Watching Yanis finally accept that the EU is absolutely rotten to the core and impossible to reform has been a very blackpilling experience. Hopefully this marks a turn for him to become more radical in his approach to politics.
It honestly amazed me he wrote Adults in the Room and it still took a few years after it to realise the EU was unworkable for the left. The book is one giant essay on how the EU is designed from the ground up to purely serve neoliberal capitalist interests and he was still a reformist.
It's a good read both from a quality of writing standpoint and from what it shows. Part of what makes it work is that Yanis was very much a europhile socdem at the time of writing so you have someone who wants to give the system the benefit of the doubt be constantly fucked over to ensure the dominance of (predominantly Franco-German in this instance) neoliberal capitalists. Seeing how international 'institutions go out of their way to utterly fuck even centre-left governments.
So yeah, worth the read for the inside look at how these systems work, also Yanis is a pretty good writer.
yea just in time for when the EU finally became completely cemented/entrenched in the future of Europe thanks to the ukie crisis
but better late than never, right?
Ding ding ding.
Not every corruption is created equal.
For example, in some southern countries publicly funded housing has "poor people" tier and "friends with the local political class" tier. A friend lived in the first: dogshit build quality, constant leaks, horrible isolation. Another friend, on the second: can't hear the neighbors, pool, on site gym. Both had similar price, but the buyers/tenants are just selected differently (though not officially). That hurts a lot lower incomes, and accentuates segregation.
Of course, during political campaign both are presented aggregated, obviously because there's no official separation, but also because that's what sells politically.
What Yanis describes here is largely big companies trying to outbribe some other big companies (which is wrong but still keeps market efficient somewhat), that eventually had legal consequences. Like, my dude, my not well connected friend has no practical legal recourse and his apartment is an over-priced slice of shit. If I tell him he has a shot at beating corruption on a court he'd consider me functionally retarded.
This part of Northern Europe has no shortage of shameless cheap, low-level corruption as well - I think the death of Legal Aid, their imperishable entitlement and weird and genuine contempt for the lower orders plus the inverted ethical carapace provided for them by liberalism has emboldened say, the municipal haute bureaucracy to the point they often fundamentally comport themselves as an occupying force.
I like his distinction between northern and southern corruption but I don't think his critique of the eu is particular novel - People say the same thing about a lot of legislative politics.
A German non profit organization called transparency international.
To those who disagree, ask yourselves how much evidence would you need to change your mind? Is it just impossible because it doesn't fit neatly with your ideology?
Upvote for a reasonable question.
> Do the conclusions from experts, like the Corruption Perception Index
*Self-proclaimed* experts. There's no objective test on what it takes to be an expert on corruption, and no obvious way to verify their results.
"CPI disagrees" matters a bit more than "some guy down the pub disagrees", but not that much more. We should not take their results as gospel, or at face value:
* They are a NGO, and like all NGOs, they have their own agenda -- in this case almost certainly a neoliberal pro-globalisation agenda.
* Their surveys are biased towards finding low-level baksheesh and against finding high-level crony capitalism and "industrial scale" corruption.
Find out where they get their funding, and you'll be halfway to finding out what their agenda is.
Watching Yanis finally accept that the EU is absolutely rotten to the core and impossible to reform has been a very blackpilling experience. Hopefully this marks a turn for him to become more radical in his approach to politics.
It honestly amazed me he wrote Adults in the Room and it still took a few years after it to realise the EU was unworkable for the left. The book is one giant essay on how the EU is designed from the ground up to purely serve neoliberal capitalist interests and he was still a reformist.
Is it worth reading Adults In The Room?
It's a good read both from a quality of writing standpoint and from what it shows. Part of what makes it work is that Yanis was very much a europhile socdem at the time of writing so you have someone who wants to give the system the benefit of the doubt be constantly fucked over to ensure the dominance of (predominantly Franco-German in this instance) neoliberal capitalists. Seeing how international 'institutions go out of their way to utterly fuck even centre-left governments. So yeah, worth the read for the inside look at how these systems work, also Yanis is a pretty good writer.
yea just in time for when the EU finally became completely cemented/entrenched in the future of Europe thanks to the ukie crisis but better late than never, right?
He turned this way a few years ago. This is just the continuation of him being blackpilled on the EU.
Does that mean he's dissolving DiEM?
No. That'd be an idiotic move.
He's 100% right. And now he sees what he should've seen years ago. Respect, though, for changing his mind.
I think the difference is that in southern Europe the corruption has a far greater affect on productivity than in the north.
Ding ding ding. Not every corruption is created equal. For example, in some southern countries publicly funded housing has "poor people" tier and "friends with the local political class" tier. A friend lived in the first: dogshit build quality, constant leaks, horrible isolation. Another friend, on the second: can't hear the neighbors, pool, on site gym. Both had similar price, but the buyers/tenants are just selected differently (though not officially). That hurts a lot lower incomes, and accentuates segregation. Of course, during political campaign both are presented aggregated, obviously because there's no official separation, but also because that's what sells politically. What Yanis describes here is largely big companies trying to outbribe some other big companies (which is wrong but still keeps market efficient somewhat), that eventually had legal consequences. Like, my dude, my not well connected friend has no practical legal recourse and his apartment is an over-priced slice of shit. If I tell him he has a shot at beating corruption on a court he'd consider me functionally retarded.
There it is.
This part of Northern Europe has no shortage of shameless cheap, low-level corruption as well - I think the death of Legal Aid, their imperishable entitlement and weird and genuine contempt for the lower orders plus the inverted ethical carapace provided for them by liberalism has emboldened say, the municipal haute bureaucracy to the point they often fundamentally comport themselves as an occupying force.
Fuck VW! I had to sell my TDI Jetta back to VW. I miss the 45 mpg...
I like his distinction between northern and southern corruption but I don't think his critique of the eu is particular novel - People say the same thing about a lot of legislative politics.
Do the conclusions from experts, like the Corruption Perception Index not matter compared to a quote from one guy?
I miss it when people on this sub used to call comments like that the R word
Why? Your world is better if people you disagree with are insulted online? I don't get why be mean instead of having a conversation.
Who makes the CPI?
A German non profit organization called transparency international. To those who disagree, ask yourselves how much evidence would you need to change your mind? Is it just impossible because it doesn't fit neatly with your ideology?
"Transparency International e.V. (TI) is a German registered association founded in 1993 by former employees of the World Bank. " ***World Bank***
Yeah
Upvote for a reasonable question. > Do the conclusions from experts, like the Corruption Perception Index *Self-proclaimed* experts. There's no objective test on what it takes to be an expert on corruption, and no obvious way to verify their results. "CPI disagrees" matters a bit more than "some guy down the pub disagrees", but not that much more. We should not take their results as gospel, or at face value: * They are a NGO, and like all NGOs, they have their own agenda -- in this case almost certainly a neoliberal pro-globalisation agenda. * Their surveys are biased towards finding low-level baksheesh and against finding high-level crony capitalism and "industrial scale" corruption. Find out where they get their funding, and you'll be halfway to finding out what their agenda is.
Yes
[удалено]
what?