Jump to content

Mentat

Members
  • Posts

    1,099
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Valencia

Recent Profile Visitors

6,287 profile views

Mentat's Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. I think it isn't as much an emphasis on the upkeep of tourist areas (even if there is some of that, naturally), but decentralisation, and the power (and especially the funding) of both regional and local governments. This both helps regions from being left too far behind (to an extent... the less populated and largely agricultural regions still struggle) and gives local governments the means to provide quality basic services like street cleaning and maintenance, pest control, water supply and sewage, etc. I strongly believe this is important for quality of life in Spain. Of course, the other side of the coin is several sets of complex regulations emanating from different levels of government and the excessive bureaucracy that leads to the problems you mention. It has been slowly getting better, but still has a way to go. I also think being in the EU helps Spain a great deal.
  2. Telecinco is (or was...) a Berlusconi owned media outlet considered to be pretty far to the right politically and not extremely reliable when it comes to news (though not what you'd call a tabloid, either). They are supposed to know their gossip, though. In the article they're very careful to attribute the news to the individual journalist Concha Calleja, who claims she has a reliable source and has been covering the ins and outs of the British Royal Family for 27 years. I'd never heard of her before today, but then I don't really follow this kind of news.
  3. I recently read 'The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism' by Martin Wolf. He had several things to say on the subject of immigration which I found thought-provoking: - On a macro-economic level, both the positive and negative effects of immigration tend to be greatly exaggerated. They're actually pretty negligible. - On a micro-economic level, immigration has a strong positive effect on the immigrants and their families. - Immigration cannot possibly offset the effects of low birth rates at its current level. You'd need levels of immigration several orders of magnitude greater than they are now. Martin Wolf doesn't believe this would be politically or socially sustainable. - There's a strong correlation between levels of immigration and both political polarisation and support for right-wing parties.
  4. It also helps that (unlike some other outlets) The Guardian doesn't feel beholden to any economic or political interests. They may have a clear left-wing bias, but their agenda is their own. They often disagree with and criticise Labour.
  5. I think it's more a question of rationality than of science. Science is a process. A devoutly religious person who performs experiments rigorously and reports their results accurately may excel in any field of science (and indeed many notable scientists, such as Mendel, have been devoutly religious). The specific tenets of any major religion, though, are not based on rationality. The belief that Allah is God and Muhammad is his prophet of a Muslim and the belief that God is the Holy Trinity of the Father, his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit of a Christian have the exact same rational basis (which is to say none), but I'd expect a devout Muslim to belief the first is true and the second is not. The belief that an all powerful creator of the universe much cares about our head-gear, what food we eat or what day of the week we work is, to me, to put it kindly, fanciful, yet this is something all major religions share to an extent. I've always found this argument weak. On one hand, though most all religions will claim their God is "good", their actions as portrayed in different holy texts often seem anything but (lawful neutral at best), so we're forced to understand this goodness backwards (what God does or allows to happen is good because God does it or allows it to happen, and any moral judgement you might make opposite to this is wrong because you don't know better than God). On the other hand, we tend to brand as "evil" things that happen to us (death, injury, sickness, old age...), things that happen in general (natural disasters, famine...) and things that we purposefully do to each other (war, crime...). Yet a world devoid of all this would be extremely strange and boring, and we probably wouldn't even exist in it (would an omni-benevolent God have allowed a meteorite to wipe out the dinosaurs?). Without adversity or competition (which lead to "evil" things such as death, winners and losers, inequality...) the world might be an endless calm sea full of lazy immortal amoeba with no incentive to evolve.
  6. The amount of serious crimes Reacher commits (up to and including several first degree murders) is staggering. He's basically a Chaotic Neutral vigilante with absolutely no qualms about killing others. That he managed to thrive in the army is quite surprising, and that NYPD is willing to overlook this because of some vague suspicions of wrong-doing elsewhere shatters my suspension of disbelief completely.
  7. Thank you very much for that, it was extremely informative. I'm not sure I'm 100% convinced by everything (even if an effect of taxation might be to increase currency demand and moderate inflation, surely this is not how it's thought of in terms of policy... even if the treasury or the federal reserve might be able to issue currency, the state as a purveyor of public goods and services is mainly made out of lower level administrations or departments that can't), and as the video itself explains this might not be aplicable to a good amount of countries... but it challenged my conceptions and taught me some important stuff I didn't know, so again, thank you. Also some good follow-up reading recommendations. I'll add Stephanie Kelton's book to my (far too large) reading list.
  8. I mean, technically, but surely the trust in this ability (as pertains to economic actors on a state level, such as other states, international organisations, large multinational corporations and banks, etc) mainly depends on the value of their currency, their ability to borrow at a reasonable rate and their expected revenue. Alas, I think you're right. I tried a Google search and came across this from 2021 (the comments are more interesting than the actual tweets), but it sounds like the economics equivalent of quantum physics to me. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough in the field to process it. If it's non-fiction rather than a strictly academic text, I might give Mazzucato a try after I finish 'The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism'.
  9. Sure, national governments can issue both currency and/or debt in order to spend more money than their revenue and either devalue their currency or run on a deficit (and they can do the reverse, if they want to increase the relative value of their currency or if they have available liquidity to pay off debt), but that's not really the same as saying taxes don't pay for government spending. Can you explain this one to me? Other than through taxes levied on the consumers/producers of water, food and energy, how do these pay for government spending?
  10. Okay, but that graph, if I understand it correctly, is showing total Debt vs anual GDP, rather than how much of the anual budget was financed through debt. According to the House of Commons Library, in the 2022/2023 financial year, the UK spent 1.155 billion pounds, of which 1.018 were financed through revenue (taxes) and 137 through debt.
  11. While I've never been an advocate for austerity, I've always believed taxes do indeed pay for government spending. I work in Spanish local government, and yearly budgeting is a big part of my role. Most of our budget comes from local taxes and central government contribution to our budget (which is allocated to us from and in proportion to government tax revenue in our area). If taxes don't pay for government spending, what does? Debt?
  12. The right to generally have a cat, no. However, if this person already has a cat, and if they don't have a way to ensure the cat is well taken care of should they stop caring for it themselves, then that could constitute animal cruelty or a dereliction of one's specific duty of care towards another living being. While most major religions care little about animals, there are plenty of (admittedly minor) animistic/pantheist religions which could consider this a breach of conduct. Being a cat lover myself, I agree with kissdbyfire that, should no other considerations exist and if the person making the decision has enough discretion over the matter, the rights of the animal, and of this person who cares about it enough to have kicked up some serious fuss, should be respected. ETA: I found this fun/useful link: https://hraf.yale.edu/the-wild-world-of-cat-beliefs/
  13. I read the Monarchies of God by Paul Kearney (all 4 books), which was recommended on this board. I found it a good yarn and well worth the read, but I thought the ending was far too abrupt, solving a conflict that had been growing for the better part of three books in a couple of hundreds of pages, and every single female character was poorly served by the narrative (only having importance as the wife or lover of a male character). The preponderance of werewolves made me remember I had actually read another book by Paul Kearney before: the Wolf in the Attic, which also has werewolves in it. Though this is a far shorter book, lacking the epic of the Monarchies of God and more Young Adult in tone, I found it a warmer story.
  14. Fun fact: that film was actually called "Los Siete Magníficos del Espacio" (The Magnificent Seven of Space) in its Spanish release!
  15. He has, and quite frankly, it's pretty impressive. The main toll he has had to pay is an amnesty law (which is impopular and has all the right wing parties riled up, demonstrating in the streets and having confrontations with riot police in front of the Socialist's headquarters), transfering short and medium distance train management to Catalonia and a big debt pardon for money owed to the state through a Region Financing "Rescue" Plan. A committee will discuss the future of Catalonia within Spain, but Sanchez has already said he's not willing to step outside the Constitution, so this will most definitely go nowhere (which might spell problems down the line for Sanchez's coalition). It will be a weak government (a very loosely knit coalition with the right wing controlling the upper house), and it will cost Sanchez quite a bit of political currency... but it will be a left wing government in Spain, which is a good thing. This is far right wing drivel, in my opinion. I'm personally in favor of the amnesty law and don't find it problematic from a rule of law point of view (and it's hardly Hungary or even the EU's business).
×
×
  • Create New...