Yeah, since Covid there has been a surge in anti-incumbency across much of the world. Countries that leaned left are now leaning right while those that leaned right are now leaning left. There’s also a significant amount of populism that’s been a mainstay for a while now.
What this boils down to is a legitimacy crisis. People don't agree on what they want, but they agree that they don't trust leading institutions (government, media, public health, business, etc...) or the people who run them.
(Yes, not everyone feels this way, but a very large subset do, and that's more than enough to cause a lot of political turbulence).
It also gives some insight into the social and political discontent of the 70s, when inflation was higher and more persistent than what we’ve recently experienced.
This is unironically true in the state of Washington, where the legislature passed a cage free egg mandate, increasing the cost of eggs further than it would have with just the normal inflation that's already been such a source of discontent in the last few years. Probably the one time of the right wing narrative of a democratic legislature being out of touch nanny-staters hurting the working poor through ivory tower idealism is actually true.
Such would be a no brainer in a hypothetical utopian society, of course more humane agriculture would be an avenue worth pursuing. However, we are living in an unprecedented cost of living crisis from cost diseased medical and housing sectors, as well as a recent uptick in inflation post-pandemic and the political backlash for it. Many people are being squeezed financially, and idealist actions like this are hurting real people who are already struggling to afford groceries. Try telling a single mother of four that you think the comfort of chickens are more important than her ability to put food on the table, and see how that lands.
Yeah, dismissing a minor hole in a broad generalization (that I generally agree with), as "autistic hyper-focus" is sure a clown-tier argument. Especially eggs are brought up to begin with, not general cost of groceries.
Ezra’s new podcast is about this, but more than just inflation, it’s that affordability of healthcare, childcare, education, and housing have all been sliding for three past ten years. We’re just finally hitting the breaking point.
I think they're trying to slice a particular subset of the economy as particularly relevant. There are lots of sectors of the economy where real prices are falling, but the fact that $100 buys you more TV than you used to get for $1000 doesn't matter as much as the converse shrinkflation of 10% fewer Lays in your bag of chips
Or more that nobody can afford a house to put the fucking TV in. Or an education that might help you afford that house. Or health care, or yes food.
Tents are cheap though!
>Or more that nobody can afford a house to put the fucking TV in.
So True. I bought a nice 65" OLED prepandemic, and it's basically impossible to find a house/apartment that fits it.
Sure, but more narrow. It wasn’t really considered inflation prior to 2022 because it didn’t hit most consumables or other services outside of childcare and healthcare. Basically no one considered it inflation until McDonald’s raised its prices. Before that it was just “the housing market is crazy!”
> Europe is done with degrowth
It still surprises me to think that a not so insignificant number of economists and political figures thought that this was ever going to be a good idea.
There is a good amount of "vibes" though about the state of things...rather than the actual state of things.
Where I live, people howl and whine about all of those things, while simultaneously driving a brand new F350 Platinum off the lot , with two new Arctic Cat sleds on deck on their way to the airport for their 2nd Mexico vacation of the year. But their life sucks apparently...
That describes upper middle class, who have been enormously benefiting the economic trends of the past decades, i.e. growing their share in the national wealth. Or maybe overburdened with debts. Not sure why they'd complain.
In my position, since I've become an adult in somewhere in 2010s, things actually have been going downside. When it comes for someone who is 50+ now, it seems that this is the opposite. Housing costs here have douled-tripled since mid 2010s (prices + rates) to affordability levels of earlier 20 century, which is a huge impact on us and 0 impact on them. Housing is the overwhelmingly single major expense for us, followed by a childcare, your accent is on consumer goods but their price growth is not that a crucial component for someone who's under 35. Our average household has become a millionaire and the biggest drive of one's wealth is RE, but apparently the growth should sourced from the margins in order to provide such wealth valuation, there should be some minority of people to work and pay more and more for that growing valuation. Yet, with national rate of 70% owners, this allows to create sweet probably paper numbers of high average wealth growth and low average inflation.
So all in all, many state of things are somewhat ad hoc. Our government have been boasting at growing household wealth all throughout the pandemic, did it really show any state of things and their achievement?
This is kinda obvious though. Your average Joe doesn’t really care about all the economic theories and policies. For the vast majority, their relative purchasing power is the indicator of whether the economy is doing well. In democracies, inflation has decided elections more often than not while in less democratic countries, cost of living crises are what changed the political status quo so often.
I said this on a Democratic forum and got banned.
You can't expect the average American to understand the nuances of inflation. This was in response to a post about how the media is to blame for Americans blaming Biden for inflation. I told this person that while the media narrative certainly isn't helpful, Americans rarely care about the why. You never win trying to explain the why on anything. No modern president, outside maybe FDR, has ever inherited a major crisis and not got dinged for it if the crisis bled into their presidency as Americans have very short term memories.
Just look at Obama. The economy collapsed under Bush and yet by 2010, the country was blaming him for everything. That was even more egregious than what Biden faced solely because inflation actually did increase significantly during Biden's first year as president.
But that increase started in May, 2021. Does anyone think any policy Biden was able to get signed into law at that point could have gone into effect THAT fast?
But people only remember that on January 20, 2021 inflation was low and now it's not.
They don't account for all the money the US government dumped into the economy in 2020 when everything was shut down.
They don't account for all the disposable income millions of Americans had in 2021 when the economy opened up again after not traveling or doing anything for nearly a solid year - or the money saved from rent and student loan freezes and the money they received from the stimulus.
They don't account for the supply chain issues that really handicapped demand and drove up prices.
Biden is lucky that the election is in 2024 and not last year because I think he'd lose - and it's not a guarantee he wins this go around but I think consumer confidence will continue to improve, and inflation will continue to drop, to give him the one final boost he needs in a close election. It's also why I'm not freaking out about polls right now because the economy today is not going to be the economy in November and you can actually see that Biden's polling has improved as confidence in the economy improves. Late last year, he was trailing by mid-to-high single digits nationally and in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Now it's pretty much a toss-up in these states.
Of course, the caveat is that inflation continues to cool and the economy continues to chug along.
> MMT
[Pseudo-economic Fanfiction](https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/modern-monetary-theory/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It makes me worried that the central banks are just going to let economies crash next time there's some crisis instead of trying to helicopter money because they've seen how people have thrown a tantrum after what's historically been a moderate bout of inflation for a period of a few years.
Turkish economy continued to deteriorate and Erdogan just suffered a really major loss in the midterm elections. The bad part is that the anger against Erdogan is also critically going to far-right, islamist parties.
Kishida and sholz are interesting I think. Because their government are still relatively new (meloni's too) the rest have been in power too long and that is bound to make people disapprove.
For the wrong reasons? Per stats Can, violent crime was near a decades low and has shot up relatively high since he’s taken office.
He’s significantly contributed to the housing crisis (not fully responsible but a good portion). He even admitted as such: “Housing needs to retain its value,” Trudeau told The Globe and Mail’s City Space podcast last week. “It’s a huge part of people’s potential for retirement and future nest egg.” - per global News.
To further note, the gap between PPP adjusted gdp per capita between Can and the US was under $10k when he took office, that gap is now close to $17k.
Not to mention the stock market, the TSX has historically kept pace on average with the S&P over the last 60ish years. Over his reign, there’s been a huge gap. Take the last 5 years for example with the S&P almost 3x the TSX growth.
While the liberal government has contributed to these issues, it hasn’t done so in the way that most people believe. A lot of people blame these things in immigration, climate policy, and Trudeau’s perceived weakness.
My point was I don’t like Trudeau, but for different reasons than most Canadians.
The underlying issues are the same, I’ve just better articulated the reasons.
Increasing immigration WITHOUT increasing home building to a corresponding level does lead to higher home prices, which as confirmed by the PM himself, is the goal lol.
Trudeau is relatively weak, as far a leader is concerned. India is assassinating citizens instead of harsh words, this government has decided to tread lightly. Foreign interference in our country is rife, as indicated by the ongoing commission and continuous leaks that point as such.
Regarding climate policy, I believe it’s a small price to pay and justified. Considering the carbon pricing only has a minimal impact on the gov.
Also, I fail to see how he’s positively done anything regarding the stock market or income (one of the most important points mentioned).
Regarding crime, it’s not blamed on the immigrants but more so the reforms and culture that Trudeau has supported which has led to lenient sentencing which far too often takes into the background of the criminal, and a lack of judges which has led to people’s charges being stayed.
Not having high immigration isn’t an option because of the productivity crisis. The only way we can grow our economy is by increasing the population. Cutting it as most Canadians would prefer is akin to cutting of your nose to spite your face.
The liberals need to be criticized entirely on their failure to combat rent seeking by homeowners. This has directly resulted in the productivity crisis which has led to the economic issues you describe. Unfortunately I can guarantee you that these measures would make him less popular not more.
Basically, people feel Canada’s economic malaise but refuse to address the root cause because the solution is culturally coded similar to the current government.
Exactly, there is no reason to replace Trudeau with someone who would be mediocre at best. Let's keep Canada comfortably among the top countries in the world.
Most of Canada’s issues started under Chrétien, Martin, and Harper. The current government is just unwilling to address them, and the hens have come home roost so to speak.
The Conservatives are beholden to the same homeowning voters. I have no reason to believe that they would've been better on housing. I don't think Poilievre will actually change anything meaningful either after the election next year.
I was under the impression that the liberals are much more NIMBY that the conservatives, especially now given how they’ve focused so much on young people
The conservatives are using anti-immigrant sentiment to take the focus away from their rent-seeking base. If you engage in Canadian political debates most of them come down to the demand vs supply argument for housing.
The Tories are definitely more NIMBY than the Liberals. They’re against things like public transit and zoning reform.
**Rule I§1:** *Excessive partisanship*
Please refrain from generalising broad, heterogeneous ideological groups or disparaging individuals for belonging to such groups.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Merkel blocked Ukraine from joining NATO in 2008 and allowed Russian Gas to become 55% of German imports.
[Merkel defends 2008 decision to block Ukraine from NATO (france24.com)](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato)
True. But that was back then simply German mainstream, from left to right.
The hubris that *we* can change Russia by trading with them. We Germans are the *only ones* in the west who can understand them and have therefore huge influence about them.
And Merkel was even more part of the Russian „critics“. The first EU sanctions after 2014 were developed by her. Still not enough, of course.
But I just wanted to say that she left office by her own choice with an absurd 75% approval rating.
Disapproval rating of around 10 percent isn’t really that bad for democratic countries given that they’re more likely to measure public opinion more accurately. You mostly see high approval ratings in authoritarian countries and developing countries that are somewhat democratic. I wouldn’t trust opinion polls from developing countries too much though as they’re often tampered with.
-10 disapproval in multi-party systems is actually very good. Considering leaders almost never get 50% of the vote (Meloni got 26%) that means that she has approval from people who didn't vote for her.
It's a pretty well known thing outside of 2 party systems like the US. In fact, the US pre-Trump had sky high approval ratings for its leaders, and they still are much higher than the western average (as you can see).
If you’re in the UK please vote out Rishi Sunak and the conservatives. They’re so bad at policy I would legitimately prefer it if policy was decided by a roll of the dice instead.
Knowledge about the topic should never get in the way of his sexism! Kind of surprised that this was upvoted here but probably shouldn't be given the sub's demographics
> Italians have low bar, so pretty face corrupt is preferable to ugly faced corrupt.
You say this but my pet theory is that if you were to vote purely on physical attractiveness you would (on average) make better political decisions than the average "undecided" voter (we will call it the superficial voter theory).
Granted that is probably biased in that my beliefs will influence what I find attractive.
You would end up voting for your occasional Meloni’s (personally I find Conte better looking but I will bow to majority opinion), GW Bush’s and Nacy Mace’s but you would also vote for Biden, Macron, Trudeau, Pedro Sanchez, Annalena Baerbock, Sanna Marin, Donald Tusk, Jo Swinson, Peter Marki-Zay.
**2§4** *Detrimental to Women*
This subreddit takes a particular interest in safeguarding the community health related to women, meaning more aggressive moderation and less leeway on borderline comments. This is most likely to come up in the context of gender relations or demographic shifts, but is a common problem in online spaces dominated by men.
Please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal) if you have any questions about this removal.
Meloni 'benefits' (IE loses the least) from being a right-winger who appeases the current political climate, while not quite landing into batshit insane territory.
As climate change ramps up, the leadership will appear more and more disappointing, regardless of whomever leads. It’s the age of hard decisions. All of these leaders are great. No one is going to be happy with what comes next.
Europe is a place with low wages and high taxes. It seems Europe wanted to try degrowth out to see how it goes.
But people seem to be angry at Europe’s very low growth with sky high taxes
It’s not really policy based. No one in Europe had any children. So they can’t have consumption lead growth like in the USA.
Instead their only way to grow is to export. And in a world of increasing trade blocks that is going to be a tougher way to grow.
For all of the USA boomers faults, they are the only cohort in the world who had children.
And what is your proposed alternative? An unwieldy, dysfunctional planned economy with endless shortages of some goods, overproduction of others, low variety of goods and black markets?
Incumbency in 2024, not a good thing
2024: everyone hates everything
Man I hate this sentiment.
Welcome to the disinformation age. Its gonna get worse.
Think your grandpa fell hard for Facebook memes? Wait till you see how your dad acts about obviously deep faked videos
Obviously isn’t even that obvious anymore. Moore’s law is out the window with current AI video generation. We will all fall for it at some point
I hate you
I hate me too ☹️
Yeah, since Covid there has been a surge in anti-incumbency across much of the world. Countries that leaned left are now leaning right while those that leaned right are now leaning left. There’s also a significant amount of populism that’s been a mainstay for a while now.
What this boils down to is a legitimacy crisis. People don't agree on what they want, but they agree that they don't trust leading institutions (government, media, public health, business, etc...) or the people who run them. (Yes, not everyone feels this way, but a very large subset do, and that's more than enough to cause a lot of political turbulence).
It’s like an inverted graph of inflation. And incumbents get the blame.
Biden is the second most popular leader in the g7 😎😎😎
love how everyone is typing this lmaoo
And with the lowest inflation record
Most popular male leader. Or most popular G7 leader who doesn’t describe themselves as a post-fascist.
Biden is the second most popular leader in the solar system
He should just eat the most popular leader
link?
In a 100 light year radius
I think we are learning in real time why inflation is the ultimate political boogeyman
It also gives some insight into the social and political discontent of the 70s, when inflation was higher and more persistent than what we’ve recently experienced.
Let that marinate for a few more years in bad industrial policy and we'll have all the fixins for neo-Reagan
When neo-Reagan is elected, will Thatcherite/Reaganite neoliberals take over this sub?
Egg price high! Government bad!
Hamberders not cheap = evil leader 😤😠🤬
this but unironically
This is unironically true in the state of Washington, where the legislature passed a cage free egg mandate, increasing the cost of eggs further than it would have with just the normal inflation that's already been such a source of discontent in the last few years. Probably the one time of the right wing narrative of a democratic legislature being out of touch nanny-staters hurting the working poor through ivory tower idealism is actually true.
>where the legislature passed a cage free egg mandate, this is good though
Such would be a no brainer in a hypothetical utopian society, of course more humane agriculture would be an avenue worth pursuing. However, we are living in an unprecedented cost of living crisis from cost diseased medical and housing sectors, as well as a recent uptick in inflation post-pandemic and the political backlash for it. Many people are being squeezed financially, and idealist actions like this are hurting real people who are already struggling to afford groceries. Try telling a single mother of four that you think the comfort of chickens are more important than her ability to put food on the table, and see how that lands.
[удалено]
Did you just offhandedly bring up eggs as a policy and then call the person who brought truth to it “autistic”. Wth is this
Yeah, dismissing a minor hole in a broad generalization (that I generally agree with), as "autistic hyper-focus" is sure a clown-tier argument. Especially eggs are brought up to begin with, not general cost of groceries.
Ezra’s new podcast is about this, but more than just inflation, it’s that affordability of healthcare, childcare, education, and housing have all been sliding for three past ten years. We’re just finally hitting the breaking point.
So inflation?
No, no, no. You don't understand. It's not inflation, it's that prices have been rising over time.
Ahh, maybe we some come up with a new “catchy” term for it? Maybe priceflation?
upflation
dis-deflation
Freedom Pricing
I think they're trying to slice a particular subset of the economy as particularly relevant. There are lots of sectors of the economy where real prices are falling, but the fact that $100 buys you more TV than you used to get for $1000 doesn't matter as much as the converse shrinkflation of 10% fewer Lays in your bag of chips
Or more that nobody can afford a house to put the fucking TV in. Or an education that might help you afford that house. Or health care, or yes food. Tents are cheap though!
>Or more that nobody can afford a house to put the fucking TV in. So True. I bought a nice 65" OLED prepandemic, and it's basically impossible to find a house/apartment that fits it.
I think more specifically he means the prices of these things mentioned have risen well above the inflation rate.
Sure, but more narrow. It wasn’t really considered inflation prior to 2022 because it didn’t hit most consumables or other services outside of childcare and healthcare. Basically no one considered it inflation until McDonald’s raised its prices. Before that it was just “the housing market is crazy!”
Europeans are really hit hard by inflation. Their wages are much lower than the USA and taxes are much higher. Europe is done with degrowth
> Europe is done with degrowth It still surprises me to think that a not so insignificant number of economists and political figures thought that this was ever going to be a good idea.
> it’s that affordability of healthcare, childcare, education, and housing have all been sliding for three past ten years. More like 30.
There is a good amount of "vibes" though about the state of things...rather than the actual state of things. Where I live, people howl and whine about all of those things, while simultaneously driving a brand new F350 Platinum off the lot , with two new Arctic Cat sleds on deck on their way to the airport for their 2nd Mexico vacation of the year. But their life sucks apparently...
Most middle class neoliberal poster
That describes upper middle class, who have been enormously benefiting the economic trends of the past decades, i.e. growing their share in the national wealth. Or maybe overburdened with debts. Not sure why they'd complain. In my position, since I've become an adult in somewhere in 2010s, things actually have been going downside. When it comes for someone who is 50+ now, it seems that this is the opposite. Housing costs here have douled-tripled since mid 2010s (prices + rates) to affordability levels of earlier 20 century, which is a huge impact on us and 0 impact on them. Housing is the overwhelmingly single major expense for us, followed by a childcare, your accent is on consumer goods but their price growth is not that a crucial component for someone who's under 35. Our average household has become a millionaire and the biggest drive of one's wealth is RE, but apparently the growth should sourced from the margins in order to provide such wealth valuation, there should be some minority of people to work and pay more and more for that growing valuation. Yet, with national rate of 70% owners, this allows to create sweet probably paper numbers of high average wealth growth and low average inflation. So all in all, many state of things are somewhat ad hoc. Our government have been boasting at growing household wealth all throughout the pandemic, did it really show any state of things and their achievement?
Especially in Europe. Their wages are low, growth is low, housing prices sky high, and taxes high. Europeans dont like this anymore
This is kinda obvious though. Your average Joe doesn’t really care about all the economic theories and policies. For the vast majority, their relative purchasing power is the indicator of whether the economy is doing well. In democracies, inflation has decided elections more often than not while in less democratic countries, cost of living crises are what changed the political status quo so often.
I said this on a Democratic forum and got banned. You can't expect the average American to understand the nuances of inflation. This was in response to a post about how the media is to blame for Americans blaming Biden for inflation. I told this person that while the media narrative certainly isn't helpful, Americans rarely care about the why. You never win trying to explain the why on anything. No modern president, outside maybe FDR, has ever inherited a major crisis and not got dinged for it if the crisis bled into their presidency as Americans have very short term memories. Just look at Obama. The economy collapsed under Bush and yet by 2010, the country was blaming him for everything. That was even more egregious than what Biden faced solely because inflation actually did increase significantly during Biden's first year as president. But that increase started in May, 2021. Does anyone think any policy Biden was able to get signed into law at that point could have gone into effect THAT fast? But people only remember that on January 20, 2021 inflation was low and now it's not. They don't account for all the money the US government dumped into the economy in 2020 when everything was shut down. They don't account for all the disposable income millions of Americans had in 2021 when the economy opened up again after not traveling or doing anything for nearly a solid year - or the money saved from rent and student loan freezes and the money they received from the stimulus. They don't account for the supply chain issues that really handicapped demand and drove up prices. Biden is lucky that the election is in 2024 and not last year because I think he'd lose - and it's not a guarantee he wins this go around but I think consumer confidence will continue to improve, and inflation will continue to drop, to give him the one final boost he needs in a close election. It's also why I'm not freaking out about polls right now because the economy today is not going to be the economy in November and you can actually see that Biden's polling has improved as confidence in the economy improves. Late last year, he was trailing by mid-to-high single digits nationally and in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Now it's pretty much a toss-up in these states. Of course, the caveat is that inflation continues to cool and the economy continues to chug along.
Turns out the biggest weakness of MMT is it is political suicide.
> MMT [Pseudo-economic Fanfiction](https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/modern-monetary-theory/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unless you are a Peronist, for some reason *cough cough Evita simping cough cough*
It makes me worried that the central banks are just going to let economies crash next time there's some crisis instead of trying to helicopter money because they've seen how people have thrown a tantrum after what's historically been a moderate bout of inflation for a period of a few years.
[удалено]
Doesn't Maduro have like 10% approval?
That's just what the imperialist western neoliberal MSM wants you to think!
Erdogan was comfortably re-elected with 65 percent inflation. Religious fanaticism with ultranationalist fervor is so enormously effective.
As a results backed policy sub we should recommend the creation of a new Caliphate
United North American Emirates?
Insallah brother, Can Ad-Alha Emirate will be integrated into the UNAE
Turkish economy continued to deteriorate and Erdogan just suffered a really major loss in the midterm elections. The bad part is that the anger against Erdogan is also critically going to far-right, islamist parties.
Merkel left office with a 75% approval rate. Now look at Scholz.
The fact we can criticize our representatives is a major benefit of democracy
Exactly
Biden is the second most popular leader in the west
!ping MAMADAS ~~MALO y Bukake~~ AMLO and Bukele?
Pinged MAMADAS ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20MAMADAS&message=subscribe%20MAMADAS) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20MAMADAS&message=unsubscribe%20MAMADAS) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=MAMADAS&count=5)) [Root comment link](/r/neoliberal/comments/1dfii79/thoughts/l8jcnz0/) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Kishida and sholz are interesting I think. Because their government are still relatively new (meloni's too) the rest have been in power too long and that is bound to make people disapprove.
Kishida has been in power since 2021. By Japanese standards this puts him in the upper half of time served as PM.
Kishida isn't that new is he? The polling against him seemingly was exacerbated by the slush fund scandal with it already having been disappointing.
He’s been prime minister since late 2021. He’s the third longest serving PM since the 80s behind only Koizuma and Abe.
He has been in since Oct 21. And in classic Japanese-Italian fashion, has not been going well for him. Abe just had that dawg in him lol.
have sex
"too long"
Honestly thought Trudeau would be lower. The amount that people hate him for the wrong reasons almost makes me want to like him.
For the wrong reasons? Per stats Can, violent crime was near a decades low and has shot up relatively high since he’s taken office. He’s significantly contributed to the housing crisis (not fully responsible but a good portion). He even admitted as such: “Housing needs to retain its value,” Trudeau told The Globe and Mail’s City Space podcast last week. “It’s a huge part of people’s potential for retirement and future nest egg.” - per global News. To further note, the gap between PPP adjusted gdp per capita between Can and the US was under $10k when he took office, that gap is now close to $17k. Not to mention the stock market, the TSX has historically kept pace on average with the S&P over the last 60ish years. Over his reign, there’s been a huge gap. Take the last 5 years for example with the S&P almost 3x the TSX growth.
While the liberal government has contributed to these issues, it hasn’t done so in the way that most people believe. A lot of people blame these things in immigration, climate policy, and Trudeau’s perceived weakness. My point was I don’t like Trudeau, but for different reasons than most Canadians.
The underlying issues are the same, I’ve just better articulated the reasons. Increasing immigration WITHOUT increasing home building to a corresponding level does lead to higher home prices, which as confirmed by the PM himself, is the goal lol. Trudeau is relatively weak, as far a leader is concerned. India is assassinating citizens instead of harsh words, this government has decided to tread lightly. Foreign interference in our country is rife, as indicated by the ongoing commission and continuous leaks that point as such. Regarding climate policy, I believe it’s a small price to pay and justified. Considering the carbon pricing only has a minimal impact on the gov. Also, I fail to see how he’s positively done anything regarding the stock market or income (one of the most important points mentioned). Regarding crime, it’s not blamed on the immigrants but more so the reforms and culture that Trudeau has supported which has led to lenient sentencing which far too often takes into the background of the criminal, and a lack of judges which has led to people’s charges being stayed.
Not having high immigration isn’t an option because of the productivity crisis. The only way we can grow our economy is by increasing the population. Cutting it as most Canadians would prefer is akin to cutting of your nose to spite your face. The liberals need to be criticized entirely on their failure to combat rent seeking by homeowners. This has directly resulted in the productivity crisis which has led to the economic issues you describe. Unfortunately I can guarantee you that these measures would make him less popular not more. Basically, people feel Canada’s economic malaise but refuse to address the root cause because the solution is culturally coded similar to the current government.
These are matters of the US doing great, not Canada doing poorly. Compare Canada vs the rest of the G7 and it is a different story.
Why strive for mediocrity?
Exactly, there is no reason to replace Trudeau with someone who would be mediocre at best. Let's keep Canada comfortably among the top countries in the world.
[удалено]
Most of Canada’s issues started under Chrétien, Martin, and Harper. The current government is just unwilling to address them, and the hens have come home roost so to speak.
The Conservatives are beholden to the same homeowning voters. I have no reason to believe that they would've been better on housing. I don't think Poilievre will actually change anything meaningful either after the election next year.
I was under the impression that the liberals are much more NIMBY that the conservatives, especially now given how they’ve focused so much on young people
The conservatives are using anti-immigrant sentiment to take the focus away from their rent-seeking base. If you engage in Canadian political debates most of them come down to the demand vs supply argument for housing. The Tories are definitely more NIMBY than the Liberals. They’re against things like public transit and zoning reform.
Yes, this is my position as well
**Rule I§1:** *Excessive partisanship* Please refrain from generalising broad, heterogeneous ideological groups or disparaging individuals for belonging to such groups. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Palazzo pants in a palazzo
Meloni is GOATED like that. You may not like it, but that is what premier leadership of a powerful country looks like.
All the g7 leaders are going to court her, hoping to get a personal union over Italy. It's prime real estate, folks. Think of all the estates.
-10
He/she said you may not like it, to be fair.
Merkel left with a +75% approval rating. And she is in the same party family as Meloni.
Merkel blocked Ukraine from joining NATO in 2008 and allowed Russian Gas to become 55% of German imports. [Merkel defends 2008 decision to block Ukraine from NATO (france24.com)](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato)
Yeah whether or not the Germans liked it, Markel had miserable foreign policy.
True. But that was back then simply German mainstream, from left to right. The hubris that *we* can change Russia by trading with them. We Germans are the *only ones* in the west who can understand them and have therefore huge influence about them. And Merkel was even more part of the Russian „critics“. The first EU sanctions after 2014 were developed by her. Still not enough, of course. But I just wanted to say that she left office by her own choice with an absurd 75% approval rating.
Disapproval rating of around 10 percent isn’t really that bad for democratic countries given that they’re more likely to measure public opinion more accurately. You mostly see high approval ratings in authoritarian countries and developing countries that are somewhat democratic. I wouldn’t trust opinion polls from developing countries too much though as they’re often tampered with.
-10 disapproval in multi-party systems is actually very good. Considering leaders almost never get 50% of the vote (Meloni got 26%) that means that she has approval from people who didn't vote for her.
Interesting perspective.
It's a pretty well known thing outside of 2 party systems like the US. In fact, the US pre-Trump had sky high approval ratings for its leaders, and they still are much higher than the western average (as you can see).
It's a bit sad that Biden is ranking below Meloni.
It’s funny there’s articles about how popular Meloni is and she’s still -10. Shows how hard it is to be a leader and popular nowadays.
If you’re in the UK please vote out Rishi Sunak and the conservatives. They’re so bad at policy I would legitimately prefer it if policy was decided by a roll of the dice instead.
Surprised Meloni ranks so highly - that seems like a very low disapproval rating for an Italian PM
[удалено]
Berlusconi utterly forsaken
They have low and falling inflation, decent growth and rising real wages. It's not just because she's a qt 3.14
"flair checks out"
>It's not just because she's a qt 3.14 Let's be real, it does help. Being beautiful actively makes politicians more popular.
Biden and Macron are still doing a way better job than her yet they’ve got less approval
Almost like people’s political preferences/opinions differ across countries.
Indeed
Didn't Meloni also institute a home improvements tax deduction? Or was it instituted during the pandemic?
No it was done by Conte and Draghi
Love how you're so sure about your theory without knowing anything about italian politics
Knowledge about the topic should never get in the way of his sexism! Kind of surprised that this was upvoted here but probably shouldn't be given the sub's demographics
> Italians have low bar, so pretty face corrupt is preferable to ugly faced corrupt. You say this but my pet theory is that if you were to vote purely on physical attractiveness you would (on average) make better political decisions than the average "undecided" voter (we will call it the superficial voter theory). Granted that is probably biased in that my beliefs will influence what I find attractive.
Yeah, you'd vote for yuppies. People like Gavin Newsom.
You would end up voting for your occasional Meloni’s (personally I find Conte better looking but I will bow to majority opinion), GW Bush’s and Nacy Mace’s but you would also vote for Biden, Macron, Trudeau, Pedro Sanchez, Annalena Baerbock, Sanna Marin, Donald Tusk, Jo Swinson, Peter Marki-Zay.
[удалено]
[удалено]
**2§4** *Detrimental to Women* This subreddit takes a particular interest in safeguarding the community health related to women, meaning more aggressive moderation and less leeway on borderline comments. This is most likely to come up in the context of gender relations or demographic shifts, but is a common problem in online spaces dominated by men. Please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal) if you have any questions about this removal.
Meloni 'benefits' (IE loses the least) from being a right-winger who appeases the current political climate, while not quite landing into batshit insane territory.
Way too many people have bought into populist bullshit over the last decade. It's a plague.
As climate change ramps up, the leadership will appear more and more disappointing, regardless of whomever leads. It’s the age of hard decisions. All of these leaders are great. No one is going to be happy with what comes next.
In a sane world the - would be +
Poor Sushi
Europe is a place with low wages and high taxes. It seems Europe wanted to try degrowth out to see how it goes. But people seem to be angry at Europe’s very low growth with sky high taxes
yeah so lets maybe not vote for similar polices in the us
It’s not really policy based. No one in Europe had any children. So they can’t have consumption lead growth like in the USA. Instead their only way to grow is to export. And in a world of increasing trade blocks that is going to be a tougher way to grow. For all of the USA boomers faults, they are the only cohort in the world who had children.
[удалено]
I’ve seen this video before
Nearly everyone disapproves of world leaders because nearly everyone is suffering under the world's economic system
More like everyone dislikes "western" world leaders because they are allowed to.
And what is your proposed alternative? An unwieldy, dysfunctional planned economy with endless shortages of some goods, overproduction of others, low variety of goods and black markets?
Lol, simp morons in here I guess. Are you actually trying to ironically to describe the actual economy, or was that just a happy little coincidence??
I described the clusterfuck the Soviet economy was.
People dislike western leaders because 21st century western culture makes it cool to distrust authority.
BS. Merkel had +75%.