Jump to content

Padraig

Members
  • Posts

    18,526
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Padraig

  1. Yes. Weird to be a little down hearted by a championship success but we started on a high and its been downhill since then. And even that high against France was probably a lot due to their WC hangover. The Scottish game was frustrating to watch. So, lots of questions. It will be curious to see what happens on the tour to South Africa in the summer.
  2. This is a good article on views in Europe about Ukraine. Here is the full article. Long though. Probably more pessimistic than I was hoping for but it does play up the (lack of) leadership angle, which is what I have been thinking about. Here is the conclusion...
  3. In other words, ignoring Germany, there is not a huge drop in support in Europe (to bring us back to how this started). There was always some Putin friendly politicians but if Italy can't afford to give anything to Ukraine, that's primarily an economic factor not a Ukraine factor (and existed at the start of this conflict, its not new). I think the media is rather lazy about this topic. They see what is going on in the US and just applied it everywhere to make the story simple.
  4. I don't agree with most of that also. The biggest party in the Slovak government is friendlier towards Russia (but it wasn't the main reason it was elected, as you say) but the other parties are not. When it was elected, I feared they would back Hungary in its maneuvering against Ukraine but Hungary was left on its own. Meloni in Italy has also been surprisingly positive on Ukraine. There was a headline in the NY Times only a few days ago saying that "Biden Unites With an Unlikely Ally to Champion Ukraine". The unlikely ally being Meloni. In any French election, Russia isn't going to be the driver of votes but even Le Pen has put some distance between herself and Putin. Germany, I give some credence since it has a post world war reluctance to get deeply involved in wars, but i'm not sure I believe the 40% figure. Another I imagine the financing angle is driving more negativity than in other countries. I'll ignore the comments about the US since I explicitly said I was talking about Europe. There is a question about throwing more and more money at Ukraine. I touched on that in my last email. There is definitely some leadership lacking on that side. Although, the EU did get a major 4 year package agreed for Ukraine only in February. Generally, I think Scholz makes people jump to the wrong conclusion because of his dithering. As he is reacting to shadows, when he could be leading on things.
  5. I'm not sure about all of that. I've seen surveys that say that other Europeans are much less confident that Ukraine can win the war. But I haven't seen anything in Europe that says that there has been a significant increase in people thinking European countries should reduce their involvement. I could easily have missed some surveys in other countries though. For example, I doubt many Europeans know anything about the Kerch bridge. If they are asked about it, the way they are asked about is would be very leading. People are probably worried about whether Europe has a plan around Ukraine and would be unsure of spending money on something when a plan doesn't exist. But that isn't the same thing as not supporting Ukraine.
  6. And you are right! Shows that I should always read the preceding posts before I post!
  7. I finally got around to watching movies from the early 2000s. That means Lord of the Rings. Hate to say it, didn't hold up. I really loved them when I watched them originally but this time all the flaws really jumped out. The never ending Gollum scenes I had forgotten how late the Shelob stuff was. The elves, Gimli, Denethor. The same things people have been complaining about for the last 20 years. The first movie is by far the best. Not that they are bad movies. I just had built them up far more in my mind. I did also see Almost Famous. This seemed more magical, conversely. Or maybe when you are older, you simply dig nostalgia more. And Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Truly imaginative but brutally honest. Great movie.
  8. True. But it can also last till the guy dies of old age. Speculating about it seems kind of pointless given it is unknowable until something happens. If it ever does.
  9. While Ireland did well in the first half but the second half was not easy to watch until the end. Scrum improved a lot but lineout was very shaky. And then we started giving away a lot of silly penalties. Ended up with a bonus point but certainly opened the door a little to Wales first.
  10. It sounds like you know something, the rest of us don't? When most people think of communism, they think of the USSR and its vassal states. Hardly something to aspire to. But sure, if you think of something more positive (Marxism or socialism?), good for you. But it is certainly going to mislead people. I'm not sure why you'd want to purposely mislead people. I'd say that every country (including the US) has some level of socialism and capitalism. All people are arguing about is where to balance things. The problem with Big Pharma is that something like oxycontin should be one big conspiracy theory but its actually depressingly true. Vaccines read much better. In the end, while regulations are normally the whipping boy from capitalists, they are more essential than ever.
  11. Yes. He and the new Vice President are not the most reassuring choices but hopefully it will be ok.
  12. I don't think Khan's problem is that he fell out with the West though. I don't think he particularly was "in" with the West in the first place. At least once his political career became fruitful. He had more internal problems. Yes. Interesting election. One of the economic success stories in recent years, while embracing democracy, which seems to be rare these days. The other interesting election recently was in El Salvador. The implications there seem more ominous, beyond just El Salvador too.
  13. Sure. All I’m saying is that if there is a will, there is a way. Although I thought we were referring to EU spending on military.
  14. Just to go back a couple of days but I wouldn't say that is the full picture. The EU has a rational side and an idealistic side. After the Cold War ended, it saw an opportunity to finally bring peace and harmony right across Europe with the accession of the 10 Central/Eastern European countries in 2004, and Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia followed a few years later. Those countries were certainly much poorer than the EU average before they joined. This was the EU in idealistic mode. Although, there were economic advantages in having them join also. The tide did change after accession though. The EU isn't designed to have so many countries. The only way to solve that issue is to give more power to the EU itself but that would be to the detriment of individual countries, which most countries are wary of. The rise of Orban in Hungary also crystalised the fact that being a member of the EU wouldn't in itself mean fully democratic. Which made countries wary of allowing more countries to join. But yes, the EU countries are also reluctant to throw money at other countries given internal needs. But the tide has changed on that again with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Now the "peace and harmony" angle is back. I would expect more countries to join but the process will be more difficult than previously, as the EU will manage the criteria more strictly. Except for Ukraine possibly but they have further to go, so that doesn't change much. I doubt we'll ever see anything close to allowing 10 countries join, just because of the challenges involved with new members. Although, that said, I do wonder when the EU faces up to its institutional challenges. Even there, I don't fully agree. Up to 2014, Ukraine was trying to balance itself across two stools. Pro-EU and Pro-Russia but that eventually became exclusionary. You had to choose. The Ukrainian government choose Russia, there were mass protests and off we went... EU accession was not on the table at that stage. It was just closer ties with the EU. If there had been a referendum on the issue who would have won? I imagine most people would have wanted both but if they had to choose one? Given the way things had gone in Ukraine, there seemed to be a trend back to the EU in 2014 (after a swing back to Russia a few years before), so I suspect the EU but I couldn't say for sure. I don't believe that. If enough countries wanted to pump money into the military via the EU, it would happen. The EU is relatively slow but it is flexible. It is all about compromise. EU countries want to control their own military. Or are happy with NATO. I would be less pessimistic about Europe than others, accepting that it is generally slow. So it will hope things around it move slowly too. If not, then I would worry.
  15. Yes. A bit of a wake-up call. France did have a good win against Scotland at U20 level but the simplest explanation is that England is the favourite at U20 level given that it seems to have easily dismissed both Wales and Italy? Ireland had an ok win at senior level. Ireland made a lot of mistakes but were never under any real pressure. Harder games to come.
  16. And the U20s won in France too. That's a good sign for the next 4 years. France may not put as much focus on the 6 Nations U20s but beating them in France is no small thing.
  17. Great win for Ireland. France may still be in shock from the WC. It was almost sad to see our line out so strong, since if that had held up during the WC, we could have gone a lot further. Scrum did struggle a little though. But still, i've never seen us dominate France for such a long stretch of time (first 35 minutes of the game). So we have to be very happy with most parts of the game. Crowley was reassuring, given he is still so inexperienced. Going to France and winning is a great way to start for him! The other games looked interesting enough also. Might be an interesting tournament.
  18. That sounds like internet (perhaps Russian) manufactured nonsense. Given Ukraine could be fighting this war for years, I really doubt Zelensky is thinking about post war elections. He will want the army to be lead by the person he believes can win them the war. It has been widely reported that they have fallen out since the failure of the summer offensive and they have publicly clashed a few times since then about the state of the war. You really don't have to go searching for "why" beyond that. Rightly or wrongly, Zelensky has lost faith in Zaluzhny. The EU funding is positive at least, although it was clear a month ago that some sort of package would be agreed. The US aid has always looked much more perilous. Probably more so now.
  19. Well yes, that is the basic economic theory but it obviously did change other things. Lots of people would have been sacked or furloughed, and would have no money. And then they were given some assistance. When it happened, economists didn't expect this level of inflation would be the result, so I would need to see a lot more evidence to justify any categorical statements about it being the main cause of the recent spike in inflation. Economists spend most of their time being wrong.
  20. Why? I understand that it can be inflationary but you make it sound that it is inflationary as a rule (and significantly so, not that is causes a barely measurable blip). Economics is way too nebulous for me to easily accept definitive rules, especially during COVID where things were exceptional. So I can understand why HoI is questioning stuff also.
  21. Money came from all kinds of sources e.g. some people were able to save money during the pandemic (e.g. they weren't able to travel) and they then spent it afterwards. Obviously the money the government gave was also spent but that was the whole point of it. It was to replace the money that would be spent if people hadn't lost their jobs during the pandemic. (Some obviously benefited more than that). I find reading economic parties quite boring because they are riddled with techno speak (so I could miss stuff) but I haven't seen this research which says the majority of the inflation was driven by government support. HeartofIce's info talks about 60% of the inflation was due to demand shocks, 40% due to sectoral supply shocks. But you'd have to divide those generic terms into lots of subcategories to dive into specific factors.
  22. As Rippounet said, if you shut down great swaths of the world for months/a couple of years and then you re-open everything again in a disjointed way, logistical chains are going to be significantly impacted, messing up supply v demand and leading to a rise in prices (and some profit seeking). That always struck me as the number one cause of inflation. The war in Ukraine was another. A lot of other environmental and political decisions also need to be considered. And then maybe government spending. There must have been proper research on this. It would be interesting to see the percentages but i'd be amazed if it was primarily government spending.
  23. It seem to be incremental. These sort of leaders learn a lot from being in power and from how their power is resisted. Orban was first elected as PM in Hungary in 1998 but was kicked out in 2002. It took him 8 years to return to power but he was determined not to repeat that defeat. The PIS party first took power in 2005 in Poland but lost power in 2007. But again they learned from their mistakes, so that when they returned to power in 2015 they would radically alter the structures in Poland. They did lost power last year again but as far as I can see, the new government is having major issues trying to return the structures to a more normal democratic standard. It is still early I suppose. We all know how Trump seems to have learned a lot after his first term. Any next term will be an order of magnitude worse. Bolsonaro in Brazil has been banned from running for office for 8 years, so maybe Brazil will avoid this incremental process. Unless he wins an appeal or somebody equally troubling emerges to replace him. Erdogan has had a long unbroken period in power but while he initially seemed a ray of hope for the country, he gradually turned more and more autocratic and remade the country in his image. Although interestingly he hasn't succeeded in demolishing the opposition like in other countries, but he does keep winning the elections that matter. So yes, i'm sure Argentina's civic and political structures will help it for a time but the longer he remains in power, the more he will nibble away at those structures until they fall. The particularly worrying thing about Argentina is that the political classes seem to be even more corrupt or incompetent than in other countries, so its not like they offer much in the way of a reliable alternative. I think the world's failure in Ukraine and Gaza says a lot about where we are heading unfortunately, so while I may not be as pessimistic as Rippounet, I may not be far off. Even sort of good things, e.g. successful resistance to the dictatorship in Burma, are not really "good", as it is effectively a civil war and these armed conflicts just lead to countless lost and ruined lives. Edited: and you can say to same about how Chavismo got worse and worse in Venezuela also.
  24. The above is hardly going to surprise anyone but it does reduce any uncertainty that does exist. Nothing is certain of course but you can't say you weren't warned. https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vow-never-help-europe-attack-thierry-breton/ Trump did seemingly refer to the above more recently but the timing doesn't work (as he seems to suggest his threat was much earlier in his presidency, rather than near the end). https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/20/trump-nato-eu-00136732
×
×
  • Create New...