American Politics

[SkStu]

Much of the evidence is that they are economic refugees though. If you look at documentaries which look at migrants, even in passing - Simon Reeve's Greece or Mediterranean, Michael Palin's Sahara, or Levison Wood's Walking the Americas for example, where they come across random migrants and talk to them about their stories - they're almost exclusively economic refugees. Escaping war is rarely mentioned.

I think we do have a duty to help - but the German way of doing it is absolutely the wrong way of doing it. First off, we've seen how encouraging migration can snowball out of control. It can also destabilise regions, leading to a further impetus to emigrate. There is no thought whatsoever about overrunning native cultures - there's always some nonsense spoken about how the native culture has a duty to bend immigrants to help them integrate, but in practice this doesn't happen, and in any event, this can only lead to native cultures being obliterated in the long run. Also, putting boats in the Med to rescue illegal migrants and bring them to their destination is a particularly daft thing to do as, again, it can only encourage more migration. Then when they arrive, most migrants are utterly unprepared for a western society - most prominently in the case of gender equality, but also in terms of getting jobs (high unemployment among illegal migrants), cultural integration, etc. In a matter of a couple of generations, you can only fundamentally change the diverse European landscape - literally what it means to be Dutch, Irish, French, etc, which will all morph closer and closer to being the same, all in the name of "diversity".

And there's also a high economic cost of all this, which is effectively a waste of money (if you ignore the virtue-signalling benefit, which by definition isn't really a benefit at all)

All of this is the exact opposite of what we want to do. We need to be encouraging stability in these regions, not destabilising them. German actions are the equivalent of giving a man a fish - you've fed him for a day, you feel a bit better yourself, but you've done nothing to help the root issue. And the next day, you'll have twice as many people looking to be given a fish.

We need to be teaching these people to fish instead - stop stymieing national economies, stop destablising areas politically in the way that the US in particular specialises in, stop strangling economies with unrepayable national debt, allow African and Middle Eastern economies in particular to grow. That's the only way to stability.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with this post, Stu. In particular the last two paragraphs.

One of the things that I liked about the current POTUS' election campaign was a stated/suggested policy of non-intervention which he has had some level of success adhering to although it seems he has stuck his boot in on Maduro/Venezuela which annoys me - even if it is somewhat deserved - and has been encouraging populist revolt and regime change in Iran. His successes (stabilizing the Korean peninsula and Syria/Iraq and associated withdrawals) are notable too, however.

For 2020, Tulsi Gabbard would be a no-brainer for me if I was a left- or right-leaning voter: moderate economically, moderate socially, anti-interventionist foreign policy. But... her position on regime change is often cited by left leaning commentators as her biggest sin and therefore she has zero support amongst the DNC because well.... we know why. There are not many on either side of the aisle that really, truly want peace in the middle east.

[Real ale Madrid]

I don't think you know what "In the long grass" means...

Anyway, over to the pro side for a cogent argument as to why this guy isn't a loony. "Have you read his book?" doesn't count

You have fundamentally misinterpreted his work completly during that diatribe. He spoke of an 'utopia', an ideal the society can work towards. For example nowhere does he say that we could move from a 40 hr week to a 15 hr week overnight. it's more of an ideal society thing. Could we move to a 35 hour week? 4 day working week? Can society move towards positive ideals when the trend moves towards so much negativity these days with the Orange leader, Brexit etc etc. Open borders isn't ideal but wouldnt it be great if that was possible? How could a path for that be set out? In the current state of the world it's impossible but who's to say we couldn't work towards it over a generation even multiple generations. I find him interesting anyway. I have no doubt the self styled 'realists' or right wing will dismiss him as looney. Its almost reassuring.

[pineapple stu]

In general, how are we going to move to a 15-hour-week though? Bear in mind my point about 24-hour service providers in healthcare and policing. How are you going to treble the number of staff required there? How are you going to counter people who want to work 35 hours, and who will necessarily earn more money than those who work 15 hours?

I don't agree open borders would be great at all. Certainly not on a permanent basis. Visas on arrival or whatever, fine - but if you have open borders, then you will eliminate all the fascinating diversity in the world today; all its cultures and languages and ways of life will be eroded away to a boring sameness. We're already starting to see this with Americanisation. This doesn't sound great at all. Maybe you want the whole world to look the exact same? Or maybe you just haven't thought it through?

To dismiss my post as a diatribe while not responding to a single part of it is a bit daft to be honest.

[Real ale Madrid]

To dismiss my post as a diatribe while not responding to a single part of it is a bit daft to be honest.

It was a complete diatribe because it was fundamentally wrong. You are going off on the practicalities of 15 hour working week and open borders etc and missing the point completly.

Thanks The Fly - you've ruined this!

[pineapple stu]

The practicalities of something are really important.

You've also not addressed any of the points I've made.

[Real ale Madrid]

The practicalities of something are really important.

You've also not addressed any of the points I've made.

Why would you discuss the practicalities of something that's not going to happen? Nobody is saying that we should go to a 15 hour week. What's the point in discussing the practicalities of it. It's an ideal to work toward, nothing else. What is more relevant is the practicalities of a 35 hour week or a 3 day weekend perhaps. Can or should society work towards those type of ideals?

I'm not going to be drawn into your negative discussion to be honest. If you want to discuss the original subject matter then grand.

[pineapple stu]

How can you work towards something without knowing what it is?

[Real ale Madrid]

How can you work towards something without knowing what it is?

So you are saying that we shouldn't reduce our working week as an example because an ideal is impractical? I'd probably agree with that I guess. But I like the idea of an ideal to inspire. We should be inspiring society with ideals I think. We may not get there but we could improve the quality of our lives in the process. The book is a reaction to modern society which has become dragged down in negativity drawn out of the disenfranchised. The reasons large swathes of society are disenfranchised are no doubt varied and we would probably disagree on that too but the premise of inspiration to drag people out of that is a decent ideal I think. You are right at some stage, 'lunatics' like Bregman will have to get down to the practicalities (and he does a bit) but let's not sit around and discuss 15 hour weeks and totally open borders as if that is relevant to what's happening out there now.

[SkStu]

Why are these things considered ideals?

Who says that 15 hours work week is the ideal and why?

Who says that completely open borders are the ideal and why?

Why would you discuss the practicalities of something that's not going to happen? Nobody is saying that we should go to a 15 hour week. What's the point in discussing the practicalities of it. It's an ideal to work toward, nothing else.

This doesn’t make sense to me. My take is that by putting a 15 hour work week out there in a book as an ideal is saying, precisely, that we should “go to” it. Or get to it at some point.

Why set something out as an ideal to work towards without considering the practicalities of it, the establishment of which would determine whether it actually is an ideal or not. Ideals by definition have to be practical, no?

[Real ale Madrid]

Why are these things considered ideals?

Who says that 15 hours work week is the ideal and why?

Who says that completely open borders are the ideal and why?



This doesn’t make sense to me. My take is that by putting a 15 hour work week out there in a book as an ideal is saying, precisely, that we should “go to” it. Or get to it at some point.

Why set something out as an ideal to work towards without considering the practicalities of it, the establishment of which would determine whether it actually is an ideal or not. Ideals by definition have to be practical, no?

Why isn't a 15 hour week practical anyway? Might be a step too far alright, bit again it's the ideal. I did 60 hours last week, including travel. Would it not be better if 2 people did 30 hours each? Is it an ideal we want? At the moment it makes more sense for a company to employ 10 people and give them 20 hours overtime per week on top of a 40 hour working week rather than employ 20 people and give them 30 hours of work per week, due to PRSI taxes etc. The theory is that people who work less are happier and live better fuller lives. There needs to be a political and societal will for change anyway which may not even be there.

150 years ago the average working week was 60-70 hours and the idea of a 5 day working week was viewed by some as the death of productivity.

[SkStu]

Why isn't a 15 hour week practical anyway? Might be a step too far alright, bit again it's the ideal.

On your question there, two posts ago you said you probably agreed that it wasn’t practical.

And again, why is it an ideal? And why 15 hours and not 20 or 10? Is there science behind 15 hours being optimal? I was at my most miserable and unhealthiest when I wasn’t working or not working enough. That’s just me, I know. But I’m just an average joe.

And the other ideals mentioned, I’m still no clearer why we should consider them ideals. And I still have seen nothing to convince me that practicality shouldn’t be one of the first hurdles that an idea needs to clear in order to become an ideal.

[Real ale Madrid]

On your question there, two posts ago you said you probably agreed that it wasn’t practical.

And again, why is it an ideal? And why 15 hours and not 20 or 10? Is there science behind 15 hours being optimal? I was at my most miserable and unhealthiest when I wasn’t working or not working enough. That’s just me, I know. But I’m just an average joe.

And the other ideals mentioned, I’m still no clearer why we should consider them ideals. And I still have seen nothing to convince me that practicality shouldn’t be one of the first hurdles that an idea needs to clear in order to become an ideal.

No one is trying to convince you of anything. I was just putting forward some of my thoughts in response to earlier posts. I'm done now. I'm not brilliant at articulating my thoughts. In any case I'd highly recommend the book to read to gain the perspective you are looking for. It is genuinely good stuff.

[SkStu]

Fair enough. Yeah I didn’t mean to suggest that you are obliged to try and convince me either, just a turn of phrase more than anything.

I probably won’t check out the book but it doesn’t hurt for us all to throw ideas out on here and kick them around a bit. Cheers

[mark12345]

Why isn't a 15 hour week practical anyway? Might be a step too far alright, bit again it's the ideal. I did 60 hours last week, including travel. Would it not be better if 2 people did 30 hours each? Is it an ideal we want? At the moment it makes more sense for a company to employ 10 people and give them 20 hours overtime per week on top of a 40 hour working week rather than employ 20 people and give them 30 hours of work per week, due to PRSI taxes etc. The theory is that people who work less are happier and live better fuller lives. There needs to be a political and societal will for change anyway which may not even be there.

150 years ago the average working week was 60-70 hours and the idea of a 5 day working week was viewed by some as the death of productivity.

15 hour week, no problem. Why not just stay home and get paid for doing nothing.
That's what the socialist Democrats in America are espousing at present (I'm guessing everyone would get paid in Cryptocurrency?).
Work ethic is really taking a beating lately. You can bet your bottom dollar there's an ulterior motive.

[peadar1987]

15 hour week, no problem. Why not just stay home and get paid for doing nothing.
That's what the socialist Democrats in America are espousing at present (I'm guessing everyone would get paid in Cryptocurrency?).
Work ethic is really taking a beating lately. You can bet your bottom dollar there's an ulterior motive.

Are there any prominent democrats who support paying people to stay home and do nothing (over and above jobseeker's allowance)?