt to turn the course of the war. The White House says it has warned the Kremlin that such a decision would be “catastrophic” for Russia but has not said publicly exactly how they would respond – though there is speculation NATO might get involved and directly target Russian forces, a scenario that could lead to a dangerous escalation with Moscow.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/07/politics/joe-biden-vladimir-putin-armageddon-analysis/index.html

 

[Rams]

The way to compare is to take all EU states and figure out the nominal defense expenditure which takes GDP into account anyway. And that figure is 300bn. Second highest expenditure on the planet.

Errr.. ok.. I was taught at University to always compare spending in GDP, it’s also what I read the (financial) papers & publications, but maybe we’re all wrong then.

 

[neverdie]

Errr.. ok.. I was taught at University to always compare spending in GDP, it’s also what I read the (financial) papers & publications, but maybe we’re all wrong then.

Yes, you're wrong.

I said use both. Percentage of GDP and then the percentage of overall fiscal spending (government budgets) allocated to defense. This second is always, obviously, much higher than the first alludes to. It's what tells you why/how the US or Israel is so militarized whereas Ireland or Iceland is not. Two spend >15% of all monies spent on defense. Two spend closer to 1.5% (or lower).

As a percentage of GDP you ignore the budget and the allocation of spending within that (if you only look at defense spending as % of GDP). That's a blind outlook. If you are into economics or just interested at all (which you seem to be), one. how could you deny this is more nuanced? Socio-economically superior metric. Two, why get offended by it?

 

[neverdie]

This is what Biden said in October 2022 (when Russia was talking up the use of nukes):

“(For the) first time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have a direct threat of the use (of a) nuclear weapon if, in fact, things continue down the path they are going."

“We’ve got a guy I know fairly well,” Biden said of Putin.

“He’s not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming.”

“I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily (use) a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.”



https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/07/politics/joe-biden-vladimir-putin-armageddon-analysis/index.html

I don't believe a word that man ever said. Except when he said if Israel didn't exist that the US would have to invent it (for their own purposes).

Russia's military. This isn't the right thread maybe, but has it underperformed? Relative to what? They tried to coup (bluff) Kyiv with the initial invasion to the north and that fialed. Then they went "(almost) all in) in the south-east regions. They've gained a quarter or more of that nation's territory and without the entire West funding Ukraine to the tune of hundreds of billions there wouldn't be a deadlock. That deadlock, as it is, is not going to last forever regardless of funding because the Russians can still go up a level (imo -- complete conscription which the Ukrainians have already done) and other weapons (as well as the kind of "operation shock and awe" which it has largely not done). If the Russians wanted to bomb all of Ukraine to pieces, I believe they could do it. They'd face obvious losses (they've lost a lot already) but it could be done.

Seems to me that they took over enormous amounts of land (densely Russian speaking areas if not "willing to be Russian" as such) that they could hold and consolidate within their defensive structure. They aren't overextended imo.

But as to the nuclear. OK. The US put nukes in Turkey. The USSR went to Cuba. Now, during that crisis the US was absolutely willing to nuke Cuba off the face of the earth, to which the Soviets would have to respond with Turkey (avoiding both USSR and US territories directly). So the deal was remove nukes from Cuba and we'll remove nukes from Turkey. Each had a kind of border dominance here. They negated each other in the end and that's how they avoided a nuclear exchange. Turkey being a member of NATO and Cuba not being in the Warsaw pact arguably gave the US a better platform to negotiate but they made the concessions required. They put out the blockade and the Soviets tested it. It came close, if you believe the official history, to the point where a submarine commander chose not to action a false-positive which dictated that they would have to fire on the US. How true that is, I''m not sure, but scarily close to nothing if it is accurate.

Where's the parallel? Take Ukraine as Russia's "Cuba" but without any corresponding "Turkey" for the US. It's asymmetrical (in incentive and interest) as Obama said.

 

[11101]

The EU (France) and the UK don't have any battlefield nukes, for a start.

And if we did, we would not use them, as doing so would render our nuclear deterrent useless. Our submarines have to remain hidden to keep the deterrent effective.

We would respond conventionally and have come very, very close in the past. There are certain redlines i dont think we'd ever cross i.e troops crossing into Russian territory but we would absolutely go after Russian forces outside their borders and potentially on the edges.

I also don't think we need to. As a fighting force Russia is weak, especially so now, and they know it. They're not going to expose it by taking pot shots at us.

 

[neverdie]

Errr.. ok.. I was taught at University to always compare spending in GDP, it’s also what I read the (financial) papers & publications, but maybe we’re all wrong then.

Seriously though -- you're not wrong as it goes, which is why the UK a decade or more ago invested heavily in Cyber -- consider this:

As of the 2023/24 financial year, the United Kingdom's economic and defense expenditure statistics are as follows:

Metric	Amount (in £ billion)	Percentage of GDP
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)	2,540	100%
Total Government Expenditure	1,108	43.6%
Defense Spending	53.9	2.3%

In this context, defense spending constitutes approximately 4.9% of the UK's total government expenditure. None of these figures are 100% (it's actually a higher spend iirc and a slightly higher GDP).

Sources:

• GDP and Government Expenditure:
  commonslibrary.parliament.uk
• Defense Spending:
  commonslibrary.parliament.uk

These figures highlight the UK's commitment to defense within its overall budget, allocating a significant portion of its resources to maintain and enhance its military capabilities.

2% equates to twice that (roughly, it's actually slightly more) because government expenditure is the key figure not GDP.

The US spend 13% of all its expenditure (and likely more due to many hidden costs -- much more) on its military. France is at about 5%. It's a list of war-torn nations in that top twenty with the US spending about as much as Israel (about 13%). There is are two democracies in that list and the US is one whilst France is the other.

The sheer amount of money which goes in that direction is often played down by people who cite GDP figures but ignore total government expenditure which paints a far more realistic picture.

I used to take the defense per GDP figures as you do too but it's just wrong. I learned that the difficult way. The more nuanced lens is the one which takes the GDP figure (yes) but then looks at that nation's overall budget expenditure and the extent to which the defense spending makes up the key % of all public spending. It tells you things about a nation, statistically, which are not arbitrary and is far more nuanced than the simple whatever % per GDP.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I don't believe a word that man ever said. Except when he said if Israel didn't exist that the US would have to invent it (for their own purposes).

Russia's military. This isn't the right thread maybe, but has it underperformed? Relative to what? They tried to coup (bluff) Kyiv with the initial invasion to the north and that fialed. Then they went "(almost) all in) in the south-east regions. They've gained a quarter or more of that nation's territory and without the entire West funding Ukraine to the tune of hundreds of billions there wouldn't be a deadlock. That deadlock, as it is, is not going to last forever regardless of funding because the Russians can still go up a level (imo -- complete conscription which the Ukrainians have already done) and other weapons (as well as the kind of "operation shock and awe" which it has largely not done). If the Russians wanted to bomb all of Ukraine to pieces, I believe they could do it. They'd face obvious losses (they've lost a lot already) but it could be done.

Seems to me that they took over enormous amounts of land (densely Russian speaking areas if not "willing to be Russian" as such) that they could hold and consolidate within their defensive structure. They aren't overextended imo.

But as to the nuclear. OK. The US put nukes in Turkey. The USSR went to Cuba. Now, during that crisis the US was absolutely willing to nuke Cuba off the face of the earth, to which the Soviets would have to respond with Turkey (avoiding both USSR and US territories directly). So the deal was remove nukes from Cuba and we'll remove nukes from Turkey. Each had a kind of border dominance here. They negated each other in the end and that's how they avoided a nuclear exchange. Turkey being a member of NATO and Cuba not being in the Warsaw pact arguably gave the US a better platform to negotiate but they made the concessions required. They put out the blockade and the Soviets tested it. It came close, if you believe the official history, to the point where a submarine commander chose not to action a false-positive which dictated that they would have to fire on the US. How true that is, I''m not sure, but scarily close to nothing if it is accurate.

Where's the parallel? Take Ukraine as Russia's "Cuba" but without any corresponding "Turkey" for the US. It's asymmetrical (in incentive and interest) as Obama said.

I believe the reason that NATO would respond “catastrophically” to Russia firing a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine is to avoid normalising the use of such weapons. And secondly because radiation would clearly spill into NATO territory.

 

[4bars]

European countries already top any global taxation list, so yeah that's not going to work. The UK should provide fair warning as to what happens when you try to target 'the rich'.

The EU accounts for about 15% of global GDP and half its welfare spending. Those numbers are not sustainable in the face of an aggressive Putin and unfriendly Trump.

And you say that with a straight face while the gap between the rich and the middle class and the low class keeps widening. First, true, they are among the countries with more taxations because we tax the middle class the most. But if the rich gets richer and the uber rich even more, there is margin to tax them more. As simple as that. If your companies keep using the roads, airports the education system that educates your workers and the health system that keeps your workers healthy among other public expenditure (not to talk about subsidies and other fiscal advantages in some cases), you better pay your dues back to the society

If there still money to redistribute, I don't care if the welfare is 15% or is 90%. You don't cut welfare you can tax who has plenty to spare and only increase their gap. Jesus, is pathetic how you and many still defend the uber rich, trickle down economy and the fear that they may leave the EU. Incredibly pathetic. That is why they get away with it because there is no unite front

 

[neverdie]

I believe the reason that NATO would respond “catastrophically” to Russia firing a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine is to avoid normalising the use of such weapons. And secondly because radiation would clearly spill into NATO territory.

Not sure on the radiation point. It would depend on the size of the payload. The sheer volume of nuclear experiments in the American and Australian deserts never threatened the cities. (iirc).

Responding would lead to a larger Russian response without any plausible US/EU response to that response. Again, take the 8th largest town/city in Ukraine. Say Russia goes to the most removed part (agrarian) of that territory and uses a nuke (battlefield) which kills almost no one (but demonstrates obvious intent), what are you going to do? Wave your finger or trade London, Berlin, and New York for that area? The US is not trading any US land for Ukraine and the EU isn't either despite all its bluster. The only thing it exchanges is taxpayers' money to defense contractors.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Not sure on the radiation point. It would depend on the size of the payload. The sheer volume of nuclear experiments in the American and Australian deserts never threatened the cities. (iirc).

Responding would lead to a larger Russian response without any plausible US/EU response to that response. Again, take the 8th largest town/city in Ukraine. Say Russia goes to the most removed part (agrarian) of that territory and uses a nuke (battlefield) which kills almost no one (but demonstrates obvious intent), what are you going to do? Wave your finger or trade London, Berlin, and New York for that area? The US is not trading any US land for Ukraine and the EU isn't either despite all its bluster. The only thing it exchanges is taxpayers' money to defense contractors.

What’s stopping Russia using battlefield nukes then? There were times where they were being driven back and taking heavy losses. Ukrainian forces still hold some Russian territory. And the rest of the frontline is more or less a stalemate.

Something’s holding them back.

 

[4bars]

I agree going after the super-rich is unlikely to raise significant extra tax revenue but it's probably necessary to keep the public on-side if you want to simultaneously cut public spending on welfare or raise taxes on ordinary people.

2024 EU GDP was 17 trillion. Billionaires wealth was 2.2 trillions (roughly 13/14%). If you tax these billionaires a 10% and is 220 billions that is double the money that was increased in 2024. Sometimes we forget how wealthy the billionaires are

 

[neverdie]

What’s stopping Russia using battlefield nukes then? There were times where they were being driven back and taking heavy losses. Ukrainian forces still hold some Russian territory. And the rest of the frontline is more or less a stalemate.

Something’s holding them back.

Press coverage imo. Not there yet. It can go there. If the EU were to directly intervene, other than by proxy, then I think they would. Or if they knew troop deployments were coming I think they would.

 

[Rams]

Yes, you're wrong.

I said use both. Percentage of GDP and then the percentage of overall fiscal spending (government budgets) allocated to defense. This second is always, obviously, much higher than the first alludes to. It's what tells you why/how the US or Israel is so militarized whereas Ireland or Iceland is not. Two spend >15% of all monies spent on defense. Two spend closer to 1.5% (or lower).

As a percentage of GDP you ignore the budget and the allocation of spending within that (if you only look at defense spending as % of GDP). That's a blind outlook. If you are into economics or just interested at all (which you seem to be), one. how could you deny this is more nuanced? Socio-economically superior metric. Two, why get offended by it?

I’m not offended!! Listen, I don’t want to disrespect you and you probably know far more about these things than I do, but % of GDP is the generally accepted measurement of government spending. Of course this in combination with the amount in real terms is more nuanced, but you yourself originally only posted the spending in real terms. But it seems now we’re in agreement!

 

[11101]

And you say that with a straight face while the gap between the rich and the middle class and the low class keeps widening. First, true, they are among the countries with more taxations because we tax the middle class the most. But if the rich gets richer and the uber rich even more, there is margin to tax them more. As simple as that. If your companies keep using the roads, airports the education system that educates your workers and the health system that keeps your workers healthy among other public expenditure (not to talk about subsidies and other fiscal advantages in some cases), you better pay your dues back to the society

If there still money to redistribute, I don't care if the welfare is 15% or is 90%. You don't cut welfare you can tax who has plenty to spare and only increase their gap. Jesus, is pathetic how you and many still defend the uber rich, trickle down economy and the fear that they may leave the EU. Incredibly pathetic. That is why they get away with it because there is no unite front

Let's be honest here; the rich dont contribute enough and make sure their money is well protected, and the welfare end gets all they need to live a comfortable life without lifting a finger. Both take more than is fair and both need to contribute more because the ones in the middle doing the heavy lifting have been squeezed to the point where there is nothing left and there is no more growth coming. Until the continent faces up to that there is going to be little progress.

 

[4bars]

Let's be honest here; the rich dont contribute enough and make sure their money is well protected, and the welfare end gets all they need to live a comfortable life without lifting a finger. Both take more than is fair and both need to contribute more because the ones in the middle doing the heavy lifting have been squeezed to the point where there is nothing left and there is no more growth coming. Until the continent faces up to that there is going to be little progress.

We can discuss the efficiency of the welfare as much as you want. In any system, there are people that abuse it as it is not feasible to go as granular as the individual. There are others that the system is unfair with them too.

But We have to chose the priority of who should first stop abusing the system, the discourse should be always the one on top and then the ones in the bottom. And unfortunately people like you, that there are many, just chose to focus on the bottom. You just said that sentence because is what you feel. You have a mindset that the rich should be protected for I don't know which crazy reasoning. And that is why now the US have a billionaire like trump and Musk (among others) that their voters believe for I don't know which feck up reason that they will look up for them

If the gap is widening, the solution is not shave the bottom to widening the gap. Is shave the top

 

[stefan92]

Russia's military. This isn't the right thread maybe, but has it underperformed? Relative to what?

Relative to the carefully cultivated image. Especially the broad public usually has seen Russia as the second strongest army in the world behind the US. Such an army was expected to steamroll a poor neighbour.

They tried to coup (bluff) Kyiv with the initial invasion to the north and that fialed.

It wasn't a bluff. It was a massive operation with a full force on a limited target (Kyiv). And it completely failed. They didn't even manage to cross 200km into Ukraine towards the most important target they had during those initial days.

Then they went "(almost) all in) in the south-east regions. They've gained a quarter or more of that nation's territory

This is true. But it's hardly impressive considering that they used most of the stockpile the Soviet Union produced to conquer Europe in case the Cold War gets hot.

without the entire West funding Ukraine to the tune of hundreds of billions there wouldn't be a deadlock. That deadlock, as it is, is not going to last forever regardless of funding because the Russians can still go up a level (imo -- complete conscription which the Ukrainians have already done)

You are right that Russia could mobilize more soldiers. And quantity is a quality in itself. But the actual quality of available weaponry is (very slowly) tilting towards Ukraine. Russia over time had to rely more and more on ancient stored vehicles while Ukraine is getting more and more modern equipment. And is now able to produce that (partially due to European help as well, Rheinmetall now has five factories in Ukraine that are ramping up production now).

and other weapons (as well as the kind of "operation shock and awe" which it has largely not done).

Russia isn't able to do that. What happens when they try it was seen in the first push on Kyiv. That's the best their Air Force can do and it surely hasn't improved since then.

If the Russians wanted to bomb all of Ukraine to pieces, I believe they could do it. They'd face obvious losses (they've lost a lot already) but it could be done.

Russia still isn't able to bomb Ukraine as they still aren't able to reliably suppress Ukraine's air defense. They have to rely on long range standoff weapons for deep strikes, not because they choose to but because they failed.

They could try that anyways but that would be the end of their bomber fleet. And they wouldn't want that as they better can use them to safely start cruise missiles etc.

Seems to me that they took over enormous amounts of land (densely Russian speaking areas if not "willing to be Russian" as such) that they could hold and consolidate within their defensive structure. They aren't overextended imo.

On this I agree again. But when you have to say that about an army that was build to conquer a continent than it is fair to say that they underperformed.

And to give my post a spin to the actual topic: Europe effectively uses Ukraine to battle test their equipment. It can rearm based on what works (and what doesn't) instead of having to guess and experiment in exercises.

 

[neverdie]

On this I agree again. But when you have to say that about an army that was build to conquer a continent than it is fair to say that they underperformed.

I don't agree that it was built to conquer a continent but rather to conquer the borders of the federation and operate in limited national interest stuff abroad (Syria).

Stalin's army was built to conquer a continent and was in the many millions by the time the war ended (as was Hitler's). Putin's is not.

But agree on many other things.

 

[stefan92]

I don't agree that it was built to conquer a continent but rather to conquer the borders of the federation and operate in limited national interest stuff abroad (Syria).

Stalin's army was built to conquer a continent and was in the many millions by the time the war ended (as was Hitler's). Putin's is not.

But agree on many other things.

Yes you are right in terms of numbers... the numbers of the Russian army are fitting for what you say. But they did use lots of their old Soviet stockpiles (including tanks from Stalin's era).

 

[11101]

We can discuss the efficiency of the welfare as much as you want. In any system, there are people that abuse it as it is not feasible to go as granular as the individual. There are others that the system is unfair with them too.

But We have to chose the priority of who should first stop abusing the system, the discourse should be always the one on top and then the ones in the bottom. And unfortunately people like you, that there are many, just chose to focus on the bottom. You just said that sentence because is what you feel. You have a mindset that the rich should be protected for I don't know which crazy reasoning. And that is why now the US have a billionaire like trump and Musk (among others) that their voters believe for I don't know which feck up reason that they will look up for them

If the gap is widening, the solution is not shave the bottom to widening the gap. Is shave the top

I'd rather shave none and pull the bottom up to a higher level. We get nowhere by trying to drag the top down as Europe and the UK have been doing for a long time now. This obsessive jealousy people have with success is crippling the UK.

 

[Bert_]

I'd rather shave none and pull the bottom up to a higher level. We get nowhere by trying to drag the top down as Europe and the UK have been doing for a long time now. This obsessive jealousy people have with success is crippling the UK.

We famously hate anyone successful. All our hero's and cultural icons from the past few decades are paupers when you compare their wealth to the billionaires that are actually crippling the UK.

 

[neverdie]

This obsessive jealousy people have with success is crippling the UK.

Its the fact that the people, statistically, who work hardest are least provided for. That's not jealousy is a very valid structural critique of a dead economic mode.

 

[tenpoless]

Are we about to get Red Alert 2 in real life?
- lazer tanks: we have the tech
- gold digging machines: existed since 1940
- nuclear reactor: loads of it already
- yuri mind control: no tech needed its just brainwashing
- portable anti air missiles: we have the tech
- airships dropping atom bombs: we have the tech
- chronospeheres: lacking the tech, so only this is not possible at the moment

 

[4bars]

This obsessive jealousy people have with success is crippling the UK.

You are a minefield of this type of sentence. I am better off than the average. If things go normal, my kid will be too. My jealousy is limited to the happiness of others in a good way. Not about the money

What i am not jealous is of Trump, Musk, zuckerberg, bezos and company that is not only about the money that they have and they should share with their shitty practises but they use this money to achieve the power to empobrish even more the lowest brackets while enriching themselves.

Is not jealousy is purly injustice.

The sentence that i quoted would be the equivalent of a court servant would say to the king...."this peasants are just jealous of the king despite being so just spreading their mighty seed in her newly wed wife in their primae noctis" before being sent to eat the scraps. That is not short of being a sell out

 

[RoyH1]

European leaders are too much talk and too little action at the moment. They need to behave with the same urgency as with the Covid19 crisis if they're serious about stepping out of the USA's suffocating embrace. Production needs to be ramped up the places where it can and new factories need to be built at record pace. And the money will have to come from many different sources, yes, including taxation but it's naive to think that welfare systems can improve with the strain on the economy.

I'm not sure there's enough political will for that with the populations of some Western and Southern European countries. Time will tell.

 

[Mogget]

I'd rather shave none and pull the bottom up to a higher level. We get nowhere by trying to drag the top down as Europe and the UK have been doing for a long time now. This obsessive jealousy people have with success is crippling the UK.

Imagine looking at how we've been governed in the last 15 years and unironically thinking this. I'd actually say this sort of thinking is why we are where we are.

Regular people making excuses for the uber rich and demonising the poor, voting for politicians who only help the rich and further demonise the poor. Meanwhile more and more of our money is funneled to the people at the top, inequality rapidly increases and what do people like you think the solution is? Demonise the poor even more and continue to vote for politicians who only want to help the rich.

There is no class consciousness anymore and it's a real shame.

 

[Scandi Red]

There is no class consciousness anymore and it's a real shame.

It's beyond frustrating.

 

[WPMUFC]

CDU/CSU &SPD have just proposed a sea change in German fiscal policy:- defence spending above 1% of GDP exempt from debt brake- 10-year €500bn special fund for infrastructure - looser debt rules for states- further debt-brake reform in new Bundestag

https://bsky.app/profile/jeremycliffe.bsky.social/post/3ljl4ig7sds2l

Oh god....the German war machine is awakening. Someone inform the Czechs and Slovaks.

 

[Zehner]

I'd rather shave none and pull the bottom up to a higher level. We get nowhere by trying to drag the top down as Europe and the UK have been doing for a long time now. This obsessive jealousy people have with success is crippling the UK.

Obsessive jealousy? Maybe you should take a closer look at the numbers. Especially how the distribution ofnwealth developed during Covid and the war in Ukraine.

Our production and supply chains have been getting more efficient at an unreal pace since decades and yet people can afford less. Where's the money won from productivity increases vanishing to?

 

[Spark]

I'd rather shave none and pull the bottom up to a higher level. We get nowhere by trying to drag the top down as Europe and the UK have been doing for a long time now. This obsessive jealousy people have with success is crippling the UK.

A good way of doing that would be to cut taxes on work and significantly increase taxes on wealth. That is the only way to "pull the bottom up". The biggest issue is wealth inequality and until that is fixed, it's going to continue alienating the vast majority of people in the UK (and Europe), which leads to exploitation from populist movements such as Reform in the UK.

Jobs and work should be taxed less, earning money from speculative investments should be taxed significantly more.

 

[stefan92]

Our production and supply chains have been getting more efficient at an unreal pace since decades and yet people can afford less. Where's the money won from productivity increases vanishing to?

More efficiency means that workers get paid less per produced unit. So people need to get money doing other stuff, this is why there are more and more bullshit jobs. Which means that overall not much changes.

 

[digitalnirvana]

We’ve only just figured out how to standardise phone chargers. Might take a while for guns and vehicles.

Rheinmetall EuropaMissile 17 Pro Max supports USB-C fast charging. 0 to 80% destruction in just 15 minutes.

Available in grey, black and olive green colors. Stealth carbon only available online.

"Its the best missile we've ever built." - Jony Ive

 

[Zehner]

More efficiency means that workers get paid less per produced unit. So people need to get money doing other stuff, this is why there are more and more bullshit jobs. Which means that overall not much changes.

Yes and that's exactly what I mean. Automation leads to reduced costs, leads to be a bigger margin. The question is how that margin is distributed between owner, worker and customer. As of now, productivity improvements through technological advances go primarily into the pockets of the elites because they have more bargaining power through better organization and the relevant information is asynchronously distributed. The longer this goes, the worse it gets. And we can already see the consequences. Fascism is rising because the poor have less in their pockets and aren't educated properly. Something needs to be done to stop that spiral.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

Imagine looking at how we've been governed in the last 15 years and unironically thinking this. I'd actually say this sort of thinking is why we are where we are.

Regular people making excuses for the uber rich and demonising the poor, voting for politicians who only help the rich and further demonise the poor. Meanwhile more and more of our money is funneled to the people at the top, inequality rapidly increases and what do people like you think the solution is? Demonise the poor even more and continue to vote for politicians who only want to help the rich.

There is no class consciousness anymore and it's a real shame.

100% agree. The line of thinking you're responding to is how you end up with Trump and bloody Elon Musk in charge.

 

[11101]

A good way of doing that would be to cut taxes on work and significantly increase taxes on wealth. That is the only way to "pull the bottom up". The biggest issue is wealth inequality and until that is fixed, it's going to continue alienating the vast majority of people in the UK (and Europe), which leads to exploitation from populist movements such as Reform in the UK.

Jobs and work should be taxed less, earning money from speculative investments should be taxed significantly more.

I'd agree with the first bolded sentence.

Not the second. Taking those risks are what drives innovation and growth.


The UK is facing a near doubling of the welfare bill over a 10 year period and business confidence falling off a cliff. Only a wholesale reform of tax codes is going to address that but nobody wants to face up to both high earners and low earners having to pay more.

 

[Spark]

I'd agree with the first bolded sentence.

Not the second. Taking those risks are what drives innovation and growth.


The UK is facing a near doubling of the welfare bill over a 10 year period and business confidence falling off a cliff. Only a wholesale reform of tax codes is going to address that but nobody wants to face up to both high earners and low earners having to pay more.

How do you tax wealth? It's perverse that there is a considerable number of very rich people, outside of the income tax system, who are consistently looking for "return" on their large cash holdings. This then puts significant downward pressure on businesses to stretch margins, which inevitably leads to stagnating wages and an increase of wealth inequality.

"Innovation" and "growth" for the very few who fund it, for their own purposes, doesn't work. A better system is increasing living standards by reducing the tax burden on work, while ensuring that those who hoard wealth are fairly taxed.

 

[VorZakone]