Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s easier to blame the heartland than it is to think about why it happened that way, isn’t it?
I’ve long since stopped giving a fuck about why these people are the way they are.
enjoy the decline then I suppose
Statement by Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands,Norway,Sweden,UK
601–604 of 604 posts
Re: Statement by Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands,Norway,Sweden,UK
#602Earlier quoted context omitted.
This thread is about effectiveness, not tangibility (which ironically proves my point).
General strikes are extremely effective
I guess I'll be the one to say it:
Having an organization that collectively bargains for the employees would be very useful right about now. I know, I know... unions can be corrupted and next thing you know, it's a legalized mob.
Well, if my choice is that or "upskill myself" and "negotiate", while ignoring the inherent and overwhelming power asymmetry that exists between an employee and the employer, I'll go with the mob; at least they have my back.
Yes I'm being glib, but there's also some truth to that. Almost all of the reasons or arguments I've seen from those who oppose unions are based on some myth or combination of myths, such as: - We don't need unions because we're 'well paid' (relatively speaking) - Unions only value seniority - Make it nye impossible to get rid of poor performers - Dark money comes in and corrupts the nomination process, now the CEO's buddy runs the union and you don't even know this is controlled opposition
Okay I'm being facetious on that last one, but seriously. We are long, long overdue for a power shift that values the workers. Emphasis on values because that word value has been cooped to be synonymous with money, and it is anything but.
Re: Statement by Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands,Norway,Sweden,UK
#603Since Trump can't walk away from NATO [1], could the claim on Greenland be a ruse to force the de-facto resolution of NATO? He probably sees Europe as too meek to do anything more dramatic/substantial. And believes that without NATO, Europe would buy more US weapons that they now get "for free". [1] https://www.dirittoue.info/u-s-legislation-restricts-preside...
I'm not sure how attacking Greenland would accomplish the goal of more European spending on US weapons.
If indeed this turns out to be a ruse, Greenland conquest would not be Trump's end game. It would be just a performative confrontation to get rid of NATO 1.0. Who is really ready to start WW3 over Greenland?
After NATO 1.0 is declared dead and burried, Trump might as well backpedal and start negotiating NATO 2.0. Which would be light on US military commitments and heavy on European arm purchase commitments. And he seems to believe (not unjustifiably - see Nord Stream sabotage) that the European leaders are spineless enough to accept a NATO 2.0 deal.
This will not be unlike Trump's thinking: "I'll build a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it".
Wild theory, yes. But we live in wild times, unfortunately.
Re: Statement by Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands,Norway,Sweden,UK
#604Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, China only holds about 600bn these days. Besides European sovereign holdings, most of the rest would be non-sovereign.
Yup, that's my point. They sold off lots of debt and nobody noticed so EU doing the same won't matter.
>and nobody noticed
You didn't notice. Look at the interest rate chart[1]
[1] https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/interest-expense-avg-interes...